From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 04:01:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA05306; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 04:00:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 04:00:13 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 03:03:49 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: What is water, really? Resent-Message-ID: <"bsWBv.0.qI1.yoTs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50681 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:03 PM 6/1/3, RBR wrote: >Interesting post..... > Question ...if you had a cylinder with a steam >atmosphere ,created a vacuum then as the steam condenses , would the >vacuum increase ? . > Regards RBR The answer to this question is yes. A nice experiment is to put a small amount of water in the bottom of a 5 gallon paint can with a lid that seals tightly. Boil the water for a while to eject the air and replace it with steam. Remove the can from the heat and carefully put the lid on. Run cold water over the can. The can collapses. Some of the original steam engines used to pump water from mines worked in this fashion. Steam was admitted into the cylinder under atmospheric pressure and near 100 Deg. C and the piston then moved due to the steam condensing on one side of the piston while steam was admitted to the other side of the piston. (The pistons were two sided.) A water jacket on the outside of the cylinder was sometimes used to accelerate the rate of condensation. Such engines are limited in "power per unit area of piston" by atmospheric pressure and stroke length. The more the stroke length and piston area, the more the cylinder volume and the more steam per stroke is required. Steam engines that operate using high pressure boilers and high temperature steam are much more efficient and get a lot more power for the engine size. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 05:38:33 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA06342; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 05:38:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 05:38:02 -0700 Message-ID: <003201c32832$3e747040$6709bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re SARS Info Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 06:37:33 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9400c96c8d11caf531f2765a077b67dcf64350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"_o4rN1.0.yY1.gEVs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50682 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FYI http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en/ http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/HIOUpdate/HIOWEEKLYUPDATE050102.pdf Subject: Re: Antiviral activity of alcohols 70% ethanol obtained from ( "Everclear", a 95% v/v food grade alcohol) available at liquor stores. can be diluted to 70% with water and used in a nebulizer, or heated in a microwave oven an inhaled, MAY inactivate the SARS VIRUS in the bronchial tubes and lungs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7844347 &dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000 Inactivation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 by alcohols. van Bueren J, Larkin DP, Simpson RA. Laboratory of Hospital Infection, Central Public Health Laboratory, London, UK. Alcohols are commonly used as disinfectants for skin, surfaces and immersion of some medical instruments. Measurements of the activity of alcohols against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) must take account of the compatibility of neutralizers used to stop the disinfectant reaction, and of toxicity to the cell line used to detect residual virus. We have developed protocols to measure the efficacy of alcohols against HIV in suspension and dried onto surfaces in the presence of high and low protein concentrations. High titres of HIV in suspension were rapidly inactivated by 70% ethanol, independent of the protein load. When virus was dried onto a glass surface, the rate of inactivation decreased when high levels of protein were present. Due to its rapid evaporation, a spray or a wipe with alcohol cannot be guaranteed to disinfect a surface contaminated with blood or other body fluids without preliminary cleaning. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 06:38:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA25129; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 06:37:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 06:37:24 -0700 Message-ID: <000701c32842$c529a820$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <003201c32832$3e747040$6709bf3f computer> Subject: Re: Re SARS Info Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 06:36:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA25095 Resent-Message-ID: <"9OASh3.0.Y86.K6Ws-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50683 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Fred, > 70% ethanol obtained from ( "Everclear", a 95% v/v food grade alcohol) available at liquor stores MAY inactivate the SARS VIRUS in the bronchial tubes and lungs. And if it doesn't, you'll still have a real good time!! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 09:29:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA28880; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 09:28:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 09:28:30 -0700 Message-ID: <007f01c32852$728a4740$6709bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <003201c32832$3e747040$6709bf3f computer> <000701c32842$c529a820$0a016ea8@cpq> Subject: Re: Re SARS Info Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:28:19 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9407245e2e23dce1533cacf49194559aa12350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"UL5oq.0.537.kcYs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50684 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > Fred, > > > 70% ethanol obtained from ( "Everclear", a 95% v/v food grade alcohol) available at liquor stores MAY inactivate the SARS VIRUS in the bronchial tubes and lungs. > > And if it doesn't, you'll still have a real good time!! > I find that when I use my COPD therapy nebulizer with a 50% v/v Water -"Everclear" mix along with gargling with "Listerine" (~ 26.9% ethanol) I can stop a head cold and sore throat infection from going into my respiratory system and causing big problems. Not much of a "buzz" from it. Alsowhen used occasionally, it increases my exercising capability about ten-fold. At Wal-Mart the check-out clerks under age 21 cannot check out non-alcohol beer such as ODouls or Sharps (good for the tummy) but they can sell you all of the Listerine that you can carry. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 11:49:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA28226; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:48:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:48:31 -0700 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: And in a different arena... Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 01:46:21 +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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <007f01c32852$728a4740$6709bf3f computer> Resent-Message-ID: <"M06f72.0.yu6._fas-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50685 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Update time Although much of the dialogue here is about "proving to the establishment" that CF as a real phenomena, some have already accepted this as a real method of generating power. Those of us who have abandoned the debate are trying to build the actual machines which will use the process. Whether it actually is a fusion process or something different, the fact remains that power out is generally higher than power required. Understanding the true mechanism will be helpful, so I hope the search will continue. People seem to be 'catching on' on all sides: Acknowledging that JLN has finally arrived at the arc-discharge stage, and seeing that Horace has recently described something remarkably similar to a device I have been working to build for some time, there are a few thoughts and questions which are best addressed by experimenters. One: I have been searching (for nearly two years) for a substance (something available publicly/commercially - not 'NASA-type' artifacts) which can be cast as an insulator to imbed cathodes in. [Water-proof/steam-proof, hi-temperature structural integrity, etc.] I have tried such things as furnace cements, various types of glues and other materials, but the high temperatures always destroy these. I believe I may have found something at last, but I won't know for a few days. This is a silicon resin based paint, which I found can be solidified by cooking in an oven. This is expensive, but viable. [glass cracks] I searched for the cements used in mounting halogen lamps, but that appears to be unobtanium at this point. Anyone having ideas about this? Two: A neat little trick is that tap water works just fine, no need for all that tricky deuterium or exotic electrolytes, if you use the right cathodes and AC voltage. I found these nifty little gas-stove burner flame holders, made with what appears to be silver-clad steel wire will give near COP 2 when separated by about 20 mm in clean water. Great device for making coffee water real fast. A 12v version is in the works. Three: The problem with a rotating unit as Horace describes, is that you need a mechanism for injecting the water from a fixed feed pipe into a rotating head, and this has had me stumped, as my machine can not afford leakage (too much hi voltage flailing about) I have recently tried swivel joints such as used on car-wash hose reels, but I am still searching for a better solution. I have seen the websites for the industrial processing solutions, units priced in the thousand-dollar range, but in the interest of keeping this thing duplicable world-wide by people who may or may not be industrialists, I would like to find a cheap rotating union. Failing that, I guess I will simply design it myself. Four: from my files, back in 1996 I tried a multiple cathode device, for those interested in such things. Five pin cathodes working a common anode plate placed 30 mm away in the end of a jar. A visually interesting thing to watch, but the cathodes don't last very long as the regime is ferocious. Five: an AC regime is gentler on the electrodes, as a DC regime almost inevitably destroys the cathode, as well as dirties the water. People in the standard science community seem to go apopletic when the term "cold fusion" is mentioned, but watch the knees jerk when you describe cold fusion being achieved with tap water and you gotta wonder just who is being pathologically skeptical. There is some interest in keeping this to being some esoteric palladium-driven high technology, when the actual fact is it can be done with little more than well-planned geometry of appropriate materials. The truth is out there: I am not specificly seeking answers so much as using them as navigational aids. cheers Director, Ocean Talent Corporation http://www.ocean-talent.com/ http://www.explorecraft.com/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:31:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA14927; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:29:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:29:17 -0700 From: Dean Miller To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: What is water, really? Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:33:45 -0500 Organization: Miller and Associates Message-ID: References: <009e01c327bf$80136f60$0a016ea8 cpq> <002401c327e2$10768200$4190a7cb@vuw.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <002401c327e2$10768200$4190a7cb vuw.ac.nz> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.3(snapshot 20030212) (MidIowa1.midiowa.net) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA14772 Resent-Message-ID: <"5szvA3.0.oe3.BGbs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50686 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:03:08 +1200, RBR wrote: >Interesting post..... > Question ...if you had a cylinder with a steam atmosphere ,created a vacuum then as the steam condenses , would the vacuum increase ? . > Regards RBR Of course. But getting the steam to condense would be the problem. Water and ice will "boil" into steam in a vacuum. I don't recall the temperature at which ice will stop boiling (sublimating), but it's pretty low -- below -200 F. -- Dean -- from (almost) Des Moines -- KB0ZDF From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:31:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA16291; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:31:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:31:01 -0700 Message-ID: <005901c32874$4067fce0$125accd1 asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: Subject: Re: And in a different arena... Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:14:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Resent-Message-ID: <"g5gsI2.0.S-3.rHbs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50687 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Xplorer wrote: > People in the standard science community seem to go apopletic > when the term "cold fusion" is mentioned, > but watch the knees jerk when you describe cold fusion > being achieved with tap water and you gotta wonder > just who is being pathologically skeptical. > There is some interest in keeping this to being > some esoteric palladium-driven high technology, > when the actual fact is it can be done with little more > than well-planned geometry of appropriate materials. > > The truth is out there: > I am not specificly seeking answers so much > as using them as navigational aids. > What you may be dealing with is not LENR or CF but Mills' BlackLight Power process. It works with plain water. Mills has shown that water vapor with a high voltage plasma ionizes, and that atomic hydrogen and doubly ionized oxygen fulfill the requirements for BLP catalysis. Mills has not scaled this up, being more interested in demonstrating science at the moment. The experiments you and JLN and others are doing may in fact be the independent testing that critics of BLP are demanding. With the right electrolyte, bearing deuterium, LENR processes may also appear. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:37:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA19262; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:36:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:36:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 07:36:46 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: What is water, really? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <007401c32875$4ce88f60$7e90a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <009e01c327bf$80136f60$0a016ea8 cpq> <002401c327e2$10768200$4190a7cb vuw.ac.nz> <002001c327eb$5441c4a0$0a016ea8@cpq> Resent-Message-ID: <"tNs9X3.0.pi4.4Nbs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50688 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: JB or any one Some help please ...I ran a test I burnt one full sheet of newspaper (power or energy used) which resulted in 15 litres of water being pumped one from one container to an other it took 1/half minutes.....how do I convert that to or what is the KLW being used .It was not the heat generated that created the energy . many thanks RBR Original Message ---- - From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 3:10 PM Subject: Re: What is water, really? > > RBR: Interesting post..... > Question ...if you had a cylinder with a steam atmosphere ,created a vacuum then as the steam condenses , would the vacuum increase ? . > > > I can't think of any reason that vacuum would not increase (and be a problem) in a long-stoke low temperature engine, if it were not *specifically* designed "out." In fact, that sequence is the way that many of the old large steam engines (railroad type) operated: i.e. getting torque on both the expansion and exhaust (condensation) strokes. But those were very large bore, extremely high torque engines -probably having less power in terms of BHP than your average Corolla....That is different from the relevant mechanics here. (And also indicative of the fact that BHP is almost meaningless wrt true engine performance in heavy vehicles) > > Even in faster revolution (>1000 RPM) steam engines, that kind of double action is not possible because of heat transfer rates, so that when using "water-fuel," the important thing would seem to be, not in optimizing heat-to torque conversion output, but in simply triggering the secondary reaction (H2O/ice sublimation explosion) - and this seems to require rather faster RPM, because you need adiabatic pressure increase (rapidity) immediately ahead of the explosion and with minimum time interval. > > Once the secondary reaction has been triggered, then the "excess" energy will materialize and the resultant gas pressure should be so large, in comparison to normal steam engine thermodynamics, that the typical conversion problems will minimize, and in fact the new problem will focus on keeping the power stoke short enough so that the temperature drop of expansion does not interfere with lowering the exhaust pressure below atmospheric. You definitely do not want < 1 atm at the bottom of the power stoke in this design. Something around a "square" bore/stoke ratio should suffice, along with a min. >10:1 (or much larger) compression ratio. > > JB > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 12:51:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA25442; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:50:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:50:54 -0700 Message-ID: <006601c32876$eff700a0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <009e01c327bf$80136f60$0a016ea8 cpq> <002401c327e2$10768200$4190a7cb@vuw.ac.nz> <002001c327eb$5441c4a0$0a016ea8@cpq> <007401c32875$4ce88f60$7e90a7cb@vuw.ac.nz> Subject: Re: What is water, really? Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:49:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA25402 Resent-Message-ID: <"B1XXs3.0.SD6.Uabs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50689 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Some help please ...I ran a test I burnt one full sheet > of newspaper (power or energy used) which resulted in 15 litres of water > being pumped one from one container to an other it took 1/half > minutes.....how do I convert that to or what is the KLW being used .It was > not the heat generated that created the energy . Can you explain the exact details please. That sound like a lot of water to be pumped with a sheet of paper... The conversion factor for foot-pounds per second to kilowatts is .0013558. A liter weighs approx 2.2 lbs so the conversion should be easy.... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 16:40:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA01507; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:39:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:39:17 -0700 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:40:44 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: And in a different arena... To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <002f01c32897$39312280$5491a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Resent-Message-ID: <"APSn53.0.SN.awes-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50691 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "xplorer" To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:46 AM Subject: And in a different arena... > > Xplorer.... I dont know what temp you are getting there are furnace cements that will go to 1350 degrese or even more . They will self destruct if you bring the temp up to fast best to get them made up and go to a potter with a kiln and get them prefired . Regards RBR> >> > One: I have been searching (for nearly two years) for a substance > (something available publicly/commercially - not 'NASA-type' artifacts) > which can be cast as an insulator to imbed cathodes in. > [Water-proof/steam-proof, hi-temperature structural integrity, etc.] > I have tried such things as furnace cements, various types of glues > and other materials, but the high temperatures always destroy these. > I believe I may have found something at last, but I won't know for a few > days. > This is a silicon resin based paint, which I found can be solidified > by cooking in an oven. This is expensive, but viable. [glass cracks] > I searched for the cements used in mounting > halogen lamps, but that appears to be unobtanium at this point. > Anyone having ideas about this? > > Two: A neat little trick is that tap water works just fine, > no need for all that tricky deuterium or exotic electrolytes, > if you use the right cathodes and AC voltage. > I found these nifty little gas-stove burner flame holders, > made with what appears to be silver-clad steel wire will > give near COP 2 when separated by about 20 mm in clean water. > Great device for making coffee water real fast. > A 12v version is in the works. > > Three: The problem with a rotating unit as Horace describes, > is that you need a mechanism for injecting the water from > a fixed feed pipe into a rotating head, and this has had me stumped, > as my machine can not afford leakage (too much hi voltage flailing about) > I have recently tried swivel joints such as used on car-wash hose reels, > but I am still searching for a better solution. > I have seen the websites for the industrial processing solutions, > units priced in the thousand-dollar range, but in the interest > of keeping this thing duplicable world-wide by people who > may or may not be industrialists, I would like to find > a cheap rotating union. Failing that, I guess I will simply > design it myself. > > Four: from my files, back in 1996 I tried a multiple cathode device, > for those interested in such things. Five pin cathodes working > a common anode plate placed 30 mm away in the end of a jar. > A visually interesting thing to watch, but the cathodes don't last very > long > as the regime is ferocious. > > Five: an AC regime is gentler on the electrodes, as a DC regime > almost inevitably destroys the cathode, as well as dirties the water. > > > People in the standard science community seem to go apopletic > when the term "cold fusion" is mentioned, > but watch the knees jerk when you describe cold fusion > being achieved with tap water and you gotta wonder > just who is being pathologically skeptical. > There is some interest in keeping this to being > some esoteric palladium-driven high technology, > when the actual fact is it can be done with little more > than well-planned geometry of appropriate materials. > > The truth is out there: > I am not specificly seeking answers so much > as using them as navigational aids. > > > cheers > > Director, Ocean Talent Corporation > http://www.ocean-talent.com/ > http://www.explorecraft.com/ > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 23:13:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA32532; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:13:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:13:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:16:58 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Electrolyser Design Resent-Message-ID: <"5bWhn3.0.Cy7.0iks-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50693 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ELECTROLYSER DESIGN The following is a proposed design and some design considerations for a high efficiency electrolyser, especially one where the cathode and anode gasses can be provided as a mixed product, or gas only evolves from one plate. Further, a means is provided to place ordinary hydrogen electrolysis in these categories by extracting the hydrogen directly through the cathode. It is well known that reducing plate separation, in order to reduce cell resistance, is required to increase existing cell efficiency. It is also known that slow bubble evolution limits the closeness of plates due to the reduction of plate area and effective current path area. Electrolysers currently rely on gravity to remove their bubbles using displacement forces, but reduce the bubble formation rate by operating at high pressure. One method suggested here to solve the bubble problem is to place the plates in a rotatable centrifugal tank as shown in Fig. 1. (Fixed proportion font like "courier" is required for viewing Fig. 1) The plates are thus in annular coaxial form with central circular holes with radial spokes connected to a central shaft, with insulating spacers and/or axial bolts included to hold the plate array together. This use of a centrifugal force on the rotating plates permits the effectiveness of removing bubbles to be increased by two or more orders of magnitude over the use of gravity. The process is made continuous by replenishing the electrolyte and retrieving the evolved gas through a central open space in the centrifuge and/or through piping in a hollow central rotor shaft. During rotation, the electrolyte is pinned to the outer walls of the cylindrical tank by centrifugal force. --------- I --------- KEY: | <- . I . -> | | ===== . I . ===== | -| - rotating electrolyser tank | ===== . I . ===== | .. - rotating electrolyte level | ===== . I . ===== | == - rotating electrolytic plates | ===== . I . ===== | I - central rotor shaft | ===== . I . ===== | -> - direction of electrolyte flow | ===== . I . ===== | | ===== . I . ===== | | <- . I . -> | -----------I----------- Fig. 1 - Centrifugal Electrolysis Device By placing the entire apparatus inside a pressure vessel, with appropriate plumbing and electrical connections, and temperature control, operation can occur at high temperatures and pressures currently in use with high efficiency electrolysers. The use of bubble scrubbing dielectric particles in the electrolyte is feasible in this configuration due the pumping action of the electrolyte through the plates due to the displacement force of the bubbles. The electrolyte flow between the plates is thus toward the central shaft, and the flow outside the plate region is axially away from the central rotor shaft as shown by arrows in Fig. 1. The largest dimension of such particles should be about one fourth the plate separation distance. Using the methods described here, plate separation can be made almost arbitrarily close, but plate thickness itself is increased due to the need for plate structural strength and diffusion requirements. When electrolysing hydrogen, use can be made of a diffuse or porous (essentially transparent to hydrogen) but structurally strong material as a supporting structure for a Pd surfaced cathode in the centrifuge. Such a material can be made by sintering metal or ceramic granules of the size required for the support of the Pd. A gradation of granularity can be made to occur, with the finest granularity located at the cathode surface, just below the palladium surface. The Pd coated cathode's interior would then either be hollow or very porous, so as to conduct the H2 gas away from the electrolyser directly through the plate interior and then through a hollow supporting structure (e.g. spokes) for the plate, and to a hollow central rotor. In this manner, only O2 would evolve between the plates. The hydrogen principally is driven into the cathode interior by the high operating pressure, but also by the electrolytic potential. The electrolytic plates in the suggested use act as cathode on one side and anode on the other. Therefore a sandwich style construction is suggested. The anode side might be stainless steal, possibly with an exterior platinum plating for longer anode life. A space between the anode side and cathode side of the electrode can be made by using conductive spacers that permit free flow of hydrogen through the electrode to the central shaft. A seal zone around the perimeter of the electrode, and between the anode and cathode portion, can seal out electrolyte and seal in the hydrogen. Bolts parallel to the main shaft that hold the electrode array together have to be insulated and their entry and exit points sealed from the interior hydrogen space. If momentary reverse emf pulses are used in order to disrupt the electrolyte interface, then a high enough pressure will have to be used to avoid significant out gassing of the hydrogen from the cathode during those brief periods. It is not known if this specific out gassing prevention method is workable. However, any out gassing at all can be expected to momentarily disrupt the interface, so may assist in providing the intended effect. Operating at high temperatures and nearly boiling conditions further places the interface under disruptive stresses, thus reducing the electrical energy required to achieve electrolysis. It is not known what percentage of the hydrogen can be adsorbed, because a film of water between the hydrogen bubble and the electrode could prevent adsorption. Even though full adsorption may not take place, it would be very useful if enough could be adsorbed that the remaining mixed gas is difficult to ignite or explode. H2 flows easily through thin Pd foil at a moderate pressure and the high g force of a centrifuge certainly provides sufficient pressure. It may be that a porous cathode surface provides the best alternative for removing hydrogen directly at the cathode surface, or a combination of adsorption and porous extraction can be used. In this mode, a negative pressure must be applied to the interior of the cathode via the spokes via the central shaft. This negative pressure then sucks both hydrogen and to some degree electrolyte and water vapor or steam through the pores and out the spokes and out the central shaft. Appropriate bearings and fittings are then needed on the shaft to send the hydrogen-electrolyte mixture sucked through the cathode interior to an external separator. Alternatively, separation can occur centrifugally in a separator included on a segment of the shaft, and the electrolyte returned to the main electrolyte level via siphoning. In any event, appropriate bearings and fillings are required to continually deliver hydrogen from the shaft to atmospheric pressure. The negative pressure applied to the interior of the shaft can be simply the ambient pressure of one atmosphere, thus the negative pressure inside the electrodes is really supplied by operation of the centrifuge at high pressure. This technique limits the centrifugal force that can be obtained, because the negative pressure must be sufficient to extract the hydrogen against the centrifugal force. It may be that gas-electrolyte separation can be achieved in the interior of the cathode if there is a break in the seal provided on the outermost tip of the electrode for the electrolyte to escape. Operation is then dependent upon a good balance of centrifugal force and operating pressure. A similar technique of sucking the evolved oxygen into the interior of the anode might be used as well. A barrier between the O2 and H sides of the interior them must be supplied as well as separate paths and liquid-gas separators within or upon the central shaft, and delivery means from the rotating shaft to ambient conditions. If gasses are directly extracted by both cathode and anode surfaces, then no scrubber particles are necessary, and very limited centrifugal force is useful for the gas-liquid separation. Perhaps a useful version requiring no centrifugal force at the plates at all can be implemented! One way to get power to the electrolytic plates for the electrolysis is to make a segment, or a segment of the interior, of the central shaft of the centrifuge a (rotating) transformer core, with linkage to it being magnetic from an external stationary "C" core that has a primary coil on it. The linkage between core segments can be achieved by utilizing a small gap between the core containing segment of the shaft and holes in the C core of a size to accept the shaft. A secondary coil can then be wrapped about the segment of the core that rotates, i.e. about the outside of the segment of the central centrifuge shaft containing the rotating piece of core. The secondary coil output can then be fed to rectifiers and then to the plates. As an example, assume a stack of 50 plates and a secondary voltage of 100 V, which gives about 2 V per plate for electrolysis current. There need be no wiring to the individual plates, only to the outermost two. If it is desired to superimpose a HF signal on the high current electrolytic current, then a circuit to do so can be powered by the secondary coil or by another secondary coil in the same location. The rectifiers, circuitry and wiring can all be located inside the rotating centrifuge shaft. Thus no brushes are necessary. It may, however, be cheaper and easier to simply use brushes. Such brushes would not be located in the electrolyte, but would be located within an outer pressure vessel, so should work in a normal fashion. If an explodable hydrogen/oxygen mixture evolves from the plates, then brushes are highly undesirable. If it is desired to create hydrogen from rotational kinetic energy, as from a windmill, then it may be preferable to make a portion of the shaft into a generator armature. No transformer is then required. No brushes are required to or from the armature as the energy is delivered to the shaft itself, though rectification is still required. A good electrolyte for hydrogen evolution is easily made by making a saturated lye solution and then diluting 1 part of that with two parts distilled water. If the hollow or porous cathode technique described here proves viable in practice, as combined with high g electrolysis or not, it could have some significance on worldwide energy supplies and the building of a hydrogen infrastructure in particular by providing a low technology means of converting sporadic kinetic energy sources, like wind power, into storable form. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 23:14:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA32595; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:13:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:13:23 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:17:05 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: What is water, really? Resent-Message-ID: <"Bw7ea1.0.8z7.3iks-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50694 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:36 AM 6/2/3, RBR wrote: > JB or any one > Some help please ...I ran a test I burnt one full sheet >of newspaper (power or energy used) which resulted in 15 litres of water >being pumped one from one container to an other it took 1/half >minutes.....how do I convert that to or what is the KLW being used .It was >not the heat generated that created the energy . > many thanks RBR > That depends on how high the second container was in relation to the first. It also depends upon the resistance of the fluid path. More details are needed. What exactly was the experiment and what was the goal. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 23:14:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA32443; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:13:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:13:15 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:16:48 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: And in a different arena... Resent-Message-ID: <"CBIvF1.0.kw7.whks-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50692 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:46 AM 6/2/3, xplorer wrote: >One: I have been searching (for nearly two years) for a substance > (something available publicly/commercially - not 'NASA-type' artifacts) > which can be cast as an insulator to imbed cathodes in. > [Water-proof/steam-proof, hi-temperature structural integrity, etc.] > I have tried such things as furnace cements, various types of glues > and other materials, but the high temperatures always destroy these. > I believe I may have found something at last, but I won't know for a few >days. > This is a silicon resin based paint, which I found can be solidified > by cooking in an oven. This is expensive, but viable. [glass cracks] > I searched for the cements used in mounting > halogen lamps, but that appears to be unobtanium at this point. > Anyone having ideas about this? Yes indeed. Don't insulate the leads within the electrolyte. Simply let the electrode breach the surface. Make electrical and support connections up in the steam part of the cell. There are plenty of insulators that will work fine to get the electrode wire or even the electrode itself into the cell, i.e. past the steam barrier and into the steam above the cell. I sometimes use ordinary 15 kV rubber insulated test lead wire for that, or glass tubing sealed on the inside end with silicone rubber. I have found that ordinary "Automotive GOOP" available from Ace Hardware and other places is very good for making strong flexiible watertight seals that work fine in a steam or even electrolyte environment (at least for some electrolytes, and for the duration of typical experiments). I also used glass tubing sealed at the end with a blowtorch as a means of inserting thermisors into the cell. > >Two: A neat little trick is that tap water works just fine, > no need for all that tricky deuterium or exotic electrolytes, > if you use the right cathodes and AC voltage. > I found these nifty little gas-stove burner flame holders, What voltage and current did you use? AC? Where did you obtain the wire? > made with what appears to be silver-clad steel wire will > give near COP 2 when separated by about 20 mm in clean water. > Great device for making coffee water real fast. > A 12v version is in the works. Tap water may or may not be fine depending on where you live. Tap water can really mess up an electrode surface after some operation time. Messing up can be good if a miracle occurs and you get stupendous results. However, you then have the chore of searching for what the magic ingredient in all the sporadic, unknown, quantified, and uncontrolled ingredients in your tapwater that got that result. Replication may then be impossible. Skilled electrochemists often run DC electrolysis for days using dummy scrubbing Pt electrodes to "plate" the junk out of the water as much as possible, even when using distilled water. Of course running high purity experiments might just kill or highly limit the effect if some common impurity is vital... > >Three: The problem with a rotating unit as Horace describes, > is that you need a mechanism for injecting the water from > a fixed feed pipe into a rotating head, and this has had me stumped, > as my machine can not afford leakage (too much hi voltage flailing about) > I have recently tried swivel joints such as used on car-wash hose reels, > but I am still searching for a better solution. One solution is to leave an open top - similar to that you find on typical washing machines. You then do not need any joint at all. Simply "pour" the water down into the rotating cell from a spout. Note that Fig. 1 shows an opening in the top next to the central shaft. The device still needs an outer envelope to collect the gasses, protect the operator from electrolyte, control the pressure and temperature, etc. It also needs a large top overhang as shown in order to accomodate the electrolyte lateral "depth" when rotating. I'm sending the electrolyser post to vortex again so you can take a look. [snip] > >Five: an AC regime is gentler on the electrodes, as a DC regime > almost inevitably destroys the cathode, as well as dirties the water. An AC regime can still in some cases do horrific damage to the electrode surface. In some cases you are essentially creating cavitation on the cell surface at the frequency of the current. Not that this is necessarily bad! One thing I would like to clear up. The electrolyser design of mine I posted (and now have reposted) was simply for use with ordinary electrolysis, not necessarily a cold fusion device. I did a lot of high voltage CF style experiments back a few years, which I hope were not confused with this. (sample included below.) I am interested how you measured your COP of 2. Accurate calorimtery is not easy, even for boiloff cells, which are *comparatively* easy to calibrate. It took me a lot of work to get my calorimetry reasonably accurate. Here again is a sample report of one of the high voltage electrolysis CF type experiments I did some years back: Na2SiO3 Experiment #15 - 12/29/1997 The purpose of this experiment was to test a 0.5 g/l Na2SiO3 with Zr electrodes using the new boiloff protocol. The total COP derived for this run was 1.00, with Ein = 196548 J, and Eout = 196798 J. No compensation was made for H2 + O2 creation energy, nor for Zr electrode oxidation, nor for a phase difference of 25.92 deg. (power factor .899). What is most interesting about this test is that the COP is 1.11 if the power fator is taken into account. The protocol and foam box used were as described in Exp. #14. The electrodes were the Zr electrodes you supplied. The electrode weights in grams were: Electrode Before After 1 4.72 7.72 2 4.08 4.04 Despite the lack of increase in electrode weight, a thick white coating appeared on the electrodes. One of the electrodes (2) was left in distilled weater overnight and re-weighed. It weighed 4.03 g after sitting overnight, indicating the coating on the electrodes is not very water soluble. A small amount of black powder or precipitate was noted on the bottom of the cell after the run. It may have been zirconium compound. "Vol." is only known at the begining and end of the experiment, so a (not very well) weighted average of volume consumption (steam generation) was spread across the time of the experiment to permit an estimate of COP per measurement interval. The measurement intervals were chosen so as to keep a good estimate of input power. At the start of the experiment the sparks did not turn on immediately despite the long prior conditioning of the electrodes, and the high starting electrolyte temperature (100 C). This may be partially due to the very high insulatng quality of the film. It appeared that, from the z-y plot on the TDS200 scope that the breakdown voltage (either positive or negative) was initially 320 V dropping eventually to about 280 V. current lead voltage on the y-t plot by 2 msec initially, then settled down to 1.2 msec during the high power portion of the run. This gives a minimum phase angle of 25.92 deg. (power factor .899). However, the x-y I vs V curve was very distorted. It was basically a Z shape, with some hysteresis on top from the capacitance. Kind of like so: /| / / ----------/ / / /---------/ / / |/ Any assesment of overunity (or not) depends on determining the true input power in this wave form. The electrodes glittered during the high power portion of the run, and clearly most of the steam was generated then. The basic data follows: Time V rms I rms Temp. C P in P out Tare Amb. Vol. t 0 293 0.1210 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.03 418.0 0 2 293 0.1210 100.00 35.10 -0.38 9.15 25.03 418.0 2 4 302 0.0984 100.00 32.26 13.71 9.16 24.85 417.3 2 6 306 0.0860 100.00 27.74 13.71 9.18 24.70 416.5 2 8 309 0.0781 100.00 24.97 13.71 9.19 24.59 415.8 2 10 311 0.0716 100.00 22.97 13.71 9.21 24.49 415.1 2 12 312 0.0683 100.00 21.57 13.71 9.22 24.44 414.4 2 14 312 0.0636 100.00 20.37 13.71 9.22 24.38 413.6 2 16 312 0.0606 100.00 19.18 13.71 9.23 24.33 412.9 2 18 314 0.0588 100.00 18.50 13.71 9.23 24.28 412.2 2 20 315 0.0571 100.00 18.04 13.71 9.24 24.26 411.5 2 21 421 0.2110 100.00 52.87 27.42 9.25 24.15 410.7 1 22 423 0.2050 100.00 86.90 27.42 9.25 24.13 410.0 1 24 418 0.2190 100.00 88.24 83.24 9.26 24.08 405.6 2 26 419 0.2170 100.00 90.32 83.24 9.26 24.09 401.2 2 28 422 0.2100 100.00 88.87 83.24 9.26 24.07 396.8 2 30 424 0.2040 100.00 86.68 83.24 9.27 24.00 392.3 2 32 425 0.2000 100.00 84.89 83.24 9.26 24.24 387.9 2 34 425 0.2000 100.00 84.15 83.24 9.23 24.41 383.5 2 36 424 0.2010 100.00 84.26 83.24 9.21 24.58 379.1 2 38 424 0.2040 100.00 85.00 83.24 9.29 23.16 374.7 2 40 423 0.2090 100.00 86.58 83.24 9.37 23.16 370.3 2 42 421 0.2150 100.00 88.57 83.24 9.37 23.16 365.8 2 44 418 0.2180 100.00 89.91 83.24 9.37 23.16 361.4 2 46 418 0.2220 100.00 91.04 83.24 9.37 23.16 357.0 2 48 416 0.2240 100.00 92.06 83.24 9.37 23.16 352.6 2 50 416 0.2270 100.00 92.87 83.24 9.37 23.16 348.2 2 52 414 0.2300 100.00 93.88 83.24 9.37 23.16 343.8 2 Corrected "P out" and energies follows: P in P out Tare Amb. Vol. t Cor COP E in E out P out joules joules 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.03 418.0 0 0 0.00 0 0 35.10 -0.38 9.15 25.03 418.0 2 8.77 0.25 4212 1052 32.26 13.71 9.16 24.85 417.3 2 22.87 0.71 8083 3796 27.74 13.71 9.18 24.70 416.5 2 22.89 0.83 11411 6543 24.97 13.71 9.19 24.59 415.8 2 22.90 0.92 14408 9291 22.97 13.71 9.21 24.49 415.1 2 22.92 1.00 17164 12041 21.57 13.71 9.22 24.44 414.4 2 22.92 1.06 19753 14792 20.37 13.71 9.22 24.38 413.6 2 22.93 1.13 22197 17543 19.18 13.71 9.23 24.33 412.9 2 22.94 1.20 24499 20296 18.50 13.71 9.23 24.28 412.2 2 22.94 1.24 26719 23049 18.04 13.71 9.24 24.26 411.5 2 22.95 1.27 28884 25803 52.87 27.42 9.25 24.15 410.7 1 36.67 0.69 32056 28003 86.90 27.42 9.25 24.13 410.0 1 36.67 0.42 37270 30203 88.24 83.24 9.26 24.08 405.6 2 92.50 1.05 47858 41303 90.32 83.24 9.26 24.09 401.2 2 92.50 1.02 58697 52404 88.87 83.24 9.26 24.07 396.8 2 92.50 1.04 69362 63504 86.68 83.24 9.27 24.00 392.3 2 92.51 1.07 79764 74605 84.89 83.24 9.26 24.24 387.9 2 92.50 1.09 89950 85705 84.15 83.24 9.23 24.41 383.5 2 92.47 1.10 100048 96802 84.26 83.24 9.21 24.58 379.1 2 92.45 1.10 110160 107897 85.00 83.24 9.29 23.16 374.7 2 92.53 1.09 120360 119000 86.58 83.24 9.37 23.16 370.3 2 92.62 1.07 130749 130114 88.57 83.24 9.37 23.16 365.8 2 92.62 1.05 141377 141228 89.91 83.24 9.37 23.16 361.4 2 92.62 1.03 152166 152342 91.04 83.24 9.37 23.16 357.0 2 92.62 1.02 163091 163456 92.06 83.24 9.37 23.16 352.6 2 92.62 1.01 174139 174570 92.87 83.24 9.37 23.16 348.2 2 92.62 1.00 185283 185684 93.88 83.24 9.37 23.16 343.8 2 92.62 0.99 196548 196798 1.00 Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 05:33:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA22373; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 05:32:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 05:32:40 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 04:36:18 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: The Mpemba Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"KTee73.0.TT5.eFqs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50695 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The Mpemba Effect was referenced in another recent thread here on vortex. Following is my own take on this effect - posted a couple years ago. Some minor corrections are made here. The Mpemba Effect Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, and in 1969, a Tanzania high school student named Mpemba experimentally observed that hot water can freeze faster than cold water. This effect is now called the Mpemba effect because Mpemba's experiments caused some controversy due to the non-intuitive nature of the effect. (See ) The Mpemba effect provides a marvelous concrete example of how important it is to test even the most common sense theories by experiment, and how difficult quantification and a complete characterization of even the simplest results can be. Intuitively, many dismiss the Mpemba effect as impossible, because a hot water sample reaches the starting temperature of a cold water sample only after some delay, and thus the hot water sample must take longer to freeze. Amazingly, some individuals insist with almost religious zeal that it can not be so, without ever attempting an experiment or examining the literature. However, it is reasonable that the Mpemba effect is no illusion. There are sound reasons for the effect. A liquid is a dynamic system. Hot water carries more energy than cold water when it is placed into a freezer. Therefore, the convection eddy currents set up in the hot water are stronger than those set up in the cold water, and eddy currents in water last a very long time. Water is a fairly good insulator, so, all else being equal, the water with the most initial eddy currents at a given temperature is likely to freeze first - a hypothesis that is readily tested. The two samples involved in the Mpemba effect are not the same system when at the same temperature. One has greater kinetic energy than the other and therefore a greater cooling rate due to convection. For example, a test sample consisting of completely still water (if that were possible) at 50 deg. C will be a different system when it reaches 10 deg. C than water which starts out as a control sample which is completely still water at 10 deg. C. In the process of the test sample temperature dropping to the starting temperature of the control sample, some of the heat energy of the test sample is converted to kinetic energy in the form of convection eddy currents. Convection eddy currents are initiated spontaneously when there is a thermal gradient applied to a liquid. A thermal gradient converts some of the heat energy into the kinetic energy associated with the eddy currents. The eddy currents are therefore not induced by experimental error, but are necessitated by the mere fact that a thermal gradient must be induced in the water sample to cool it. To cool a sample the boundary of the sample must be made cooler than the interior, and thus a thermal gradient is necessarily formed by any experimental procedure that cools the water. Once currents are established in water, they last a very long time, often for days, even though they become slow and normally undetectable. This can be shown experimentally by stirring water in a stoppered sink bowl in a specific direction and leaving it for a long period. When the stopper is removed a vortex will form as the water runs down the drain. The direction of the vortex will be the direction the water was stirred. It may be possible that, by extreme effort, and by doing the experiment in a zero gravity situation, the effect might be nearly eliminated by nearly eliminating the convection eddy current formation due to the applied thermal gradient. However, some convection currents will always be initiated or amplified by the application of a thermal gradient to the sample. It is also extremely difficult to avoid momentarily applying a thermal gradient to the boundary itself, when the experiment is begun, and these gradients will be larger for a hot sample than for a cold sample, all else being equal. Supercooling, the ability of water to drop below the freezing temperature when slowly cooled and very pure and still, should amplify the Mpemba effect. The more convection currents in a sample, the less supercooling should occur. Without considerations of supercooling, water freezes at 0 deg. C, and requires about 79.8 calories per gram to make the transition from liquid to solid state, without any change in temperature involved. Liquid water requires only 1 calorie per gram to change 1 deg. C. It takes as much heat transfer to drop 79.8 deg. C as it does to freeze 0 deg. C water. If the starting temperature is below 79.8 deg. C, then the majority of the energy transfer occurs at 0 deg. C. The rate of heat transfer at 0 deg. C is a critical variable in determining which sample freezes first. Convection currents can dramatically affect heat transfer rates, by exposing large volumes of the liquid directly to the heat transfer boundary, be that the container walls or the ice itself. Slow moving molecules are culled out of the moving stream of water at the water-ice boundary. If the water does not move, then the relatively slower mechanism of thermal conduction is all that remains to effect the freezing. If the heat transfer rate at 0 deg. C is only doubled by the increased convection, then water with an initial temperature of less than about 39.9 deg. C will freeze at about the same time as water initially at 0 deg. C. An almost 40 deg. advantage is given to the hotter water. That advantage is increased even further by the fact that the heat transfer rate depends on the difference between the temperature of the sample and the boundary temperature (the temperature of the freezer.) That difference is smallest when the sample is at 0 deg. C. The higher the freezer temperature, i.e. the closer to 0 deg. C, the greater the Mpemba effect should be. It is difficult to cool a hot sample and a cold sample and have all else be equal. For example, without careful intervention, cold water has more dissolved gasses, and possibly more or less dissolved solids, some possibly from the container surface itself. Still, the effect occurs over a wide range of experimental conditions, and the reasons given above for the Mpemba effect remain in all experimental conditions. There should not be much doubt that the observers of the effect, Mpemba, Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes were correct, that at least under certain conditions hot water freezes faster than cold, all else being equal, but only experiment tells the tale for sure. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 06:25:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA14650; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 06:24:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 06:24:12 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 05:27:43 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA14623 Resent-Message-ID: <"etFfb.0.pa3.y_qs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50696 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In the discussion of the use of water vapor to increase internal combustion efficiency, perhaps consideration should be given to maximizing the creation of H+ ions, or any reduced volume ions, during and immediately prior to the compression cycle. It may well be the creation of such ions during electrical discharges in water, and the prssure increase due to the heat energy and confinement of the water, may account for some of the free energy results of the Graneaus'. Of course, an internal combustion engine may not be the best mode to obtain free energy. An essential ingrediant I think may be deionization of low volume ions, e.g. H+, in the presence of extreme pressure. Following is a fundamental method of extracting free energy I proposed about 8 years ago on sci.physics.fusion. THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS by Horace Heffner 12/30/1996 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion (AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs. This is an idea that leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a basis for the design of over unity devices. If correct, the AEH also explains various previously observed results. This hypothesis is another expression among many of the idea that the excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or transmutation, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea. This is not to say that transmutation or conventional fusion does not occur in cold fusion experiments, only that the heat producing source of cold fusion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE. It is an assumption of this hypothesis that ZP energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing and is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. There have been various publications referencing ZPE, especially by Dr. H. E. Puthoff [1 - 6] Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be deformed, both in shape and electron probability distribution. These deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due to collisions or pressure, or because of electromagnetic fields. The deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into potential energy, and back. With the exception of the occasional resulting photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the gas laws and thermodynamics work so well. It is true that collision and pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but differ from purely field generated deformations in that the collision/deformation caused fields (or field distortions) are highly localized and mostly cancel at a distance, and in the fact that the field distortions convert kinetic energy into potential energy at a high energy density. HOW MUCH ENERGY AND POWER IS AVAILABLE FROM ZPE? John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to effectively extract this energy. The energy available is dependent upon the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the Casimir Effect, etc. The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction repeat rate per volume achievable. It does appear the two goals, high repeat rate, and high confinement, typically oppose each other. The ZP energy fills every vacuum. If there is not a cutoff frequency, that energy is infinite. Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the order of 10^94 g/cm^3. Multiply by c^2 and you have an enormous energy density - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself from the ZPE sea if tapped. The energy density rho(w) is characterized by H. E. Puthoff (Ref. 7) by: rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3 Rearranging we have: rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3 rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3 Integrating over w=0 to w=B to get cumulative energy density f(B) to cutoff frequency B: f(B) = K/4 B^4 This indicates that the total energy density of the vacuum (though not constant if tapped) is proportional to the fourth power of the cutoff frequency being tapped. The big problem is figuring out how to tap this energy. If a method of tapping ZPE energy is found, conservation of energy is not violated, the second law of thermodynnamics is violated, as the replacement energy ultimately flows from elsewhere in the universe. Of interest is that most of the ZP energy is in the top frequencies of the ZP spectrum tapped. The bottom 98 percent of the frequency distribution tapped contains (.98)^4 or 92 percent of the energy. The top two percent contains about 8 percent of the energy. This implies it is best to utilize the smallest possible wavelengths in a ZPE extracting mechanism, and therefore, most likely, the smallest possible structures. This leaves atomic structures as the most likely regime to get good results. Further evaluating f(B) for dimensionless frequency B (in Hz) we get: f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] B^4 Now, considering radiation on an atomic scale, i.e. wavelength of 1 angstrom, or 10^-10 m, we get B ~ [3 x 10^17 Hz.] so: f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] [3 x 10^17 Hz.]^4 f(B) = 1.26 x 10^9 joules/m^3 f(B) = 1260 joules/cm^3 If only the top 2 percent of the accessible ZPE frequency band is utilized, we get an energy density of about 1260/8 ~ 100 joules per cm^3. Now, to consider power tapping capabilities, and some pretty big guesses. Given the extreme ZPE energy density at high frequencies, it is reasonable to assume that the tapped energy, i.e. energy removed from the imaginary cm^3 can be replaced at nearly the speed of light, or about 10^-10 second to replenish the cm^3. Given a collection of atomic sized devices located in the cm^3, we could use the macro size of 1 cm instead of 1 angstrom as the distance from which the replenishing energy must come, even though the higher ZPE wavelengths within the angstrom dimension micro structure volume could resupply the volume initially, with the minor resulting deficit at all ZPE frequencies spreading like a wave throughout the universe. This conservative choice gives an event cycle rate maximum of 10^10 event cycles per second, each cycle taking at most some fraction of the 100 joules residing in the imaginary cm^3. If we can somehow extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in the cm^3, we would be able to extract 10^5 joules / cm^3 / sec., or 10,000 W/cm^3. If there are only 1 out of 10,000 sites active per cycle, and we could extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in each site per cycle, we would get 1 W/cm^3. However, since we are using such a small part of the ZPE spectrum, replenishment might be able to happen from the locality as fast as 10^-20 second per cell, so would not be a practical limitation in any sense. Such a local replenishment would depend upon the existance of a mechanism for the energy of higher ZPE frequencies being converted to and replenishing the frequency band being tapped. The potential energy release is unlimited from any reasonable standpoint. The real limitations are event density and event repetition rate, and these are strictly design parameters that depend upon the ingenuity of the designer and choice of medium. This is not to say that finding a method of extracting any net energy is easy. Though the ZPE sea abounds, it is very difficult to extract the energy from it. This is possibly the main value to the AE concept. If there is any truth to the idea that ZPE provides the support for orbitals, then ZPE does interact with our environment in a big way continuously. Massive energy exchanges occur in springs, sonic devices, etc., simply from orbital deformation. Enormous forces can be involved and enormous energies, even in the compression and expansion of relatively cold systems, like metal lattices. The intended method of extracting energy from the massive ZPE sea is to cause orbital expansion to occur in a confined space, thus creating extreme orbital deformation without supplying the deforming energy to the process. This is like manufacturing watch springs that are already wound. A PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A METAL LATTICE 1) An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice. This can be accomplished via high energy ion acceleration or via electrolysis. 2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattice, any kinetic energy initially imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice. 3) The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band. If from an adjacent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from a conduction band. The net result is an electron from the locality is taken up by the ion. 4) An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion. 5) As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. a photon), equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released - heating the local environment. 6) As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not accommodate the size of the de-ionized product. Further expansion of the de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on the lattice. The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing. However, unlike a collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied. The energy is supplied from the ZPE sea. ENERGY DERIVED FROM ATOMIC EXPANSION IN LIQUID OR GAS PHASES Energy might be similarly obtained in a gas or liquid phase, though not with the efficiency of a metal lattice. A conducting liquid, like mercury, would behave similarly to the metal lattice, but the force resisting the AE would be almost entirely inertial, thus much smaller than the resisting force of a molecular bond. The force resisting the AE would still be exerted over a slightly sub-atomic distance, so the excess energy produced per atomic expansion would almost entirely be proportional to the AE resisting force. Similar arguments can be made for the collision of an ion with a non-ion in a gas. The main difference here is the lack of an electron source to bring the net charge to zero, and thus the cost of extracting the electron from the neutral atom to fill the ion's orbital. A negative balance in ionization potentials (e.g. H+ hits He) must be overcome using the kinetic energy of the collision. Similar arguments can also be made for gas/metal interfaces where low energy ions strike metal electrodes, but do not penetrate. Here again, the AE is only inertially confined, and results in the ion product being accelerated upon its rebound from the plate. EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A GAS 1) Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and Rn (radon gas). This might be accomplished in an arc, a point or wire discharge, or via RF, x-ray, or other indirect excitement. 2) The H+ ion comes into contact with a Rn atom, stripping an electron from the Rn atom producing a H atom and Rn+ ion. In the event one of the other noble gasses is used in place of Rn, some of the H+ kinetic energy is required to strip the electron, and the post collision noble gas atom may still ultimately retain the electron even though a momentary H orbital forms during the collision. 3) An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddenly increasing the size of the ion. The expansion, fueled by ZPE, imparts "free" energy to the atoms in the form of potential, then kinetic, energy as the collision progresses. 4) As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. one or more photons), equivalent to the original ionization energy less the Rn ionizing energy, is released - heating the local environment. 5) The initial momentums and energies of the H and Rn nuclei gets applied to their shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via the normal elastic collision mechanism. 6) Eventually the Rn+ is reconstituted to Rn and a photon is released, gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom initially. The net energy gained is the energy of expansion (AE energy) of the H+ orbital in close proximity to the Rn+ ion - thus imparting additional kinetic energy to both. WHAT DOES THE AEH EXPLAIN? The AEH provides a possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading. I suggest that in the initial loading phase the adsorbed hydrogen is, as suggested by others, alternately in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form. It is primarily ionically bound to the lattice, especially when in motion. An H atom almost fits inside a tetrahedral lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals between cells. In the beta phase, many of the cells are occupied by H molecules, and in such a state, diffusion between cells requires displacement of some H molecules, the diffusion paths tend to be blocked, and the continued diffusion requires the ionization of a path blocking H or its tunneling out of the way. Some degree of H confinement upon the reconversion from an H+ to H would occur, thus some small AE excess energy might be produced in beta phase. In the gamma phase, H loading would be to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2 molecules in the tetrahedral sites and in the face holes. In looking at the geometry of the Ni lattice and H2 molecules, it appears such a formation is possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 2 percent. This would, however, imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would dramatically increase the work done by ZPE in supporting the H2 formation, or "expansion". Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry of the Ni lattice: H atomic radius: .79 Å H covalent radius .32 Å H2 bond length .7414 Å Ni atomic radius 1.62 Å Ni covalent radius 1.15 Å Ni bond length 2.4916 Å >From this it is determined that the face hole will pass a sphere of radius 0.2885 Å and the tetrahedral space will accommodate a sphere of radius 0.6118 Å. However, an H2 molecule can be placed across one axis of the tetrahedron with each atom partway through a face hole. In fact, the H2 atom could pass through the face holes with only an expansion of the bond length of 2*(.3200 -.2885) = .063 Å. This is an increase in bond length of about 2.5 percent. Less expansion is sufficient to fit the H2 into the tetrahedron. Note that it is also possible, when there is sufficient heat, to trap or form an H2 molecule in the face hole and that the three Ni atoms can act like two hammers and an anvil, or a tri-jawed anvil - popping the H2 atom apart, each atom then expanding in separate tetrahedral spaces. Such an expansion is at least inertially constrained, thus AE energy could result. Note that each half of the H2 "dumbbell" resides in a different tetrahedral space. These spaces can act as pistons, i.e the vacuum will accumulate zero point energy. This energy may assist the cracking of the H2 by the anvil by exerting a Casimir force on the expanding H orbital surface. Further, when the orbitals of the expanding H and the boundary metal atoms make contact, a kind of orbital "blow through" may occur, creating free electrons that further heat the lattice. The H nucleus would be accelerated in the direction of the center of its tetrahedral site by the expanding H orbital. This momentum could carry the H nucleus on into the next tetrahedral site, thus ZPE may help facilitate the H diffusion. Sufficient energy might momentarily create an H "supermolecule," two H nuclei orbited by two electrons. Such events would increase the likelihood of fusion, if only a small amount. Maximizing the ZPE extraction via these means would mean loading the lattice at a (or eventually heating it to a) temperature near the melting point of the Ni in order to permit maximum occupation of the triangular face holes by H2 atoms. Similar arguments apply to the Pd-D system. The following chart of FCC elements shows possible candidates for such a mechanism: Elem. Bond Covalent Atomic Face Hole Tetrahedral Length Radius Radius Radius Space Radius (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Ge 2.4498 1.22 1.52 0.1944 0.5123 Pt 2.7460 1.30 1.83 0.2854 0.6417 Ni 2.4916 1.15 1.62 0.2885 0.6118 Cu 2.5560 1.17 1.57 0.3057 0.6373 Pd 2.7511 1.28 1.79 0.3083 0.6653 Au 2.8841 1.34 1.79 0.3251 0.6993 Ag 2.8894 1.34 1.75 0.3282 0.7031 Al 2.8630 1.25 1.82 0.4030 0.7744 Ce 3.6500 1.65 2.70 0.4573 0.9309 Yb 3.8800 1.74 2.40 0.5001 1.0035 Ca 3.9470 1.74 2.23 0.5388 1.0509 Pb 3.5003 1.47 1.81 0.5509 1.0051 Sr 4.3020 1.91 2.45 0.5738 1.1319 Since hydrogen has a covalent radius of 0.32 A, it appears superficially that Pd, Cu, Ni, and Pt are the only reasonable candidates for the suggested anvil/piston mechanism. However, this table is only an approximation, and a detailed analysis of the crystal structure, utilizing the Schroedinger Equation, is required. It is especially noteworthy that Pt, Cu, and Au are relatively impervious to hydrogen adsorbtion at standard temperatures. The best candidates capable of both trapping the H2 in a face hole and also being capable of anvil pressure on the bond appear to be Nu, Cu, and Pd, but again, detailed analysis is required. Also, the less pervious elements might become active at a high temperature, especially Pt and Cu. Note also that above Al in the table, the H atom, having a radius of 0.79 Å, appears to readily fit into the tetrahedral space without orbital deformation. This would greatly diminish the free energy generating potential. The AEH model also may explain why various discharge tubes, especially those containing H2 or He, appear to produce excess energy. The ions are injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic expansion. A repetitive ion oscillation may produce a kind of synchronized shock wave in the metal surface causing it to rebound and add energy to the impinging and reflecting particles at the surface. The source of the AE energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some degree may occur in the gas as well, or at the electrode surface due to AE surface effect expansion. The AEH may also explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce excess heat - namely that some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected into the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitute and expand, undergo AE, adding pressure, thus kinetic energy, to the collapsing pressure wall. The AEH may also explain the over unity performance of an arc in producing water gas in that collision of H+ with C, or CO or CO2 could potentially create AE energy. Here are some ionization potentials of interest: H 13.598 C 11.260 CO 14.014 CO2 13.773 Note that no kinetic energy is required to trigger the AE reaction between H+ and C and that little is required for CO or CO2. Note that the AE reaction might possibly push the chemical equilibrium in the arc toward the production of CO by supplying the excess energy required to split the second O from the CO2. Two things are bothersome about this concept though. One is that if the AE effect exists it should have been observed in chemistry long ago. Another is that, unlike the case where H+ and a noble gas are used, a bond can form between the H and the reactant, so the kinetic energy would end up in molecular vibration, or in reducing the probability of such a bond. The main difficulty, though, is that the shared orbital, the bond, creates an attractive force instead of a repulsive force. AE excess energy is based upon repulsion, not attraction. Perhaps one difficulty answers the other. In any event, He++ would make a more logical AE generator than H+ in this application. The He would act as an energy booster, and thereby as a kind of catalyst, in cracking the H2O and CO2 bonds. Such a process may work best at very low voltages and high frequencies, especially in a manner similar to that suggested by Puharich (Ref. 8) for cracking water. His method adapted to a steam/CO2 environment, catalyzed by He, could assist in the production of water gas. Such a gas could be used, within a sealed glass envelope containing both discharges, to feed oscillations (due to operation in the negative resistance range) of a higher voltage arc or electric discharge, to produce electrical energy directly, without mechanical devices. SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA? This model results in some concrete design suggestions: 1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as efficiently as possible. 2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure. 3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium. 4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible, preferably extracting energy from the higher pressure and temperature post-AE gas before repeating the cycle. SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS 1) Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium for ion injection as it would expel the gasses quickly. Mercury also conducts electricity well. Other metals could be used at higher temperatures; however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be good as it would increase the power demand. The increased power would have to be utilized to result in more ionizations. The simplest possible test device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 or He with a point anode at the top and mercury cathode at the bottom, activated with high frequency high voltage pulsed DC current. An improvement might be to use two anode electrodes, isolated from the cathode, with a lower voltage discharge between the anodes to do the ionization. 2) Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy of the gas. An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very good anode. 3) It may be possible to use water as a cathode. The atomic expansion may assist in boiling the water at the surface. The water could provide it's own H2 from the evolved steam which migrates to an arc anode. It might be good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination. An electrolyte would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity. 4) Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done under extreme pressure. Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move pistons. Additional process stages could be added for recombination and heat recovery. Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would come from the ZPE sea. 5) As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited mixture of H2 and a noble gas, especially radon, may produce some over unity results. 6) The process of producing water gas, i.e. burning carbon in an arc under water to produce CO and H2, may be improved by avoiding the use carbon rods altogether. This might be done by recycling the CO2 and H2O (as steam) into an arc and driving its equilibrium to a mixture of H2O, CO2, CO, and H2 in the arc. The AE energy would assist in driving the reaction in reverse in the arc and would be the energy derived from the recycling process. This process might be assisted by adding He to the atmosphere as the He has a much higher ionization potential (24.587 volts) than CO or CO2, and will not bond with it. REFERENCES 1. H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing," New. Sci., vol. 127, p. 52 (28 July 1990). 2. H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D, vol. 35, p. 3266 (1987). 3. D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum," Phys. Rev. E, vol. 48, p. 1562 (1993). 4. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research," Spec. in Sci. and Tech., vol. 13, p. 247 (1990). 5. Timothy Boyer, "The Classical Vacuum," Scientific American, p. 70, August 1985 6. Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum Really Empty?", American Scientist, March-April 1980, p. 154 7. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research", Speculations in Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990. 8. US Patent 4,394,230, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPLITTING WATER MOLECULES," Henry K. Puharich, Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Mandeville and Schweitzer Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 09:23:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA22522; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:21:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:21:52 -0700 Message-ID: <005601c32922$e6d2afe0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:20:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA22466 Resent-Message-ID: <"3LrbQ2.0.nV5.Vcts-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50697 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Congratulations, Horace, I think you are finally on the verge of not only "getting it," but supplying a major missing piece of the puzzle....and yes the AEH (which had escaped my memory up to now) must indeed be a major and essential factor in the putative phenomenon of water-fuel. > In the discussion of the use of water vapor to increase internal combustion > efficiency, perhaps consideration should be given to maximizing the > creation of H+ ions, or any reduced volume ions, during and immediately > prior to the compression cycle. It may well be the creation of such ions > during electrical discharges in water, and the pressure increase due to the > heat energy and confinement of the water, may account for some of the free > energy results of the Graneaus'. In previous posts, it has been suggested that much of the "free energy" of water-fuel (assuming that it is a real phenomenon) could most likely be related to ice-explosion and/or to clathrate-hydrate production followed by the sequential and immediate destruction (explosion) of the clathrate as part of the normal cycle of an ICE (internal combustion engine). Specifically, I have mentioned three ions that might possibly form the core of water-fuel clathrates in an electric field, the prime one being the hydroxyl radical, OH+ and its close chemical relative, the hydroperoxyl radical, HO2+ and of course, hydronium. All of these have polar affinity to water molecules and may serve to form the nucleating core of clathrate-hydrates when air is entrained by cold water in an electrolysis cell, prior to being introduced into a partial vacuum. When drawn into a partial vacuum by a modified ICE on its intake stroke, an external layer of the charged "fog" microspheres that will be formed in the electrolysis cell will sublimate (flash off) immediately from the surface of each tiny sphere of the mist, adding compressive stress to the smaller sphere that remains - while at the same time withdrawing the heat of vaporization from the smaller sphere that remains, so that we end up a clathrate-hydrate for a millisecond or two. Clathrate hydrates are cage-like structures of surprising strength composed of water-ice surrounding another molecule(s). Air-clathrate hydrates - specifically might have the time to first form, and then immediately explode, in the course of a single half revolution of an ICE, a time frame of 10 milliseconds or so, due to the alternating sequence of vacuum and compression. This would require the convergence of: 1) Very cold water 2) An electric field 3) Injection into a partial vacuum, followed immediately by high compression on a very short time frame Structure II hydrates a cages for any number of gases, such as oxygen and nitrogen, as well as a host of larger molecules and ions. The unit cell consists of 136 hydrogen bonded water molecules arranged in 16 dodecahedral cages and 8 hexadecahedral cages. The 16 small cages have a radius of 3.91 A and can hold molecules with diameter less than 5 A. The 8 large cages are 4.73 A in radius and can hold molecules with diameters of 6.7 A or less and its cubic unit is 17 A on a side. The normal Structure II clathrate-hydrate has a tensile strength that has been estimated to be higher than many metals, though not as high as palladium. In the past I have assumed that the triaxial failure of the bonding of these strong cages (as well as normal ice spheres) have supplied most of the excess energy of water fuel. This is the basis of what I have been calling "CAMFR" of chemically-assisted-mechanical-failure-reactions. Having revisited your AEH just now, it seem pretty clear to me that these "expansion" mechanics of yours (if broadened to include other ions) must figure directly into CAMFR as a major factor in any excess energy that derives from water fuel. (no snub was intended - I had simply forgotten about your theory). The AEH would seem to provide the best explanation for the internal pressure differential which is the factor behind the all-important PV^6 relationship that was discovered by Frank Grimer. Therefore all of this is integral to an evolving theory. I don't see the AEH as an alternative or competing idea but part and parcel of an increasingly complex phenomenon. In fact, we have given your ideas a 6th-power boost, so to speak. It has always seemed that water-fuel (assuming it is real) must be a very complex convergence of interlocking events - in a process which has been fortuitously rediscovered numerous times in the past 70 years basically through "hit or miss" type of experimentation (although the Garrett patent of 1935 which is the source of almost all of the so-called "free-energy suppression" myths, may have been the first bona fide evidence of CAMFR / AEH. The possibility that water can be used as fuel is little appreciated till recently, snubbed-at really, nor has it yet to be optimized or even available "on demand", but this lack of interest could be indicative of the fact that no one amassed the necessary range of information necessary to grasp the complicated inter-disciplinary mechanics involved, and no scientist with a reputation (and tenure) wanted to touch the subject. Their loss, our gain (maybe). When Occam is your credo, you will necessarily miss everything that by its very nature is resistant to easy explanation. > Of course, an internal combustion engine may not be the best mode to obtain > free energy. Here I must strongly disagree. The alternating cycle of vacuum-compression-shockwave is the sine qua non of water-fuel utilization IMHO. Where else in all of the broad panoply of mechanical devices can you find an alternating cycle of vacuum-compression-shockwave that is so fortuitously tailored to the lifetime of some of these short-lived ions? Regards, Jones All of this - should it ever amount to anything substantive - (and don't get me wrong, it might end up as just so much hot-air) is proving once again the long-prognosticated "power of the free-flow information" and cross-fertilization of ideas which is the justification for the existence of the internet... ....the irony being that if ever gets down to "the internet vs. big-oil" ... ugh, let's not go there.... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 09:58:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA17145; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:57:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:57:48 -0700 Message-ID: <006b01c32927$ec50fda0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <005601c32922$e6d2afe0$0a016ea8@cpq> Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:56:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id JAA17103 Resent-Message-ID: <"24jsH1.0.jB4.B8us-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50698 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Correction - I see that in my dyslexic haste and current state of caffeine deprivation that I have mis-labeled the charge on the ions mentioned in previous post, as well as a number of clerical errors that I will try to correct after securing a cafe latte....JB From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 10:12:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24078; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:11:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:11:11 -0700 Message-ID: <005401c32929$b19b5190$6401a8c0 cs910664a> Reply-To: "Colin Quinney" From: "Colin Quinney" To: Cc: "Horace Heffner" , Subject: Re: The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis, and a Book Review Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:09:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.101.98.221] using ID at Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:10:06 -0400 Resent-Message-ID: <"g7qIQ2.0.8u5.lKus-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50699 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Horace, I wasn't going to post my book review (below) to Vortex because it deals *primarily* with antigravity, but the enormous energy required to produce Crandall's gravity wave was predicted to come from the expansion of spin orbits, and which gravitational energy is then immediately replaced by the ZPE. He also predicts and then *claims* that it obtains free electrical energy from the same ZPE mechanism, and from his own preliminary experiment.(yet regrettably without *detailed* analysis). However, while I was reading his "orbital expansion" theory section of the book I remembered about your Atomic Expansion Hypothesis Horace, and from memory perhaps how similar was the mechanism, and then within hours you republish it here it on Vortex. Interesting coincidence. I will love it when you or someone else does a review of this book at a much higher level than I am capable of doing. BTW, I am not affiliated with the publisher or the author in any fashion and I maintain a neutral bias until Crandall's theory is proven. Perhaps it's fortunate that his designs for proving or unproving his theories are simple enough to construct. Colin :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Quinney" To: Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:41 AM Subject: [antigrav] "They All Told the Truth: The Antigravity Papers" Book Review > "They All Told the Truth: The Antigravity Papers" by Richard P. Crandall > > Trafford Publishing. > > http://www.trafford.com/robots/03-0086.html > > I just finished reading this book today and it's quite long- maybe 800 > pages of 8 by 11's. > > This is not only a book on how to build a simplified antigravity device. > Richard P. Crandall also tells us in great detail *why* he believes it will > work, and with the physics to back it up. > > I have been reading on the subject of antigravity for about 45 years. I only > have first year university, so am not qualified to analyse his unified > theory that he has actually taken to below the level of quarks, because it > requires a knowledge of physics that frankly is beyond me- PhD level at > least.. Having said my caveat, my overall "lay" impression is that it is > detailed, comprehensive, and *apparently* consistent. It *appears* to be > reasonable. I could follow him step by step at the "lay" level, and he > claims that Hal Puthoff looked at it from the PhD level and said that it > looked very good. > > I do give Crandall high points for joining the dots between [apparently] > disparate antigravity device claims. He appears to be much further along > that road than some. Simplistically speaking he is dealing with the > induction of antigravity by modulation of gravitomagnetism, but he explains > all this on a very deep level while simultaneously developing his unified > theory. There are some interesting and new simpler antigravity experimental > designs in his book based on not only his own theories but relating and > referencing to the experiments of Eugene Podkletnov, Henry Wallace, David > Hamel, and an alleged design of a craft at S-4, Area 51. > > Crandall's designs are much easier to implement. His theory explains (also > in detail) the natural *source* of the significant power required to > generate the necessary gravity waves. This will surprise you. > > I was disappointed that there is no antigravity experiment that he had > personally *completed*, although he gives a reference to an observation of > free electrical energy noted as a side effect to an uncompleted antigravity > experiment that he was currently working on. > > He explains how and why David Hamel's device works. There is also brief > stuff in the book about Hamel's alien contacts. You know. Like angels. I had > a hard time dealing with that in what appears to be a hard physics > presentation. It actually made me cringe. Yes, I am on also the Hameltech > list and on ufo lists because I believe there is *overwhelming* evidence of > aliens around us if we just open our eyes long enough to read about it, but > I always personally "compartmentalize" the two subjects. I realize it's very > important to leave no stone unturned and always try to keep an open mind. > Frustrating sometimes, but important, and so I once visited David Hamel > myself, and I have seen his *ship*. He's quite a personable and interesting > older gentleman. I had to overcome my own personal biases because I have > seen the close similarities between Hamel's design with several other > claims, yet strangely enough David Hamel has *no* physics to speak of, no > science library, and he is also *not* connected to the Internet, and so we > are left scratching our heads about his *source*. > > Anyway back to the book. It's jam-packed with ideas and math and physics > that appear from my perspective to be consistently supporting his theory, > and interestingly I am also aware of a couple of other antigravity claims > that he did *not* mention that also tend to support his theories. > > For US $49.00 I would say it's a good deal even if you are only an armchair > theorist of "how those *devices* might work". This book is rich with ideas. > Considering the amount of work (and paper) that he's put into it, and I > don't think his return will be that great. > > There are several experiments to try. If it turns out that he is correct, > that fifty bucks will be the steal of a lifetime but the book then just > *might* get suppressed. His brief mentioning of aliens in the book however > guarantees that the mainstream will never accept his physics. I believe that > he designed his book mainly for folks just like us. We, the experimenters > and the members of these kinds of lists. > > If you can get over the brief alien portion mixed right in with the hard > physics then I would recommend that you read this book, yet it's still a > gamble isn't it, because this book only *might* have a very great value. If > he is correct however, a Nobel Prize just wouldn't be good enough. > > Happy experimenting :-) > > Best Regards, > Colin Quinney > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 6/1/2003 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 10:30:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA03517; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:29:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:29:08 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.70.24.54] X-Originating-Email: [mgoldes msn.com] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Zenion and water-fuel Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:28:35 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2003 17:28:35.0705 (UTC) FILETIME=[65A3F690:01C3292C] Resent-Message-ID: <"5n0a81.0.ss.Zbus-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50700 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones, all, You may want to look at a US Patent, probably expired by now, issued to Jimmy Lee and perhaps assgned to his company Zenion. He has several Patents. This one involves the ionization of the fuel air mixture prior to entry into an IC engine. It worked on a VW pickup with a diesel engine. Run full out it did 130 mpg! However, the valves burned up from the high temperature. He backed it off to a 30% improvement. One catch. It does not work with high humidity. It might be an interesting addition to water fuel. Jim is the inventor of the ion products sold by Sharper Image. They sold $50 m worth of fans, etc. a couple of years ago. He claims ionizing reduces any fuel's fuel-to-air ratio by a factor of four. Mark >From: "Jones Beene" >Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >To: >Subject: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:20:33 -0700 > >Congratulations, Horace, I think you are finally on the verge of not only >"getting it," but supplying a major missing piece of the puzzle....and yes >the AEH (which had escaped my memory up to now) must indeed be a major and >essential factor in the putative phenomenon of water-fuel. > > > In the discussion of the use of water vapor to increase internal >combustion > > efficiency, perhaps consideration should be given to maximizing the > > creation of H+ ions, or any reduced volume ions, during and immediately > > prior to the compression cycle. It may well be the creation of such >ions > > during electrical discharges in water, and the pressure increase due to >the > > heat energy and confinement of the water, may account for some of the >free > > energy results of the Graneaus'. > >In previous posts, it has been suggested that much of the "free energy" of >water-fuel (assuming that it is a real phenomenon) could most likely be >related to ice-explosion and/or to clathrate-hydrate production followed by >the sequential and immediate destruction (explosion) of the clathrate as >part of the normal cycle of an ICE (internal combustion engine). > >Specifically, I have mentioned three ions that might possibly form the core >of water-fuel clathrates in an electric field, the prime one being the >hydroxyl radical, OH+ and its close chemical relative, the hydroperoxyl >radical, HO2+ and of course, hydronium. All of these have polar affinity to >water molecules and may serve to form the nucleating core of >clathrate-hydrates when air is entrained by cold water in an electrolysis >cell, prior to being introduced into a partial vacuum. > >When drawn into a partial vacuum by a modified ICE on its intake stroke, an >external layer of the charged "fog" microspheres that will be formed in the >electrolysis cell will sublimate (flash off) immediately from the surface >of each tiny sphere of the mist, adding compressive stress to the smaller >sphere that remains - while at the same time withdrawing the heat of >vaporization from the smaller sphere that remains, so that we end up a >clathrate-hydrate for a millisecond or two. > >Clathrate hydrates are cage-like structures of surprising strength composed >of water-ice surrounding another molecule(s). Air-clathrate hydrates - >specifically might have the time to first form, and then immediately >explode, in the course of a single half revolution of an ICE, a time frame >of 10 milliseconds or so, due to the alternating sequence of vacuum and >compression. This would require the convergence of: >1) Very cold water >2) An electric field >3) Injection into a partial vacuum, followed immediately by high >compression on a very short time frame > >Structure II hydrates a cages for any number of gases, such as oxygen and >nitrogen, as well as a host of larger molecules and ions. The unit cell >consists of 136 hydrogen bonded water molecules arranged in 16 dodecahedral >cages and 8 hexadecahedral cages. The 16 small cages have a radius of 3.91 >A and can hold molecules with diameter less than 5 A. The 8 large cages are >4.73 A in radius and can hold molecules with diameters of 6.7 A or less and >its cubic unit is 17 A on a side. > >The normal Structure II clathrate-hydrate has a tensile strength that has >been estimated to be higher than many metals, though not as high as >palladium. In the past I have assumed that the triaxial failure of the >bonding of these strong cages (as well as normal ice spheres) have supplied >most of the excess energy of water fuel. This is the basis of what I have >been calling "CAMFR" of chemically-assisted-mechanical-failure-reactions. > >Having revisited your AEH just now, it seem pretty clear to me that these >"expansion" mechanics of yours (if broadened to include other ions) must >figure directly into CAMFR as a major factor in any excess energy that >derives from water fuel. (no snub was intended - I had simply forgotten >about your theory). The AEH would seem to provide the best explanation for >the internal pressure differential which is the factor behind the >all-important PV^6 relationship that was discovered by Frank Grimer. >Therefore all of this is integral to an evolving theory. I don't see the >AEH as an alternative or competing idea but part and parcel of an >increasingly complex phenomenon. In fact, we have given your ideas a >6th-power boost, so to speak. > >It has always seemed that water-fuel (assuming it is real) must be a very >complex convergence of interlocking events - in a process which has been >fortuitously rediscovered numerous times in the past 70 years basically >through "hit or miss" type of experimentation (although the Garrett patent >of 1935 which is the source of almost all of the so-called "free-energy >suppression" myths, may have been the first bona fide evidence of CAMFR / >AEH. > >The possibility that water can be used as fuel is little appreciated till >recently, snubbed-at really, nor has it yet to be optimized or even >available "on demand", but this lack of interest could be indicative of the >fact that no one amassed the necessary range of information necessary to >grasp the complicated inter-disciplinary mechanics involved, and no >scientist with a reputation (and tenure) wanted to touch the subject. Their >loss, our gain (maybe). When Occam is your credo, you will necessarily miss >everything that by its very nature is resistant to easy explanation. > > > > Of course, an internal combustion engine may not be the best mode to >obtain > > free energy. > >Here I must strongly disagree. The alternating cycle of >vacuum-compression-shockwave is the sine qua non of water-fuel utilization >IMHO. Where else in all of the broad panoply of mechanical devices can you >find an alternating cycle of vacuum-compression-shockwave that is so >fortuitously tailored to the lifetime of some of these short-lived ions? > >Regards, > >Jones > >All of this - should it ever amount to anything substantive - (and don't >get me wrong, it might end up as just so much hot-air) is proving once >again the long-prognosticated "power of the free-flow information" and >cross-fertilization of ideas which is the justification for the existence >of the internet... > >....the irony being that if ever gets down to "the internet vs. big-oil" >... ugh, let's not go there.... > _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 11:08:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA27558; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:04:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:04:22 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:07:56 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: A really simple idea Resent-Message-ID: <"HAUaH2.0.Mk6.b6vs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50701 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Suppose atomic expansion *is* providing most of the free energy in 1. Mizuno type high voltage electrolysis 2. Electrospark experiments 3. Sunoluminesence or cavitation mode experiments 4. Graneau water-spark detonations 5. Water-gas formers 6. Water charged internal combustion engines If that is the case, simply increasing the operating pressure should increase the free energy. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 11:32:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA10579; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:29:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:29:42 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20030602200617.00a7eb30 pop.onlinehome.de> X-Sender: cc8592609-688 pop.onlinehome.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:32:59 +0200 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Huffman Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel In-Reply-To: <005601c32922$e6d2afe0$0a016ea8 cpq> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"I8K3R.0.5b2.MUvs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50702 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:20 02.06.2003 -0700, you wrote: > > Of course, an internal combustion engine may not be the best mode to obtain > > free energy. > >Here I must strongly disagree. The alternating cycle of >vacuum-compression-shockwave is the sine qua non of water-fuel utilization >IMHO. Where else in all of the broad panoply of mechanical devices can you >find an alternating cycle of vacuum-compression-shockwave that is so >fortuitously tailored to the lifetime of some of these short-lived ions? > >Regards, > >Jones Ahoy Mr. Beene! All three of the above mentioned phases occur exactly in the stated order during the process of bubble formation and the bubble collapse that we refer to as cavitation bubble collapse. This sequence of events is repeated numerous times per bubble with a frequency that measures in the picoseconds. You can't get that kind of speed out of any man made machine with the exception of a microchip. While the cavitation device shown in Dr. Seth Putterman's patent strongly resembles an ICE type piston engine, my device (a rotary approach) and others don't. Incidently, in case you missed it, I referred to a white paper that was published by the US government some years back, and may still be available from the GPO. It was a study of available clathrates and their possible use as a future energy source. One of the participants in the study was Fred Jaeger, then president of Jaeger Engineering, and at one time president of ENECO. He still may be at ENECO, I don't know. I am sure that he would be interested in reading your ideas, however. All the best, Knuke From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 11:51:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA25256; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:49:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:49:48 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:53:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Resent-Message-ID: <"IVB062.0.YA6.Cnvs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50703 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:20 AM 6/2/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Having revisited your AEH just now, it seem pretty clear to me that these >"expansion" mechanics of yours (if broadened to include other ions) must >figure directly into CAMFR as a major factor in any excess energy that >derives from water fuel. The AEH does include other ions. The opening statement: "The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion (AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs." [snip] >> Of course, an internal combustion engine may not be the best mode to obtain >> free energy. > >Here I must strongly disagree. The alternating cycle of >vacuum-compression-shockwave is the sine qua non of water-fuel utilization >IMHO. Where else in all of the broad panoply of mechanical devices can you >find an alternating cycle of vacuum-compression-shockwave that is so >fortuitously tailored to the lifetime of some of these short-lived ions? [snip] The free energy derived is dependent on the energy that can be extracted from the expansion. That energy is therefore depenent on the pressure exerted on the forming orbital or the inertial reactive mass upon which the expanding orbital does work. From that perspective you want the expansion to occur against a dense atom or in a very high pressure very confined space. While clathrate geometries and bonds can provide a tight space for the atomic expansion, there are tighter denser spaces, metal lattices for example. The problem with metal lattices is repeatability. This problem is due to the tendency of the expansion to damage the lattice. The layers of aligned water molecules that form about any ion, though weakly bound, do provide the benefit of repeatability. The main problem then is the fact that a potential barrier is formed that requires high voltage to tunnel through to deionize the enclosed ion. The metal lattice has the advantage of providing covalent bond confinement. Pressures many orders of magnitude greater can thus be sustained. A good device may one where gas is pumped via adsorbtion through a thin layer of palladium or proton conductor into a thin medium which rapidly but elastically distorts and puts massive pressure against a piezoelectric crystal. The problem here is to get the diffusion rate and thus the cycling rate fast enough, and to make use of a small metal deflection of enormous force to do useful work. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 12:15:33 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA10288; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:14:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:14:14 -0700 Message-ID: <009d01c3293a$fa7f6200$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.1.20030602200617.00a7eb30@pop.onlinehome.de> Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:12:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA10241 Resent-Message-ID: <"5_czM3.0.ZW2.68ws-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50704 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael Huffman writes, > All three of the above mentioned phases occur exactly in the stated > order during the process of bubble formation and the bubble collapse that > we refer to as cavitation bubble collapse. Ahoy to you Knuke - And indeed they do! but with this exception that may or may not be of highest importance - maintaining the phase changes... The solid phase seems to be important in harnessing beta-aether and even more so to be able to go from liquid to solid and then sublimate to gas all within a somewhat longer time frame than cavitation... Are any cavitations devices chilled? IF so how do they compare in performance? > While the cavitation device shown in > Dr. Seth Putterman's patent strongly resembles an ICE type piston engine, > my device (a rotary approach) and others don't. I will find this Putterman patent. Isn't yours related to the Griggs? > Incidentally, in case you missed it, I referred to a white paper that was > published by the US government some years back, and may still be available > from the GPO. It was a study of available clathrates and their possible > use as a future energy source. I did miss it. Do you have the citation? > One of the participants in the study was > Fred Jaeger, then president of Jaeger Engineering, and at one time > president of ENECO. He still may be at ENECO, I don't know. I am sure > that he would be interested in reading your ideas, however. Thanks so much for this info - Are you still cavitating - or settled into a more comfortable retirement (i.e. still enjoying the bubbles, but in your drink of choice?) Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 12:50:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA30546; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:47:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:47:59 -0700 Message-ID: <00a501c3293f$b1425a20$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:46:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA30512 Resent-Message-ID: <"6iawE1.0.CT7.ldws-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50705 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace, > The free energy derived is dependent on the energy that can be extracted > from the expansion. Not necessarily, except in a step-wise or translational sense - with water-fuel, the excess energy that derived is secondary to the internal expansion in the sense that the expansion inside a clathrate sphere provides the counterbalance against the shockwave of combustion. When this happens, you will have the destuction of both hydrogen and covalent bonding in the "beta-aether anvil," accelerating valence electrons into inner orbitals giving upwards to several hundred eV per electron instread of several eV. This is why I choose to call it CAMFR. And this is why one finds all kinds of soft x-rays in mechanical failure events. > That energy is therefore depenent on the pressure > exerted on the forming orbital or the inertial reactive mass upon which the > expanding orbital does work. From that perspective you want the expansion > to occur against a dense atom or in a very high pressure very confined > space. Yes. You want expansion to occur simulataneously against the imploding shock wave that follows igniton (of some of the unbound electrolysis gases). > While clathrate geometries and bonds can provide a tight space for the > atomic expansion, there are tighter denser spaces, metal lattices for > example. It ain't necessarily so...What can be tighter than a shockwave implosion? Certainly nothing which is statc. > The problem with metal lattices is repeatability. Bingo! > The metal lattice has the advantage of providing covalent bond confinement. > Pressures many orders of magnitude greater can thus be sustained. No covalent bond can approach the strength of the beta-aether atmosphere! Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 14:42:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA00526; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:39:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:39:19 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:42:57 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Resent-Message-ID: <"m3fqL2.0.88.7Gys-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50706 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:46 PM 6/2/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Horace, > >> The free energy derived is dependent on the energy that can be extracted >> from the expansion. > >Not necessarily, Yes, necessarily, according to the AEH anyway. >except in a step-wise or translational sense - with water-fuel, the excess >energy that derived is secondary to the internal expansion in the sense >that the expansion inside a clathrate sphere provides the counterbalance >against the shockwave of combustion. The force of the shockwave of combustion is fairly nominal at an atomic level. To obtain the energy to constrict a small subset of forming hydrogen atoms in a single axis of motion by a mere electron volt the average temperature must be at least 11,600 deg C. >When this happens, you will have the destuction of both hydrogen and >covalent bonding in the "beta-aether anvil," accelerating valence >electrons into inner orbitals giving upwards to several hundred eV per >electron instread of several eV. >This is why I choose to call it CAMFR. And this is why one finds all kinds >of soft x-rays in mechanical failure events. > There is no violation of conservation of energy or even mystery in those >high energy events associated with metal fractures. At one time there >WAS a "fractofusion" theory of cold fusion, that the powerful >electrostatic fields that occurs at metal fractures are sufficient to >cause a fusion chain reaction in loaded metals. Fusion may be caused so >to a small extent, but fractofusion can not nearly account for observed CF >excess heat. In any event the high energy electrons which are accelerated >by such fields are small in number, and simply take their energy from the >lattice. Such energy is not "free" - it obeys COE. > >> That energy is therefore depenent on the pressure >> exerted on the forming orbital or the inertial reactive mass upon which the >> expanding orbital does work. From that perspective you want the expansion >> to occur against a dense atom or in a very high pressure very confined >> space. > >Yes. You want expansion to occur simulataneously against the imploding >shock wave that follows igniton (of some of the unbound electrolysis >gases). If you have seen footage of explosions in engine cylinders then I think you have seen that they do not implode in a manner like, say, nuclear devices or sonobubbles. > >> While clathrate geometries and bonds can provide a tight space for the >> atomic expansion, there are tighter denser spaces, metal lattices for >> example. > >It ain't necessarily so...What can be tighter than a shockwave implosion? >Certainly nothing which is statc. Actually a metal lattice provides a continuous multidimensional confinement. This is hard to beat - except maybe by the temperatures and density achieved in sonobubbles. The problem with sonobubbles is their extremely small volume and ths difficulty of achieving (sufficient) multibubble sonoluminesence. > >> The problem with metal lattices is repeatability. > >Bingo! Yes, but I have suggested at least one way to beat this. Another is sonobubbles (a la Stringham) but generated against fluidized beds of metal powder. > >> The metal lattice has the advantage of providing covalent bond confinement. >> Pressures many orders of magnitude greater can thus be sustained. > >No covalent bond can approach the strength of the beta-aether atmosphere! Where's the quantitative evidence, either theoretical or experimental? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 2 22:08:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA07637; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:06:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:06:00 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 01:26:00 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00a501c3293f$b1425a20$0a016ea8 cpq> X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"YnKPc2.0.Ft1.uo2t-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50707 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi J&H. You both write: > The metal lattice has the advantage of providing covalent bond confinement. > Pressures many orders of magnitude greater can thus be sustained. * No covalent bond can approach the strength of the beta-aether atmosphere! You talk of the beta-aether as if it were an old friend. Can you repost or point me in the direction of references to this thing? Or is this your own invention? A quick googling produced zero hits, and it seems essential to developing the theory you've been discussing. K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 05:24:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA26707; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:22:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:22:01 -0700 Message-ID: <006301c329c2$5600e7c0$1701bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: US Patent 796,533 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:21:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940eaa0fcece1e405cc23a20da0f29e4ee8350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"rF2Z42.0.8X6.fB9t-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50708 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just the thing for those cold winter nights. :-) http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/images.htm US 796533 FJS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 06:13:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA20498; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:10:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:10:25 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20030603112427.00a7cd20 pop.onlinehome.de> X-Sender: cc8592609-688 pop.onlinehome.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 15:13:45 +0200 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Huffman Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel In-Reply-To: <009d01c3293a$fa7f6200$0a016ea8 cpq> References: <5.2.0.9.1.20030602200617.00a7eb30 pop.onlinehome.de> 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 GAA20445 Resent-Message-ID: <"l1JJ22.0.505.0v9t-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50709 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ahoy Jones! You posted both comments and questions to which I will reply, but I will change their order to enhance the readability(;> >Are you still cavitating - or settled into a more comfortable retirement >(i.e. still enjoying the bubbles, but in your drink of choice?) I am currently doing a little of everything, so while I am not at all uncomfortable, I am definitely not retired. I am living in a small village (eight houses large) in the southern portion of the Czech Republic - a very beautiful, interesting and historically significant section of the Böhmerwald. The village is quite close to the German border, so I am very happy to report that I have readily available to me my choice of what I consider to be the finest tasting beers on the planet, along with some of the most enjoyable and affordable restaurants I have ever had the good fortune to experience. I've been in this general area for about a year now, and could write volumes about the place, but will do my best to stick to the appropriate subject material. I am still cavitating, but not nearly as often as I would like, and only as an amateur. I managed to bring with me one functioning prototype of my machine, and I give occasional demonstrations to interested parties. I am also in the process of building another machine which will incorporate, what I hope will prove to be, some significant improvements to my old design. I resubscribed to the group some time ago as a lurker, in large part to reconnect with what I have always found to be one of the more interesting and intelligent assemblages of people with whom I have ever had the honor to interact, and more recently as an occasional contributor - for quite another reason altogether. I noticed just some weeks ago that I was forgetting how to speak English. Perhaps it is just a sign of old age. I had seen this happen to other native English speakers whom I had met in my travels abroad, but it was quite a shock to find myself struggling to remember common English words and expressions. I decided to start writing more in English just so that I don't forget the language completely. >Michael Huffman writes, > > All three of the above mentioned phases occur exactly in the stated > > order during the process of bubble formation and the bubble collapse that > > we refer to as cavitation bubble collapse. > >Ahoy to you Knuke - >And indeed they do! but with this exception that may or may not be of >highest importance - maintaining the phase changes... >The solid phase seems to be important in harnessing beta-aether and even >more so to be able to go from liquid to solid and then sublimate to gas >all within a somewhat longer time frame than cavitation... I was not referring to the physical phases (e.i. gas, liquid, solid) of the working material itself, but rather to the mechanical phases of the process that you had described in your earlier post - namely, "the alternating cycle of vacuum-compression-shockwave". I realized, immediately upon hitting the send button as per usual, that my use of the word "phases" might cause some confusion in this context. My apologies. >I will find this Putterman patent. Isn't yours related to the Griggs? As you may know, Dr. Putterman worked for years with Nobel Prize laureate, Dr. Julian Schwinger, prior to applying for this patent. Prosecution of the patent took over 4 years, I believe, in large part due to the broadness of the claims regarding the explanation of the underlying physics of the device. As for Griggs, he worked as a salesman for a company in Chicago who owned the Schaeffer patent. Griggs took one of the prototypes from this company to demonstrate in Georgia, and applied for a patent on it unbeknownst to the company that developed and owned it. I still have all of the paperwork (Griggs's employment contract, correspondence, etc.) to prove this. This entire messy business was all discussed in the very early days of the Vortex Group, and the discussion can be found in the archives. My work is simply a continuation or extension of the mechanical concepts originally designed by Schaeffer. > > Incidentally, in case you missed it, I referred to a white paper > that was > > published by the US government some years back, and may still be available > > from the GPO. It was a study of available clathrates and their possible > > use as a future energy source. > >I did miss it. Do you have the citation? I don't have the citation handy, but it should still be in the archives dating around 1996 or shortly thereafter. That was when I began studying clathrates. A text search of the archives using the keywords "Knuke", "Jaeger", "methane clathrate" and/or "clathrates" should bring it up fairly quickly. The US Government Printing Office was giving the book away for free at the time so I ordered it, and I found it to be a very good introductory text on the subject. It was written some time ago (early 90's??), so I don't know if it is still available. >Are any cavitations devices chilled? IF so how do they compare in performance? In my experiments, I did measure, record and report definite and repeatable performance gains when chilling the working fluid as close as possible to the freezing point prior to the cavitation treatment. I believe others have reported similar results as well. I don't recall exactly how large the performance gains were in the other experimenters' reports, but for me, they were in the neighborhood of 5 - 10%. At the time, I regarded it to be interesting, but certainly not earth shaking. I recall that I had wanted to, but did not have the opportunity to try cavitating a slurry of methane clathrate. I am sure that it would have been at least an interesting, if not outright dangerous thing to do. At the time, methane clathrate was not a substance that one could simply order from a chemical company at any price. That may still be the case, I don't know. With what you and Horace have proposed as a possible mechanism for tapping the ZPE, it may be worth the effort of finding a source. As I further recall, there were some long term, fairly large pilot projects for the harvesting of methane clathrate. I believe one of them was located in Hawaii. Fred Jaeger may have some more details on that, and possibly may be able to help any interested parties obtain some samples for experimental purposes. My own interests lie more along the lines of using cavitation for the development of exotic materials, rather than purely for the production of energy. If you read the work done by another Nobel Prize laureate, Dr. Ken Susslick, you will see why. In my opinion, once society "gets over the hump" of not using fossil fuels, it will be of the utmost importance to the environment that not only the production, but also the transmission, storage and usage of this energy be as efficient as possible. Better material science will play a significant role in helping to limit the negative environmental impact of the availability of an unlimited source of clean energy. Of special interest to this group are the remarkable claims for energy storage of what Dr. Susslick calls "amorphous nickel". They are nearly identical to what Dr. Randy Mills has claimed for his "hydrino/nickel" compounds. ;) All the best, Knuke From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 06:35:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA32241; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:34:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:34:06 -0700 Message-ID: <001b01c329d4$a02b3e60$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: Cc: "vortex" References: Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:32:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA32209 Resent-Message-ID: <"9bzUT1.0.ht7.EFAt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50710 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: K, > You talk of the beta-aether as if it were an old friend. > Can you repost or point me in the direction of references > to this thing? It is the theory of my colleague, Frank Grimer, which further develops the aether concept into a hierarchical hidden structure in nature to better explain a number of physical phenomena, see: "Aether Vacua and Cold Fusion" Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue 456, 2002, p28 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 07:12:11 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA20167; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 07:10:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 07:10:51 -0700 Message-ID: <004f01c329d9$c35b79e0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <001b01c329d4$a02b3e60$0a016ea8@cpq> Subject: Re: The AEH, CAMFR and water-fuel Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 07:09:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA20142 Resent-Message-ID: <"iI57q.0.0x4.hnAt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50711 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Correction: Issue 46 not 456 "Aether Vacua and Cold Fusion" Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue 46, 2002, p28 Unfortunately past IE articles are not online AFAIK From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 08:16:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA19077; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:14:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:14:18 -0700 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: And in a different arena... Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:12:24 +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 V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <002f01c32897$39312280$5491a7cb vuw.ac.nz> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"g1LHs.0.wf4.AjBt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50712 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I noticed they needed pre-firing after trying a few castings, so I built a kiln and did just that. The problem is that furnace cements tend to dissolve in steam under electrical fields, even after being pre-fired. The item I am looking for and unable to find is something similar to the stuff marketed by Cotronics as Resbond 940LE, but finding this stuff without going through the hassle of industrial espionage seems impossible. If I lived in that part of the world, I would simply visit the distributor... cheers > -----Original Message----- > From: RBR [mailto:RBR clear.net.nz] > Sent: Monday, 2003 June 02 06:41 > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: And in a different arena... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "xplorer" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:46 AM > Subject: And in a different arena... > > > > > > Xplorer.... > I dont know what temp you are getting there > are furnace > cements that will go to 1350 degrese or even more . They will > self destruct > if you bring the temp up to fast best to get them made up and go > to a potter > with a kiln and get them prefired . > Regards RBR> > > >> > > One: I have been searching (for nearly two years) for a substance > > (something available publicly/commercially - not 'NASA-type' artifacts) > > which can be cast as an insulator to imbed cathodes in. > > [Water-proof/steam-proof, hi-temperature structural integrity, etc.] > > I have tried such things as furnace cements, various types of glues > > and other materials, but the high temperatures always destroy these. > > I believe I may have found something at last, but I won't know > for a few > > days. > > This is a silicon resin based paint, which I found can be solidified > > by cooking in an oven. This is expensive, but viable. [glass cracks] > > I searched for the cements used in mounting > > halogen lamps, but that appears to be unobtanium at this point. > > Anyone having ideas about this? > > > > Two: A neat little trick is that tap water works just fine, > > no need for all that tricky deuterium or exotic electrolytes, > > if you use the right cathodes and AC voltage. > > I found these nifty little gas-stove burner flame holders, > > made with what appears to be silver-clad steel wire will > > give near COP 2 when separated by about 20 mm in clean water. > > Great device for making coffee water real fast. > > A 12v version is in the works. > > > > Three: The problem with a rotating unit as Horace describes, > > is that you need a mechanism for injecting the water from > > a fixed feed pipe into a rotating head, and this has had me stumped, > > as my machine can not afford leakage (too much hi voltage > flailing about) > > I have recently tried swivel joints such as used on car-wash > hose reels, > > but I am still searching for a better solution. > > I have seen the websites for the industrial processing solutions, > > units priced in the thousand-dollar range, but in the interest > > of keeping this thing duplicable world-wide by people who > > may or may not be industrialists, I would like to find > > a cheap rotating union. Failing that, I guess I will simply > > design it myself. > > > > Four: from my files, back in 1996 I tried a multiple cathode device, > > for those interested in such things. Five pin cathodes working > > a common anode plate placed 30 mm away in the end of a jar. > > A visually interesting thing to watch, but the cathodes don't > last very > > long > > as the regime is ferocious. > > > > Five: an AC regime is gentler on the electrodes, as a DC regime > > almost inevitably destroys the cathode, as well as dirties the water. > > > > > > People in the standard science community seem to go apopletic > > when the term "cold fusion" is mentioned, > > but watch the knees jerk when you describe cold fusion > > being achieved with tap water and you gotta wonder > > just who is being pathologically skeptical. > > There is some interest in keeping this to being > > some esoteric palladium-driven high technology, > > when the actual fact is it can be done with little more > > than well-planned geometry of appropriate materials. > > > > The truth is out there: > > I am not specificly seeking answers so much > > as using them as navigational aids. > > > > > > cheers > > > > Director, Ocean Talent Corporation > > http://www.ocean-talent.com/ > > http://www.explorecraft.com/ > > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 08:48:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA04374; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:45:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:45:53 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: And in a different arena... Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:05:52 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"-g6mw1.0.F41.nACt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50713 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi X. What's the big deal? I'm not sure where you are, but these folks are right here in town with me. http://cotronics.com/vo/cotr/ They take all credit cards, and orders over the web, so no need to pay them (or me) a visit... Here's the product you're looking for. http://www.cotronics.com/vo/cotr/ca_fastset.htm BTW, thanks for the supplier name, they have some cool products that I could probably use. K. -----Original Message----- From: xplorer [mailto:xplorer indo.net.id] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:12 AM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: And in a different arena... I noticed they needed pre-firing after trying a few castings, so I built a kiln and did just that. The problem is that furnace cements tend to dissolve in steam under electrical fields, even after being pre-fired. The item I am looking for and unable to find is something similar to the stuff marketed by Cotronics as Resbond 940LE, but finding this stuff without going through the hassle of industrial espionage seems impossible. If I lived in that part of the world, I would simply visit the distributor... cheers > -----Original Message----- > From: RBR [mailto:RBR clear.net.nz] > Sent: Monday, 2003 June 02 06:41 > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: And in a different arena... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "xplorer" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:46 AM > Subject: And in a different arena... > > > > > > Xplorer.... > I dont know what temp you are getting there > are furnace > cements that will go to 1350 degrese or even more . They will > self destruct > if you bring the temp up to fast best to get them made up and go > to a potter > with a kiln and get them prefired . > Regards RBR> > > >> > > One: I have been searching (for nearly two years) for a substance > > (something available publicly/commercially - not 'NASA-type' artifacts) > > which can be cast as an insulator to imbed cathodes in. > > [Water-proof/steam-proof, hi-temperature structural integrity, etc.] > > I have tried such things as furnace cements, various types of glues > > and other materials, but the high temperatures always destroy these. > > I believe I may have found something at last, but I won't know > for a few > > days. > > This is a silicon resin based paint, which I found can be solidified > > by cooking in an oven. This is expensive, but viable. [glass cracks] > > I searched for the cements used in mounting > > halogen lamps, but that appears to be unobtanium at this point. > > Anyone having ideas about this? > > > > Two: A neat little trick is that tap water works just fine, > > no need for all that tricky deuterium or exotic electrolytes, > > if you use the right cathodes and AC voltage. > > I found these nifty little gas-stove burner flame holders, > > made with what appears to be silver-clad steel wire will > > give near COP 2 when separated by about 20 mm in clean water. > > Great device for making coffee water real fast. > > A 12v version is in the works. > > > > Three: The problem with a rotating unit as Horace describes, > > is that you need a mechanism for injecting the water from > > a fixed feed pipe into a rotating head, and this has had me stumped, > > as my machine can not afford leakage (too much hi voltage > flailing about) > > I have recently tried swivel joints such as used on car-wash > hose reels, > > but I am still searching for a better solution. > > I have seen the websites for the industrial processing solutions, > > units priced in the thousand-dollar range, but in the interest > > of keeping this thing duplicable world-wide by people who > > may or may not be industrialists, I would like to find > > a cheap rotating union. Failing that, I guess I will simply > > design it myself. > > > > Four: from my files, back in 1996 I tried a multiple cathode device, > > for those interested in such things. Five pin cathodes working > > a common anode plate placed 30 mm away in the end of a jar. > > A visually interesting thing to watch, but the cathodes don't > last very > > long > > as the regime is ferocious. > > > > Five: an AC regime is gentler on the electrodes, as a DC regime > > almost inevitably destroys the cathode, as well as dirties the water. > > > > > > People in the standard science community seem to go apopletic > > when the term "cold fusion" is mentioned, > > but watch the knees jerk when you describe cold fusion > > being achieved with tap water and you gotta wonder > > just who is being pathologically skeptical. > > There is some interest in keeping this to being > > some esoteric palladium-driven high technology, > > when the actual fact is it can be done with little more > > than well-planned geometry of appropriate materials. > > > > The truth is out there: > > I am not specificly seeking answers so much > > as using them as navigational aids. > > > > > > cheers > > > > Director, Ocean Talent Corporation > > http://www.ocean-talent.com/ > > http://www.explorecraft.com/ > > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 10:42:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA15294; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:39:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:39:02 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20030603193926.00a71bd0 pop.onlinehome.de> X-Sender: cc8592609-688 pop.onlinehome.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:42:24 +0200 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Huffman Subject: RE: And in a different arena... In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c32897$39312280$5491a7cb vuw.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"fVnAV.0.pk3.sqDt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50714 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 22:12 03.06.2003 +0700, you wrote: >The item I am looking for and unable to find is > something similar to the stuff > marketed by Cotronics as Resbond 940LE, > but finding this stuff without going through the > hassle of industrial espionage seems impossible. >If I lived in that part of the world, > I would simply visit the distributor... You might try running a quick search on geopolymers. They are advertised as having all the performance characteristics that you require, and they are commercially available to the general public. They are, however, a bit on the pricey side for small quantities. Knuke From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 3 14:01:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA04475; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:59:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:59:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3EDD0C68.1090102 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:00:24 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: US Patent 796,533 References: <006301c329c2$5600e7c0$1701bf3f computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9igrZ2.0.n51.TmGt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50715 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick Sparber wrote: >Just the thing for those cold winter nights. :-) > >http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm > >http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/images.htm > >US 796533 > >FJS > > > > Be sure to dry yourself thoroughly first! Oh, and remove your foil hat, too! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 12:53:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA19346; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:49:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:49:13 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604153608.02dee608 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:46:21 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: WMD or hydrogen generator? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"6tAi61.0.Bk4.uqat-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50716 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I do not wish to politicize the discussion here, and I apologize if I end up doing that, but there are some interesting, on-topic aspects of the WMD controversy in these articles: http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/ http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/sidebar/2083762/ There is a dispute over whether the flatbed trucks recently discovered are portable hydrogen generating plants for weather balloons, or biological WMD plants. Some comments: It is interesting that they use chemical processes to generate hydrogen for weather balloons, rather than electrolysis. That tells you something about the energetics and economics of these plans for futuristic hydrogen based energy systems. I think the hydrogen used in the Space Shuttle is also derived from fossil fuel. I think I read that . . . but now I cannot find the reference. According to the second article, the technical question about the purpose of these trucks should be easy to resolve. Quote: "One biologist, looking at CIA-released photographs of a trailer, noted that the pipes feeding into the chamber appear to have threaded or bolt-flange joints, which he says would cause leaksboth from the inside and to the outside. The former might contaminate the bioproduction, the latter might kill the bioworkers. Another biologist said he would like to know whether the trailer has a thermal-control meter that could keep the chamber to within one or two degrees of body temperature; if there is such a meter, the trailer might have been used to grow toxins; if there isn't, it couldn't possibly have been." Two or three experts could look at photographs of the trailer and instantly tell whether it is a bio-WMD production system or not. I suppose someone is dragging out the controversy. (Oops! No politics.) Anyway, it is interesting and somewhat depressing that this technical issue has not been raised in the mass media, except in Slate magazine. Has anyone noticed it elsewhere? My guess is that most newspaper readers would not grasp this point about the constant temperature thermal control. Or the newspaper editors think they would not understand. Or perhaps -- if you believe conspiracy theories -- someone wants to keep this issue away from the public's attention. This resembles the CF controversy insofar as some fairly simple technical issues were resolved years ago in favor of the CF researchers, and this fact could be published in the mass media, but such topics never reach the Science Section of the New York Times or anywhere else. Several editors, journalists and science journalists have told me the CF debate is highly technical and readers would not understand it. Of course many aspects are highly technical, but some such as calorimetry and tritium detection, are easy to understand. I think a large fraction of the public would understand them, given a chance. I think issues more tactical than this have been hashed out in the mass media. These editors are probably sincere, but actually, without realizing it, they're using this as an excuse to avoid the controversy. These editors seem to have a low opinion of their readers' intelligence, I must say. I get the impression that President Bush is not technically knowledgeable, and I expect he sincerely believes these flatbed trucks must have been intended for WMD production. I am NOT being sarcastic. I have often been shocked to learn how ignorant people in high places are about science and technology. For example, Bush, the VP, and the management at Exxon-Mobil probably sincerely believes that we can go on using fossil fuel for decades to come without adverse consequences or severe shortages. In his book "Hubbert's Peak," Deffeyes describes how many of these leading experts are blind to what he thinks is inescapable proof that oil supplies have peaked and will rapidly decline. The experts are blind to the data because of their own emotional investment and economic interests. Of course we have seen countless examples of this, but Deffeyes' descriptions are particularly vivid, and on-topic. If these experts cannot see such obvious trends, what hope is there they will latch on to CF? I think there is no hope, but I think CF may well be developed anyway. Just not by these people. It often happens that new, competitive technologies are developed by outsider companies that have no standing in the present market. Railroads did not develop air transport; traditional camera makers did not take the lead in developing digital cameras (not at first, anyway). I expect CF will be developed by companies that have nothing to do with the energy business, or perhaps companies that play minor, specialized roles, such as Coleman, that makes stoves and lamps for camping. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 13:45:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA24518; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:44:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:44:01 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: WMD or hydrogen generator? Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:03:59 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604153608.02dee608 pop.mindspring.com> X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"vVmXB3.0.x-5.Gebt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50717 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed. Funny thing is, that I have some direct experience in connection with this... When I was about 16 years old my friend and I got it into our heads that we would make a balloon, and fly around the yard. So we ordered a weather balloon from ES, and I set about to build a hydrogen generator ( Hindenburg? what's that??? ). To make a long story short, I used lye and aluminum, just what is being described here. Forget electrolysis, unless you live by the Hoover Dam you're going to have to wait a while for results and end up with quite an electric bill. One big problem, is that the reaction is way exothermic, so you end up with the gas being heavily contaminated with steam, which will melt your balloon. So some sort of scrubber or cooler is necessary. I agree, it should be easy to tell what the function was of these things. It's an interesting bind. We know the Iraqi's were developing bio and chem weapons, this from the UN inspectors back in the early 90's. We were told that the war was to prevent Hussein from providing these weapons to terrorists. Now, we are left with three possibilities 1) There were no weapons after GW1, and the war was sold under false pretenses ( this option is gaining ground after Paul Wolfowitz revealed in an interview last week that the WMD reason was the only one all departments could agree on, thus it became THE reason ) 2) Hussein, realizing that he was about to be overthrown, gave the weapons away or lost control of them during the war. Thus did the war create the very conditions which were to be prevented. This option has merit inasmuch as nothing was done for weeks after the war regarding these sites, now that they are being investigated they are completely looted. 3) Hussein was bluffing. I expect we'll be seeing sarin or anthrax attacks in midtown in a couple years, as the ordinance that's lying around Iraq winds its way into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalist who now dominate Iraqi politics. By the way, would someone like to explain to me how it is that replacing an arab nationalist with an islamic theocracy is going to prevent radical islamic terrorism??? I'm a little confused on that one. Jed writes: >These editors seem to have a low opinion of > their readers' intelligence, I must say. Well Jed, it's their job to sell newspapers, and if they don't they lose it. So I suspect they're a lot more sensitive to what the readers want than you or I. K. -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:JedRothwell mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:46 PM To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: WMD or hydrogen generator? I do not wish to politicize the discussion here, and I apologize if I end up doing that, but there are some interesting, on-topic aspects of the WMD controversy in these articles: http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/ http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/sidebar/2083762/ There is a dispute over whether the flatbed trucks recently discovered are portable hydrogen generating plants for weather balloons, or biological WMD plants. Some comments: It is interesting that they use chemical processes to generate hydrogen for weather balloons, rather than electrolysis. That tells you something about the energetics and economics of these plans for futuristic hydrogen based energy systems. I think the hydrogen used in the Space Shuttle is also derived from fossil fuel. I think I read that . . . but now I cannot find the reference. According to the second article, the technical question about the purpose of these trucks should be easy to resolve. Quote: "One biologist, looking at CIA-released photographs of a trailer, noted that the pipes feeding into the chamber appear to have threaded or bolt-flange joints, which he says would cause leaksboth from the inside and to the outside. The former might contaminate the bioproduction, the latter might kill the bioworkers. Another biologist said he would like to know whether the trailer has a thermal-control meter that could keep the chamber to within one or two degrees of body temperature; if there is such a meter, the trailer might have been used to grow toxins; if there isn't, it couldn't possibly have been." Two or three experts could look at photographs of the trailer and instantly tell whether it is a bio-WMD production system or not. I suppose someone is dragging out the controversy. (Oops! No politics.) Anyway, it is interesting and somewhat depressing that this technical issue has not been raised in the mass media, except in Slate magazine. Has anyone noticed it elsewhere? My guess is that most newspaper readers would not grasp this point about the constant temperature thermal control. Or the newspaper editors think they would not understand. Or perhaps -- if you believe conspiracy theories -- someone wants to keep this issue away from the public's attention. This resembles the CF controversy insofar as some fairly simple technical issues were resolved years ago in favor of the CF researchers, and this fact could be published in the mass media, but such topics never reach the Science Section of the New York Times or anywhere else. Several editors, journalists and science journalists have told me the CF debate is highly technical and readers would not understand it. Of course many aspects are highly technical, but some such as calorimetry and tritium detection, are easy to understand. I think a large fraction of the public would understand them, given a chance. I think issues more tactical than this have been hashed out in the mass media. These editors are probably sincere, but actually, without realizing it, they're using this as an excuse to avoid the controversy. These editors seem to have a low opinion of their readers' intelligence, I must say. I get the impression that President Bush is not technically knowledgeable, and I expect he sincerely believes these flatbed trucks must have been intended for WMD production. I am NOT being sarcastic. I have often been shocked to learn how ignorant people in high places are about science and technology. For example, Bush, the VP, and the management at Exxon-Mobil probably sincerely believes that we can go on using fossil fuel for decades to come without adverse consequences or severe shortages. In his book "Hubbert's Peak," Deffeyes describes how many of these leading experts are blind to what he thinks is inescapable proof that oil supplies have peaked and will rapidly decline. The experts are blind to the data because of their own emotional investment and economic interests. Of course we have seen countless examples of this, but Deffeyes' descriptions are particularly vivid, and on-topic. If these experts cannot see such obvious trends, what hope is there they will latch on to CF? I think there is no hope, but I think CF may well be developed anyway. Just not by these people. It often happens that new, competitive technologies are developed by outsider companies that have no standing in the present market. Railroads did not develop air transport; traditional camera makers did not take the lead in developing digital cameras (not at first, anyway). I expect CF will be developed by companies that have nothing to do with the energy business, or perhaps companies that play minor, specialized roles, such as Coleman, that makes stoves and lamps for camping. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:08:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA03152; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:05:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:05:24 -0700 Message-ID: <3EDE5F61.3080008 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:06:41 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: WMD or hydrogen generator? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oVun61.0.2n.Jybt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50718 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Jed. > >Funny thing is, that I have some direct experience >in connection with this... When I was about 16 years >old my friend and I got it into our heads that >we would make a balloon, and fly around the yard. > I was flying around the yard at about the same age. However, my choice was decomposing ammonium nitrate into nitrous oxide, an endothermic reaction passed through a water bath to dissolve the ammonia. Debka News reports that what weapons that were not destroyed wound up in Lebanon via Syria. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 14:35:51 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA17860; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:32:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:32:12 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604164932.02dee608 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:30:36 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: WMD or hydrogen generator? In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604153608.02dee608 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"9ivo6.0.oM4.RLct-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50719 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith Nagel wrote: >I expect we'll be seeing sarin or anthrax attacks >in midtown in a couple years, as the ordinance >that's lying around Iraq winds its way into >the hands of the Islamic fundamentalist . . . I think some of these bio-WMD have fairly short shelf lives, so if it does not happen soon perhaps it will not happen. That was mentioned in the Japanese press after the sarin attacks. In a somewhat similar way, fusion bombs require fresh infusions of tritium periodically, or they will fail to work. I am not sure how often, or what a bomb would do after it has not been serviced for 10 years or more. I hope such details are secret! Anyway, this is good news because it means abandoned Soviet weapons may not be a threat indefinitely, except as dirty bombs. > >These editors seem to have a low opinion of > > their readers' intelligence, I must say. > >Well Jed, it's their job to sell newspapers, and if they don't they lose >it. So I suspect they're a lot more sensitive to what the readers want >than you or I. Perhaps they do, but there is another possibility. In business, you often find that companies slavishly follow fashions and trends out of fear they will be left behind by the competition. Occasionally, a new company will come along that does things very differently, or treats the customers differently, defying the accepted wisdom. Industry experts will say the new company's methods are hopeless, but to everyone's surprise they succeed. In short, competitive pressure and the fear of failure in business sometimes stifles creativity. Mass media television generally programs for the lowest common denominator. When National Public Television was established, I recall that experts argued there was no market for highbrow, intelligent programming. They said the US was not like the UK, and something like BBC would never find a market. In particular, I recall people said they would be no market for children's educational programs. "Sesame Street" proved the experts were wrong. There have been many other unexpected hits and misses in show business. Perhaps the same would be true of science journalism, if only some journalist had the guts to try something different. I have often said that the first mainstream journalists who writes serious articles about cold fusion will someday be a shoo-in for the Pulitzer Prize. They think the subject is poison, and they may be right, but it may turn out to be the story of the century. The other day you suggested that John Rennie might benefit from publishing articles about cold fusion. It might attract readers to the Sci. Am., where business is down and they need a hit. I said I do not think he will take that risk. Part of the reason I say that is because in a crisis, some businessmen retreat. They abandon innovation; they stop taking chances; they go back to doing the same things that always used to work. Usually, these are timid, insecure people who, when you come down to it, don't know what they're doing. They blindly follow recipes, out-of-date formulas, and fads. Their work is weirdly up-to-the minute fashionable yet stale at the same time. Rennie strikes me as that sort of person. Most television producers and artists trying to make in the big New York galleries seem that way to me. Other people, when confronted by crisis, react by trying something new. They take bold risks. They do something radical that others people think will destroy the company. For example, they may drastically reduce the price of a product that generates a large profit but sells in only small amounts, in order to expand the market. Peachtree software did this when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. In some cases they start giving away products that formerly sold at a profit. IBM has abandoned much of their mainframe software and they are making their product line compatible with Linux instead. This is either a bold initiative or corporate suicide. We shall see. Novell once sold lousy hardware and was on the verge of bankruptcy. They decided to emphasize software instead, and turned the company around. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 4 16:08:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA02766; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:07:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:07:22 -0700 Message-ID: <3EDE6E7D.1EE662A1 ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:17:15 -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: WMD or hydrogen generator? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604153608.02dee608 pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030604164932.02dee608@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3223AA2280F41FA299FE97F2" Resent-Message-ID: <"vvC1h2.0.7h.fkdt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50720 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3223AA2280F41FA299FE97F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jed Rothwell wrote: > Keith Nagel wrote: > > >I expect we'll be seeing sarin or anthrax attacks > >in midtown in a couple years, as the ordinance > >that's lying around Iraq winds its way into > >the hands of the Islamic fundamentalist . . . > > I think some of these bio-WMD have fairly short shelf lives, so if it does > not happen soon perhaps it will not happen. That was mentioned in the > Japanese press after the sarin attacks. In a somewhat similar way, fusion > bombs require fresh infusions of tritium periodically, or they will fail to > work. I am not sure how often, or what a bomb would do after it has not > been serviced for 10 years or more. I hope such details are secret! Anyway, > this is good news because it means abandoned Soviet weapons may not be a > threat indefinitely, except as dirty bombs. Having some experience in this area, I can point out that tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years. Consequently, if it is not replaced periodically, as you say, the bang can be smaller. However, this is not the only way the bomb can go bad. Nevertheless, the fission part of the bomb would still make a very big bang. These weapons will be dangerous for many generations. > > > > >These editors seem to have a low opinion of > > > their readers' intelligence, I must say. > > > >Well Jed, it's their job to sell newspapers, and if they don't they lose > >it. So I suspect they're a lot more sensitive to what the readers want > >than you or I. > > Perhaps they do, but there is another possibility. In business, you often > find that companies slavishly follow fashions and trends out of fear they > will be left behind by the competition. Occasionally, a new company will > come along that does things very differently, or treats the customers > differently, defying the accepted wisdom. Industry experts will say the new > company's methods are hopeless, but to everyone's surprise they succeed. In > short, competitive pressure and the fear of failure in business sometimes > stifles creativity. This is especially true when the company is in financial trouble, as many are now. The great discoveries were made by companies when they have lots of money and the future looked rosy. When money gets scarce, research is the first to go. Of course, this is just the opposite of what a wise person would do. > > > Mass media television generally programs for the lowest common denominator. > When National Public Television was established, I recall that experts > argued there was no market for highbrow, intelligent programming. They said > the US was not like the UK, and something like BBC would never find a > market. In particular, I recall people said they would be no market for > children's educational programs. "Sesame Street" proved the experts were > wrong. There have been many other unexpected hits and misses in show > business. Perhaps the same would be true of science journalism, if only > some journalist had the guts to try something different. Journalist that try something different and cross their boss do not last long. Now there are only a few bosses and they do not want certain ideas to succeed because of their own self interest. Thanks to the present administration, this situation is getting worse. > > > I have often said that the first mainstream journalists who writes serious > articles about cold fusion will someday be a shoo-in for the Pulitzer > Prize. They think the subject is poison, and they may be right, but it may > turn out to be the story of the century. It will be someday, but only after people in the field answer certain basic questions and demonstrate the correctness of the answers. Until then, no one is going to risk his job to promote CF, even if he could get the story past his editor. > > > The other day you suggested that John Rennie might benefit from publishing > articles about cold fusion. It might attract readers to the Sci. Am., where > business is down and they need a hit. I said I do not think he will take > that risk. Part of the reason I say that is because in a crisis, some > businessmen retreat. They abandon innovation; they stop taking chances; > they go back to doing the same things that always used to work. Usually, > these are timid, insecure people who, when you come down to it, don't know > what they're doing. They blindly follow recipes, out-of-date formulas, and > fads. Their work is weirdly up-to-the minute fashionable yet stale at the > same time. Rennie strikes me as that sort of person. Most television > producers and artists trying to make in the big New York galleries seem > that way to me. I agree Jed, but for a different reason. People in general have no way of knowing what is true and what is false in most subjects. Consequently, they either take certain truths on faith or they follow the "experts". We all do this to some extent. It just happens that it is "our" subject that is being given the treatment. Otherwise we could care less, as do most people about "our" subject. Ed --------------3223AA2280F41FA299FE97F2 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="storms2.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Edmund Storms Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="storms2.vcf" begin:vcard n:; tel;work:505 988 3673 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/index.html org:Energy K. System adr:;;2140 Paseo Ponderosa;Santa Fe;NM;87501;http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/index.html version:2.1 email;internet:storms2 ix.netcom.com x-mozilla-cpt:;1 fn:Edmund Storms end:vcard --------------3223AA2280F41FA299FE97F2-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 05:27:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA13006; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:26:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:26:21 -0700 Message-ID: <005901c32b55$400cc8a0$a710b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: WMD or hydrogen generator? Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 06:25:19 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940af8b48c0210c064daa728c2bba6f0cfa350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"C39m9.0.0B3.iRpt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50721 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed With all due deference to Keith's "Portable Hydrogen Generator". :-) The steam reforming of readily transportable, Propane, Butane or Pentane-Hexane (drip gas) to produce on-site hydrogen could be done on a truck-mounted unit. http://www.synetix.com/hydrogen/steamreformingprocess.htm http://www.synetix.com/hydrogen/steamreformingprocess-steamreforming.htm http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/separation/pall/pall2.html http://www2.cdn-news.com/scripts/ccn-release.pl?/2002/01/29/0129018n.html Hydrogen Technology Genoil Inc. has agreed to purchase Hydrogen Solutions Inc., which has exclusive rights to a novel process producing hydrogen from water - "Gravitational Electrolysis". Genoil has the rights for the oil and gas industry in several countries including the United States and Canada. The purchase price is 10.5 million common shares and a 32.5% royalty based on net operating income relating to hydrogen production. Genoil, together with Colt Engineering and GKO Engineering, recently evaluated the bench test prototype of this revolutionary process. Colt Engineering reported that: "The patent appears to be broad, novel, and also appears to establish the state of the art for hydrogen production from electrolysis". Colt Engineering also indicated that the technology is "revolutionary" subject to numerous risks in proving out the technology. The basic concept of Enhanced Gravitational Electrolysis is utilizing a cylindrical vessel filled with a specially prepared electrolyte solution, which is rotated at a very high speed. The centrifugal force generated within the vessel acts selectively upon positive and negative ions due to their different atomic weights. This rotation initiates an electric current that causes a self-electrolysis process, fueled by water to create hydrogen and oxygen. The higher the rotational speed the more efficient the unit becomes. This presents some unique design and metallurgical challenges that should be quite solvable. As very little external electricity is consumed and only water is utilized, the cost to produce hydrogen should be significantly lower than existing costs. Based on theoretical calculations the hydrogen generated by gravitational electrolysis will be significantly less costly than today's most efficient method, methane steam reforming. All refiners consume large quantities of hydrogen. Hydrocracking and hydrotreating heavy oil or bitumen requires an average of 1500 cubic feet of hydrogen per barrel. Lighter crudes require an average hydrogen consumption of 500 cubic feet per barrel. Gravitational Electrolysis has the potential to decrease the cost of hydrogen consumed by Alberta's tar sands producers by $500,000 per day ($1.00 savings per barrel on 500,000 barrels per day). All refiners presently using hydrogen could benefit from this technology. Regards Frederick .................................................................... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 06:01:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA27199; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 06:00:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 06:00:41 -0700 Message-ID: <007801c32b5a$0cae33e0$a710b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:00:20 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da94023b32a656bd5ea6f4a7f7450bf206be6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"m2PYX2.0.oe6.uxpt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50722 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Will this technology "self-sustain" on an IC engine or fuel cell, Jones? http://www2.cdn-news.com/scripts/ccn-release.pl?/2002/01/29/0129018n.html GKO Engineering, recently evaluated the bench test prototype of this revolutionary process. Colt Engineering reported that: "The patent appears to be broad, novel, and also appears to establish the state of the art for hydrogen production from electrolysis". Colt Engineering also indicated that the technology is "revolutionary" subject to numerous risks in proving out the technology. The basic concept of Enhanced Gravitational Electrolysis is utilizing a cylindrical vessel filled with a specially prepared electrolyte solution, which is rotated at a very high speed. The centrifugal force generated within the vessel acts selectively upon positive and negative ions due to their different atomic weights. This rotation initiates an electric current that causes a self-electrolysis process, fueled by water to create hydrogen and oxygen. The higher the rotational speed the more efficient the unit becomes. This presents some unique design and metallurgical challenges that should be quite solvable. As very little external electricity is consumed and only water is utilized, the cost to produce hydrogen should be significantly lower than existing costs. Based on theoretical calculations the hydrogen generated by gravitational electrolysis will be significantly less costly than today's most efficient method, methane steam reforming. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 07:30:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA00757; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:28:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:28:39 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 06:32:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: WMD or hydrogen generator? Resent-Message-ID: <"2Ta9f1.0.kB.NErt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50723 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:25 AM 6/5/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >The basic concept of Enhanced Gravitational Electrolysis is >utilizing a cylindrical vessel filled with a specially prepared >electrolyte solution, which is rotated at a very high speed. The >centrifugal force generated within the vessel acts selectively >upon positive and negative ions due to their different atomic >weights. Good grief! This at first glance does seem impossible! The electrostatic gradient force on ions should far exceed anything possible due to g forces in a centrifuge. The negative radical must be massive indeed for this to happen. Interesting is the fact that the plate separation in such a device would be better larger in order to reduce the electrostatic gradient. If this concept DID work in an electrolyte it should work in a far superior manner using a high velocity steam vortex. In that manner, astronomical rotation rates can be obtained. >Based on theoretical calculations the hydrogen generated by >gravitational electrolysis will be significantly less costly than >today's most efficient method, methane steam reforming. This statement gives the definite impression that a major bungle has occurred. The centrifugal concept requires energy to maintain the constant mass flow against the electrostatic gradient. The potential drop across the device has to be about 1.4 V before any current will flow. This means that, in order for the mass flow of ions to occur, that rotational energy must continually be supplied to the centrifuge shaft that at minimum exctly matches the energy given off when the ions separated are re-united, i.e "burned." There is no free lunch here. No over-unity. The device would have to be over 100 percent efficient to separate hydrogen from water using less energy than hydrogen from methane. As stated, there has to be a bungle. The likely bad assumption is "very little external electricity is consumed and only water is utilized". They haven't accounted for the rotational energy required to sustain the lateral ion mass motion. If this works as advertized there has to be more to it - and part of that "more" is a source of free energy. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 07:50:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA09005; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:49:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:49:28 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 06:53:15 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Resent-Message-ID: <"tc1oD1.0.YC2.tXrt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50724 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:00 AM 6/5/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >The basic concept of Enhanced Gravitational Electrolysis is >utilizing a cylindrical vessel filled with a specially prepared >electrolyte solution, which is rotated at a very high speed. The >centrifugal force generated within the vessel acts selectively >upon positive and negative ions due to their different atomic >weights. Good grief! This at first glance does seem impossible! The electrostatic gradient force on ions should far exceed anything possible due to g forces in a centrifuge. The negative radical must be massive indeed for this to happen. Interesting is the fact that the plate separation in such a device would be better larger in order to reduce the electrostatic gradient. If this concept DID work in an electrolyte it should work in a far superior manner using a high velocity steam vortex. In that manner, astronomical rotation rates can be obtained. >Based on theoretical calculations the hydrogen generated by >gravitational electrolysis will be significantly less costly than >today's most efficient method, methane steam reforming. This statement gives the definite impression that a major bungle has occurred. The centrifugal concept requires energy to maintain the constant mass flow against the electrostatic gradient, i.e the mass flow of heavy ions outward, light ions inward. The potential drop across the device has to be about 1.4 V before any current will flow. This means that, in order for the mass flow of ions to occur, that rotational energy must continually be supplied to the centrifuge shaft that at minimum exctly matches the energy given off when the ions separated are re-united, i.e "burned." There is no free lunch here. No over-unity is indicated. The device would have to be over 100 percent efficient to separate hydrogen from water using less energy than hydrogen from methane. The H-C bond takes far less energy to break than the H-O bond. As stated above, there has to be a bungle. The likely bad assumption is "very little external electricity is consumed and only water is utilized". It appears they haven't accounted for the rotational energy required to sustain the continual lateral ion mass motion in the centrifuge. If this works as advertized above there has to be more to it - and part of that "more" is a source of free energy. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 09:15:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA15980; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:13:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:13:17 -0700 Message-ID: <00ab01c32b74$f335dce0$a710b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:12:53 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9408d9d4ea5fa597d314d207de6274e52e3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"sf22Z.0.Zv3.Smst-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50725 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > At 7:00 AM 6/5/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: I didn't write it, Horace, it was a quote from this URL. Years ago I saw an experiment where a water electrolyte was rotated in a glass "pillbox", and there was an EMF between the center "Axle" and a slip ring. OTOH, Applying a magnetic field transverse to the rotation would make it an MHD-Gravitational Electrolysis device. :-) http://www2.cdn-news.com/scripts/ccn-release.pl?/2002/01/29/0129018n.html > > >The basic concept of Enhanced Gravitational Electrolysis is > >utilizing a cylindrical vessel filled with a specially prepared > >electrolyte solution, which is rotated at a very high speed. The > >centrifugal force generated within the vessel acts selectively > >upon positive and negative ions due to their different atomic > >weights. > > > Good grief! This at first glance does seem impossible! The electrostatic > gradient force on ions should far exceed anything possible due to g forces > in a centrifuge. The negative radical must be massive indeed for this to > happen. Interesting is the fact that the plate separation in such a device > would be better larger in order to reduce the electrostatic gradient. > > If this concept DID work in an electrolyte it should work in a far superior > manner using a high velocity steam vortex. In that manner, astronomical > rotation rates can be obtained. > > > >Based on theoretical calculations the hydrogen generated by > >gravitational electrolysis will be significantly less costly than > >today's most efficient method, methane steam reforming. > > > This statement gives the definite impression that a major bungle has > occurred. The centrifugal concept requires energy to maintain the constant > mass flow against the electrostatic gradient, i.e the mass flow of heavy > ions outward, light ions inward. The potential drop across the device has > to be about 1.4 V before any current will flow. This means that, in order > for the mass flow of ions to occur, that rotational energy must continually > be supplied to the centrifuge shaft that at minimum exactly matches the > energy given off when the ions separated are re-united, i.e "burned." > There is no free lunch here. No over-unity is indicated. > > The device would have to be over 100 percent efficient to separate hydrogen > from water using less energy than hydrogen from methane. The H-C bond > takes far less energy to break than the H-O bond. > > As stated above, there has to be a bungle. The likely bad assumption is > "very little external electricity is consumed and only water is utilized". > It appears they haven't accounted for the rotational energy required to > sustain the continual lateral ion mass motion in the centrifuge. If this > works as advertised above there has to be more to it - and part of that > "more" is a source of free energy. Regards, Frederick > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 11:38:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA19104; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:36:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:36:29 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:56:33 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <00ab01c32b74$f335dce0$a710b83f computer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"FA8r61.0.Qg4.jsut-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50726 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Fred. I've heard of this as well. It's been proposed as a way of explaining the homopolar effect, the centrifuging of charge carriers. I think that these experiments fall under the rubric of electrokinetics. I'm not sure if it has to do with the homopolar effect, but it's very suggestive all the same. I agree with Horace, I'm not sure how this method could be as efficient as standard electrolysis. It sounds like someone needs a quick bump to their share price (grin). Thanks for the tip. K. -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:fjsparber earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:13 AM To: fstenger suite224.net Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > At 7:00 AM 6/5/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: I didn't write it, Horace, it was a quote from this URL. Years ago I saw an experiment where a water electrolyte was rotated in a glass "pillbox", and there was an EMF between the center "Axle" and a slip ring. OTOH, Applying a magnetic field transverse to the rotation would make it an MHD-Gravitational Electrolysis device. :-) http://www2.cdn-news.com/scripts/ccn-release.pl?/2002/01/29/0129018n.html > > >The basic concept of Enhanced Gravitational Electrolysis is > >utilizing a cylindrical vessel filled with a specially prepared > >electrolyte solution, which is rotated at a very high speed. The > >centrifugal force generated within the vessel acts selectively > >upon positive and negative ions due to their different atomic > >weights. > > > Good grief! This at first glance does seem impossible! The electrostatic > gradient force on ions should far exceed anything possible due to g forces > in a centrifuge. The negative radical must be massive indeed for this to > happen. Interesting is the fact that the plate separation in such a device > would be better larger in order to reduce the electrostatic gradient. > > If this concept DID work in an electrolyte it should work in a far superior > manner using a high velocity steam vortex. In that manner, astronomical > rotation rates can be obtained. > > > >Based on theoretical calculations the hydrogen generated by > >gravitational electrolysis will be significantly less costly than > >today's most efficient method, methane steam reforming. > > > This statement gives the definite impression that a major bungle has > occurred. The centrifugal concept requires energy to maintain the constant > mass flow against the electrostatic gradient, i.e the mass flow of heavy > ions outward, light ions inward. The potential drop across the device has > to be about 1.4 V before any current will flow. This means that, in order > for the mass flow of ions to occur, that rotational energy must continually > be supplied to the centrifuge shaft that at minimum exactly matches the > energy given off when the ions separated are re-united, i.e "burned." > There is no free lunch here. No over-unity is indicated. > > The device would have to be over 100 percent efficient to separate hydrogen > from water using less energy than hydrogen from methane. The H-C bond > takes far less energy to break than the H-O bond. > > As stated above, there has to be a bungle. The likely bad assumption is > "very little external electricity is consumed and only water is utilized". > It appears they haven't accounted for the rotational energy required to > sustain the continual lateral ion mass motion in the centrifuge. If this > works as advertised above there has to be more to it - and part of that > "more" is a source of free energy. Regards, Frederick > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 13:13:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA03149; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:11:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:11:22 -0700 Message-ID: <014601c32b96$34354160$a710b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:10:39 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9408c0b8cf40af8a4289f12d24a097f988b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"NYRis2.0.zm.fFwt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50727 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Keith, I tried a bunch of keyword searches for a patent they claimed had "broad coverage". No hits found. Canadian patent, maybe? http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Nagel" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:56 PM Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > Hi Fred. > > I've heard of this as well. It's been proposed > as a way of explaining the homopolar effect, > the centrifuging of charge carriers. I think > that these experiments fall under the rubric > of electrokinetics. I'm not sure if it has > to do with the homopolar effect, but it's > very suggestive all the same. > > I agree with Horace, I'm not sure how this > method could be as efficient as standard > electrolysis. It sounds like someone needs > a quick bump to their share price (grin). > > Thanks for the tip. > > K. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:fjsparber earthlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:13 AM > To: fstenger suite224.net > Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Horace Heffner" > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:53 AM > Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > > > > At 7:00 AM 6/5/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: > > I didn't write it, Horace, it was a quote from this URL. > > Years ago I saw an experiment where a water electrolyte was rotated in a > glass > "pillbox", and there was an EMF between the center "Axle" and a slip ring. > > OTOH, Applying a magnetic field transverse to the rotation would make it an > MHD-Gravitational Electrolysis device. :-) > > http://www2.cdn-news.com/scripts/ccn-release.pl?/2002/01/29/0129018n.html > > > > >The basic concept of Enhanced Gravitational Electrolysis is > > >utilizing a cylindrical vessel filled with a specially prepared > > >electrolyte solution, which is rotated at a very high speed. The > > >centrifugal force generated within the vessel acts selectively > > >upon positive and negative ions due to their different atomic > > >weights. > > > > > > Good grief! This at first glance does seem impossible! The electrostatic > > gradient force on ions should far exceed anything possible due to g forces > > in a centrifuge. The negative radical must be massive indeed for this to > > happen. Interesting is the fact that the plate separation in such a > device > > would be better larger in order to reduce the electrostatic gradient. > > > > If this concept DID work in an electrolyte it should work in a far > superior > > manner using a high velocity steam vortex. In that manner, astronomical > > rotation rates can be obtained. > > > > > > >Based on theoretical calculations the hydrogen generated by > > >gravitational electrolysis will be significantly less costly than > > >today's most efficient method, methane steam reforming. > > > > > > This statement gives the definite impression that a major bungle has > > occurred. The centrifugal concept requires energy to maintain the > constant > > mass flow against the electrostatic gradient, i.e the mass flow of heavy > > ions outward, light ions inward. The potential drop across the device has > > to be about 1.4 V before any current will flow. This means that, in order > > for the mass flow of ions to occur, that rotational energy must > continually > > be supplied to the centrifuge shaft that at minimum exactly matches the > > energy given off when the ions separated are re-united, i.e "burned." > > There is no free lunch here. No over-unity is indicated. > > > > The device would have to be over 100 percent efficient to separate > hydrogen > > from water using less energy than hydrogen from methane. The H-C bond > > takes far less energy to break than the H-O bond. > > > > As stated above, there has to be a bungle. The likely bad assumption is > > "very little external electricity is consumed and only water is utilized". > > It appears they haven't accounted for the rotational energy required to > > sustain the continual lateral ion mass motion in the centrifuge. If this > > works as advertised above there has to be more to it - and part of that > > "more" is a source of free energy. > > Regards, > > Frederick > > > > Regards, > > > > Horace Heffner > > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 13:24:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA08449; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:23:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:23:24 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605161748.02743bb8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:21:38 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Beware of virus attack from Bockris and other CF researchers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"36tVr.0.t32.yQwt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50728 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Norton utilities have intercepted two messages on my computer today with serious viruses, from John Bockris and later Mike Staker, who is probably on Bockris' mailing list. They were attached to incomplete messages, or probably message fragments. I informed the two of them. I should have written down the virus type but I went ahead and deleted them instead, sorry. I think it was in an attached file with an .src extension. My Norton virus definitions were automatically updated today, 6/5/2003, before this happened. My outgoing e-mail is automatically checked. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 14:11:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA31185; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:09:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:09:48 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:13:36 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Resent-Message-ID: <"wf4Jg.0.Bd7.S6xt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50729 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:12 AM 6/5/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Horace Heffner" >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:53 AM >Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > > >> At 7:00 AM 6/5/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: > >I didn't write it, Horace, it was a quote from this URL. The above is caused automatically by Eudora when I quote from a post, as do the ">" quote, ">>" double quote, and ">>>" triple quote makrs, etc. It is automated nettiquette, which seems to be withering on the vine, perhaps due to lousy Microsoft software standards. Eudora might have used "posted", but then the softwared would have been less general. In some posts you can't tell who is the author or poster of specific material in the posts these days without considerable effort. At least with the Eudora header you know the name of the poster and the date and time of his post, which makes tracking down the original material fairly easy, even if it is in a different thread or even if it happened years ago. Which brings up another frequent nettiquette violation these days... unnecessarily changing the thread name. > >Years ago I saw an experiment where a water electrolyte was rotated in a glass >"pillbox", and there was an EMF between the center "Axle" and a slip ring. If there were not two slip rings or an extra brush then the emf did not last long, nor was a lasting current established, true? 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 15:05:51 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA29367; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:04:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:04:19 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:03:43 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: <014601c32b96$34354160$a710b83f@computer> In-Reply-To: <014601c32b96$34354160$a710b83f computer> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 PAA29331 Resent-Message-ID: <"95Ocv2.0.mA7.Yvxt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50730 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 Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:10:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Hi Keith, > >I tried a bunch of keyword searches for a patent they claimed had "broad coverage". No >hits found. > >Canadian patent, maybe? > >http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html > >Fred This whole process was reported months ago in Alexander Frolov's New Energy Technologies magazine. I didn't believe it then, based on the photos not matching the story very well IMO. The Canadian Venture Exchange lists Genoil as suspended (as of the date of this email). Regards, R. van Spaandonk When you are counting the dead, remember who voted for the man that made it all possible. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 15:53:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA20792; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:50:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:50:54 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:10:58 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"7ORp.0.m45.Ebyt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50731 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Maybe they got their bump and folded up the tent. All the same, I'd like to see the patent. Did Frolov publish it? My half hearted attempt failed as well, and I'm just not that curious to really buckle down and try. K. -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:rvanspaa bigpond.net.au] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:04 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel In reply to Frederick Sparber's message of Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:10:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Hi Keith, > >I tried a bunch of keyword searches for a patent they claimed had "broad coverage". No >hits found. > >Canadian patent, maybe? > >http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html > >Fred This whole process was reported months ago in Alexander Frolov's New Energy Technologies magazine. I didn't believe it then, based on the photos not matching the story very well IMO. The Canadian Venture Exchange lists Genoil as suspended (as of the date of this email). Regards, R. van Spaandonk When you are counting the dead, remember who voted for the man that made it all possible. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 16:05:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA26286; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:03:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:03:31 -0700 Message-ID: <001701c32bae$44ad0740$a210b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <014601c32b96$34354160$a710b83f@computer> Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:03:11 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9408debd88e4ec95d4eedb952d21f3f6798350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"bLq5a3.0.ZQ6.2nyt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50732 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin van Spaandonk" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Hi Robin, you wrote; > In reply to Frederick Sparber's message of Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:10:39 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > > >Hi Keith, > > > >I tried a bunch of keyword searches for a patent they claimed had "broad coverage". No > >hits found. > > > >Canadian patent, maybe? > > > >http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html > > > >Fred > This whole process was reported months ago in Alexander Frolov's New Energy Technologies magazine. I didn't believe it then, based on the photos not matching the story very well IMO. The Canadian Venture Exchange lists Genoil as suspended (as of the date of this email). Swallowed up by the "Fat Cats" perhaps? :-) > Even if they didn't make it fly, there are some possibilities of Hydrated Ion (K+ and OH-)aq interactions that high "gee" forces could attain, that are not possible with hundreds of kilobars of hydrostatic pressure. IOW, using (K+)aq + (OH-)aq if the (OH-) is forced close enough to the (K+) to donate it's electron: 1, (K+) + (OH-) ---> K + OH 2, K + H2O ---> (K+)aq + (OH-) + H Etc., which could yield an effect that is similar to the air agitation action claimed for the Water-Fuel powered car. Regards Frederick > Regards, > > R. van Spaandonk > > When you are counting the dead, remember who voted > for the man that made it all possible. > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 16:17:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA31334; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:15:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:15:27 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:19:13 -0800 To: , From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Resent-Message-ID: <"I6CPW.0.Vf7.Fyyt-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50733 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:56 PM 6/5/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >I agree with Horace, I'm not sure how this >method could be as efficient as standard >electrolysis. It sounds like someone needs >a quick bump to their share price (grin). After thinking about this a while I have come to the conclusion that there could in fact be a source of free energy here. One possible source of energy is zero point energy tapped at the moment of the bubble expansion on the radially distant plate. This energy is in the form of atomic expansion as per the atomic expansion hypothesis (AEH). Things may not be nearly as simple as at first glance. The most dense ion, I assume it is the H3O+ radical, migrates outward, being moved radially by centrifugal force, and thus necessarily (tangentially) accelerated by power applied to the centrifuge shaft. However, at the outer plate, the H3O+ radical becomes H2O (neutral bouyancy) plus (half of an) H2 or to some extent (and much better) an H. This has less than neutral bouyancy, so is forced inward to the "surface" at the central shaft. However, the inbound mass flow applies forward torque to the central shaft. Since, in a closed system, the inbound and outbound mass flows are always equal, the torque effect is neutral. A similar effect occurs with OH- radicals, which bouy toward the innermost plate and then react to form O2 and H2O molecules which are neutral bouyancy. One problem with this approach as applied to electrolysis, however, is that the excess proton in the H3O+ radical is free to hop (actually tunnel) from water molecule to water molecule, as each molecule is a potential well, and the proton is free, via tunneling, to hop the potential barriers between molecules which are close enough. The proton thus could be caused to backslide against the centrifugal force via the force exerted by the electrostatic gradient, which increases the tunneling probability toward the molecules at a lower potential within the electric field. In ordinary but efficient electrolysis, a potential is applied between the plates that does not much more than slightly overcome the large potential drops of about a half a volt that occus at each of the two molecule thick "interface" layers on the surface electrodes. According to Bockris, the ion migration between plates is due principly to diffusion, and not to the very small electrostatic gradient that covers most of the interplate distance. It would seem that the centifugal force enhanced charge migration may in fact be of use in at least overcoming the resistance due to large plate separation. I still have some problems accepting and understanding that centrifugal force can overcome the millions of volts per meter potential drop at the interface boundaries. (This conceptual problem actually adds to the novelty of the invention though.) However, a mere 1.4 volts total potential drop across the cell does this handily, so, despite my confusion, it seems I should accept the fact that a total potential greater that 1.4 volts generated across the cell by any means is sufficient to cause the electrolysis. I happen to have some experience with centrifuge generated potentials, which I know from personal experience can be HUGE. Some decades ago, as a lab assistant, I did centrifugal cell separations using sugar density gradients. When removing the glass centrifuge tubes from the metal rotor, there would occasionally be sparks. I noted a large charge on the exterior of the glass tubes. I found this quite amazing and inexplicable at the time. BTW, I have posted this fact on vortex and elsewhere. However, I eventually attributed the large potential to the displacement of the center of charge in the sugar solution atoms (due to the very large force on the nucleii vs the electron shells). Such a displacement can generate very large potentials, as it does in piezoelectric devices. I figured that long time exposure of the outside of the glass tube to the gounded metal rotor initially removed the charge induced there from inside. However, when the metal ground was removed, the unbalanced charge with the tube could not quickly adjust due to the low conductivity of the dense sugar solution used, and thus a net charge was left behind at the tip of the tube. It would be most interesting to find that molecular bouyancy in practically buildable centrifuges is sufficient to create similar charge gradients! It is interesting to me that, provided the centrifugal force actually produces continual electrolysis, that the bouyancy of the evolved hydrogen could be harnessed to drive the rotor itself. This could be done by having inwardly migrating bubbles drive small piezo devices to generate electricity. This would be pure AEH style energy production. Further, the O2 and H2 could be recombined, which then would generate a closed system that produces heat - very novel indeed! There is in fact a way to do this. That method is, assuming the kinetically derived potential is not sufficient to drive electrolysis, to do ordinary electrolysis by providing the necessary current between the plates (no energy gain there.) The energy required for electrolysis is constant. However, the energy derived from the bouyancy of the evolved gas at the outer plate is proportional to the squre of the angular velocity of the deivce! At some point the bouyancy energy made available via atomic expansion will exceed the energy necessary to drive the electrolysis! The proof is in the doing. It would be of great concern to me as an investor if the proof of principle bench top experiment were not designed to operate as a continual process. This process should be examined with the skepticism that nay free enrgy device should be examined. However, that is not to say it is impossible, nor that it is not possible to build a similar energy producing device in the manner I suggested above. The proof is in the doing and even more so in the independent replication. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 17:32:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA30845; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:31:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:31:26 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:35:07 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Resent-Message-ID: <"rM_9Z3.0.4X7.N3-t-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50734 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:19 PM 6/5/3, Horace Heffner wrote: > The energy required for electrolysis is >constant. However, the energy derived from the bouyancy of the evolved gas >at the outer plate is proportional to the squre of the angular velocity of >the deivce! At some point the bouyancy energy made available via atomic >expansion will exceed the energy necessary to drive the electrolysis! After thinking about this some more I see a flaw. While the energy required for the electrolysis is constant, the gas bubble volume is inversely proportional to pressure, and thus to the square of the angular velocity. Scratch one more free energy idea of mine! 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 18:48:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA28393; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:47:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:47:23 -0700 Message-ID: <004901c32bc5$2965e080$a210b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:47:00 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9406d9a0408ee70476158d530035ad1b020350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"RnFxN3.0.Zx6.hA_t-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50735 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace wrote: > >According to Bockris, the ion migration between plates >is due principally to diffusion, and not to the >very small electrostatic gradient that covers most of the >interplate distance. > The "inventors" claimed use of an electrolyte, which is most likely an alkali hydroxide such as KOH which ionizes to (K+)aq and (OH-)aq. Using a centrifuge to drive them TOGETHER where ATTRACTIVE electrostatic forces overcome diffusion drag in the water seems reasonable IMHO. Some centrifuge calculations from TAMU, Bockris' turf: http://ntri.tamuk.edu/centrifuge/centrifugation.html The reactions previously posted: IOW, using (K+)aq + (OH-)aq if the (OH-) is forced close enough to the (K+) to donate it's electron: 1, (K+) + (OH-) ---> K + OH 2, K + H2O ---> (K+)aq + (OH-) + H Etc., which could yield an effect that is similar to the air agitation action claimed for the Water-Fuel powered car. The H and OH radicals could migrate from the reaction zone into a hollow channel created in the centrifuge, possibly without recombination (especially at low pressure and/or the use of an inert carrier/buffer gas such as N2), and exit through the hollow drive shaft with makeup water fed in at the other end. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 19:29:35 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA17011; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:28:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:28:50 -0700 Message-ID: <002401c32bd2$e3d32ce0$1002a8c0 Tesla> From: "Doug Marett" To: Subject: Fw: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:25:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Resent-Message-ID: <"5SW31.0.j94.Yn_t-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50736 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Marett" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:24 PM Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > Hi Keith, > > This discussion peeked my interest. I found the patent application. > Unfortunately, it is in Russian. See the PCT application WO9,918,262 at > http://www.wipo.org: > http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=wo&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=WO9918262& > ID=WO+++9918262A1+I+ > > An English description is given at: > http://local.eleceng.uct.ac.za/eee458s/2002/AW16.html > > Another discussion of the phenomenon is found at: > http://www.electrochem.org/publications/interface/spring2003/IF3-03-Page20.p > df > > Seems the process may require at least some application of electricity, > albeit less than without centrifugation. > > Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Nagel" > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:10 PM > Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > > > > Maybe they got their bump and folded up the tent. > > > > All the same, I'd like to see the patent. Did > > Frolov publish it? My half hearted attempt failed > > as well, and I'm just not that curious to really > > buckle down and try. > > > > K. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 20:55:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA24300; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:55:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:55:07 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:15:13 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <002401c32bd2$e3d32ce0$1002a8c0 Tesla> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"ju9wo.0.bx5.R21u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50737 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Doug. Yep, this is what I was talking about. It's a bit like a self exciting homopolar generator, you close the circuit externally, centrifuge the charge carriers to establish a potential gradient across the cell, which charges the bilayer capacity of the electrodes to the breakover voltage and you get electrolysis. One might apply an additional EMF to overcome the breakover voltage, in which case you have a "more efficient" cell ( from the point of view of the DC source anyway ) If conservation of energy is to be adhered to, one might expect a back reaction on the rotor with a substantial current flowing in the return circuit. What is the seat of this back reaction? K. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Marett [mailto:doug.marett sympatico.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:25 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fw: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Marett" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:24 PM Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > Hi Keith, > > This discussion peeked my interest. I found the patent application. > Unfortunately, it is in Russian. See the PCT application WO9,918,262 at > http://www.wipo.org: > http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=wo&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=WO9918262& > ID=WO+++9918262A1+I+ > > An English description is given at: > http://local.eleceng.uct.ac.za/eee458s/2002/AW16.html > > Another discussion of the phenomenon is found at: > http://www.electrochem.org/publications/interface/spring2003/IF3-03-Page20.p > df > > Seems the process may require at least some application of electricity, > albeit less than without centrifugation. > > Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Nagel" > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:10 PM > Subject: RE: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel > > > > Maybe they got their bump and folded up the tent. > > > > All the same, I'd like to see the patent. Did > > Frolov publish it? My half hearted attempt failed > > as well, and I'm just not that curious to really > > buckle down and try. > > > > K. > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 04:35:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA10950; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 04:34:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 04:34:17 -0700 Message-ID: <001b01c32c17$247abf80$5811b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Aqueous Chemistry and Free Energy: Mills' Hydrino Theory Again? Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:33:06 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9408d2d58f62e1b2562e90214a1f3bdbd72350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"z9-OY2.0._g2.um7u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50740 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Applying Randy Mills' Hydrino-Fractional Orbit Theory to Water-Fuel, Gravitational Electrolysis, Mizuno-Ohmori Effects and the Over Unity Electrolysis Heat Effect, points to a way of getting Free Energy without violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. No, Jones? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 04:57:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA18128; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 04:57:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 04:57:29 -0700 Message-ID: <002d01c32c1a$619a9b80$5811b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: <001b01c32c17$247abf80$5811b83f computer> Subject: Re: Aqueous Chemistry and Free Energy: Mills' Hydrino Theory Again? Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:56:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940d27068d4946f6323be6a9d7eaf18da46350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"PyA_j2.0.AR4.e68u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50741 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:33 AM Subject: Re: Aqueous Chemistry and Free Energy: Mills' Hydrino Theory Again? I wrote: > Applying Randy Mills' Hydrino-Fractional Orbit Theory to Water-Fuel, Gravitational > Electrolysis, Mizuno-Ohmori Effects and the Over Unity Electrolysis Heat Effect, > points to a way of getting Free Energy without violation of the Laws of > Thermodynamics. No, Jones? :-) I almost forgot Huffman and Griggs' Pumps and Sonoluminescence. Sorry Knuke. :-) Regards, Frederick > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 05:44:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA05302; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:43:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:43:18 -0700 Message-ID: <004d01c32c20$c5dbd540$5811b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Bohr's Principle of Complementarity & Mills' Hydrino Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:42:45 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940f1144dbb7c44e4089fd8010a51623396350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"d6a-H2.0.gI1.bn8u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50742 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Of note. http://mason.gmu.edu/~drothbar/Courses/Phil-421/bohr/ "Bohr's Principle of Complementarity" "A. Bohr begins with three philosophical assumptions. 1. Assumption #1: The classical concepts of physics are needed to describe a physical system of entities in motion. 2. Assumption #2: Every concept of physics is defined through the experimental operations needed to determine the applicability of the concept. 3. Assumption #3: Any segment of physical reality that cannot be described operationally is beyond scientific investigation. B. Bohr rejects classical conception of space-time precision (C2). 1. C2: The basic elements of physical reality are precisely characterizable within the classical conceptual scheme of physical attributes at definite spatio-temporal locations. 2. Bohr proposes a revision of C2: a. C2': Under specific experimental operations, 0, the basic elements of a physical system are precisely characterizable at definite spatio-temporal locations. C. Bohr rejects classical principle of causation (C5). 1. C5: Every state of a physical system S is causally generable from the temporally preceding state of S and its physical environment. 2. Bohr's C5': Every state of the system is causally generable from temporally preceding state and the physical environment, in relation to the experimental operations 0 for the application. of physical. concepts. 3. Applying C5' to wave/particle duality a. Under operations 01, the causal processes reveal particle-like properties. b. Under alternative operations 02, the causal processes reveal wave-like properties. c. Under a third set of operations 03, the particle model reemerges. 4. If C5' is true, then C2 is false: If the causal models are operationalized following C5', then no single precise space-time description is possible. D. Bohr's principle of complementarily 1. The wave model has a complementary relation to the particle model. a. The wave model is applicable under operations conditions Ow b. The particle model is applicable under operational conditions Op. c. Ow and Qp are incompatible sets of conditions: Ow and Qp can never be true in the same experimental situation. 2. Neither wave model nor particle model provide a categorical (non-conditional) picture of the electron. E. Bohr rejects the classical conception of theory (C3). 1. C3: Physical theories correspond to, or "mirror," the world, when they are adequate. In such a case every relevant physical attribute has a corresponding counterpart in the theory. 2. Based on Assumption #2, every theoretical concept is defined operationally, with respect to the experimental conditions needed to detect the property. " ................................................................................... Some authors have claimed that Bohr's Principle states or implies that "any new discovery in science must compliment existing knowledge". I supposed this will hold true even if it flies in faces of the guardians of "conventional wisdom". :-) Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 05:45:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA05798; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:44:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:44:20 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 04:48:06 -0800 To: "Vortex" From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Russian electrolytic centrifuge patent/ translation to english Resent-Message-ID: <"as4XK1.0.VQ1.ao8u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50743 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:16 AM 6/6/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Abstract of WO9918262 [snip] > > The >total efficiency of the device in accordance with the invention is >significantly greater than that of the prior device, and averages no less >than 0.8. Steam electrolysis performs at efficiencies over 0.9. >At the aforementioned angular speed omega of rotation of the >vessel 3, the produced electrical power is completely expended in overcoming >the internal ohmic resistance of the device as such. When the threshold rate >omega is exceeded, an excess in the delivered mechanical energy will >generate an external high-intensity electrical power (because the current >density aporoaches a maximum value or the saturation state, and voltage >increases unlimitedly) which, in turn, is already capable of performing >operation on the consumer. In so doing, the device takes on the properties >of a thermochemical electrical current source (generator) which operates >with side emission of free hydrogen, oxygen, and heat absorption. > >[0029] Therefore, the device converts Mechanical and Thermal energies into >Electrical and Chemical energies. The above sounds more like "creates free energy to convert into Electrical and Chemical energies." It is notable that the text does not distinguish between mass and bouyancy when discussing centrifuge forces. Hopefully the mathematical derivation of the all critical formula did! I see it does require "effective radius" of the ions, so that is a good sign. One interesting point is that the two molecule thick electrode "interface", of such importance in Bockris' analysis of electrolysis, and which has an about 0.7 volt drop across it in typical electrolysis cells, does not necessarily have to exist in the normal sense in this type of electrolyser. That is because the plates are not charged. In effect, when the plates are charged, they get their own "clathrate" surface, which Bockris calls the "interface." In the described electrolysis, that interface is in effect around the individual ions in the form of a charge oriented clathrate type structure. However, the voltage drop for the ion to jump to the electrode should still be about 0.7 volts. This is is a field strength of about (0.7)/(4x10^-10 m) = 1.75x10^9 V/m. Considering only a proton, and ignoring bouyancy, we can convert this field into the required gravitational field to produce the cancelling force. Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E a = q*E/m = (1.6x10^-19 coul)(1.75x10^9 V/m)/(1.673x10^-27 kg) a = 1.5326x10^17 m/s^2 = 1.563x10^16 g We can see that it is infeasible to build a device to produce this kind of centrifugal force. This is why I have difficulty with the "interface" problem for this design. Looking at only the "required total potential" problem things are a lot less strenuous. To make things easy, let's assume a net bouyancy equivalent to the mass of a proton. Assume a plate separation of 1 meter. We thus need to generate (overcome) a field of merely 1.4 V/m. So again: Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E a = q*E/m = (1.6x10^-19 coul)(1.4 V/m)/(1.673x10^-27 kg) a = 1.34x10^8 m/s^2 a = 13,674,000 g and we "merely" have to generate an average gravity of 13 million "gees". The basis concept does not seem to work! Do I have an error in calculation? Perhaps the "center of charge" distortion, i.e. dislocation of the nucleus form the center of charge of the atomic (electron) shells, from g forces on the order of 100 g or so, could create ion concentration changes sufficient to generate a chemical potential and thus in effect create a battery. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 06:57:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA00488; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:54:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:54:53 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030606095438.00abc5b0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:54:49 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Follow-up information on virus Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"1DKSh1.0.R7.iq9u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50744 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The virus that came into my computer yesterday managed to infect 6 files before I nailed it. It appears to be the "bugbear.b" virus, described in this article: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/05/virus.computer.ap/index.html It has probably infected Bockris' computer. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 1 14:04:52 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA25894; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:03:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:03:30 -0700 Message-ID: <007801c32881$143adcc0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <009e01c327bf$80136f60$0a016ea8 cpq> <002401c327e2$10768200$4190a7cb@vuw.ac.nz> <002001c327eb$5441c4a0$0a016ea8@cpq> <007401c32875$4ce88f60$7e90a7cb@vuw.ac.nz> <006601c32876$eff700a0$0a016ea8@cpq> Subject: Re: What is water, really? Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:02:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id OAA25859 Resent-Message-ID: <"53S261.0.WK6.Xecs-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50690 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One further thought on the "free energy" prospects that derive from the possibility that liquid water contains a varying amount of hidden structure - let's call it a "solid phase" not to be confused with solid ice, but there are some carry-over similarities.... Point 1 - We know Graneau and others have gotten better results in arc discharge experiments using "rainwater" - could that be related to the fact that rainwater has a lesser percentage of solid phase than ground water i.e. that the lack of H2O structure, or its corresponding electrical characteristics benefits his experiment? Point 2- We have been told that Dingle and others who have claimed to achieve running an ICE on water have had better results using salt or brackish water - corrosion notwithstanding. Could that be related to the possibility that salt water has a higher percentage of solid phase and that the extra structure equals extra explosiveness? Point 3 - There is a lot of other anecdotal evidence suggesting strongly differing results in experiments depending on seemingly innocuous changes in type of water used. FWIW - distilled water (at least the "first run") would seem to have the lowest possible hidden structure, and hot-spring or geyser water would seem to have the highest.... Also remember past threads on Vortex re: the "Mpemba effect" - "Hot water can in fact freeze faster than cold water for a wide range of experimental conditions. This phenomenon is extremely counter- intuitive, and surprising even to most scientists, but it is in fact real. It has been seen and studied in numerous experiments. While this phenomenon has been known for centuries, and was described by Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes [1-3], it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969, by a Tanzanian high school student named Mpemba." They thought they had it narrowed down to about 4-5 factors at: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/hot_water.html but maybe they missed the really important factor and the Mpemba effect is also related to water structure - i.e. take two portions of the same type of water and heat one of them, to get that water hot initially one cannot help but selectively evaporate some liquid (and more of the liquid phase than the solid will evaporate), so what remains will have more structure than the cold water that didn't get heated. ergo: even though it is hotter, the part with the added structure will freeze faster... All of which begs the question: If one wishes to maximize the percentage of solid phase in a given quantity of water, which is to be used in water-fuel, why not pre-enrich using any of the several varieties of evaporative techniques to accomplish this ? ....not to mention, pre-enriched water would cause a lot less corrosion than say, using salt water !! And of course, if this speculation were true, one could just start out with de-mineralized geyser or hot-spring water and save some trouble... wonder if Calistoga is aware that they may be sitting on....well....a "virtual-oil" well? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 10:33:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA02372; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:30:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:30:09 -0700 Message-ID: <001201c32c50$c0058960$1002a8c0 Tesla> From: "Doug Marett" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030606095438.00abc5b0 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Follow-up information on virus Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:26:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Resent-Message-ID: <"4aJCZ2.0.-a.X-Cu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50745 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed, Our workplace was attacked yesterday by this virus but it was deflected by our service provider before it reached our network. I understand it disables your antiviral software as well, making it particularly pathogenic. I ran the free Symantec bugbear repair tool on my computer just to make absolutely sure that it wasn't there! Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" To: Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:54 AM Subject: Follow-up information on virus > The virus that came into my computer yesterday managed to infect 6 files > before I nailed it. It appears to be the "bugbear.b" virus, described in > this article: > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/05/virus.computer.ap/index.html > > It has probably infected Bockris' computer. > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 11:03:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA16455; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:58:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:58:52 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:02:19 -0800 To: "Vortex" From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Russian electrolytic centrifuge patent/ translation to english Resent-Message-ID: <"GyNx7.0.114.SPDu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50746 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Let's consider "souping up" the potential gain by using a very soluble heavy salt with a bouyant negative radical, say lead chlorate Pb(ClO3)2. Let's further assume some of the Pb radicals in solution are ionized to a charge of +4. The density of Pb is 11.4 g/cm^3, or about 11.4 times that of water. This gives it a bouyancy of about 10.4 times the mass of water, or 10.4 * 18 = 187.2. A rough seat of the pants estimate then is: Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E a = q*E/m = (4 * 1.6x10^-19 coul)(1.4 V/m)/(187.2 * 1.673x10^-27 kg) a = 2.865x10^6m/s^2 a = 292,000 g which is still a very tall order for a centrifuge. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 11:05:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA18702; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:02:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:02:08 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:05:54 -0800 To: "Vortex" From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Russian electrolytic centrifuge patent/ translation to english Resent-Message-ID: <"6HLQR.0.7a4.WSDu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50747 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To be more correct I should have said that lead has a NEGATIVE bouyancy of about -10.4 times the mass of water, but that is fairly straightforward. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 12:56:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA16975; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:51:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:51:15 -0700 Message-ID: <00e501c32c64$c5251780$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" References: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:49:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA16932 Resent-Message-ID: <"HOIDw3.0.394.p2Fu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50748 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith Nagel wrote, > Yep, this is what I was talking about. > > It's a bit like a self exciting homopolar generator, > you close the circuit externally, centrifuge the > charge carriers to establish a potential gradient > across the cell, which charges the bilayer capacity > of the electrodes to the breakover voltage > and you get electrolysis. One might apply an additional > EMF to overcome the breakover voltage, in > which case you have a "more efficient" cell ( from > the point of view of the DC source anyway ) Very interesting. Particularly in a situation where you might have an "almost free" source of high rotational speed (a turbocharger at 100,000 RPM should give six figure g-force) Wonder if you could design the turbo rotor with a hollow axis made out of a ceramic proton conductor and a cylindrical sleeve around the ceramic to hold the electrolyte? then use electrolytes that create free protons and channel the intake air+ water mist through the rotor before immediately charging the cylinder. . The intake mix with plenty of free aq- aqueous electrons will "draw" protons through the rotor against centrifugal force...and the cold-fog mist will prevent premature ignition of the intake mix... Well...at least in my dreams it will... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 13:20:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA27402; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:17:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:17:37 -0700 Message-ID: <012e01c32c68$74eb3b60$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Is this relevant to the water engine? Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:16:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012B_01C32C2D.C816E540" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Resent-Message-ID: <"l3gPG.0.4i6.XRFu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50749 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_012B_01C32C2D.C816E540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This was mentioned on another forum: Photonics Spectra magazine June 2003 pg. 18 Title: "Water Hammer Boosts Sonoluminescense" "A team of physicists at the University of California, Los Angeles, has presented a technique for generating sonoluminescense...The approach, which is described in the June issue of Physics of Fluids, employs a common plumbing problem called a water hammer to produce bubbles that emit up to 300 million photons per collapse. Water hammers are temporary vacuums that generate a shock wave in a column of water ... and the effect can be viewed as comparable to the = mechanics of a recently described water engine...Granted that 300 = million photons per cycle would not be a big deal, energy wise... ...unless there is some kind of further synergy being derived from the = photons... Jones ------=_NextPart_000_012B_01C32C2D.C816E540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This was mentioned on another forum:
 
Photonics Spectra magazine June 2003 pg. 18
Title: "Water Hammer = Boosts=20 Sonoluminescense"

"A team of physicists at the University of California, Los=20 Angeles,
has presented a technique for generating=20 sonoluminescense...The
approach, which is described in the June issue = of=20 Physics of
Fluids, employs a common plumbing problem called a water=20 hammer
to produce bubbles that emit up to 300 million photons per=20 collapse.
Water hammers are temporary vacuums that generate a shock wave = in=20 a
column of water ... and the effect can be viewed as comparable to = the=20 mechanics of a recently described water engine...Granted that 300 = million=20 photons per cycle would not be a big deal, energy wise...
 
...unless there is some kind of further synergy being derived from = the=20 photons...
 
Jones
------=_NextPart_000_012B_01C32C2D.C816E540-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 13:29:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA31786; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:28:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:28:25 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030606162247.02ddcbb8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:28:21 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "vortex" From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Is this relevant to the water engine? In-Reply-To: <012e01c32c68$74eb3b60$0a016ea8 cpq> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"Zxc2h.0.am7.ebFu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50750 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: >Photonics Spectra magazine June 2003 pg. 18 >Title: "Water Hammer Boosts Sonoluminescense" > >"A team of physicists at the University of California, Los Angeles, >has presented a technique for generating sonoluminescense...The >approach, which is described in the June issue of Physics of >Fluids, employs a common plumbing problem called a water hammer >to produce bubbles that emit up to 300 million photons per collapse. >Water hammers are temporary vacuums that generate a shock wave in a >column of water ... This approach was pioneered by some fellow whose name slips my mind, and later improved somewhat by James Griggs, of Hydrodynamics. (The first guy's name is cited in the patent, which I seem to have misplaced.) As far as I know, this works extremely well. Much better than any theory predicts. Griggs often referred to the "water hammer" effect. I suppose it would be a waste of time telling these people in California they are 30 years late. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 13:47:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA07200; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:45:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:45:24 -0700 Message-ID: <3EE0FD91.5030100 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:46:09 -0400 From: Terry Blanton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Follow-up information on virus References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030606095438.00abc5b0 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SnXxv1.0.Qm1.ZrFu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50751 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > The virus that came into my computer yesterday managed to infect 6 > files before I nailed it. It appears to be the "bugbear.b" virus, > described in this article: > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/05/virus.computer.ap/index.html And this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24487-2003Jun6.html Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 14:29:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA26643; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:24:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:24:45 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:28:32 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Resent-Message-ID: <"4xTLr2.0.6W6.SQGu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50752 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:49 PM 6/6/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Particularly in a situation where you might have an "almost free" source >of high rotational speed (a turbocharger at 100,000 RPM should give six >figure g-force) > The problem is then maintaining precision balance while also providing large enough of a plate area to produce a meaningful amount of hydrogen, yet also providing material feeds, etc. There is also the major problem of whether simply using a lead salt or other heavy salt with camparatively bouyant negative ion actually is sufficient to produce the electrolysis, to overcome the potential barrier produced by clusters of water molecules about the ions. That is a fully untested concept initiated here and one that apprently is not part of the Russian patent. Another problem is that I assumed a 1 m path between anode and cathode. A shorter path length means a correspondingly larger E and thus a larger g force. All this strikes me as very impractical.... unless the distortion of atomic center of charge plays a major role in producing a net cross cell emf, by increasing ion concentration in the vicinity of the outer plate. This concept reinforces the lead salt concpet, however. The nuclear dislocation from centrifugal force causes a positive charge to be inposed near the outer plate. This would tend to accumulate negative ions OH- there to balance the charge. The concurrent accumumulation of Pb++ ions or Pb++++ ions, etc. near the outer plate also would attract an excess of OH- radicals near the outer plate. THe question then is, is the outer place a battery anode or cathode? Do the Pb ions discharge, taking electrons, or does the electronegativity of the OH- ions make the plate a battery cathode. The answer may be that the plate is not needed at all. The increased concentration of positive and negative radicals may be sufficient to cause electronation of the positive radicals and the freeing of oxygen - without any plate at all. A similar concentration of negative radicals at a more inward location may similarly produce hydrogen. Very strange. Electrodeless electrolysis. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 21:59:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA17147; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:56:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:56:10 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" Subject: Russian electrolytic centrifuge patent/ translation to english Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:16:06 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"4wlvz3.0.mB4.fx1u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50738 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Doug: Here's the abstract and description. K. Abstract of WO9918262 The present invention relates to the construction of power-generating machines and may be used in the production of devices used for converting one type of energy into another, for example by electrolysis. This energy converting device comprises a rotating vessel which is filled with an electrolyte solution, wherein said vessel is mounted on a base and is connected to a rotation drive. The device also includes electrodes as well as channels for feeding the electrolyte solution into the vessel and for recovering the electrolysis products. The device of the present invention is made in the shape of a heat-exchanger. The electrodes are either short-circuited together, either connected to a circuit via a power-consuming device. The vessel is mounted so as to be capable of rotation at an angular velocity which is defined by a mathematical relation. Description of correspondent: EP1130134 [0001] The present invention relates to power engineering, and may be used in designing devices for converting one type of energy into another, for example, by electrolysis. [0002] Disclosed in RF patent 2015395, Int.Cl. F 02 I 21/00, 1990, is a device for converting mechanical energy to electrical one, and then to chemical energy through decomposition of water by electrolysis of an electrolytic solution, thereby producing hydrogen and oxygen. The device comprises a vessel with a shaft which is rotatably mounted in supports on a base. The shaft is kinematically coupled to a rotary drive, such as an internal-combustion engine (ICE), and an electric current generator. The vessel is filled with an electrolytic solution, and comprises electrodes coupled to the generator electric circuit, and passages for feeding stock and discharging end products of electrolysis. [0003] The attainment of the required technical result by the prior device, however, is hampered by principally different design approach to the achievement of the final result from the use of the device. Further, the prior device does not allow nontraditional energy conversions, especially, in a complex, i.e. several parallel conversion cycles at the same time. [0004] During rotation of the vessel, the device provides a successive conversion of mechanical energy of the drive first to electricity, and only then to chemical energy of hydrogen and oxygen produced from water. Such a mandatory succession of the energy conversion process predetermines a low efficiency of the device, because endothermic effect from the water decomposition reaction is compensated for through the use of the electric power generated, this preventing the power to be beneficially utilized at an external load without a dramatic reduction in the yield of hydrogen and oxygen. [0005] It is an object of the present invention to provide a device which would ensure a simultaneous conversion of Mechanical and Thermal energies into Electrical and Chemical energies. [0006] The technical results attained from the use of the present invention include: the enhanced efficiency of electrolysis, production of electrical power along with oxygen and hydrogen, and utilization of heat of any natural or technogenic origin. [0007] The object of the invention and the above technical results can be attained in a device for converting energy, for example, by electrolysis, comprising a rotating vessel with a shaft, said vessel being filled with an electrolytic solution, and mounted on a base, and connected to a rotary drive; electrodes, and passages for feeding the electrolytic solution to the vessel and discharging electrolysis products, wherein the device in accordance with the invention further comprises a heat exchanger, said electrodes being either short-circuited, or connected to form a loop via a power consumer, the vessel being mounted so that to rotate at an angular speed omega which is determined from the following mathematical relation: omega = {[q alpha qc(1- alpha T)][16 pi epsilon epsilon 0 DELTA m rho h K(R-0.5h)(2rw+ri)<2>]<-1>}<0.5>, where q alpha qc are the anionic and cationic charge in the electrolyte, in stoichiometric relation, C; T is the absolute temperature of the solution, K; DELTA m is the difference between weights of hydrated cations and anions, kg; rho is the linear concentration of heavy ions, m<-1>; rho = 10(C.N)<1/3>, where c is the mole percentage of the solution, mole.l<-1>, N is Avogadro constant, mole<-1>; h is the height of a solution column, m; K is the electrolyte dissociation range, 10<-2>%; R is the inner radius of the vessel, m; alpha is the temperature coefficient of change in hydrate bond energy, K<-> <1>; epsilon 0 is the absolute permittivity, F.m<-1>; epsilon is the relative permittivity of water; rw is the effective radius of water molecule, m; ri is the effective radius of heavy ion, m; pi is the transcedental number, 3.141. [0008] The above mathematical relation has been derived as the result of empiric and theoretical investigations. The mathematical computations and reasoning are rather extensive and are not given here in order to avoid overburden on the application materials. [0009] The present invention will become more apparent to those skilled in the art upon a reading of the following detailed description when taken in conjunction with the drawings, wherein [0010] Fig. 1 and Fig.2 are principal structural diagrams of different embodiments of an energy conversion device in accordance with the present invention. [0011] Referring now to the drawings, an energy conversion device comprises a base I with a shaft 2, and a rotating vessel 3 which is mounted on the shaft 2 and filled with an aqueous electrolytic solution. The vessel 3 is connected to a rotary drive (not shown). The device has electrodes 4 and 5, and passages 6, 7 and 8 to feed the electrolytic solution and to discharge products of electrolysis, respectively. [0012] Different embodiments of the device assume different designs of a heat exchanger. Thus, Fig.1 shows, for example, a tubular heat exchanger 9 located within the vessel 3, while in another embodiment shown in Fig.2, a housing of the vessel 3 can function as the heat exchanger 9. [0013] As far as the design of electrodes is concerned, the following is worthy of note. Inner surface of the rotating vessel 3 can be used as one electrode 4. As a second electrode 5, the use can be made of various structural members mounted, for example, on the shaft 2 inside the vessel 3. In both Figs.1 and 2, the electrode 5 is designed, for example, in the form of free-rotating metal disks which are connected together and mounted on the shaft 2. Depending on chemical composition of the electrolyte used in the device, each of the electrodes can function as cathode or anode. [0014] In one embodiment, the device can be, for example, equipped with a separator 10. In the other cases (Fig.2), for example, when the device is combined with an internal combustion engine, hydrogen and oxygen need not be separated as they are directed to subsequent combustion, therefore, no separator 10 is employed. Moreover, the electrolytic solution can function as a heat-carrying medium, hence, the internal heat exchanger 9 is meaningless as well. [0015] Designs of the heat exchanger and electrodes do not form the subject matter of the present invention. [0016] The electrodes 4 and 5 can be either short-circuited (implementation of this embodiment is simple, therefore, it is neither described within the body of this application, nor included into the scope of claims), or connected, for example, by a sliding contact 11, to form a loop via a power consumer (not shown). This connection has multiple embodiments and does not form the subject matter of the invention. It should be only noted that the loop-coupling via a power consumer is possible due to the fact that in operation the device generates electrical power. This explains the appearance of the power consumer. [0017] In order to reduce vessel-air friction loss, in one embodiment the vessel 3 can be enclosed in a jacket 12 (which does not constitute the subject matter of the invention) which forms a sealed cavity communicating with either an air intake system in an internal combustion engine, or a vacuum pump, which reduce gas pressure and thereby the friction. [0018] Further. to provide circulation of the electrolytic solution, the electrode 5 disks may comprise radial passages, while the disks themselves are kinematically connected to a brake assembly (not shown) to reduce their rotation frequency relative to that of the vessel 3, so that a dynamic flow of liquid is generated within the passages. These embodiments do not form the subject matter of the invention. [0019] As for the mathematical relation which determines angular speed omega of rotation: omega = {[q alpha qc(1- alpha T)][16 pi epsilon epsilon 0 DELTA m rho h K(R-0.5h)(2rw+ri)<2>]<-1>}<0.5>, it has been already mentioned that the computations which have led to this relation are rather extensive and there is no sense in their description in the application materials. [0020] An energy conversion device in accordance with the present invention operates as follows. [0021] A required volume of a prepared electrolytic solution is supplied to the rotating vessel 3 through the passage 6. The electrolyte level covers the electrode 5. The vessel 3 is being speeded up to a rotation frequency determined for the device from the above relation. If this value is lower than the computed (threshold) one, the electrolysis efficiency associated with the water decomposition process will be dramatically reduced, or the electrolysis will be generally infeasible. Once the rotation frequency has been reached, water decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen. Dosed supply of water or fresh solution of electrolyte is provided into the vessel 3 through the passage 6, while hydrogen, oxygen, and other intermediate and end products of the process are discharged from the vessel 3 through the passages 7 and 8, respectively. [0022] During operation of the device, centrifugal force generates an artificial gravity field in the vessel 3. Cations and anions in the form of hydrates having essentially different intrinsic weight are being separated in this field. Heavier ions will affect each other by their electric field, and a region with an increased concentration of like ions, for example, anions, i.e. a negative spatial charge, will appear over the solution periphery on the inner surface of the vessel 3, being one of the electrodes. The negative spatial charge will induce an adequate charge (potential) from conductivity electrons on the external surface of the vessel 3. [0023] Light ions, in turn, will concentrate in the region between the spatial charge and the electrode 5 and generate their own spatial charge (potential) opposite in sign. A distance between cations and anions in the solution at a conditional interface between the two spatial charges is always greater than the distance between the cations and the cathode surface, hence, electrical field strength will be higher in the latter case. For this reason the occurred balance will be disturbed just at the electrode 5, if the magnitude of its potential appears to be sufficient to generate an electrical field capable of deforming hydrate shells of light ions. Then, they will approach the surface of the electrode 5 and discharge. Heavy ions pressed by centrifugal force against the surface of the other electrode 4, cannot exist separately in the solution, therefore, they will also give their charge to the electrode 4, and an electrical current will flow between them through a sliding contact 11 or a short-circuited conductor. Electrolyte ions will be reduced to hydrogen and oxygen, while intermediate electrolysis products with enter into secondary reactions with water. Therefore, in the energy conversion device in accordance with the invention, the electric current is generated by the chemical oxidation-reduction reactions occurring on the electrodes, but not vice versa, as it takes place in the prior art device. [0024] The reactions which produce molecular hydrogen and oxygen are exothermal, this indicating that they can proceed spontaneously, but only provided the energy barrier established by hydrate bond forces is overcome. This barrier is destroyed by mechanical field of the artificial gravity. Therefore, the process becomes irreversible and acquires a stable long-term nature owing to the fact that the above field is stationary, and new ions come from the other layers of the solution to replace discharged (reduced) ions. Reduced hydrogen and oxygen surface to the centre of the vessel 3, and, if required, they are separated by the separator 10 and discharged from the vessel through respective passages 7 and 8, giving the acquired momentum to the solution, and thereby decreasing the mechanical energy loss at the device drive. [0025] The hydrogen production of the invented device is controlled by changing the rotation frequency of the vessel 3 or the ohmic resistance value of the external power consumer load. At its minimum value, i.e. at electrode-to-electrode fault, voltage at the electrodes will be equal to a sum of concentration potential difference and electromotive force (EMF) of the centrifugal field. If the external resistance increases, the voltage at electrodes will adequately increase and the current at the consumer load will be decreased. In this regard, the device in accordance with the invention essentially differs over conventional electrochemical and electromagnetic sources and energy converters. [0026] Furthermore, the operating process of the device in accordance with the invention exhibits other peculiarities which are worthy of note. [0027] The process of water decomposition into oxygen and hydrogen owing to reduction of their ions is accompanied by the decrease in solution enthalpy, this resulting in gradual decrease of the solution temperature, and if the thermal loss is not replenished, the solution will freeze and the process will terminate. For this reason, the solution is heated. In the event the heat gain is insufficient, the solution temperature will become lower than the ambient temperature, and the conditions required for external heat absorption in the mode of electrochemical thermal pump will occur. Under these conditions the device converts low-potential thermal energy into high-potential chemical energy of hydrogen and oxygen reduced from water. Upon their combustion, this offers a means of obtaining a thermal energy again, but with a greater potential, i.e. of concentrating (transforming) the energy as much as possible for its utilization. [0028] It should be noted that that the thermal energy, which is delivered to the device as the result of the mechanical operation for deforming hydrate bonds of ions in the aqueous electrolytic solution, is being simultaneously converted to potential chemical and electrical energy. The total efficiency of the device in accordance with the invention is significantly greater than that of the prior device, and averages no less than 0.8. At the aforementioned angular speed omega of rotation of the vessel 3, the produced electrical power is completely expended in overcoming the internal ohmic resistance of the device as such. When the threshold rate omega is exceeded, an excess in the delivered mechanical energy will generate an external high-intensity electrical power (because the current density aporoaches a maximum value or the saturation state, and voltage increases unlimitedly) which, in turn, is already capable of performing operation on the consumer. In so doing, the device takes on the properties of a thermochemical electrical current source (generator) which operates with side emission of free hydrogen, oxygen, and heat absorption. [0029] Therefore, the device converts Mechanical and Thermal energies into Electrical and Chemical energies. [0030] The energy conversion device has a rather simple structure. It can be fabricated both in piece and quantity production, using traditional structural materials and conventional electrolytes. Owing to its high unit characteristics, such as a mass thermal power from 17 to 40 kJ.kg<-1> of the solution, hydrogen production from 15 to 35 mole.m<-2>.c<-1> of the electrode and an average volume electrical power about 2.2 MW. m<-3>, the device can be employed, e.g. in the assembly with ICE, on a car, tractor, diesel locomotive, aircraft, vessel and other vehicles with their fuel efficiency doubled, in steam turbines at thermal and nuclear power plants, as well as a standalone device to utilize industrial heat in metallurgy or natural heat in agriculture. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 5 22:25:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA28107; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:24:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:24:16 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01c32be3$7457fd80$5811b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: References: Subject: Re: Russian electrolytic centrifuge patent/ translation to english Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:23:55 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9407fb8940980a7d8ea3a6f1aaf68f38dfd350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"7lPk51.0.4t6._L2u-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50739 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: .Keith, This is what I was driving at. :-) Fred [0022] During operation of the device, centrifugal force generates an artificial gravity field in the vessel 3. Cations and anions in the form of hydrates having essentially different intrinsic weight are being separated in this field. Heavier ions will affect each other by their electric field, and a region with an increased concentration of like ions, for example, anions, i.e. a negative spatial charge, will appear over the solution periphery on the inner surface of the vessel 3, being one of the electrodes. The negative spatial charge will induce an adequate charge (potential) from conductivity electrons on the external surface of the vessel 3. [0023] Light ions, in turn, will concentrate in the region between the spatial charge and the electrode 5 and generate their own spatial charge (potential) opposite in sign. A distance between cations and anions in the solution at a conditional interface between the two spatial charges is always greater than the distance between the cations and the cathode surface, hence, electrical field strength will be higher in the latter case. For this reason the occurred balance will be disturbed just at the electrode 5, if the magnitude of its potential appears to be sufficient to generate an electrical field capable of deforming hydrate shells of light ions. Then, they will approach the surface of the electrode 5 and discharge. Heavy ions pressed by centrifugal force against the surface of the other electrode 4, cannot exist separately in the solution, therefore, they will also give their charge to the electrode 4, and an electrical current will flow between them through a sliding contact 11 or a short-circuited conductor. Electrolyte ions will be reduced to hydrogen and oxygen, while intermediate electrolysis products with enter into secondary reactions with water. Therefore, in the energy conversion device in accordance with the invention, the electric current is generated by the chemical oxidation-reduction reactions occurring on the electrodes, but not vice versa, as it takes place in the prior art device. [0024] The reactions which produce molecular hydrogen and oxygen are exothermal, this indicating that they can proceed spontaneously, but only provided the energy barrier established by hydrate bond forces is overcome. This barrier is destroyed by mechanical field of the artificial gravity. Therefore, the process becomes irreversible and acquires a stable long-term nature owing to the fact that the above field is stationary, and new ions come from the other layers of the solution to replace discharged (reduced) ions. Reduced hydrogen and oxygen surface to the centre of the vessel 3, and, if required, they are separated by the separator 10 and discharged from the vessel through respective passages 7 and 8, giving the acquired momentum to the solution, and thereby decreasing the mechanical energy loss at the device drive. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 18:27:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA11267; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:26:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:26:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3EE13E4E.57452DE6 ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:22:22 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: [Fwd: WHAT'S NEW Friday, 6 Jun 03] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lnT5L2.0.ql2.MzJu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50753 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 Friday, 6 Jun 03 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:21:01 -0400 From: "What's New" Reply-To: opa aps.org To: "What's New" WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 6 Jun 03 Washington, DC 1. THE PITS: NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW CALLS FOR MODERN PIT FACILITY According to an environmental impact statement released by the Department of Energy, the United States is the only nuclear power that does not have a capability to manufacture plutonium pits suitable for use in its weapons stockpile. Plutonium pits were manufactured at the Rocky Flats Plant in Golden, Colorado until 1989, when the plant was shut down due to environmental and safety concerns. Since 1989 DOE has been without a large-scale capacity to produce plutonium pits. A small interim capacity is now being established at Los Alamos that could meet replacement needs barring some unforseen problem with an entire class of weapons. But a classified review of the nuclear posture of the United States for the next decade, leaked a year ago (WN 15 Mar 02), "confirms that a modern production facility will be required for large-scale replacement of existing plutonium components [as part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program], and any production of new designs"(WN 23 May 03). Clearly, the US is edging closer and closer to the production of a new nuclear weapon (WN 23 May 03). 2. IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM: U.N. NUCLEAR EXPERTS STILL RESTRICTED. An Associated Press Story today reports that the U.S. has tried to keep the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) out of postwar Iraq. A team of only seven U.N. experts will be allowed to assess damage to Iraq's largest nuclear facility by looters. But the Pentagon stressed that the IAEA visit would be a one-time event to enforce the Nonproliferation Treaty, and not a weapons inspection that might set a precedent for future U.N. searches for weapons of mass destructions. Pentagon officials told the Associated Press that the team would be accompanied at all times by American troops and weapons experts. In his address to the nation on Oct. 7, 2002, President Bush explained the need for America to take military action in Iraq: "Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach of inspections and diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991." Now it is the United States that is restricting U.N. access in Iraq. 3. MISSILE DEFENSE: LIMITED TESTING OFFSETS IMMATURE TECHNOLOGY. A GAO report released Wednesday warns that the decision to deploy a missile defense system in 2004 invites failure. The General Accounting Office is the investigative arm of Congress, which is controlled by the Republicans. I knew my friend Puff Panegyric at the Missile Defense Agency would want to know. "You've been misled by the liberal press again," Puff sighed. "At the Agency, we're darn proud of what the GAO had to say. It's testing that invites failure. Why would we want to test a technology before it matures?" He had me there. "But the GAO also faulted MDA for not budgeting for long-term costs," I weakly responded. "That's not criticism," Puff snorted, "the Pentagon always low-balls cost estimates. It's made us the most powerful nation in the world." 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. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN You are currently subscribed to whatsnew as: To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to: To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 22:54:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA10291; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 22:53:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 22:53:39 -0700 Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:52:51 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: What is water, really? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <006b01c32cb9$5aed9f40$1198a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <009e01c327bf$80136f60$0a016ea8 cpq> <002401c327e2$10768200$4190a7cb vuw.ac.nz> <002001c327eb$5441c4a0$0a016ea8 cpq> <007401c32875$4ce88f60$7e90a7cb vuw.ac.nz> <006601c32876$eff700a0$0a016ea8@cpq> Resent-Message-ID: <"caE4d3.0.gW2.YtNu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50755 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: Monday, June 02, 2003 7:49 AM Subject: Re: What is water, really? > > Some help please ...I ran a test I burnt one full sheet > > of newspaper (power or energy used) which resulted in 15 litres of water > > being pumped one from one container to an other it took 1/half > > minutes.....how do I convert that to or what is the KLW being used .It was > > not the heat generated that created the energy . > > > > Can you explain the exact details please. That sound like a lot of water to be pumped with a sheet of paper... > > The conversion factor for foot-pounds per second to kilowatts is .0013558. A liter weighs approx 2.2 lbs so the conversion should be easy.... > > Jones > Yes it was a lot of water to be pumped and the amount (1sheet news paper ...15 litters water) are conservative . I am going to repeat the experiment as I don't know how much paper was burnt and it was well under way before it was sealed up ....Also have a bore down only has a 3 metre lift might try and rig it up to that to see what happens . many thanks fore your conversion rates.......RBR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 22:54:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA10219; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 22:53:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 22:53:32 -0700 Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:39:01 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: What is water, really? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <005c01c32cb9$57af8b40$1198a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Resent-Message-ID: <"X_EVW.0.WV2.RtNu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50754 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:17 PM Subject: Re: What is water, really? > At 7:36 AM 6/2/3, RBR wrote: > > JB or any one > > Some help please ...I ran a test I burnt one full sheet > >of newspaper (power or energy used) which resulted in 15 litres of water > >being pumped one from one container to an other it took 1/half > >minutes.....how do I convert that to or what is the KLW being used .It was > >not the heat generated that created the energy . > > many thanks RBR > > > > > That depends on how high the second container was in relation to the first. > It also depends upon the resistance of the fluid path. > > More details are needed. What exactly was the experiment and what was the goal. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > There was only 1ft between them (height) and it was 3/4 pipe leading into the container .The results were conservative (one sheet of news paper ...15 litres of water pumped over) ...The reason 1..I could not see how much of the news paper was burnt 2.....It was in motion before I properly sealed it up.......I will repeat the experiment and produces more exact figures . Many thanks fore your reply RBR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 6 22:55:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA10309; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 22:53:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 22:53:40 -0700 Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:54:53 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: What is water, really? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <006c01c32cb9$5d40b700$1198a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <009e01c327bf$80136f60$0a016ea8 cpq> <002401c327e2$10768200$4190a7cb vuw.ac.nz> <002001c327eb$5441c4a0$0a016ea8 cpq> <007401c32875$4ce88f60$7e90a7cb vuw.ac.nz> <006601c32876$eff700a0$0a016ea8@cpq> Resent-Message-ID: <"gkbiW1.0.zW2.atNu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50756 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 7:49 AM Subject: Re: What is water, really? > > Some help please ...I ran a test I burnt one full sheet > > of newspaper (power or energy used) which resulted in 15 litres of water > > being pumped one from one container to an other it took 1/half > > minutes.....how do I convert that to or what is the KLW being used .It was > > not the heat generated that created the energy . > > > > Can you explain the exact details please. That sound like a lot of water to be pumped with a sheet of paper... > > The conversion factor for foot-pounds per second to kilowatts is .0013558. A liter weighs approx 2.2 lbs so the conversion should be easy.... > > Jones > Yes it was a lot of water to be pumped and the amount (1sheet news paper ...15 litters water) are conservative . I am going to repeat the experiment as I don't know how much paper was burnt and it was well under way before it was sealed up ....Also have a bore down only has a 3 metre lift might try and rig it up to that to see what happens . many thanks fore your conversion rates.......RBR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 07:08:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA31258; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 07:08:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 07:08:17 -0700 Message-ID: <002001c32cf5$d211d6e0$af00bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 08:07:18 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9408eca962d0dca823b6bf42670b2d22423350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"rlmBo2.0.Ke7.H7Vu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50757 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Taking a cue from the spin cycle of my washing machine. :-) g = 1.42e-5*D*RPM^2 D = tube ID in inches A Sears router with 1/2 inch collett spinning at 25,000 rpm will develop 3,878 g with a tube ID of 0.4375 inches. As I see it, lining or filling the tube with stainless wool or sponge nickel and using a Water-Potassium Carbonate (K2CO3) electrolyte, the (CO3 =)aq ions in contact with the wool or sponge nickel, can release their electrons to the metal and they will be taken up by the (K+)aq ions that are also in contact with the metal. Thus: 1, (CO3=)aq - 2 e ---> CO2 + O 2, 2 (K+)aq + 2 e ---> 2 K 3, 2 K + 2 H2O ---> 2 (K+)aq + 2 (OH-)aq + 2 H These should rapidly diffuse out of the metal-electrolyte zone and into the vapor space(water) , and exit the spinning tube before recombining. SAFETY DISCLAIMER! Do this at your own peril. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 10:14:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA06736; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 09:56:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 09:56:27 -0700 Message-ID: <003301c32d0d$4d2faa20$af00bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:55:52 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da94046d25d777648f2822d4d6511cae2eeed350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"Quu2n3.0.ze1.waXu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50758 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 8:07 AM Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Just to make things interesting and to get around a free energy glitch, if a quartz tube lined with nickel mesh is used, room (or artificial) light photons can overcome the binding energy of the (CO3=) electrons allowing things to happen. Since 1.242 ev photons have a wavelength of 1.0 microns (visible light photons range from 1.5 ev or 0.775 microns to 3.0 ev or 0.413 microns) producing any photons of that energy "in situ" would be out of the question. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_law http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law I wrote: > Taking a cue from the spin cycle of my washing machine. :-) > > g = 1.42e-5*D*RPM^2 D = tube ID in inches > > A Sears router with 1/2 inch collett spinning at 25,000 rpm will develop 3,878 g with > a tube ID of 0.4375 inches. > > As I see it, lining or filling the tube with stainless wool or sponge nickel and using > a Water-Potassium Carbonate (K2CO3) electrolyte, the (CO3 =)aq ions in contact with > the wool or sponge nickel, can release their electrons to the metal and they will be > taken up by the (K+)aq ions that are also in contact with the metal. > Thus: > 1, (CO3=)aq - 2 e ---> CO2 + O > > 2, 2 (K+)aq + 2 e ---> 2 K > > 3, 2 K + 2 H2O ---> 2 (K+)aq + 2 (OH-)aq + 2 H > > These should rapidly diffuse out of the metal-electrolyte zone and into the vapor > space(water) , and exit the spinning tube before recombining. > > SAFETY DISCLAIMER! Do this at your own peril. > > Regards, > > Frederick > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 13:08:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA23048; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:07:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 13:07:15 -0700 Message-ID: <004f01c32d27$f6b2e700$af00bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Gravitational Electrolysis Water-Fuel Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:05:37 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9404d302ca66eae552cfc66830b418dface350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"zhYeN.0.-d5.pNau-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50759 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Water-Splitting with light. News Article:Sunlight turns water to fuel. http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2002/010902/Sunlight_turns_water_to_fuel_010902.html This catalyst might work well in a 2 inch ID x 4 ft. long glass tube spinning at 300 RPM (2.56 g) about a horizontal axis, at the focal point of a trough-type reflector, using a small drive motor run off a photovoltaic panel. With enough water-catalyst to create a "wall" about 1/4 inch thick the ~1.5 inch diameter vapor space would allow for easy extraction of the H2 and O2, and make-up water feed. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 16:30:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA05045; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:29:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:29:11 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electrolyser Design Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 09:28:36 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 QAA05012 Resent-Message-ID: <"-xqv22.0.kE1.7Ldu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50760 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 Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:16:58 -0800: Hi, [snip] >ELECTROLYSER DESIGN > >The following is a proposed design and some design considerations for a >high efficiency electrolyser, especially one where the cathode and anode >gasses can be provided as a mixed product, or gas only evolves from one >plate. Further, a means is provided to place ordinary hydrogen >electrolysis in these categories by extracting the hydrogen directly >through the cathode. > >It is well known that reducing plate separation, in order to reduce cell >resistance, is required to increase existing cell efficiency. It is also >known that slow bubble evolution limits the closeness of plates due to the >reduction of plate area and effective current path area. Electrolysers >currently rely on gravity to remove their bubbles using displacement >forces, but reduce the bubble formation rate by operating at high pressure. > >One method suggested here to solve the bubble problem is to place the >plates in a rotatable centrifugal tank as shown in Fig. 1. (Fixed >proportion font like "courier" is required for viewing Fig. 1) The plates >are thus in annular coaxial form with central circular holes with radial >spokes connected to a central shaft, with insulating spacers and/or axial >bolts included to hold the plate array together. This use of a centrifugal >force on the rotating plates permits the effectiveness of removing bubbles >to be increased by two or more orders of magnitude over the use of gravity. [snip] Since centrifugal force essentially increases the pressure of the electrolyte at the outside wall of the container, wouldn't normal gas pressure above a normal electrolysis cell have the same effect? It would also be much simpler to implement. All that would be needed is that the off-gasses be extracted through a pressure reduction valve. Regards, R. van Spaandonk When you are counting the dead, remember who voted for the man that made it all possible. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 22:28:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA08058; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:28:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:28:00 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:31:53 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electrolyser Design Resent-Message-ID: <"Ex0GA2.0.nz1.Wbiu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50761 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:28 AM 6/8/3, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >Since centrifugal force essentially increases the pressure of the electrolyte >at the outside wall of the container, wouldn't normal gas pressure above a >normal electrolysis cell have the same effect? It would also be much >simpler to implement. All that would be needed is that the off-gasses be >extracted through a pressure reduction valve. The above is not correct, at least in many variations of the design, and may in fact be an indicator of the novelty (non-obviousness) of the idea. The force of bouyancy is due to the *weight* of the water displaced, i.e. the force on the water displaced in this case, not on the pressure on the water or the bubble. That force, for a given bubble volume, increases in proportion to the water's acceleration. This means that smaller bubbles will release from the plates, i.e. be capable of breaking the force of their surface tension. The mass of gas per bubble volume does increase with pressure, thus an electrolyser produces more output when under pressure, a fact long known and much utilized. That added mass in the gas bubble is not significant, however, compared to the increased force on the equivalent volume of water due to the higher g's. However, the use of pressure only, without high g's, when applied to a device where *neither* plate generates bubbles, but rather each adsorbs or vacuums out its gas through pores, may indeed be just about as good, because there is no longer any concern about bouyancy. However, in practice, there may in fact always be some amount of surafce bubbles, and if so they will accumulate and then block conductance. Smaller bubbles released sooner means closer feasible plate distances, and thus more effective electrode surfaces. It is also notable that ambient pressure and high temperature can easily and comparatively cheaply be applied to the device by use of a stationary encapsulation of a similar cost to ordinary electrolysers. In a high g electrolyser then this is then merely a bonus improvement. I should also mention that energy efficiency is not the only concern addressed by high g electrolysis. Capital cost and operating cost is significantly reduced by increasing the amount of hydrogen generated per plate surface area. This variable is one of the most important in the economics of electrolizers. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 22:39:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA12681; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:39:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:39:30 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001b01c32c17$247abf80$5811b83f computer> References: <001b01c32c17$247abf80$5811b83f computer> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:41:00 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: Aqueous Chemistry and Free Energy: Mills' Hydrino Theory Again? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"Ia8D1.0.-53.Hmiu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50762 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Some of you who follow both groups know that I subscribed to the hydrino list for a short period. Based on what I can determine, there is no independent replication of energy from hydrino formation in a gas phase. On the BLP website, Randell claims energy production of 40 W per CC. The reactor that is shown in build on a 500 CC three necked flask. If this level of energy production were sustained for very long. seconds, the flask would get red hot, and there would be no question of energy production. Considering this fact, and the fact of holes being punched in the mathematics, and the charges of plagiarism leveled by Peter Zimmerman, I have concluded that Randell has made the lie big enough that many people believed him. No one would like to see the BLP process work more that me, but given the evidence, and Randell's standing mute in the face of it, I'm glad that I don't have any money invested in BLP. On a related subject, I emailed the above to Hal Puthoff and asked him if he knew what was ment by the Beta Aether. He replied that he did not. I am hoping that one of you will enlighten us. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 22:40:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA12712; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:39:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:39:32 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002001c32cf5$d211d6e0$af00bf3f computer> References: <002001c32cf5$d211d6e0$af00bf3f computer> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:41:00 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: induced cavitation in water with americanium Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"nAHU53.0.Y63.Kmiu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50763 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Knuke mentioned suspending americanium in water and inducing cavitation. He went on to mention that he almost killed himself attempting this. I'm curious about that he observed. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 7 22:40:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA12907; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:40:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:40:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002001c32cf5$d211d6e0$af00bf3f computer> References: <002001c32cf5$d211d6e0$af00bf3f computer> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:41:00 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Peter Zimmerman and LENR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"Yzrmw3.0.V93.pmiu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50764 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Those of you who follow the hydrino list are familiar with the man whom I consider to be the ringleader of the anti-Mills' group, Dr. Peter Zimmerman. He doesn't believe in LENR either. I pointed out what I call hetro atoms, elements which shouldn't be present in five nines grade metals before the reaction which are there following it. I also mentioned the anomolous isotopic spectrums of the element. He ignored me. I also mentioned a number of other phenomena, the nonorthogonal wave, reactionless drives. Minds are like parachutes, they only work if they open. It takes a lot more mental acuity to build up than to tear down. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 02:48:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id CAA22542; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:47:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:47:34 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 01:51:28 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"0KZke.0.8W5.rOmu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50765 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: We have seen that charge migration in a centrifuge can not easily generate a potential of even 1.4 volts. Now it is of interest to examine what kind of potential can be generated by displacement of the nucleus from the center of charge of the atom, i.e. of the orbital electrons in the atom. Starting again with the centrifugal force (on the nucleus) matching the electrostatic force, we have: Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E E = (m/q)*a and we see that the voltage generated by nuclear displacement from the center of charge is proportional to the ratio m/q. This ratio is just about constant for all heavy nucleii, as the ratio of atomic mass to protons is just about constant at between 2 and 2.5. Hydrogen (protium) has the worst ratio of atomic mass to protons of 1. Iterestingly, hydrogen (in the form of tritium) also has the highest ratio of protons to atomic mass of 3. Lets use a ratio of 2, because oxygen, for example, has a ratio of 2. We then have, using m_p as mass of the proton, q_p the charge of the proton,roughly: E = (2*m_p/q_p)*a So using a as 1 g, or 9.80665 m/s^2, we have: E = 2*10^-7 V/m in the vicinity of the nucleus in a 1 g field. Given that diameter of oxygen is about 1.4x10^-10 m, and that is about 2.8x10^-17 V per water molecule, but since there are 1/(1.4x10^-10) of them per meter, that brings us right back to a total potential of about U = (2x10^-7 V/g)*a (per meter of electrolyte) since we are interested in about 1.4 volts, we have: a = (1.4 V)/((2x10^-7 V/g) = 7x10^6 g so, by the above assumtions, it takes about 7 million g's spread over a distance of 1 meter of electrolyte to generate 1.4 volts. A centrifuge radius of about 10 cm that would require 7x10^7 g. This definitely makes my old observation of high voltage sparks from sugar gradent centrifuge cells (when removed from the centrifuge) a very curious thing. Or, maybe, but unlikely, the dissolved sugar had something to do with it. Perhaps the sparks were due to the piezoelectric effect of squeezing the quartz lattice of the centrifuge cells (assuming they were quartz and not glass.) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 03:00:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id DAA26496; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 03:00:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 03:00:15 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:04:10 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electrolyser Design Resent-Message-ID: <"k-E5B3.0.wT6.lamu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50766 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: "It is also notable that ambient pressure and high temperature can easily and comparatively cheaply be applied to the device by use of a stationary encapsulation of a similar cost to ordinary electrolysers. In a high g electrolyser then this is then merely a bonus improvement." This should have read: "It is also notable that high pressure and high temperature can easily and comparatively cheaply be applied to the device as its ambient environment by use of a stationary encapsulation for a cost similar to encapsulation for ordinary electrolysers. In a high g electrolyser then this is then merely a bonus improvement." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 03:15:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id DAA30152; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 03:15:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 03:15:02 -0700 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:14:23 +1000 From: Robin van Spaandonk Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces In-reply-to: To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: Organization: Improving MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Resent-Message-ID: <"6UhqJ2.0.2N7.comu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50767 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 Sun, 08 Jun 2003 01:51:28 -0800: Hi Horace, [snip] > Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E > > E = (m/q)*a [snip] > >Perhaps the sparks were due to the piezoelectric effect of squeezing the >quartz lattice of the centrifuge cells (assuming they were quartz and not >glass.) > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Given the above, how do you explain the piezoelectric effect? (The forces involved are no where near those you just calculated as being inadequate). Regards, R. van Spaandonk When you are counting the dead, remember who voted for the man that made it all possible. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 06:07:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA16113; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:07:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:07:03 -0700 Message-ID: <008601c32dbe$9a17e800$5e201f41 woh.rr.com> From: "Nicholas Reiter" To: References: Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:05:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"03vNX3.0.ax3.tJpu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50768 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace, I can't comment on your nuclear displacement notion, nor on your math, but as an empiricist, I have to jump in on the sugar centrifuge: 1. sucrose is piezo-electric in crystalline form, either single or poly. This is part of the reason wintergreen lifesavers wink when you bite them. The UV from the piezo-discharge causes the flourescent wintergreen oil molecule to emit. Now whether sucrose is piezoelectric in a liquid dissolved form, I'm not sure. 2. sucrose is also chiral, and one of my own observations from spending this past year shaking and accelerating chiral molecules is that some curious electrostatic gradients can be developed...and I don't know why... 3. The clear fused quartz test cells or tubes are not piezo-electric in themselves, as they no longer have a lattice structure. They are amorphous SiO2. Hmmm... I may have to try this one myself. NR > > so, by the above assumtions, it takes about 7 million g's spread over a > distance of 1 meter of electrolyte to generate 1.4 volts. A centrifuge > radius of about 10 cm that would require 7x10^7 g. This definitely makes > my old observation of high voltage sparks from sugar gradent centrifuge > cells (when removed from the centrifuge) a very curious thing. Or, maybe, > but unlikely, the dissolved sugar had something to do with it. > > Perhaps the sparks were due to the piezoelectric effect of squeezing the > quartz lattice of the centrifuge cells (assuming they were quartz and not > glass.) > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 07:03:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA04643; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:03:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:03:13 -0700 Message-ID: <003001c32dbe$46c11140$3e09bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: DOE Million Solar Roofs Program Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:02:48 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940b64d1c6b2e9317d4d6aa13345799a25d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"81F7F1.0.T81.X8qu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50769 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: http://www.millionsolarroofs.org/ The Million Solar Roofs Initiative is: Reducing emissions associated with power generation. In 2010, with one million solar energy roofs in place, the Initiative could reduce carbon emissions in an amount equivalent to the annual emissions from 850,000 cars. Creating high-tech jobs. By 2010, approximately 70,000 new jobs could be created as a result of the increased demand for photovoltaic, solar hot water, and related solar energy systems. DOE Releases 2003 MSR Solicitation The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is soliciting Applications from Million Solar Roofs Initiative State and Local Partnerships. The goal of DOE through this Solicitation is to assist Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSR) State and Local Partnerships in developing and implementing programs to further the use of solar energy on buildings. http://www.eere.energy.gov/pv/bandgaps.html Interesting Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 07:56:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA22934; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:55:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:55:33 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:59:27 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"H5v_K2.0.Gc5.bvqu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50771 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:05 AM 6/8/3, Nicholas Reiter wrote: >Horace, > >I can't comment on your nuclear displacement notion, nor on your math, but >as an empiricist, I have to jump in on the sugar centrifuge: > >1. sucrose is piezo-electric in crystalline form, either single or poly. >This is part of the reason wintergreen lifesavers wink when you bite them. >The UV from the piezo-discharge causes the flourescent wintergreen oil >molecule to emit. Now whether sucrose is piezoelectric in a liquid >dissolved form, I'm not sure. I would think it would be completely amorphous. Maybe not. > >2. sucrose is also chiral, and one of my own observations from spending >this past year shaking and accelerating chiral molecules is that some >curious electrostatic gradients can be developed...and I don't know why... I remember doing an experiment with sugar water as a high school kid. It involved wrapping a solenoid around a tube full of sugar water and sending polarized light through the sugar water. The device rotated the direction of polarization depending on the current in the solenoid. I thought it might have promise as a means of light modulation, but it was way too slow. Maybe some higly miniaturized version using a more powerful medium would work. I wonder if a polymer forms in solution. It might be interesting to microwave a sample for long periods with lots of cooling time in between to avoid boiling. > >3. The clear fused quartz test cells or tubes are not piezo-electric in >themselves, as they no longer have a lattice structure. They are amorphous >SiO2. I did not realize this. > >Hmmm... I may have to try this one myself. > I don't klnow if the fact the solution was a density gradient had anything to do with the efffect. If I recall (and it has been about 40 years) the density gradient was 100 percent at the bottom of the tube and about 20 percent at the top. They were prepared by putting 100 percent solution in the bottom of the tube and then inserting a rotating tube that injected water at a constant rate (via peristaltic pump.) The bottom of the rotating tube had a flat circular mixer blade. The injector tube moved up the centrifuge tube at a constantly slowing rate. One way to to do this in less precise fashion is to make, say, 6 different concentrations of sugar water, 100 percent, 80 percent, 60 percent, 40 percent, and 30 percent, and 20 percent. The "100 percent" here I think doesn't really mean 100 percent concentration, but rather the highest concentration of dissolved sugar used. The rest are dilutions with water. Place a mandrel, with a Dremel style saw blade on it or simply a round piece of sheet metal on the end, into the test tube, with the blade at the bottom. You mix by slowly rotating the blade (e.g. in a drill press highly geared down) starting at the bottom and raising the blade to the top of the test tube at a moderate speed. Now comes the part I just can't remember. I don't know if the solution was actually sucrose. It may have been glucose. However, to just start playing around, clear Karo syrup might work out OK. I do remember carefully grounding the outer surface of the tubes before putting them into the centrifuge. When removed, they could attract pieces of paper. When inserted, they could not. Say, I wonder if the effect was due to the motion of the sugar molecules down the sides of the tubes. Mercury moving on glass produces sparks. Maybe motion of a sugar gradient, though much slower, can do the same thing - via friction. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 07:56:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA22895; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:55:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:55:29 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:59:24 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"y0S45.0.fb5.Wvqu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50770 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:14 PM 6/8/3, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >Given the above, how do you explain the piezoelectric effect? >(The forces involved are no where near those you just calculated as being >inadequate). The ordinary piezoelectric force is due to the distortion of a lattice where atoms in adjacent planes carry differing charges. That force is directly carried from atom to atom. The distortion is due to the force of one set of atomic shells upon another. The force I calculated above (which I believe I have also seen referred to as a form of piezoelectric force) is due to the force of inertia (i.e. the centrifugal force in our case) on the nucleus with respect to its own atomic shells. > > >Regards, > >R. van Spaandonk > >When you are counting the dead, remember who voted >for the man that made it all possible. Well ... that be the Iraqi voting population who supposedly voted in Sadam Hussein by 100 percent mandate. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 09:45:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA32650; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:45:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:45:07 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608094012.0273a270 mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 09:40:46 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: stevek Subject: Re: Peter Zimmerman and LENR In-Reply-To: References: <002001c32cf5$d211d6e0$af00bf3f computer> <002001c32cf5$d211d6e0$af00bf3f computer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"6USVR2.0._z7.JWsu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50772 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: his time will come At 12:41 AM 6/8/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Those of you who follow the hydrino list are familiar with the man whom I >consider to be the ringleader of the anti-Mills' group, Dr. Peter >Zimmerman. He doesn't believe in LENR either. I pointed out what I call >hetro atoms, elements which shouldn't be present in five nines grade >metals before the reaction which are there following it. I also mentioned >the anomolous isotopic spectrums of the element. He ignored me. I also >mentioned a number of other phenomena, the nonorthogonal wave, >reactionless drives. > >Minds are like parachutes, they only work if they open. > >It takes a lot more mental acuity to build up than to tear down. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 10:58:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA26531; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:57:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:57:43 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <17f.1c37c93a.2c14d2f1 aol.com> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:57:05 EDT Subject: Re: DOE Million Solar Roofs Program To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: tom rhfweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_17f.1c37c93a.2c14d2f1_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"WNfG52.0.TU6.Natu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50773 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_17f.1c37c93a.2c14d2f1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/8/2003 10:03:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, fjsparber earthlink.net writes: > http://www.millionsolarroofs.org/ Great Idea. I would hope the DOD also puts funding into shared and pooled solar and wind farm power plants, in 500 cities, throughout the USA, which would cost around half a billion dollars, and the government would make a profit from the funding investments. A shared solar and wind farm can be connected to the city grid, so that homeoners do not have to buy a solar panel to use solar energy. Also the DOD could put funding into improving solar cell efficiency to allow solar cells to use the other 50% of the solar energy not part of white light by using a converter which converts the other dark light into the white light to be absorbed by normal solar cells, and this would also allow solar energy to be collected at night and not just during the day. Here is one technique below to collect the dark light and convert it to white light energy that is used in fiber optics with Raman Amplification: Raman Amplification Design in Wavelength Division Miltiplexing Systems posted at http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/raman/topic02.html?Next.x=42&Next.y=15 can be used to increase the efficiency of solar cells by amplifying the visible region of the solar cell with higher bandwidth photons as the photonic pump, and which also allows fiber optic circuts to be used as solar cells and circuits. "http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/raman/topic02.html?Next.x=42&Next.y=15 Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com --part1_17f.1c37c93a.2c14d2f1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/8/2003 10:03:58 AM Eastern Daylig= ht Time, fjsparber earthlink.net writes:

http://www.millionsolarroofs.or= g/


Great Idea. I would hope the DOD also puts funding into shared and pooled so= lar and wind farm power plants, in 500 cities, throughout the USA, which wou= ld cost around half a billion dollars, and the government would make a profi= t from the funding investments.   A shared solar and wind farm can= be connected to the city grid, so that homeoners do not have to buy a solar= panel to use solar energy.  

Also the DOD could put funding into improving solar cell efficiency to allow= solar cells to use the other 50% of the solar energy not part of white ligh= t by using a converter which converts the other dark light into the white li= ght to be absorbed by normal solar cells, and this would also allow solar en= ergy to be collected at night and not just during the day.  Here is one= technique below to collect the dark light and convert it to white light ene= rgy that is used in fiber optics with Raman Amplification:

Raman Amplification Design in Wavelength Division Miltiplexing Systems poste= d at
http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/raman/topic02.html?Next.x= =3D42&Next.y=3D15 can be used to increase the efficiency of solar ce= lls by amplifying the visible region of the solar cell with higher bandwidth= photons as the photonic pump, and which also allows fiber optic circuts to=20= be used as solar cells and circuits.

"http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/raman/topic02.html?Ne= xt.x=3D42&Next.y=3D15


Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om

 --part1_17f.1c37c93a.2c14d2f1_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 12:12:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA23165; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:11:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:11:20 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:09:02 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 MAA23123 Resent-Message-ID: <"p3OXY2.0.nf5.Nfuu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50774 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Suppose for a moment that our universe is merely a bubble surrounded by an infinite expanse of infinitely dense, infinitely energetic Universe. For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese. When our universe was formed and the void appeared, some of the material from the Universe outgassed into the void and eventually became the matter of which everything in our universe is composed. However, since the beginning of the formation of the void, the gravitational force of the Universe has been attracting matter back to itself. Because of the inverse square law on our side of the void wall, the closer the matter gets to the void's wall the more it is attracted, the greater its velocity becomes, and the greater the red shift becomes the farther out we look. If the velocity becomes luminal, then its mass becomes infinite, it leaves our local universe and rejoins the infinite Universe. So, if this conjecture was true it would explain the reason for the increasing red shift with distance, the discrepancy between how much matter should be here and how much there is, and the reason for the horizon of the universe. It would also settle the question of whether we have an open or a closed universe. Interestingly, it would bring up the question of whether or not the Swiss cheese was really a black hole! Comments, please? -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 13:01:52 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA15086; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:01:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:01:13 -0700 Message-ID: <004f01c32df8$81e4ca20$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:59:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id NAA15056 Resent-Message-ID: <"Z7mWc3.0.eh3.9Ovu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50775 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese.... > Comments, please? I love it! Or maybe, in keeping with some of the current vortex conjecture, our universe from a more distant perspective, is but a soon-to-collapse semi-void formed in a sonoluminescent bubble of Zeus' champagne (or was that Jesus' water-on-the-way-to-being-turned into the bubbly? Seriously however... this is very a provocative idea... "So, if this conjecture was true it would explain the reason for the increasing red shift with distance, the discrepancy between how much matter should be here and how much there is, and the reason for the horizon of the universe. It would also settle the question of whether we have an open or a closed universe. Interestingly, it would bring up the question of whether or not the Swiss cheese was really a black hole!" ...Or maybe "this" (i.e. our universe) is what usually happens on the flip-side of the wormhole from the previous black hole... Yes, your analogy does succinctly tend to answer a lot of questions that the current paradigm doesn't handle very well.... Which begs the question, "is an answer to an unknown problem, which is far and away so much more logical than any other answer, always true...or the contrarian might say, ever true? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 13:35:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA28171; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:33:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:33:00 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608163230.02719cc8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 16:33:04 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Maine Solar System Model Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"sQ9YK.0.yt6.yrvu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50776 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sorta neat. See: http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/solar/index.htm - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 15:50:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA16773; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:49:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:49:52 -0700 From: John Fields To: "Jones Beene" vortex-l, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:47:33 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: <3r77evsrhacul2palujh03jonbrordqilh 4ax.com> References: <004f01c32df8$81e4ca20$0a016ea8@cpq> In-Reply-To: <004f01c32df8$81e4ca20$0a016ea8 cpq> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 PAA16750 Resent-Message-ID: <"5_Lzg1.0.z54.Fsxu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50777 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:59:44 -0700, you wrote: > >> For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese.... > >> Comments, please? > > >I love it! Or maybe, in keeping with some of the current vortex conjecture, >our universe from a more distant perspective, is but a soon-to-collapse semi-void formed >in a sonoluminescent bubble of Zeus' champagne (or was that Jesus' >water-on-the-way-to-being-turned into the bubbly? --- I've been away for a while so I don't know what's current on Vortex, but I seem to recall that the sonoluminescent pulse occurs at the moment the bubble collapses to zero volume. If that collapse is _truly_ fast, then perhaps the light emitted is Cherenkov radiation. I haven't read about the spectral content of the pulse, other than that it's blue, so I don't know. How about you? --- >Seriously however... this is very a provocative idea... --- Yes, is it. It's grabbed me and refused to let go and there are always nice little surprises along the way, like if superluminal velocities are de rigueur for the Big Universe, then if if our little bubble is collapsing, we'll never see it coming. Comforting, in a strange way. Looking at the Big Bang way of it, with everything being subluminal it seems like if it was a closed universe and the crunch had started, some population of stars which could be correlated in distance would be blue shifted (depending on how long ago (or if) the collapse began) or at least there would be a population with a common age at a common distance where the red shift would have stopped. (again, depending on how long ago the collapse began) Since the Big Bang (until recently, I think) espoused homogenous dispersion of matter throughout our universe, I think an interesing experiment would be to look at stars where the spectral lines were just where they were supposed to be and then look at them a year later. And then a year after that. And then... --- >"So, if this conjecture was true it would explain the reason for the >increasing red shift with distance, the discrepancy between how much >matter should be here and how much there is, and the reason for the >horizon of the universe. > >It would also settle the question of whether we have an open or a closed >universe. Interestingly, it would bring up the question of whether or >not the Swiss cheese was really a black hole!" > >...Or maybe "this" (i.e. our universe) is what usually happens on the flip-side > of the wormhole from the previous black hole... --- Maybe. In a universe where all things are possible I'm not sure that what "usually" happens is something predictable. --- >Yes, your analogy does succinctly tend to answer a lot of questions that the current >paradigm doesn't handle very well.... Which begs the question, >"is an answer to an unknown problem, which is far and away so much more logical >than any other answer, always true...or the contrarian might say, ever true? --- Thanks, but... In this instance the question doesn't have to be begged, since the problem was known, posed, and disposed of. :-) -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 15:55:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA18728; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:54:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:54:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:58:11 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"0zsRM1.0.Sa4.Rwxu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50778 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:09 PM 6/8/3, John Fields wrote: >Suppose for a moment that our universe is merely a bubble surrounded by >an infinite expanse of infinitely dense, infinitely energetic Universe. >For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese. When >our universe was formed and the void appeared, some of the material from >the Universe outgassed into the void and eventually became the matter of >which everything in our universe is composed. However, since the >beginning of the formation of the void, the gravitational force of the >Universe has been attracting matter back to itself. Because of the >inverse square law on our side of the void wall, the closer the matter >gets to the void's wall the more it is attracted, the greater its >velocity becomes, and the greater the red shift becomes the farther out >we look. If the velocity becomes luminal, then its mass becomes >infinite, it leaves our local universe and rejoins the infinite >Universe. > >So, if this conjecture was true it would explain the reason for the >increasing red shift with distance, the discrepancy between how much >matter should be here and how much there is, and the reason for the >horizon of the universe. > >It would also settle the question of whether we have an open or a closed >universe. Interestingly, it would bring up the question of whether or >not the Swiss cheese was really a black hole! > > >Comments, please? >-- >John Fields What a stimulating idea! At one time I posted on vertex the idea that the red shift could be due to gravitational red shift, and that would require increasing (matter) density with increasing distance from the earth. I provided no explanation of why this physical possibility might be so, only that it presents a possible, however unlikely, alternative theory or even additional theory to the big bang and Hubble velocity oriented red shift. Also, this model can only work if the change in density is just right to produce a uniform red shift with distance ... another physical miracle. Most of the matter which produces the shift would have to be dark matter or dark black holes, in that there is no corresponding increasing light emination with distance. It *is* of interest that, under this hypothesis, for a given object, only the matter contained within a sphere of radius equal to the distance of the object to the center of the universe can apply the supposed gravitational field (and corresponding red shift) to the object. All other matter lies on spherical shells outside that radius, and thus do not affect the red shift of that object. This hypothesis (further) assumes a fairly uniform distribution of matter within any given spherical shell One advantage (problem?) to my hypothesis is that it consistent with present views, is within the context of gravtiy being an attractive force or a warping of space-time. Your very novel and interesting hypothesis, however, does not work within the context of gravity being an attractive 1/r^2 force or being a warping of space. It seems to work in the opposing context, the context of gravity being a radiation of some kind (e.g. ZPE). The reason I say this is that, when you integrate the conventional 1/r^2 force of gravity about a shell, as seen from the inside, that force is zero. This infinitely dense universe about us could not have a gravitational effect upon us under the more conventioanal interpretation of gravity. The infinitely energetic portion of the hypothesis seems overstated because the sky is black. If there were an infinite universe with even only a uniform energy, the sky would be infinitely bright - unless of course an ever increasing dark matter density swallows up that radiation energy in the form of red shift. I don't think observation supports that hypothesis in that we don't see everything at the far edges of the universe as being extremely dark red. There is a sudden jump from the bright objects we see at the periphery of the universe to the dark red cosmic background. There is an additional contex into which you hypothesis may fit in some form. Suppose the universe, and all universes within a super-universe of space-time, are black holes. After all, the universe initially must have been a black hole, because the entire mass of the universe was, according to the big bang, encapuslated within a small volume. Suppose these universes are randomly but uniformmly distributed througout this super-space time. Their only "radiation" would be gravity. This concept then somewhat fits your hypothesis. If this multi-universe within a super-universe hypothesis is true, it is a scary proposition that collisions and absorbtions can occur! It is also an interesting prospect that, given the massive gravitational energy involved, that wormholes might indeed connect these universes from time to time, or continually. What a prospect! A journey to another universe might then actually be more easy, likely, and naturally occuring than a journey to the edge of our own. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 17:20:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA22152; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:19:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:19:56 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:21:26 +1200 From: RBR Subject: re dark matter To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <002b01c32e1d$11965520$7691a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01C32E81.A5CF7000" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"p26YE2.0.1Q5.hAzu-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50779 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C32E81.A5CF7000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Exploding stars they say actually implosion inwards , are they just = implosion back to the void ? . RBR ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C32E81.A5CF7000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Exploding stars they say = actually implosion=20 inwards ,  are they just implosion back to the void ? = .
       =20 RBR
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C32E81.A5CF7000-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 23:07:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id XAA06901; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.20030609070356.0068ae88 pop.freeserve.net> X-Sender: grimer2.freeserve.co.uk pop.freeserve.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 07:03:56 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Grimer Subject: Re: Maine Solar System Model Resent-Message-ID: <"ymV5a.0.gh1.UF2v-" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50780 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:33 pm 08-06-03 -0400, you wrote: >Sorta neat. See: > >http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/solar/index.htm > >- Jed > I love it :-) Gives one a hands on experience of the scales involved. Frank From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 09:36:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA30811; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:35:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:35:10 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030609123311.02d540d0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:34:57 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: LENR-CANR readers on vacation? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"8x3ZP2.0.JX7.zSBv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50781 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: LENR-CANR readership rose dramatically in May, but after Memorial Day it fell back to the levels of March and April. Here are weekly totals: Week ending downloads 4/5 4,308 4/12 5,419 4/19 7,059 4/26 4,943 5/3 5,497 5/10 9,057 5/17 12,243 5/24 12,681 5/31 8,451 6/7 5,878 Perhaps many of our readers are at universities, on an academic schedule, and they are on vacation now. Perhaps when the summer session begins traffic will perk up. I hope so. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 15:00:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA08232; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:57:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:57:38 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:01:30 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"sXu__2.0.M02.HBGv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50782 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A gravitational red shift can not account for the the Hubble constant, because stars toward the center of mass of the universe, under the influence of less gravity, would appear blue shifted, not red. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 9 17:23:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA19114; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:23:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:23:00 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:26:54 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"zJJoA1.0.ag4.aJIv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50783 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It might be asked, given what we know, and ignoring quantum events at the event horizons, can an infininte universe of black holes, a universe of dark matter, exist as strictly black holes forever? My feeling about that is no. The why follows. Each black hole has its own event horizon at a radius detemined by setting the escape velocity V = (2*G*m/r)^0.5 to the speed of light c, and then computing the radius r, which is called the Swartzchild radius. The implication is then that nothing, even light, can reach beyond this radius from the assumed sigularity which contains the mass of the black hole. This assumtion seems questionable in that it would seem that the singularity, though we can not observe it, should radiate. Energetic radiation from the singularity, caused by quantum fluctuations of the singularity, can create electron-antielectron pairs at a location other than the locus of the signularity. This locus then, not being at the center, has its own event horizon, which in some directions extends beyond the Swartzchild radius. How is this important? The importance is not in the possibility of radiation beyond the Swartzchild radius for a single black hole. The importance lies in the possibility of black hole interaction. Even in an infinite universe uniformly populated with black holes where there is no relative motion between the black holes, such motion would soon exist due to local gravitational attractions. It would not take long for localities of angular momentum to develop, and these would form galaxies of black holes. As black holes coalesc into galaxies, the dense centers would have increasing probabilities of close encounters of large numbers of black holes. Eventually, a collection of black holes will surround a volume of space so tightly that their Swartzchild radii will overlap. They will sufficiently approximate a spherical shell that the interior of the shell will be gravity isolated from the shell. This then means creation of a "Swartzchild radius free" interior volume surrounded by an envelope which overlaps the Swartzchild radii of the individual black holes which make up the shell. Photons and thus mass containing particles are free to escape into and move freely about this new envelope of restraint. For this reason call it the restraint envelope. If the boundaries of this bumpy shaped envelope exceeds the Swartchild radius corresponding to the combined mass of the black holes creating the restraint envelope, then light and thus mass is free to escape the restraint envelope. Given enough mass in the the black holes a mass release equivalent to a big bang could occur. Perhaps this mechanism gives rise to a perpetual series of big bang like events in a universe of the nature we assumed. Such releases do not require a spherical shell to form. Such a release could even occur into the center of a ring of black holes, depending on the masses of the black holes and their proximity around the ring. They might even be common in black holes galaxies provided the average mass is small. It is interesting that black holes do not have to be large to exist. It is only necessary that the mass/radius ratio be sufficienlty large, i.e. that a given mass be constrained in a sufficiently small volume. It is thus possible that there at least momentarily exists layers upon layers of black holes. We might exist in universes within universes which can not readily communicate with each other. In fact, assuming that light carries sufficient energy, its own wavelength can be less than the Swartzchild radius corresponding to its mass. This happens at an energy of about 2.164x10^28 eV. A massive event creating energy of this magnitude would spew forth vast quantities of black holes with a radius of about 5.73x10^-35 m, which supposedly would soon evaporate due to quantum fluctuations. Many small black holes from such an event might coalesce. Perhaps some dark matter in our universe consists of very small black holes? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 07:43:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA13822; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:42:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:42:58 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610103241.00abc9b8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:42:50 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Mizuno experiment shunt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"sEQHY3.0.tN3.nvUv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50785 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith Nagel expressed some concerns about the shunt Mizuno used in some glow discharge experiments. Mizuno has been out of touch. He finally got around to addressing Nagel's message. He said the shunt was removed from the circuit years ago, when he purchased the Yokogawa PZ4000 meter. It does not require a shunt. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 09:54:01 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA26022; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:50:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:50:16 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: Mizuno and JLN Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:10:17 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610103241.00abc9b8 pop.mindspring.com> X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"36AtJ1.0.WM6.8nWv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50786 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Jed. The spec's on the Yokogawa claim accuracy up to about 2MHz. That'd be pretty good given the relative crudeness of the circuit being measured, parasitic L's and C's would have to be nailed down to push further into the FM radio range. The memory is listed as 4M words per channel, and I wonder if his input current is varying as much as JLN's, how one gets to a overall energy measurement? I remember Scott using a custom computer driven system which of course could log as much data as necessary, presumably this unit has some logging capacity??? It sure is a fancy meter... JLN has been trying to filter the input so as to make simple meter measurements, he says now that he has good agreement between his "high" frequency equipment and the meters. I'm looking at his site now, and see the following http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfr33.htm a current clamp type device is shown rated to 20KHz, which was replaced by a 1 ohm shunt with a .5uF cap bridging it. This IMHO is a poor way to construct a shunt, if you're looking to filter the input it's better to do it at a high impedance rather than at 1 ohm. Plus you're going to need to do an impedance transformation anyway if you want good broadband response. Given his circuit, I find the cap will bridge half the power at 250KHz, and about 1/10th the power at 30KHz. Better than the clamp, at least. But given the relative massive value of R for the shunt, why bother with a cap at all? Is the 1 ohm shunt that inductive that it needs compensation??? Or is the circuit that noisy... Given all the input filtering that he does on his new design, it seems like one might be able to use simple meters and get a decent power measurement, the filter losses presumably being small. What do you all think about this method as a shortcut to making a HF power measurement. K. -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:JedRothwell mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:43 AM To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Mizuno experiment shunt Keith Nagel expressed some concerns about the shunt Mizuno used in some glow discharge experiments. Mizuno has been out of touch. He finally got around to addressing Nagel's message. He said the shunt was removed from the circuit years ago, when he purchased the Yokogawa PZ4000 meter. It does not require a shunt. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 11:22:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA05879; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610133233.00abdb60 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:52:56 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Mizuno and JLN In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610103241.00abc9b8 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"WDA-U1.0.mR1.u3Yv-" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50787 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: By the way, info in English on the Yokogawa PZ4000 is here: http://www.yokogawa.com/tm/Bu/PZ4000/ Keith Nagel wrote: >The memory is listed as 4M words per channel, and I wonder if his input >current is varying as much as JLN's, how one gets to a overall energy >measurement? It varies as much as JLN's, but I do not understand why there would be a problem tallying up energy. Available memory would limit the resolution of a stored log of power, but energy can be recorded in as many decimal places as the machine can measure accurately. Mizuno generates the graphs from a Dell computer that works in parallel with the Yokogawa meter, attached to the circuit with an external HP data collection box. (I do not recall the model number.) The totals computed by the computer are very close to those from the Yokogawa meter. >I remember Scott using a custom computer driven system which of course >could log as much data as necessary, presumably this unit has some logging >capacity??? It sure is a fancy meter... The meter costs $16,000 so it aught to be fancy. For that kind of money it should wash bottles and rub your back. Naturally it has logging capacity. It appears to have a hard disk. See: http://www.yokogawa.com/tm/Bu/PZ4000/pz4000.pdf "Usable hard drives -- SCSI hard drives, NEC MS-DOS Ver. 3.3 or higher, or EZSCSI drives that are formattable." I do not know enough about electricity to comment on JNL's power measurement techniques. Mizuno said he admires JLN's enthusiasm but he is concerned that there are not enough calibrations and blank runs. Before you measure excess, it is important to demonstrate you can measure nothing. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 13:26:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA08882; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:24:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:24:57 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:43:02 -0800 To: , From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Mizuno and JLN Resent-Message-ID: <"cRCRB.0.hA2.PwZv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50789 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:10 PM 6/10/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Jed. > >The spec's on the Yokogawa claim accuracy up >to about 2MHz. That'd be pretty good given the >relative crudeness of the circuit being measured, >parasitic L's and C's would have to be nailed >down to push further into the FM radio range. [snip] I have on various occasions suggested the use of a high frequency spectrum analyser in Mizuno type cells to pin down exactly what is happening, both during ou and start-up or "conditioning" periods. I think this would be good advice for JLN as well. Unfortunately,the probes might have to go right into the cell. Note: "JNL" corrected to "JLN" above. Sorry! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 13:27:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA08811; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:24:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:24:49 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:41:45 -0800 To: , From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Mizuno and JLN Resent-Message-ID: <"t-KTt1.0.W92.HwZv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50788 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:10 PM 6/10/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Jed. > >The spec's on the Yokogawa claim accuracy up >to about 2MHz. That'd be pretty good given the >relative crudeness of the circuit being measured, >parasitic L's and C's would have to be nailed >down to push further into the FM radio range. [snip] I have on various occasions suggested the use of a high frequency spectrum analyser in Mizuno type cells to pin down exactly what is happening, both during ou and start-up or "conditioning" periods. I think this would be good advice for JNL as well. Unfortunately,the probes might have to go right into the cell. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 13:38:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA14439; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:37:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:37:28 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:41:26 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"EnaDa2.0.UX3.86av-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50790 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:37 AM 6/10/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >The product of the fundamental unit of charge (+/-q) and the speed of >light (c), [q*c] >for a current loop [particle of circumference or wavelength 2(pi)r] equals the >constant of 4.8e-11 ampere-meters. > >The displacement current ( I ) of the particle/loop equals q*c/2(pi)r = 2.718e3 >amperes for the electron with a given radius (r) = 2.81e-15 meters. It may be of interest that the wavlength lambda of the electron is given by de Broglie as lambda = h/p, where p is the momentum of the electron. At nonrelativistic speeds p = m*v. This means that, by your formula above, lambda = 2*pi*r = h/(m*v) thus I = (q*c)/[h/(m*v)] = v*(q*c*m/h). So: I = v*(6.603348E-8 coul/m) An electron moving at zero speed relative to the observer would have infinite size and no current (there must be limits to de Broglies formula). An electron moving at 100 m/s would have 6.6033E-6 amps. An electron carrying 2.718E3 amps would be moving at relativistic speed. > >The impedance of space (Zo) = 377 ohms > >The potential (V) = I*Zo = 1.02e6 volts for the electron. > >For a quark with charge (+/- q) Quarks have full charge +-q? >the potential (V) = 612 * 1.02e6 = 6.24e8 volts, I = >624* 2.718 = 1.70e6 amperes (thus implying a radius of 4.5e-18 meters for >each of the >three quarks (+/- current loops) that make up a proton). > >However, the square root of the ratio of the electrostatic force (Fes) = >(kq^2/R^2) to >the gravitational force (Fg) =(G*m^2/R^2) suggests a relativistic >time-dilation effect >(or gamma) that reduces the electrostatic or magnetic (gravity)force Since charged particles are approximately evenly distributed in neutral matter, and since both magnetic dipoles and electrostatic dipoles exert a 1/r^4 force at a distance, and polarized at that, how is it that strightforward first order electromagnetics can ever account for gravity, with or without special relativity? >between >particles: > >IOW, I = q*c/[2(pi)r *gamma] > >(Fes/Fg)^1/2 = Gamma for any particular particle. > >IMHO, it seems that the particles see each other with an electromagnetic >type force >that is not accessible by the electromagnetic forces generated in "our >reference >frame". > >Regards, > >Frederick Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 8 18:56:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA26909 for billb eskimo.com; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:56:27 -0700 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:56:27 -0700 X-Envelope-From: herman antioch-college.edu Sun Jun 8 18:56:24 2003 Received: from college.antioch-college.edu (antioch-college.edu [192.131.123.11]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26877 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:56:24 -0700 Received: from college.antioch-college.edu (antioch-college.edu [192.131.123.11]) by college.antioch-college.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h591wcf21422 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Old-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:58:38 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Vortex Subject: Anyone know about 'the wayback machine ' Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: A Dear Vo, I seem to remeber some sort of archive or archives of 'lost' URL information, some of which is available through what has been called 'The Wayback Machine"....... Any leads welcome, Thanks, JH From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 15:12:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA04415; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:10:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:10:19 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:10:15 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: Vortex Subject: Re: Anyone know about 'the wayback machine ' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"dQvAI3.0.v41.BTbv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50791 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, John Schnurer wrote: > I seem to remeber some sort of archive or archives of 'lost' URL > information, some of which is available through what has been called 'The > Wayback Machine"....... It's http://archive.org You have to have an old URL, since it doesn't search the contents. http://web.archive.org/collections/web/advanced.html (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 15:27:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA14691; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:26:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:26:48 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:29:11 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"jGZhO2.0.Ob3.dibv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50792 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:37 AM 6/10/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >The product of the fundamental unit of charge (+/-q) and the speed of >light (c), [q*c] >for a current loop [particle of circumference or wavelength 2(pi)r] equals the >constant of 4.8e-11 ampere-meters. > >The displacement current ( I ) of the particle/loop equals q*c/2(pi)r = 2.718e3 >amperes for the electron with a given radius (r) = 2.81e-15 meters. It may be of interest that the wavlength lambda of the electron is given by de Broglie as lambda = h/p, where p is the momentum of the electron. At nonrelativistic speeds p = m*v. This means that, by your formula above, lambda = 2*pi*r = h/(m*v) thus I = (q*c)/[h/(m*v)] = v*(q*c*m/h). So: I = v*(6.603348E-8 coul/m) An electron moving at zero speed relative to the observer would have infinite size and no current (there must be limits to de Broglies formula). An electron moving at 100 m/s would have 6.6033E-6 amps. An electron carrying 2.718E3 amps would be moving at relativistic speed. > >The impedance of space (Zo) = 377 ohms > >The potential (V) = I*Zo = 1.02e6 volts for the electron. > >For a quark with charge (+/- q) Quarks have full charge +-q? >the potential (V) = 612 * 1.02e6 = 6.24e8 volts, I = >624* 2.718 = 1.70e6 amperes (thus implying a radius of 4.5e-18 meters for >each of the >three quarks (+/- current loops) that make up a proton). > >However, the square root of the ratio of the electrostatic force (Fes) = >(kq^2/R^2) to >the gravitational force (Fg) =(G*m^2/R^2) suggests a relativistic >time-dilation effect >(or gamma) that reduces the electrostatic or magnetic (gravity)force Since charged particles are approximately evenly distributed in neutral matter, and since both magnetic dipoles and electrostatic dipoles exert a 1/r^4 force at a distance, and polarized at that, how is it that strightforward first order electromagnetics can ever account for gravity, with or without special relativity? >between >particles: > >IOW, I = q*c/[2(pi)r *gamma] > >(Fes/Fg)^1/2 = Gamma for any particular particle. > >IMHO, it seems that the particles see each other with an electromagnetic >type force >that is not accessible by the electromagnetic forces generated in "our >reference >frame". > >Regards, > >Frederick Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 10 21:02:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA25081; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:01:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:01:47 -0700 From: Robin van Spaandonk To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:01:15 +1000 Organization: Improving Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 VAA25056 Resent-Message-ID: <"JGAjF1.0.p76.gcgv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50793 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 Sun, 08 Jun 2003 06:59:24 -0800: Hi, >At 8:14 PM 6/8/3, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>Given the above, how do you explain the piezoelectric effect? >>(The forces involved are no where near those you just calculated as being >>inadequate). > >The ordinary piezoelectric force is due to the distortion of a lattice >where atoms in adjacent planes carry differing charges. That force is >directly carried from atom to atom. The distortion is due to the force of >one set of atomic shells upon another. The force I calculated above (which >I believe I have also seen referred to as a form of piezoelectric force) is >due to the force of inertia (i.e. the centrifugal force in our case) on >the nucleus with respect to its own atomic shells. [snip] Then surely, in a centrifugal force setup, some of the atoms will press against others, resulting in the same sort of forces that exist when a piezoelectric crystal produces a high voltage? Regards, R. van Spaandonk When you are counting the dead, remember who voted for the man that made it all possible. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 00:22:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA32690; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:21:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:21:55 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:25:56 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"IidUZ2.0.f-7.JYjv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50794 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:01 PM 6/11/3, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >Then surely, in a centrifugal force setup, some of the atoms will press >against others, resulting in the same sort of forces that exist when a >piezoelectric crystal produces a high voltage? It seems unlikely a significant potential will develop without at least some of the extreme organization present in piezoelectric crystals, which have alternating layers of atoms with highly differing electronegativity. The valence electrons thus have a preference for one layer over the other. One layer carries a differing charge density than the other layer. The layers alternately carry more positive vs negative charge. When the layers are squeezed together, the surface potential changes dramatically, becuase in effect, each pair of layers is squuezed together and thus tend to cancel each others charges from an external viewpoint. There is not this degree of organization in electrolytes. True, water molecules form structures around cations and anions, but where is the net potential to come from when squeezing esentially spherical structures, in equal charge quantities, and ogranized in random fashion throughout the electrolye? Maybe there is some way to bring this about, especially if heavy charged ions are present in the electrolyte, which can change the concentration of ions (dragged along by the heavies in order to equalize charge in the electrolye) in vicinity of one radius of the centrifuge vs another. Perhaps we are inventing a brand new field here - gravichemistry? Electrogravichemistry? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 01:01:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA16813; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:00:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:00:19 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:04:20 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"N_ZUm.0.Z64.I6kv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50795 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Suppose there is a molecular structure to a sugar solution that sustains a large voltage piezoelectic effect, one as severe as I observed when doing cell body separations in sugar gradients. This kind of effect would still not have any ability to generate a current in an electrolyte, only help change ion concentrations in differing parts of the cell, as does an increased concentration of heay charged ions to the outward portion of the centrifuge. The hope for catalysis really must lie in this (nonchemical) changing of ion concentrations through an external force. It seems very difficult to sustain enough voltage for direct electrolysis. Perhaps the gravichemical approach would be much easier to implement using a much less energetic reaction than H2O electrolysis. Perhaps a bromide, like bromic acid or a bromide salt, would work nicely. If there is free energy to be found, a proof of concept using bromide electrolysis or other lower energy reactions would be much easier to achieve. The bromine gas could then be recombined to release controlled energy, including some of the excess energy achieved via the centrifuge. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 03:34:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id DAA04503; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:33:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:33:11 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:37:09 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"EBHoS1.0.H61.dLmv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50796 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hydrogen Bromide (HBr) has a Gibbs free energy of -53.4 kJ/mol, or 0.553 eV per molecule. Water has -237.1 kJ/mol, or 2.457 eV per molecule. LiBr looks interesting because lithium has a density of 0.53, and bromine has a density of 3.12. The Li+ radical has a radius of 0.76 angstrom, while the atom has a radius of 1.52 angstrom, thus li+ has a density of about 4.42. Bromine has an atomic radius 1.14 angstrom, and the Br- radical has radius 1.96 angstrom, thus a density of 1.814. Both ions should migrate outward upon centrifuging in an electrolyte. At temperatures above 332.25 K a gravi-electrolytic cell should evolve bromine gas at the anode and hydrogen at the cathode. At lessor temperatures, a bromine liquid? Question is, at what voltage? About 0.553 volts? If so, is this free energy of sorts, in that we are free to combine the hydrogen so evolved with atmospheric oxygen? Lithium iodide might be of interest as well, as iodine has a density of 4.92, and melting point of 386.7 K. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 10:20:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA06051; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:18:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:18:41 -0700 Message-ID: <003301c3303d$459a8a40$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:17:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA06011 Resent-Message-ID: <"_GuGW1.0.SU1.mHsv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50797 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" > Lithium iodide might be of interest as well, as iodine has a density of > 4.92, and melting point of 386.7 K. The small batteries used in flash cameras are often lithium iodide. The construction is usually a "pile" instead of the "jelly-roll" so it might be possible to rig up an ultra centrifuge to see if there is a voltage increase at high g's. One way to do this, if you have no feed-throughs into a 100k RPM spindle, would be to wire the batteries across a an LED and a small resistor that is just enough to block the current at the rated voltage but perhaps can be driven to light up the LEDs at higher voltage? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 12:02:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA29393; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:01:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:01:04 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611145741.02da2990 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:00:50 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: ICCF-9 proceedings finally arrive 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 MAA29309 Resent-Message-ID: <"ycd7x2.0.7B7.mntv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50798 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The ICCF-9 proceedings finally arrived. It is on paper only, with no CD-ROM. Attached is the table of contents. The papers are not listed in the order in which they're printed in the book, which is peculiar. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Proceedings of The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Edited by Xing Z. Li May 19-24, 2002 International Convention Center at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China CONTENTS Li, Xing Zhong:----------------- Condensed Matter Nuclear Science----------------- I Fleischmann, MartinSearching For The Consequences Of Many-Body Effects In Condensed Phase Systems ....................... Ill Mckubre, Michael Closing Comments Summarizing The Status And Progress Of Experi­ mental Studies XVIII Hora, Heinrich----------------- Summary About Theoretical Results Of the ICCF9----------------- XXI Dolan, Thomas J.----------------- An Outsider's View Of Cold Fusion----------------- XXIV 1. EXCESS HEAT AND CALORIMETRY PRODUCTION OF EXCESS ENTHALPY IN THE ELECTROLYSIS OF D2O ON Pd CATHODES (E. Del Giudice, ITALY)................ 82 "PUMPING EFFECT"REPRODUCIBLE EXCESS HEAT IN A GAS-LOADING D/Pd SYSTEM (Xing Z. Li, CHINA)................ 197 "SUPER-ABSORPTION" CORRELATION BETWEEN DEUTERIUM FLUX AND EXCESS HEAT (Xing Z. Li, CHINA)................ 202 ANOMALOUS HEAT BY DEUTERIUM GAS PERMEATING THROUGH THE PALLADIUM TUBE (W. Wu, CHINA)................ 412 PROGRESS IN THIN - FILM LENR RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS (George H. Miley, USA)................ 255 CALORIMETRIC MEASUREMENTS DURING Pd-Ni THIN FILM-CATHODES ELECTROLYSIS IN Li2SO4/H2O SOLUTION (C.H. Castano, USA)................ 24 THERMAL BEHAVIOR OF POLARIZED Pd/D ELECTRODES PREPARED BY CO-DEPOSITION (M.H. Miles, ITALY)................ 250 THERE IS A FLEISCHMANN-PONS EFFECT. THE PROCESS IS ELECTROLYTIC, BUT THE EFFECT IS CATALYTIC (Les Case, USA)............... 22 EXCESS HEAT IN Pd/C CATALYST ELECTROLYSIS EXPERIMENT (CASE-TYPE CATHODE) (Qing. M. Wei, CHINA)............... 408 PRODUCTION OF EXCITED SURFACE STATES BY REACTANT STARVED ELECTROLYSIS (Talbot A. Chubb, USA)............... 64 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF' EXCESS HEAT OUTPUT DURING DEUTERIUM SORPTION-DESORPTION IN PALLADIUM DEUTERIDE (V.A. Kirkinskii, RUSSIA)............... 170 ON CURRENT DENSITY AND EXCESS POWER DENSITY IN ELECTROLYSIS EXPERIMENTS (Dan Chicea, ROMANIA)............... 49 EXCESS HEAT POWER, NUCLEAR PRODUCTS AND X-RAY EMISSION IN RELATION TO THE HIGH CURRENT GLOW DISCHARGE EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS (A.B. Karabut, RUSSIA) ................... 151 ANOMALOUS HEAT EVOLUTION FOR PALLADIUM HYDRIDE IN CONTROLLED GAS OUT-DIFFUSION (S.Narita, H.Yamada, JAPAN)............... 280 HEAT MEASUREMENT DURING LIGHT WATER ELECTROLYSIS USING Pd/Ni ROD CATHODES (M.Fujii, JAPAN).... ANOMALOUS HEAT FLOW AND ITS CORRELATION WITH DEUTERIUM FLUX IN A GAS-LOADING DEUTERIUM-PALLADIUM SYSTEM (J. Tian, CHINA) &&&&&&&&353 THE CRYSTAL CHANGE AND "EXCESS HEAT " PRODUCED BY LONG TIME ELECTROLYSIS OF HEAVY WATER WITH TITANIUM CATHODE DUE TO DEUTERIUM ATOM ENTERING THE LATTICE OF TITANIUM (Y. Sun, CHINA)................ 329 ELECTROLYSIS OF D20 WITH TITANIUM CATHODES: ENHANCEMENT OF EXCESS HEAT AND FURTHER EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE TRANSMUTATION (J. Warner, USA)................ 404 THE IMPACT OF HEAVY WATER (D2O) ON NICKEL-LIGHT WATER COLD FUSION SYSTEMS (Mitchell R. Swartz, USA)................ 335 "EXCESS HEAT" AND "HEAT AFTER DEATH" IN A GAS-LOADING HYDROGEN/PALLADIUM SYSTEM (J. Tian, CHINA)................ 360 PRIMARY CALORIMETRIC RESULTS ON CLOSED Pd/D2O ELECTROLYSIS SYSTEMS BY CALVET CALORIMETRY (Wu S. Zhang, CHINA)................ 431 2. TRANSMUTATION OBSERVATION OF LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS INDUCED BY D2 GAS PERMEATION THROUGH Pd COMPLEXES (Y.Iwamura, JAPAN)............... 141 EVIDENCE FOR LITHIUM-6 DEPLETION IN Pd EXPOSED TO GASEOUS DEUTERIUM AND HYDROGEN (Thomas O. Passell, USA)............... 299 EXCESS ENERGY AND ANOMALOUS CONCENTRATION OF 41K ISOTOPES IN POTASSIUM FORMED ON/IN A Re ELECTRODE DURING THE PLASMA ELECTROLYSIS IN K2CO3/H2O AND K2CO3/D2O SOLUTIONS (T. Ohmori, JAPAN)............... 284 PRODUCTION OF Ba AND SEVERAL ANOMALOUS ELEMENTS IN Pd UNDER LIGHT WATER ELECTROLYSIS (H. Yamada, JAPAN)............... 420 EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATION OF THE NEW ELEMENTS PRODUCTION IN THE DEUTERATED AND/OR HYDRIDE PALLADIUM ELECTRODES, EXPOSED TO THE LOW ENERGY DC GLOW DISCHARGE (A. Arapi, JAPAN)................ 1 ON NEW ELEMENTS ON CATHODE SURFACE AFTER HYDROGEN ISOTOPES ABSORPTION (Dan Chicea, ROMANIA)............... 53 INVESTIGATION OF COMBINED INFLUENCE OF Sr, Cl AND S ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF Fe-54 ISOTOPE IN BIOLOGICAL CULTURES (Alia A. Kornilova, RUSSIA)................ 174 CATALYTIC INFLUENCE OF CAESIUM ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF INTERMEDIATE AND HEAVY MASS ISOTOPES IN GROWING BIOLOGICAL CULTURES (Vladimir I. Vysotskii, RUSSIA)................ 391 3. HELIUM AND TRITIUM DETECTION PROGRESS TOWARDS REPLICATION (M. McKubre, USA).................. 241 PICNONUCLEAR FUSION GENERATED IN "LATTICE-REACTOR" OF METALLIC DEUTERIUM LATTICE WITHIN METAL ATOM-CLUSTERS (Yoshiaki Arata, JAPAN)............... 5 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTING SMALL QUANTITIES OF 4He GAS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS (A. Frattolillo, ITALY)............... 92 PINCHED CAVITATION JETS AND FUSION EVENTS (Roger S. Stringham, USA).................. 323 EVIDENCE OF ANOMALOUS TRITIUM EXCESS IN D/Pd OVERLOADING EXPERIMENTS (Francesco Celani, ITALY)................ 36 MODELING THE 3He CONCENTRATION IN A CLARKE et al. GAS SAMPLE FROM AN ARATA-STYLE CATHODE (Talbot A. Chubb, USA)................ 67 AN EXPLANATION OF DATA SETS OBTAINED BY MCKUBRE ET AL. (EXCESS HEAT), CLARKE (NULL RESULTS OF 4He, RHe) AND CLARKE ET AL.(TRITIUM) WITH"ARATA CELL" (H. Kozima,USA)................ 182 STUDIES OF COHERENT DEUTERON FUSION AND RELATED NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN SOLID (Masayuki Matsunaka, JAPAN)................ 237 4. LOADING OF H(D); MATERIAL SCIENCE LOADING OF H(D) IN A Pd LATTICE (E. Del Giudice, ITALY).................. 87 DEUTERIUM GAS LOADING OF PALLADIUM USING A SOLID STATE ELECTROLYTE (Jean-Paul Siberian, FRANCE)................ 17 METALLURGICAL EFFECTS ON THE DYNAMIC OF HYDROGEN LOADING IN Pd (V. Violante, ITALY)................ 383 ELECTROCHEMICAL D LOADING OF PALLADIUM WIRES BY HEAVY ETHYL-ALCOHOL AND WATER ELECTROLYTE, RELATED TO RALSTONIA BACTERIA PROBLEMATICS (Francesco Celani, ITALY)............... 29 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES TO ACHIEVE H/Pd LOADING RATIO CLOSE TO 1 IN THIN WIRES, USING DIFFERENT ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTIONS (A. Spallone, ITALY)............... 319 MEASUREMENT OF HEAT CAPACITY OF PdHx (Luca Gamberale, ITALY).................. 105 THE ELEVATION OF BOILING POINTS IN H2O AND D2O ELECTROLYTES (M.H. Miles, U.S.A) ................... 246 ADHESION OF SUPERLATTICE HARD COATINGS ON STEEL AND CEMENTED CARBIDE SUBSTRATES (Wolf-Dieter Miinz, UK)............... 271 ELECTROCHEMICAL EFFECTS ON THE RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS OF Pd/H ELECTRODE (Wu S. Zhang, CHINA)............... 427 IN-SITU CHARACTERIZATION OF SPUTTERED Pd THIN-FILMS UNDERGOING ELECTROLYSIS (N. Luo,USA)............... 229 CHARACTERIZATION OF Pd-Ni THIN FILM BY ANNEALING METHOD (Sung O. Kim, USA)... 159 DYNAMICS OF HYDROGEN LOADING IN PALLADIUM (Paolo Tripodi, ITALY).................. 367 5. DETECTION OF NUCLEAR EMISSION EFFECTS OF GLOW DISCHARGE WITH HYDROGEN ISOTOPE PLASMAS ON RADIOACTIVITY OF URANIUM (J. Dash ,USA)............... 77 X-RAY EMISSION DURING ELECTROLYSIS OF LIGHT WATER ON PALLADIUM AND NICKEL THIN FILMS (V Violante, ITALY)............... 376 REGISTRATION OF SYNTHESIS of 45Rh102 IN MEDIA of EXCITED NUCLEI OF 28Ni58 (Igor V. Goryachev, RUSSIA)............... 109 ANOMALOUS ENHANCEMENT OF DD-REACTION, ALPHA-EMISSION AND X-RAY GENERATION IN THE HIGH-CURRENT PULSING DEUTERIUM GLOW-DISCHARGE WITH Ti-CATHODE AT THE VOLTAGES RANGING FROM 0.8-2.5 kV (A.G. Lipson, RUSSIA)............... 208 IN-SITU CHARGED PARTICLES AND X-RAY DETECTION IN Pd THIN FILM-CATHODES DURING ELECTROLYSIS IN Li2SO4/H2O (A.G. Lipson, RUSSIA)................ 218 ANOMALOUS THERMAL NEUTRON CAPTURE AND SUB-SURFACE Pd-ISOTOPES SEPARATION IN COLD-WORKED PALLADIUM FOILS AS A RESULT OF DEUTERIUM LOADING (A.G. Lipson, RUSSIA)................ 213 RELATION BETWEEN NEUTRON EVOLUTION AND DEUTERIUM PERMEATION FOR A PALLADIUM ELECTRODE (Tadahiko Mizuno, JAPAN)................ 265 LONG-RANGE a-PARTICLE EMISSION FROM PuNi2 STRUCTURE (A.S. Roussetski, RUSSIA)... 308 X-RAY EMISSION IN THE HIGH-CURRENT GLOW DISCHARGE EXPERIMENTS (A. B. Karabut, RUSSIA)................ 155 EMISSION REGISTRATION ON FILMS DURING GLOW DISCHARGE EXPERIMENTS (Irina Sawatimova, RUSSIA)................ 312 STUDIES OF NUCLEAR-REACTIONS-IN-SOLID IN TITUNIUM DEUTERIDE UNDER ION BEAM IMPLANTATION (T.Dairaku, JAPAN)................ 73 DEUTERIUM ION BEAM IRRADIATION OF PALLADIUM UNDER IN SITU CONTROL OF DEUTERIUM DENSITY (M. Miyamoto, JAPAN)................ 261 6. THEORIES A UNIFIED MODEL FOR ANOMALIES IN METAL DEUTERIDES (P. L. Hagelstein, USA).................. 121 SHRINKING OF HYDROGEN ATOMS IN HOST METALS BY DIELECTRIC EFFECTS AND INGLIS-TELLER DEPRESSION OF IONZATION POTENTIALS (Heinrich Hora, AUSTRALIA).................. 135 TETRAHEDRAL AND OCTAHEDRAL RESONANCE FUSION UNDER TRANSIENT CONDENSATION OF DEUTERONS AT LATTICE FOCAL POINTS (Akito Takahashi, JAPAN).... 343 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MICROSCOPIC AND MACROSCOPIC INTERACTIONS IN LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM D+D’He4He (Scott R Chubb, USA)....... .............. 57 TRITIUM PRODUCTION AND SELECTIVE RESONANT TUNNELLING MODEL (S. Chen, CHINA)................ 42 ABNORMAL RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTING WITH EXCITED SUBSTANCES AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DISCOVERED EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAMES OF THE MODEL OF COLLECTIVE INTERACTIONS (Igor V. Goryachev, RUSSIA)............... 112 ARE THERE SOME LOOSE BOUND STATES OF NUCLEUS-NUCLEUS TWO-BODY SYSTEM? (Zhao Q. Zhang, CHINA)............... 443 ANALYSIS ON NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION BY MPIF/SCS MODEL (M. Ohta, JAPAN).................. 295 CONSISTENT EXPLANATION OF TOPOGRAPHY CHANGE AND NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION IN SURFACE LAYERS OF CATHODES IN ELECTROLYTIC COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS (H. Kozima, USA)............... 178 NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS OF COLD FUSION RATES IN METAL DEUTERIDES (V.A. Kirkinskii, RUSSIA)............... 162 FUSION REACTION PROBABILITY IN IRON HYDRIDE AND THE PROBLEM OF NUCLEOSYNTHESIS IN THE EARTH'S INTERIOR (V.A. Kirkinskii, RUSSIA)............... 166 EXCITED STATES OF NUCLEONS IN A NUCLEUS AND COLD FUSION PHENOMENON IN TRANSITION-METAL HYDRIDES AND DEUTERIDES (H. Kozima, USA)............... 186 A POSSIBLE ENHANCEMENT MECHANISM OF NUCLEAR FUSION (Takayasu Tanaka, JAPAN)................ 349 A POSSIBLE MODEL FOR NUCLEAR REACTION IN METAL VACANCY INCLUDING CONDENSED BOSE PARTICLES (Ken-ichi Tsuchiya, JAPAN)................ 372 OPTIMIZED dd-FUSION WITHOUT COULOMB BARRIER IN A VOLUME OF COLD GAS OF DEUTERIUM (Vladimir I. Vysotskii, UKRAINE)................ 386 PRODUCTION OF EXCESS HEAT BASED ON BOSONS IN, BOSONS OUT PRINCIPLE (James T. Waber,USA)................ 395 A CATALYTIC ROLE OF ATOMIC OXYGEN ON ANOMALOUS HEAT GENERATION (Hiroshi Yamamoto, JAPAN)................ 424 FURTHER STUDY ON THE SOLUTION OF SCHRODINGER EQUATION OF HYDROGEN-LIKE ATOM (Zhong L. Zhang, CHINA)................ 435 POSSIBILITY OF ELECTRON CAPTURED BY DEUTERON (Zhong L. Zhang, CHINA).................. 439 THEORETICAL MODEL ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOW ENERGIES IN THE PROBABILITY OF DEUTERIUM NUCLEI COLD FUSION (Frisone Fulvio, ITALY)................ 101 7. MISCELLANEOUS COLD FUSION LIKE PHENOMENA IN NATURAL FIELDS (Takaaki Matsumoto, JAPAN).................. 233 ORGANIZATION, CURRENT STATUS AND MAIN RESULTS OF RUSSIAN RESEARCH IN COLD NUCLEAR FUSION AND TRANSMUTATION OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS (Igor V. Goryachev, RUSSIA)................ 114 FACTORS AFFECTING HYDROGEN (DEUTERIUM) FLUX THROUGH A THIN PALLADIUM FILM (Xian Z. Ren, CHINA)................ 305 PHYSICAL BASIS OF COLD FUSION EXCITED IN TiD2 LATTICE (Jia Q. Li, CHINA).................. 192 TORSION FIELD EFFECT AND AXION MODEL IN ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE SYSTEMS (Xing L. Jiang, CHINA)................ 147 A KIND OF NEW PHYSICAL PROCESS AND ITS ROLE IN SOLAR PHYSICS AND ASTROPHYSICS (Run B. Lu, CHINA)................ 224 MAILING LIST...................... 447 AUTHOR INDEX 456 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 12:36:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA18874; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:34:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:34:08 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:38:07 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Atomic Density: Anomaly, data error, or what? Resent-Message-ID: <"vV4az2.0.mc4.lGuv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50799 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Using the atomic radius and density of various elements as reported in periodic tables obtained at The University of Alaska bookstore, I compiled and computed the Table Of Atomic Densities vs Measured Densities shown below. The "Packing Factor" number computed is the ratio of the measured density of the solid to the density of an atom, i.e. its "Atomic Density". The packing factor should be similar for elements with similar crystal structures, or for Br and Hg, which are liquid, but have packing factors of 0.14593 and 0.57425 respectively. If isotopic ratios are the cause of the problem then Na and Al, each having only one isotope in nature, should be similar, and they are not far off at 0.68488 for Na vs 0.73815 for Al. It is also the case that Na is cubic, body cetered, while Al is is cubic, face centered. However, how does one account for the packing factor for potassium of 1.313?? This is a very compact lattice indeed! The most anomalous data point is the bromine density. Is this perhaps just an error? Given that the packing factor for Se is not far off, maybe the data points for Se and Br are correct? What's going on here? Help! Table Of Atomic Densities vs Measured densities Atomic Atomic Atomic Atomic Measured Packing Atomic Element Weight Radius Volume Density Density Factor Number Name (g/mol) (ang.) (cm^3/mol) (g/cm^3) (g/cm^3) 3 Li 6.941 1.52 8.86 0.78 0.53 0.67643 4 Be 9.012 1.11 3.45 2.61 1.85 0.70819 5 B 10.810 0.80 1.29 8.37 2.34 0.27958 6 C 12.011 0.77 1.15 10.43 2.62 0.25121 11 Na 22.990 1.86 16.23 1.42 0.97 0.68488 12 Mg 24.305 1.60 10.33 2.35 1.74 0.73969 13 Al 26.982 1.43 7.38 3.66 2.70 0.73815 19 K 39.098 2.27 29.51 1.33 1.74 1.31313 20 Ca 40.080 1.97 19.29 2.08 1.55 0.74583 33 As 74.922 1.25 4.93 15.21 5.72 0.37615 34 Se 78.960 1.16 3.94 20.05 4.80 0.23936 35 Br 79.904 1.14 3.74 21.38 3.12 0.14593 46 Pd 106.400 1.38 6.63 16.05 12.00 0.74768 47 Ag 107.868 1.45 7.69 14.03 10.50 0.74858 52 Te 127.600 1.43 7.38 17.30 6.24 0.36073 53 I 126.905 1.33 5.93 21.38 4.92 0.23008 74 W 183.850 1.37 6.49 28.34 19.30 0.68092 78 Pt 195.090 1.39 6.77 28.80 21.40 0.74313 79 Au 196.967 1.44 7.53 26.15 19.30 0.73806 80 Hg 200.590 1.50 8.51 23.56 13.53 0.57425 82 Pb 207.200 1.75 13.52 15.33 11.40 0.74382 92 U 238.029 1.39 6.77 35.14 18.90 0.53792 Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 12:39:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA22107; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:38:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:38:26 -0700 Message-ID: <3EE78538.30107 pobox.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:38:32 -0400 From: Steve Lawrence User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"z6fUV1.0.IP5.mKuv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50800 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Fields wrote: > Suppose for a moment that our universe is merely a bubble surrounded by > an infinite expanse of infinitely dense, infinitely energetic Universe. > For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese. > [...] > Because of the > inverse square law on our side of the void wall, the closer the matter > gets to the void's wall the more it is attracted, the greater its > velocity becomes, and the greater the red shift becomes the farther out > we look... Well.... There is a small nit to be picked here, which is that if gravity goes as 1/r^2 in this model, and if the void is roughly spherical, then the attraction to the walls due to gravity should probably be nil. The field inside a spherical shell due to a 1/r^2 force cancels out. If the block of Swiss cheese extends to infinity, then it's more complex than a simple spherical shell, and (I admit) I haven't try to integrate it to see what the result would be, but I suspect it still comes out to zero. Lumps in the cheese would change this, of course, but probably wouldn't result in a vector pointing directly to the wall. On the other hand, if gravity falls off faster than 1/r^2 over very large distances, then it would still all work out. ('Course, if this is all actually taking place in some higher dimension, my intuition fails and I have no idea what the forces might be like.) ============================== If this were true, then Clarke's old speculative fiction story about a universe which was barely big enough to hold one solar system might actually be fact, somewhere... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 12:51:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA27027; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:50:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:50:40 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:54:42 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"MYYTY3.0.Dc6.GWuv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50801 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:38 PM 6/11/3, Steve Lawrence wrote: >There is a small nit to be picked here, which is that if gravity goes as >1/r^2 in this model, and if the void is roughly spherical, then the >attraction to the walls due to gravity should probably be nil. The >field inside a spherical shell due to a 1/r^2 force cancels out. Yes, I've already picked that nit myself in a prior post. >If the >block of Swiss cheese extends to infinity, then it's more complex than a >simple spherical shell, and (I admit) I haven't try to integrate it to >see what the result would be, but I suspect it still comes out to zero. Each shell outside the point of interest integrates to zero force on that point. When you sum up all the shells to infinity, you get a sum of a series of zeroes, which is zero. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 13:06:17 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA01984; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:05:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:05:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3EE78BCD.3050402 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:06:37 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF-9 proceedings finally arrive References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611145741.02da2990 pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kjApo.0.rU.tjuv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50802 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > The ICCF-9 proceedings finally arrived. Can you comment on how CF research is funded in China? Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 14:04:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA03602; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:01:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:01:36 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611165919.00abeb40 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:01:34 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: ICCF-9 proceedings finally arrive In-Reply-To: <3EE78BCD.3050402 rtpatlanta.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611145741.02da2990 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"ynOho2.0.Au.mYvv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50803 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: >Can you comment on how CF research is funded in China? I do not know a thing about that. It says in the front of the Proceedings: "The following contributors are gratefully acknowledged Tsinghua University Press Tsinghua Tongfang Optical Dick Co. Ltd. (sic) Great Wall Ti-Gold Technology Co. Ltd. MicroRoad Corporation Nanometer International Company With the sponsorship of: Fundamental Research Division, Ministry of Science and Technology Physics Division II, Natural Science Foundation of China Chinese Nuclear Physics Society Department of Physics, Tsinghua University" - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 14:10:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA08336; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:08:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:08:32 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611170453.02d69438 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:08:29 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: ICCF-9 proceedings finally arrive In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611165919.00abeb40 pop.mindspring.com> References: <3EE78BCD.3050402 rtpatlanta.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030611145741.02da2990 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"ba9Cv.0.522.Gfvv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50804 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: That list should end with two organizations: Chinese Nuclear Physics Society Department of Physics, Tsinghua University I cannot imagine what an Optical Dick is. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 15:16:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA19958; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:15:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:15:07 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:19:06 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Atomic Density: Anomaly, data error, or what? Resent-Message-ID: <"UEfza.0.mt4.hdwv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50805 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following selected data uses the atomic radius from a Sargent-Welch Periodic Table. This is the stand-alone atomic radius. This data looks pretty whacko too. Stange that neither this data nor the covelaent radius data from Sargent-Welch (catalog number S-18806) matches the radii from the Qucik Study Academic periodic table (ISBN 157222345-6). Maybe if I use the covalent radius the data will look better. Table Of Atomic Densities vs Measured Densities (Atomic Radius from Sargent-Welch Periodic Table) Atomic Atomic Atomic Atomic Measured Packing Atomic Element Weight Radius Volume Density Density Factor Number Name (g/mol) (ang.)(cm^3/mol)(g/cm^3)(g/cm^3) 3 Li 6.941 2.05 21.73 0.32 0.53 1.65941 4 Be 9.012 1.40 6.92 1.30 1.85 1.42091 5 B 10.810 1.17 4.04 2.68 2.34 0.87455 6 C 12.011 0.91 1.90 6.32 2.62 0.41465 11 Na 22.990 2.23 27.97 0.82 0.97 1.18030 12 Mg 24.305 1.72 12.84 1.89 1.74 0.91892 13 Al 26.982 1.82 15.21 1.77 2.70 1.52177 19 K 39.098 2.77 53.61 0.73 1.74 2.38600 20 Ca 40.080 2.23 27.97 1.43 1.55 1.08183 33 As 74.922 1.33 5.93 12.62 5.72 0.45309 34 Se 78.960 1.22 4.58 17.24 4.80 0.27845 35 Br 79.904 1.12 3.54 22.55 3.12 0.13838 46 Pd 106.400 1.79 14.47 7.35 12.00 1.63169 47 Ag 107.868 1.75 13.52 7.98 10.50 1.31598 52 Te 127.600 1.42 7.22 17.67 6.24 0.35321 53 I 126.905 1.32 5.80 21.87 4.92 0.22493 74 W 183.850 2.02 20.79 8.84 19.30 2.18266 78 Pt 195.090 1.83 15.46 12.62 21.40 1.69579 79 Au 196.967 1.79 14.47 13.61 19.30 1.41763 80 Hg 200.590 1.76 13.75 14.59 13.53 0.92761 82 Pb 207.200 1.81 14.96 13.85 11.40 0.82298 92 U 238.029 1.42 7.22 32.96 18.90 0.57350 Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 15:47:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA07666; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:46:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:46:00 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:49:58 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Atomic Density: Anomaly, data error, or what? Resent-Message-ID: <"v9dLi3.0.dt1.e4xv-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50806 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following data uses the covalent radius data from Sargent-Welch (catalog number S-18806). It is much more orderly, but there are still some extreme packing factors, like K (high) and Br, Te, and I (low). Small mass differences of isotopes can not explain this. Hard to believe crystal structure accounts for all this. Tellurium is haxagonal in structure, as is Mg, but they differ in packing factors by a factor of about 1.46. How is it that the vast majority (about 85 percent) of liquid bromine must be free space? Still hard to understand the discrepancy. Table Of Atomic Densities vs Measured Densities (Covalent Atomic Radius from Sargent-Welch Periodic Table) Covalent Atomic Atomic Atomic Atomic Measured Packing Atomic Element Weight Radius Volume Density Density Factor Number Name (g/mol) (ang.)(cm^3/mol)(g/cm^3)(g/cm^3) 3 Li 6.941 1.23 4.69 1.48 0.53 0.35843 4 Be 9.012 0.90 1.84 4.90 1.85 0.37749 5 B 10.810 0.82 1.39 7.77 2.34 0.30107 6 C 12.011 0.77 1.15 10.43 2.62 0.25121 11 Na 22.990 1.54 9.21 2.50 0.97 0.38872 12 Mg 24.305 1.36 6.35 3.83 1.74 0.45427 13 Al 26.982 1.18 4.14 6.51 2.70 0.41475 19 K 39.098 2.03 21.10 1.85 1.74 0.93911 20 Ca 40.080 1.74 13.29 3.02 1.55 0.51391 33 As 74.922 1.20 4.36 17.19 5.72 0.33279 34 Se 78.960 1.22 4.58 17.24 4.80 0.27845 35 Br 79.904 1.14 3.74 21.38 3.12 0.14593 46 Pd 106.400 1.28 5.29 20.11 12.00 0.59663 47 Ag 107.868 1.34 6.07 17.77 10.50 0.59081 52 Te 127.600 1.36 6.35 20.11 6.24 0.31031 53 I 126.905 1.33 5.93 21.38 4.92 0.23008 74 W 183.850 1.30 5.54 33.17 19.30 0.58179 78 Pt 195.090 1.30 5.54 35.20 21.40 0.60792 79 Au 196.967 1.34 6.07 32.45 19.30 0.59473 80 Hg 200.590 1.49 8.34 24.04 13.53 0.56284 82 Pb 207.200 1.47 8.01 25.86 11.40 0.44087 92 U 238.029 1.42 7.22 32.96 18.90 0.57350 Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 21:27:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA15466; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:26:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:26:17 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:30:11 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Gravi-chem Table Resent-Message-ID: <"nz8yr3.0.Zn3.f30w-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50807 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gravi-chem Table for Selected Ions R-ion Vol_ion rho_ion F_b E_ion Atomic Ionic Ion Ion Bouyancy Balanced E vs g Atomic Ion Weight Radius Volume Density in water H2O 100 C Number Name q (g/mol) (ang.) (cm^3/mol)(g/cm^3) (g/cm^3) (V/m/mega-g) 3 Li 1 6.941 0.76 1.11 6.27 -5.31 -0.59761 4 Be 2 9.012 0.45 0.23 39.21 -38.25 -0.44680 5 * B 3 10.810 0.30 0.07 158.72 -157.76 -0.36403 6 * C 4 12.011 0.35 0.11 111.05 -110.10 -0.30256 7 * N 5 14.007 0.12 0.00 3213.31 -3212.35 -0.28464 8 O -2 15.999 1.40 6.92 2.31 -1.35 0.47595 9 F -1 18.998 1.33 5.93 3.20 -2.24 1.35288 11 Na 1 22.990 1.02 2.68 8.59 -7.63 -2.07589 12 Mg 2 24.305 0.72 0.94 25.81 -24.86 -1.18931 13 Al 3 26.982 0.54 0.40 67.93 -66.97 -0.90123 14 Si 4 28.086 0.26 0.04 633.47 -632.51 -0.71256 15 P 5 30.974 0.17 0.01 2499.24 -2498.28 -0.62939 16 S -2 32.060 1.84 15.71 2.04 -1.08 0.86390 17 Cl -1 35.453 1.81 14.96 2.37 -1.41 2.14633 19 K 1 39.098 1.51 8.69 4.50 -3.54 -3.12789 20 Ca 2 40.080 1.00 2.52 15.89 -14.93 -1.91398 21 Sc 3 44.956 0.75 1.06 42.24 -41.29 -1.48853 22 Ti 4 47.900 0.61 0.57 83.66 -82.70 -1.20318 23 V 5 50.942 0.54 0.40 128.25 -127.29 -1.02779 24 Cr 3 51.996 0.62 0.60 86.49 -85.53 -1.74208 25 Mn 2 54.938 0.67 0.76 72.41 -71.45 -2.75496 26 Fe 3 55.847 0.55 0.42 133.07 -132.11 -1.87845 27 Co 2 58.933 0.65 0.69 85.07 -84.11 -2.96121 28 Ni 2 58.700 0.69 0.83 70.84 -69.88 -2.94274 29 Cu 2 63.546 0.73 0.98 64.76 -63.80 -3.18158 20 Zn 2 65.380 0.74 1.02 63.96 -63.00 -3.27279 31 Ga 3 69.720 0.62 0.60 115.97 -115.01 -2.34257 32 Ge 4 72.590 0.53 0.38 193.29 -192.33 -1.83534 33 As 3 74.922 0.58 0.49 152.22 -151.27 -2.52233 34 Se -2 78.960 1.98 19.58 4.03 -3.07 3.05900 35 Br -1 79.904 1.96 18.99 4.21 -3.25 6.27117 37 Rb 1 85.468 1.61 10.53 8.12 -7.16 -7.66138 38 SR 2 87.620 1.26 5.05 17.36 -16.41 -4.20703 39 Y 3 88.906 1.02 2.68 33.21 -32.25 -2.92518 40 Zr 4 91.220 0.84 1.50 61.01 -60.05 -2.28146 41 Nb 5 92.906 0.64 0.66 140.50 -139.54 -1.87570 42 Mo 6 95.940 0.59 0.52 185.18 -184.23 -1.61679 44 Ru 3 101.070 0.68 0.79 127.43 -126.47 -3.39846 45 Rh 3 102.906 0.67 0.76 135.64 -134.68 -3.46176 46 Pd 2 106.400 0.64 0.66 160.90 -159.94 -5.37498 47 Ag 1 107.868 1.15 3.84 28.12 -27.16 -10.58986 48 Cd 2 112.410 0.95 2.16 51.98 -51.02 -5.60727 49 In 3 114.820 0.80 1.29 88.90 -87.94 -3.84812 50 Sn 4 118.890 0.45 0.23 517.21 -516.25 -3.01536 51 Sb 3 121.750 0.76 1.11 109.95 -108.99 -4.08889 52 Te -2 127.600 1.07 3.09 41.29 -40.33 6.33405 53 I -1 126.905 2.20 26.86 4.72 -3.77 10.28197 55 Cs 1 132.905 1.74 13.29 10.00 -9.04 -12.21387 56 Ba 2 137.330 1.42 7.22 19.01 -18.06 -6.62724 73 Ta 5 180.948 0.64 0.66 273.64 -272.68 -3.66538 74 W 6 183.850 0.60 0.54 337.42 -336.46 -3.10554 78 Pt 4 195.090 0.63 0.63 309.30 -308.34 -4.94182 79 Au 3 196.967 0.85 1.55 127.14 -126.19 -6.62285 80 Hg 2 200.590 1.02 2.68 74.93 -73.97 -10.06348 82 Pb 2 207.200 1.19 4.25 48.74 -47.78 -10.32274 83 Bi 3 208.980 1.03 2.76 75.81 -74.86 -6.99067 90 Th 4 232.038 1.05 2.92 79.46 -78.50 -5.82491 92 U 6 238.029 0.81 1.34 177.56 -176.60 -4.01040 Notes: * - means estimated ion radius. (Wildly guessed based on proportions) 1. In equilibrium , the force of acceleration equals the electrostatic force: Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E Thus we can compute the field strength corresponding to an acceleration: E = m*a/q 2. Acceleration is normalized to 10^6 g's in the table, or 9.80665x10^6 m/s^2, a "mega-g". However, m in this case is M_b, bouyant mass: M_b = F_b * Vol_ion / Na where Na is Avogadro's number, so we see how the units work out by: M_b (g/ion) = F_b (in g/cm^3) * Vol_ion (cm^3/mol) /(6.0221367x10^23 ions/mol) 3. The density of water used in computing bouyancy, 0.9584, is the value for water at 100 C at 1 Bar. 4. Warning: I tend to make typo and other errors! Also, there may be significant errors in the source data, especially for ionic radius. Posting of corrections is encouraged! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 11 21:35:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA18063; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:32:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:32:30 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:36:30 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem Table Resent-Message-ID: <"sNns.0.2Q4.U90w-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50808 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gravi-chem Table for Selected Ions R-ion Vol_ion rho_ion F_b E_ion Atomic Ionic Ion Ion Bouyancy Balanced E vs g Atomic Ion Weight Radius Volume Density in water H2O 100 C Number Name q (g/mol) (ang.) (cm^3/mol)(g/cm^3) (g/cm^3) (V/m/mega-g) 3 Li 1 6.941 0.76 1.11 6.27 -5.31 -0.59761 4 Be 2 9.012 0.45 0.23 39.21 -38.25 -0.44680 5 * B 3 10.810 0.30 0.07 158.72 -157.76 -0.36403 6 * C 4 12.011 0.35 0.11 111.05 -110.10 -0.30256 7 * N 5 14.007 0.12 0.00 3213.31 -3212.35 -0.28464 8 O -2 15.999 1.40 6.92 2.31 -1.35 0.47595 9 F -1 18.998 1.33 5.93 3.20 -2.24 1.35288 11 Na 1 22.990 1.02 2.68 8.59 -7.63 -2.07589 12 Mg 2 24.305 0.72 0.94 25.81 -24.86 -1.18931 13 Al 3 26.982 0.54 0.40 67.93 -66.97 -0.90123 14 Si 4 28.086 0.26 0.04 633.47 -632.51 -0.71256 15 P 5 30.974 0.17 0.01 2499.24 -2498.28 -0.62939 16 S -2 32.060 1.84 15.71 2.04 -1.08 0.86390 17 Cl -1 35.453 1.81 14.96 2.37 -1.41 2.14633 19 K 1 39.098 1.51 8.69 4.50 -3.54 -3.12789 20 Ca 2 40.080 1.00 2.52 15.89 -14.93 -1.91398 21 Sc 3 44.956 0.75 1.06 42.24 -41.29 -1.48853 22 Ti 4 47.900 0.61 0.57 83.66 -82.70 -1.20318 23 V 5 50.942 0.54 0.40 128.25 -127.29 -1.02779 24 Cr 3 51.996 0.62 0.60 86.49 -85.53 -1.74208 25 Mn 2 54.938 0.67 0.76 72.41 -71.45 -2.75496 26 Fe 3 55.847 0.55 0.42 133.07 -132.11 -1.87845 27 Co 2 58.933 0.65 0.69 85.07 -84.11 -2.96121 28 Ni 2 58.700 0.69 0.83 70.84 -69.88 -2.94274 29 Cu 2 63.546 0.73 0.98 64.76 -63.80 -3.18158 20 Zn 2 65.380 0.74 1.02 63.96 -63.00 -3.27279 31 Ga 3 69.720 0.62 0.60 115.97 -115.01 -2.34257 32 Ge 4 72.590 0.53 0.38 193.29 -192.33 -1.83534 33 As 3 74.922 0.58 0.49 152.22 -151.27 -2.52233 34 Se -2 78.960 1.98 19.58 4.03 -3.07 3.05900 35 Br -1 79.904 1.96 18.99 4.21 -3.25 6.27117 37 Rb 1 85.468 1.61 10.53 8.12 -7.16 -7.66138 38 SR 2 87.620 1.26 5.05 17.36 -16.41 -4.20703 39 Y 3 88.906 1.02 2.68 33.21 -32.25 -2.92518 40 Zr 4 91.220 0.84 1.50 61.01 -60.05 -2.28146 41 Nb 5 92.906 0.64 0.66 140.50 -139.54 -1.87570 42 Mo 6 95.940 0.59 0.52 185.18 -184.23 -1.61679 44 Ru 3 101.070 0.68 0.79 127.43 -126.47 -3.39846 45 Rh 3 102.906 0.67 0.76 135.64 -134.68 -3.46176 46 Pd 2 106.400 0.64 0.66 160.90 -159.94 -5.37498 47 Ag 1 107.868 1.15 3.84 28.12 -27.16 -10.58986 48 Cd 2 112.410 0.95 2.16 51.98 -51.02 -5.60727 49 In 3 114.820 0.80 1.29 88.90 -87.94 -3.84812 50 Sn 4 118.890 0.45 0.23 517.21 -516.25 -3.01536 51 Sb 3 121.750 0.76 1.11 109.95 -108.99 -4.08889 52 Te -2 127.600 1.07 3.09 41.29 -40.33 6.33405 53 I -1 126.905 2.20 26.86 4.72 -3.77 10.28197 55 Cs 1 132.905 1.74 13.29 10.00 -9.04 -12.21387 56 Ba 2 137.330 1.42 7.22 19.01 -18.06 -6.62724 73 Ta 5 180.948 0.64 0.66 273.64 -272.68 -3.66538 74 W 6 183.850 0.60 0.54 337.42 -336.46 -3.10554 78 Pt 4 195.090 0.63 0.63 309.30 -308.34 -4.94182 79 Au 3 196.967 0.85 1.55 127.14 -126.19 -6.62285 80 Hg 2 200.590 1.02 2.68 74.93 -73.97 -10.06348 82 Pb 2 207.200 1.19 4.25 48.74 -47.78 -10.32274 83 Bi 3 208.980 1.03 2.76 75.81 -74.86 -6.99067 90 Th 4 232.038 1.05 2.92 79.46 -78.50 -5.82491 92 U 6 238.029 0.81 1.34 177.56 -176.60 -4.01040 Notes: * - means estimated ion radius. (Wildly guessed based on proportions) 1. In equilibrium , the force of acceleration equals the electrostatic force: Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E Thus we can compute the field strength corresponding to an acceleration: E = m*a/q However, m in this case is M_b, bouyant mass: M_b = F_b * Vol_ion / (Na * 1000 g/kg) where Na is Avogadro's number, so we see how the units work out by: M_b (g/ion) = F_b (in g/cm^3) * Vol_ion (cm^3/mol) /(6.0221367x10^23 ions/mol * 1000 g/kg) 2. Acceleration "a" is normalized to 10^6 g's in the table, or 9.80665x10^6 m/s^2, a "mega-g". 3. The density of water used in computing bouyancy, 0.9584, is the value for water at 100 C at 1 Bar. 4. Warning: I tend to make typo and other errors! Also, there may be significant errors in the source data, especially for ionic radius. Posting of corrections is encouraged! The good news is that the calculations were done by spreadsheet, so should be consistant at lest. Regards, Horace Heffner Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 01:58:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA01341; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:58:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:58:20 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:57:38 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Another method of extracting energy from water Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1162; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"7riSo2.0.tK.h24w-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50810 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Some of you have heard of Dale Pond, webmaster of http://www.svpvril.com , Dale has spent the last 20 some years studying the work of John E W Keeley, 19th century American inventor. His findings are in his books, which are available on the website, and on the website. Keeley managed to spend his way through lots of OPM, other people's money. His investors hated him because, AFAIK, none of his inventions ever made any money. Of particular interest to me is the Compound Disintergrator. Dale's first book is full of pictures of the inventor posing with lots of nifty machines, which according to the story did all kinds of marvelous things. Among his inventions were water engines, a title which, IMHO, needs no further explanation. Some of them worked by inducing cavitation. Near the end of the book however there is a drawing of Keeley demonstrating a gun which was powered by water. There is also a drawing of an arm with 15 inch marks on it. The falcrum is at one end, about 1 inch over a piston is attached. At the 15 inch mark a 200 lb weight is attached. Consequently the weight had a 15 to one advantage over the piston. The cylinder into which the piston went was connected to something called a Liberator. According to Dale, this device demonstrated a pressure of 20,000. Keeley's distractors claim that the effects he demonstrated were the result of compressed air, I doubt that an air compressor of the 19th century could have produced air at that pressure. I suppose it depends on the size of the piston. According to the theory, at higher frequencies, the subatomic particles can be made to spin. I assume that when this happens, then the entire particle will start spinning, and then the material flies apart. Dale and I were discussing the possibility of causing water molecules to fly apart when the appropriate vibration was applied. He thinks that he knows how to make this happen. He also believes that at a high enough frequency, the energy of the expanding water would exceed the energy required to produce the effect. I suggested forming a corporation to raise money to investigate this. He thinks that this is a terrible idea, and that was the end of the conversation. If any of you think that this is a good idea, I'm available to discuss it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 01:58:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA01307; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:58:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:58:16 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:57:38 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1162; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"g4FmK2.0.KK.e24w-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50809 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Fields posted; >Suppose for a moment that our universe is merely a bubble surrounded by >an infinite expanse of infinitely dense, infinitely energetic Universe. >For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese. When > Have you ever heard of the Recriprocal Universe of Dewey B Larson? He proposed a bubble universe. Hoyt Sterns who posts on this list sometimes is a Larson advocate. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 09:18:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA18263; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:17:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:17:10 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:18:57 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 JAA18199 Resent-Message-ID: <"_RKUi3.0.FT4.5UAw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50811 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:57:38 -0500, you wrote: >John Fields posted; > >>Suppose for a moment that our universe is merely a bubble surrounded by >>an infinite expanse of infinitely dense, infinitely energetic Universe. >>For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese. When >> > >Have you ever heard of the Recriprocal Universe of Dewey B Larson? He >proposed a bubble universe. Hoyt Sterns who posts on this list >sometimes is a Larson advocate. --- No, I haven't, but thanks; I'll check it out. -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 09:47:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA03656; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:45:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:45:13 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:47:00 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 JAA03597 Resent-Message-ID: <"qQcud3.0.su.NuAw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50812 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:54:42 -0800, you wrote: >At 3:38 PM 6/11/3, Steve Lawrence wrote: > >>There is a small nit to be picked here, which is that if gravity goes as >>1/r^2 in this model, and if the void is roughly spherical, then the >>attraction to the walls due to gravity should probably be nil. The >>field inside a spherical shell due to a 1/r^2 force cancels out. > >Yes, I've already picked that nit myself in a prior post. > > >>If the >>block of Swiss cheese extends to infinity, then it's more complex than a >>simple spherical shell, and (I admit) I haven't try to integrate it to >>see what the result would be, but I suspect it still comes out to zero. > > >Each shell outside the point of interest integrates to zero force on that >point. When you sum up all the shells to infinity, you get a sum of a >series of zeroes, which is zero. --- If a lone electron is injected into a hollow dielectric sphere and the inner wall of the sphere negatively charged, the electron will gravitate (;-) to the center of the sphere and remain there for as long as the sphere is charged. If, then, the polarity of the charge on the wall of the sphere was instantaneously reversed, the attractive force on the lone electron would be equal from all directions and it would stay in place until the tiniest anomaly moved it, at which point it would be attracted to that point on the wall to which it was closest and would accelerate in that direction until it collided with the wall, no? Since gravity is attractive, it seems to me that conducting the thought experiment described above on a spherical bubble with entrained matter surrounded by infinite mass would yield the same results. Namely, any matter with its center of mass located at the precise center of the sphere would be attracted in all directions simultaneously and would therefore be spatially stable, while everything else would be hurtling toward the wall. -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 10:10:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA20339; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:09:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:09:10 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:13:08 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem Table Resent-Message-ID: <"8kv1H.0.dz4.rEBw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50813 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There is a lot of information needed to do any serious gravi-chemistry. Most important is to develop an experimental understanding of how hydronium and protons in particular react in a gravi-electrolytic environment. Similarly, information needs to be developed for the hydroxil and other radicals. One thing it seems to me is clear. High g force, well under 1 Mg (a "mega-g") can significantly and selectively change ion concentrations in inner and outer volumes of the centrifuge. This means that reaction equilibriums can be shifted and manipulated by the addition of ions or molecules of differing densities and charge. There could be very significant breakthroughs of a practical kind just waiting for discovery. Gravichemistry also provides an opportunity for pure science and engineering to grind forth in its usual lumbering manner. Precipitation rates can be enhanced significantly for selected compunds, though removing precipitates in a continuous process could require significant engineering. By selectively increasing ion pair concentrations, reactions can be catalysed even without a catalyst. Crystal growing might be accelerated. The proton is interesting because its density is practically infinite. However, it ionically binds to the negative end of the water molecule to form the hydronium ion, H3O+. It does not seem possible to break the hydronium bond with any high-g field. The excess proton can tunnel between water molcules, but the relative orientation must be right to do so. The proton's migration rate is slowed down due to the need for the water molecules to rotate reltive toeach other. However, even though the proton only moves at few percent of a cm per second in typical electrolytes, that rate is significantly faster than other radicals. It is important to measure that rate over a range of electrolyte accelerations. High-g forces should affect the tunneling ability of the proton. An electrolyte is a conductor. The huge electorostatic fields that result from even a tiny charge imbalance will overwhelm the small electrostatic fields generated by gravitational means. We thus can expect the electrolyte to remain neutral. The potential generated at the electrodes will be due to ion concentration differences at the anode and cathode, and can in fact determine which is the anode and cathode. Consider an NaF electrolyte. The Gravi-chem table entries are: 9 F -1 18.998 1.33 5.93 3.20 -2.24 1.35288 11 Na 1 22.990 1.02 2.68 8.59 -7.63 -2.07589 We thus see that as Na+ and F- ions are pushed to the periphery of the centrifuge, they will create a gradient of 1.35288 V/m/Mg - 2.07589 V/m/Mg = -0.723 V/m/Mg. (Note that the 5 digit accuracy implied in the table is way overstated. I should have cut down the field size on the spread sheet.) Does this mean that the periphery of the electrolyte will be negative? This does not seem to make sense. This gradient will likely be neutralized by hydronium ions, which should have nearly zero bouyancy. As to which electrode is anode or cathode, and which ions are oxidized or reduced, that is decided by the electronegativites of the ions and the electrodes. Looking at the entry for bromine: 35 Br -1 79.904 1.96 18.99 4.21 -3.25 6.27117 We see that NaBr electrolyte will produce a postive gradient toward the outer regions of the centrifuge: 6.27117 V/m/Mg - 2.07589 V/m/Mg = 4.2 V/m/Mg. THis gradient should be neutralized by hydroxil radicals, which should also have nearly neutral bouyancy. This makes one think that possibly muliple or stacked centrifuge rotors might be electrically connected in series to generate a battery of sorts. Well, all that is musing and somewhat speculative, but I think it establishes a basis for thinking that gravichemistry has a genuine future. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 10:21:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA26249; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:20:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:20:39 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:24:41 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"e7v6A3.0.-P6.cPBw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50814 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:47 AM 6/12/3, John Fields wrote: >If a lone electron is injected into a hollow dielectric sphere and the >inner wall of the sphere negatively charged, the electron will gravitate >(;-) to the center of the sphere and remain there for as long as the >sphere is charged. Why would you think this? Do you have any experimental evidence? Mathematically speaking, the electron should be free to roam. The potential gradient inside the sphere is zero. Inside a conductive sphere, however, regardless of the charge on the sphere, and regardless of the charge of the injected particle, a small opposing "mirror" charge is induced on the conductor by the particle and the particle is attracted to the sphere. Actually, I think a mirror charge should be induced even on a dielectric to some degree. >If, then, the polarity of the charge on the wall of >the sphere was instantaneously reversed, the attractive force on the >lone electron would be equal from all directions and it would stay in >place until the tiniest anomaly moved it, at which point it would be >attracted to that point on the wall to which it was closest and would >accelerate in that direction until it collided with the wall, no? No, I don't see it. > >Since gravity is attractive, it seems to me that conducting the thought >experiment described above on a spherical bubble with entrained matter >surrounded by infinite mass would yield the same results. Namely, any >matter with its center of mass located at the precise center of the >sphere would be attracted in all directions simultaneously and would >therefore be spatially stable, while everything else would be hurtling >toward the wall. Sounds like an illusion to me. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 10:48:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA08702; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:46:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:46:42 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:50:41 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"wBRKa2.0.t72.1oBw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50815 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:17 AM 6/11/3, Jones Beene wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" > >> Lithium iodide might be of interest as well, as iodine has a density of >> 4.92, and melting point of 386.7 K. > >The small batteries used in flash cameras are often lithium iodide. The >construction is usually a "pile" instead of the "jelly-roll" so it might >be possible to rig up an ultra centrifuge to see if there is a voltage >increase at high g's. > >One way to do this, if you have no feed-throughs into a 100k RPM spindle, >would be to wire the batteries across a an LED and a small resistor that >is just enough to block the current at the rated voltage but perhaps can >be driven to light up the LEDs at higher voltage? > >Jones I don't have acces to a 100k rpm spindle. Such a centrifuge exists? At a rotor radius of over 10 cm a 1 oz battery would have a force of over 30 tons on it. Smush! Electronics would have to be high-g and oil packed. I am not sure such high speeds are necessary to do useful work. Charge balance in the electrolyte eliminates a charge gradient, permitting higher concentrations to form. The question then becomes more one of standard electrochemistry at the electrodes, based on new ion concentrations, or rather differences in concentrations at differing electrodes. I happen to have some LiBr and other electrolytes around. No centrifuge though, no ventillation hood, and no time right now to do the work. Sigh! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 11:09:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA24104; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:07:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:07:19 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:11:17 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Gravi-chem Table Resent-Message-ID: <"bi8ub1.0.Xu5.M5Cw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50816 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The most remarkable thing about gravi-chem is that it seems to violate conservation of energy. More thinking is required in this area. The following seems to be a reasonable proposition. Proposition 1: Mass flow outward in a centrifuge requires energy, in the form of torque times radius, in order to accelerate the mass in a tangential fashion, i.e to bring it up to speed at the radius occupied. Similary, mass flow inward supplies torque to the centrifuge shaft. If the *net* mass flow at every radius is maintained at zero, the centrifuge requires no energy other than that required to overcome friction of rotation. If this is correct, then we next have to examine the Proposition 2: Centrifuges can change chemical equilibrium, and thus energy balances. Proposition 3. Differing chemical balances in the vicinity of two identical electrodes can result in current flow and thus useful energy production. Proposition 4. Chemical processes can be sustained in a centrifuge while maintaining the condition that net mass flow at every radius is zero. Proposition 5: Chemical energy obtained from centrifuge modified chemical balances is free energy. Of the 5 propositions, it looks like 3 is the most suspicious, or at least 2 and 3 combined. Comments? It is interesting that a series of isolated cells could be arranged around a rotor, or organized in stacked rotors, and electrodes placed in series, so as to accomplish complex chemical processes. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 11:21:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA31535; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:20:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:20:00 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:40:09 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"FE8Hq3.0.fi7.GHCw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50817 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Horace et al. Thanks for the research and data, I appreciate being in the loop on this. Although centrifuges can be expensive, a nice variable speed 30,000rpm spindle is available in the form of a dremel drill. Combine it with the drill press housing, and you have a nice test bed for small loads. If you're any kind of hardware geek you probably own one already, plus it's easy to buy a variety of spindles to fit into the chuck with different mounts. Balancing things should be pretty exciting, I'd suggest being in the next room on run-up. I suspect you'll need to build some custom hardware anyway as electrical connections to the rotor are not stock items. I'm very curious about how the energy lost due to gravitolysis would be felt at the rotor. What is the exact mechanism which causes an increased load at the rotor? K. -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:51 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces At 10:17 AM 6/11/3, Jones Beene wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" > >> Lithium iodide might be of interest as well, as iodine has a density of >> 4.92, and melting point of 386.7 K. > >The small batteries used in flash cameras are often lithium iodide. The >construction is usually a "pile" instead of the "jelly-roll" so it might >be possible to rig up an ultra centrifuge to see if there is a voltage >increase at high g's. > >One way to do this, if you have no feed-throughs into a 100k RPM spindle, >would be to wire the batteries across a an LED and a small resistor that >is just enough to block the current at the rated voltage but perhaps can >be driven to light up the LEDs at higher voltage? > >Jones I don't have acces to a 100k rpm spindle. Such a centrifuge exists? At a rotor radius of over 10 cm a 1 oz battery would have a force of over 30 tons on it. Smush! Electronics would have to be high-g and oil packed. I am not sure such high speeds are necessary to do useful work. Charge balance in the electrolyte eliminates a charge gradient, permitting higher concentrations to form. The question then becomes more one of standard electrochemistry at the electrodes, based on new ion concentrations, or rather differences in concentrations at differing electrodes. I happen to have some LiBr and other electrolytes around. No centrifuge though, no ventillation hood, and no time right now to do the work. Sigh! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 12:16:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA31817; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:15:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:15:55 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:19:52 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Gravi-chem Table Resent-Message-ID: <"jVkcR2.0.zm7.h5Dw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50818 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Considering solubility and availability, the table indicates that silver flouride would be a good concentrator of hydroxil ions. 47 Ag 1 107.868 1.15 3.84 28.12 -27.16 -10.58986 9 F -1 18.998 1.33 5.93 3.20 -2.24 1.35288 Lithium or sodium iodide would be a good concentrator of hydronium ions. 3 Li 1 6.941 0.76 1.11 6.27 -5.31 -0.59761 11 Na 1 22.990 1.02 2.68 8.59 -7.63 -2.07589 53 I -1 126.905 2.20 26.86 4.72 -3.77 10.28197 These combinations provide for large charge gradient differentials, which are made up by concentrating water's indigenous ions. However, limited solubility may provide a large problem. The concentration of these ions via gravity above their solubility levels will cause precipitation of the salt, thus terminating its usefulness. There is also the potential problem with precipitating metal hydroxides when hydroxils are concentrated. It looks like I should have reversed the gradient signs. The gradients as given are confusing. Earlier I wrote [with corrections now in brackets]: Consider an NaF electrolyte. The Gravi-chem table entries are: 9 F -1 18.998 1.33 5.93 3.20 -2.24 1.35288 11 Na 1 22.990 1.02 2.68 8.59 -7.63 -2.07589 We thus see that as Na+ and F- ions are pushed to the periphery of the centrifuge, they will create a gradient of 1.35288 V/m/Mg - 2.07589 V/m/Mg = -0.723 V/m/Mg. (Note that the 5 digit accuracy implied in the table is way overstated. I should have cut down the field size on the spread sheet.) Does this mean that the periphery of the electrolyte will be negative? This does not seem to make sense. This gradient will likely be neutralized by hydronium [should have said hydroxil] ions, which should have nearly zero bouyancy. As to which electrode is anode or cathode, and which ions are oxidized or reduced, that is decided by the electronegativites of the ions and the electrodes. Looking at the entry for bromine: 35 Br -1 79.904 1.96 18.99 4.21 -3.25 6.27117 We see that NaBr electrolyte will produce a postive gradient toward the outer regions of the centrifuge: 6.27117 V/m/Mg - 2.07589 V/m/Mg = 4.2 V/m/Mg. THis gradient should be neutralized by hydroxil [should have said hydronium] radicals, which should also have nearly neutral bouyancy. This makes one think that possibly multiple or stacked centrifuge rotors might be electrically connected in series to generate a battery of sorts. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 12:22:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA01762; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:20:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:20:28 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:22:17 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: <26ghev0d57od6b615jgf1gek1kgbmrp6r6 4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 MAA01725 Resent-Message-ID: <"nA3xS3.0.RR.y9Dw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50819 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:24:41 -0800, you wrote: >At 11:47 AM 6/12/3, John Fields wrote: > >>If a lone electron is injected into a hollow dielectric sphere and the >>inner wall of the sphere negatively charged, the electron will gravitate >>(;-) to the center of the sphere and remain there for as long as the >>sphere is charged. > > >Why would you think this? Coulomb's law states that the force between two point charges, q and q' varies directly as the magnitude of each charge and inversely as the square of the distance between them. qq' F = k ---- r² Now, let us say the charges are electrons and separate them by 1m of vacuum. The force acting on each of them will be 1.47E-10 kg. pushing them away from each other along a line drawn between them. For convenience, let us arrange the electrons vertically and restrain them from moving. Now let us interpose a third electron between them and restrain its motion to a line drawn between the other two. Since the distance between the top electron and the one in the center is now half of the distance between the top and bottom electrons, the force between the top and center electrons will quadruple, to 5.88E-10 kg, as has the force between the bottom and center electrons. Now, if the center electron falls toward the bottom one, the force of repulsion between them will increase as the distance between them decreases, forcing it up. If it rises toward the top, past the point of equilibrium, it will be forced downward until the the forces equalize, at which point the center electron will be levitated between the other two and, neglecting its mass, will be centered between them. Now, let us take two more electrons, separate them by one meter, and place them so that the center of a circle drawn between them lies at the center of the center electron. Since the forces exerted by the outer electrons will be in equilibrium at the center of the center electron, the only effect will be to more highly constrain the center electron from moving. Continuing this process eventually yields a charged spherical shell with a rigidly restrained, trapped electron at its center. -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 12:29:35 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA05785; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:28:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:28:30 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:32:31 -0800 To: , From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"o1mbo1.0.JQ1.THDw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50820 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:40 PM 6/12/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Horace et al. > >Thanks for the research and data, I appreciate >being in the loop on this. > >Although centrifuges can be expensive, a nice >variable speed 30,000rpm spindle is available >in the form of a dremel drill. Combine it >with the drill press housing, and you have >a nice test bed for small loads. If you're >any kind of hardware geek you probably own >one already, plus it's easy to buy a variety >of spindles to fit into the chuck with different >mounts. Balancing things should be pretty >exciting, I'd suggest being in the next room >on run-up. A strong shaft is important as well. The g forces at a given rpm are proportional to the radius. It is not just rpms that are important. I would think a router might be a good power plant too, evn if only 20,000 rpm. One problem though: if the rotor is large then it takes vaiable speed control to get the thing up to speed. > >I suspect you'll need to build some custom hardware >anyway as electrical connections to the rotor >are not stock items. Yes indeed. Insulated wells for electrolysis aren't standard equipment either. Maybe they should be! 8^) > >I'm very curious about how the energy lost due >to gravitolysis would be felt at the rotor. >What is the exact mechanism which causes an >increased load at the rotor? Ditto: The problem is to determine which of these propositions is false: Proposition 1: Mass flow outward in a centrifuge requires energy, in the form of torque times radius, in order to accelerate the mass in a tangential fashion, i.e to bring it up to speed at the radius occupied. Similary, mass flow inward supplies torque to the centrifuge shaft. If the *net* mass flow at every radius is maintained at zero, the centrifuge requires no energy other than that required to overcome friction of rotation. If this is correct, then we next have to examine the Proposition 2: Centrifuges can change chemical equilibrium, and thus energy balances. Proposition 3. Differing chemical balances in the vicinity of two identical electrodes can result in current flow and thus useful energy production. Proposition 4. Chemical processes can be sustained in a centrifuge while maintaining the condition that net mass flow at every radius is zero. Proposition 5: Chemical energy obtained from centrifuge modified chemical balances is free energy. I guess the prinicple question must be what energy, i.e what electrolysis? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 12:43:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA11197; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:41:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:41:53 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:45:54 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"w6wvf.0.sk2.1UDw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50821 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:22 PM 6/12/3, John Fields wrote: > >Coulomb's law states that the force between two point charges, q and q' >varies directly as the magnitude of each charge and inversely as the >square of the distance between them. > > qq' >F = k ---- > r" > >Now, let us say the charges are electrons and separate them by 1m of >vacuum. The force acting on each of them will be 1.47E-10 kg. pushing >them away from each other along a line drawn between them. > >For convenience, let us arrange the electrons vertically and restrain >them from moving. > >Now let us interpose a third electron between them and restrain its >motion to a line drawn between the other two. This restraining assumption is leading you down a blind alley. >Since the distance >between the top electron and the one in the center is now half of the >distance between the top and bottom electrons, the force between the top >and center electrons will quadruple, to 5.88E-10 kg, as has the force >between the bottom and center electrons. Now, if the center electron >falls toward the bottom one, the force of repulsion between them will >increase as the distance between them decreases, forcing it up. If it >rises toward the top, past the point of equilibrium, it will be forced >downward until the the forces equalize, at which point the center >electron will be levitated between the other two and, neglecting its >mass, will be centered between them. > >Now, let us take two more electrons, separate them by one meter, and >place them so that the center of a circle drawn between them lies at the >center of the center electron. Since the forces exerted by the outer >electrons will be in equilibrium at the center of the center electron, >the only effect will be to more highly constrain the center electron >from moving. The above statement is false. If the electron is even slightly off center it is is repelled in the direction in which the (3 dimenisonal) gaps between constraining electrons exist. This "gap" repulsion, or rather lack of constraint, upon summing about a sphere, cancels the constraining force everywhere, and cancels itself (its repelling force) everywhere. I hope that all makes sense. >Continuing this process eventually yields a charged >spherical shell with a rigidly restrained, trapped electron at its >center. >-- >John Fields Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 13:50:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA08663; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:48:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:48:50 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:50:41 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: <3inhevg71dfoodjlon3nu5chva7gu4rkq4 4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 NAA08616 Resent-Message-ID: <"GWFKx3.0.C72.oSEw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50822 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:45:54 -0800, you wrote: >The above statement is false. If the electron is even slightly off center >it is is repelled in the direction in which the (3 dimenisonal) gaps >between constraining electrons exist. This "gap" repulsion, or rather lack >of constraint, upon summing about a sphere, cancels the constraining force >everywhere, and cancels itself (its repelling force) everywhere. I hope >that all makes sense. --- In the case of a positively charged sphere and a single electron I agree with you, but in this case I disagree. Since the field intensity is a vector quantity, the effect of the gap, as it were, will be mitigated by the increase in the field srength due to the electron population around the gap. I don't think it's like the electrons in the shell have all gotten together and conspired against the lone electron to keep it from floating by making a big hole into which it will fall! Say that an electron has fallen into this channel and is moving toward the wall. Since the electrons on the shell will all be repelling each other they'll be spread out and as the lone electron falls toward them eventually a point will be reached where the sum of the charges repelling the lone electron will overcome the charge on the lone electron and will stop and levitate it. Sounds like time for an experiment. A couple of polyethylene tupperware salad bowls, a pith ball, and some cat fur. Care to venture an opinion as to the outcome? -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 14:31:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA29053; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:30:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:30:03 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:34:02 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"-vjoa.0.t57.Q3Fw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50823 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:50 PM 6/12/3, John Fields wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:45:54 -0800, you wrote: > > >>The above statement is false. If the electron is even slightly off center >>it is is repelled in the direction in which the (3 dimenisonal) gaps >>between constraining electrons exist. This "gap" repulsion, or rather lack >>of constraint, upon summing about a sphere, cancels the constraining force >>everywhere, and cancels itself (its repelling force) everywhere. I hope >>that all makes sense. > >--- >In the case of a positively charged sphere and a single electron I agree >with you, but in this case I disagree. > >Since the field intensity is a vector quantity, the effect of the gap, >as it were, will be mitigated by the increase in the field srength due >to the electron population around the gap. I don't think it's like the >electrons in the shell have all gotten together and conspired against >the lone electron to keep it from floating by making a big hole into >which it will fall! Say that an electron has fallen into this channel >and is moving toward the wall. Since the electrons on the shell will >all be repelling each other they'll be spread out and as the lone >electron falls toward them eventually a point will be reached where the >sum of the charges repelling the lone electron will overcome the charge >on the lone electron and will stop and levitate it. This is simply false reasoning, but you may have hit on smething that makes the priciple easily understood. Suppose you remove exactly one electron from the uniform sphere. A missing charge in an otherwise unifrom charge distribution is called a hole. It acts in all ways like a positive particle. Holes even perform cyclic motion in magnetic fields. Since the hole is positive, it attracts the "trapped" electron. QED. There is no conspiracy of the remaining electrons, the hole is sufficient by itslef. > >Sounds like time for an experiment. A couple of polyethylene tupperware >salad bowls, a pith ball, and some cat fur. > >Care to venture an opinion as to the outcome? >-- >John Fields Based on the choice of apparatus, I would hesitate to call the outcome! BTW,is that cat fur stiil ON the cat! 8^) I think a good convincer for you might be to write a simple computer program to do the integration. If you want to put holes in the manifold it is then easy to do that too. I did a similar thing myself as a convincer regarding magnetic field cross sections in infinite solenoids - both with windings circular and lengthwise. Of course I stopped far short of infinity, but got a plenty flat cross section. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 15:08:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA15980; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:06:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:06:04 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:10:03 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"7tQj1.0.Xv3.CbFw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50824 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:22 PM 6/12/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Let's see... > >I have a cylinder 15mm diameter and 15mm long. >The outer wall is one pole of the gravitolytic battery, >and the other pole is the shaft which also fits into >the chuck. > >Given cesium chloride as the electrolyte, what >would be the peak voltage expected at 30,000rpm??? That's a radius of 7.5 mm, or 0.0075 m. A rotation speed of 5,000 rev/s. The outer speed is (2 * Pi * (0.0075 m)/rev) * (5,000 rev/s) = 235.6 m/s. The acceleration a = v^2/r = (235.6 m/s)^2/(0.0075m) = 7.4 m/s^2 = 0.755 Mg. Lookig at the Gravi-chem table: 17 Cl -1 35.453 1.81 14.96 2.37 -1.41 2.14633 55 Cs 1 132.905 1.74 13.29 10.00 -9.04 -12.21387 ========= -10.06754 We see that CsCl balances Fe and Fg at (10.067 V/m/Mg)(0.755 Mg) = 7.6 V/m. THis sets an upper limit of much less than half that for total potential. To avoid taking the time to integate across a radial cross section, let's assume the electrolyte is about half a radius deep, and this sets a maximum potetnial at (7.6 V/m)((0.0075 m)/2 = 0.0285 volts. That's about 2 hundreths of a volt, and that is only an upper bound. A lower bound is 1/4 that. It is somewhere in between. That does not mean that you will actually be able to measure that voltage. The voltage you measure depends on the electrochemistry at the electrode and is due to the increased ion concentration, not the voltage generated. With my feable knowledge of electrochemistry I am not able to predict the actual voltage, but I would think that electrolysis would get a free "boost" by at least this much. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 15:33:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA28702; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:31:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:31:56 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:33:45 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 PAA28673 Resent-Message-ID: <"xyXs92.0.O07.RzFw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50825 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:34:02 -0800, you wrote: >At 3:50 PM 6/12/3, John Fields wrote: >>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:45:54 -0800, you wrote: >This is simply false reasoning, but you may have hit on smething that makes >the priciple easily understood. Suppose you remove exactly one electron >from the uniform sphere. A missing charge in an otherwise unifrom charge >distribution is called a hole. It acts in all ways like a positive >particle. Holes even perform cyclic motion in magnetic fields. Since the >hole is positive, it attracts the "trapped" electron. QED. There is no >conspiracy of the remaining electrons, the hole is sufficient by itslef. --- Removing an electron to create a so called "hole" is only valid in a crystal lattice where the structure forces the valently bound atoms to _want_ an electron there. There is no such mechanism on a surface where free charges can roam about and distribute themselves geometrically ("tile the plane", so to speak) as required to equalize the stresses between themselves. I guess an analogy would be a basketball with 100 identically electrically charged ping-pong balls somehow clinging to its inner surface. Remove 1 ping-pong ball and the rest will reorient themselves as required to make a new pattern which will be stable, but geometrically different from the 100 ball pattern. None of the ping-pong balls, however, become part of the basketball or roam through its skin. --- >>Sounds like time for an experiment. A couple of polyethylene tupperware >>salad bowls, a pith ball, and some cat fur. >> >>Care to venture an opinion as to the outcome? >>-- >>John Fields > > >Based on the choice of apparatus, I would hesitate to call the outcome! >BTW,is that cat fur stiil ON the cat! 8^) --- Yes, but our oldest is 15 or 16 so it may not be too long before I can run the experiment without wearing armor!^) --- >I think a good convincer for you might be to write a simple computer >program to do the integration. If you want to put holes in the manifold it >is then easy to do that too. I did a similar thing myself as a convincer >regarding magnetic field cross sections in infinite solenoids - both with >windings circular and lengthwise. Of course I stopped far short of >infinity, but got a plenty flat cross section. --- That's an interesting suggestion. Select a reasonable sphere diameter, populate its inner surface with electrons and rules and then shoot in a single electron and see what happens... Fun. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 15:54:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA09363; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:53:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:53:07 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612184908.02ea0c08 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:52:45 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Info. on thermoelectrics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"EX-tt3.0.7I2.IHGw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50826 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Interesting stuff on thermoelectric R&D. See: http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/darpa2002/darpa2002wkshp.html I just sent this URL to Peter Hagelstein, and I told him this is how the ICCF-10 conference proceedings should be published. A paper proceedings would be a crying shame! Note that every paper has its own separate URL. This is important. It allows external web pages to zero in on specific papers, and it allows authors to reference the title and URL of an individual paper in a footnote. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 16:49:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA05621; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:48:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:48:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:50:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Vortex , William Beaty Subject: mad Science ....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"AcsfQ3.0.gN1.D5Hw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50827 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo and Bill, The Wayback request was: Anders Mad Scientist Page Was on: www.d.kth.se/~nv91-asa/mad.html On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, William Beaty wrote: > > > It's http://archive.org > > You have to have an old URL, since it doesn't search the contents. > > http://web.archive.org/collections/web/advanced.html > > > (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) > William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website > billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com > EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair > Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 18:52:35 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA31777; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:51:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:51:22 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:55:21 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"AKTKq2.0.Jm7.PuIw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50828 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:33 PM 6/12/3, John Fields wrote: >Removing an electron to create a so called "hole" is only valid in a >crystal lattice where the structure forces the valently bound atoms to >_want_ an electron there. There is no such mechanism on a surface where >free charges can roam about and distribute themselves geometrically >("tile the plane", so to speak) as required to equalize the stresses >between themselves. I guess an analogy would be a basketball with 100 >identically electrically charged ping-pong balls somehow clinging to its >inner surface. Remove 1 ping-pong ball and the rest will reorient >themselves as required to make a new pattern which will be stable, but >geometrically different from the 100 ball pattern. None of the >ping-pong balls, however, become part of the basketball or roam through >its skin. >--- The above merely denies the premise that you can remove an electron and keep it removed. This is not a valid agument beause the model matches (was created to match) the situation that you framed, a static situation where there are voids in the charge distribution. It is then not a good argument to say that no void can be sustained. That is changing the initial ground rules. I suggest that you consider this on an instantanteous basis. Then a hole is a hole is a hole. No receptor is necessary. No semiconductor is necessary. Alternatively, if it makes you feel more comfortable, make the sphere a super thin semiconductor. >>BTW,is that cat fur stiil ON the cat! 8^) > >--- >Yes, but our oldest is 15 or 16 so it may not be too long before I can >run the experiment without wearing armor!^) Zounds! Could this be (or become?) the famed quantum cat? >--- > >>I think a good convincer for you might be to write a simple computer >>program to do the integration. If you want to put holes in the manifold it >>is then easy to do that too. I did a similar thing myself as a convincer >>regarding magnetic field cross sections in infinite solenoids - both with >>windings circular and lengthwise. Of course I stopped far short of >>infinity, but got a plenty flat cross section. > >--- >That's an interesting suggestion. Select a reasonable sphere diameter, >populate its inner surface with electrons and rules and then shoot in a >single electron and see what happens... >Fun. To simplify, merely computing Ex, Ey,and Ez at points uniformly spaced along a radius should be very informative. Now that I think about this, the electrons would have to be spaced in a geodesic pattern in order to be uniformly distributed. That might be the hard part. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 12 19:19:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA14142; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:19:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:19:18 -0700 Message-ID: <001701c33149$be66fd20$3910b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:18:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3311F.D033AAA0" 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 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940969d6598b0770d07328ec96f1a5f7ef0350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"Ymfxt3.0.uS3.cIJw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50829 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3311F.D033AAA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Always a downside. Would Hydrino Hydride do any better? http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/12/hydrogen.ozone.ap/index.html Regards, Frederick ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3311F.D033AAA0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/12/hydrogen.ozone.ap/index.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/12/hydrogen.ozone.ap/index.html Modified=C09E775D4931C30170 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3311F.D033AAA0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 00:17:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA07643; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:16:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:16:51 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:20:54 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"U9s9u2.0.Kt1.ZfNw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50830 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Let's just see what might actually be possible. Reviewing a sample calc: 15 mm diameter centrifuge, 30,000 rpm, cesium chloride as the electrolyte. That's a radius of 7.5 mm, or 0.0075 m. A rotation speed of 5,000 rev/s. The outer speed is (2 * Pi * (0.0075 m)/rev) * (5,000 rev/s) = 235.6 m/s. The acceleration a = v^2/r = (235.6 m/s)^2/(0.0075m) = 7.4 m/s^2 = 0.755 Mg. Lookig at the Gravi-chem table: 17 Cl -1 35.453 1.81 14.96 2.37 -1.41 2.14633 55 Cs 1 132.905 1.74 13.29 10.00 -9.04 -12.21387 ========= -10.06754 We see that CsCl balances Fe and Fg at (10.067 V/m/Mg)(0.755 Mg) = 7.6 V/m. This sets an upper limit of much less than half that for total potential. To avoid taking the time to integate across a radial cross section, let's assume the electrolyte is about half a radius deep, and this sets a maximum potential at (7.6 V/m)((0.0075 m)/2 = 0.0285 volts. Let's stretch a bit to see what we might be able to achieve. If the rpm is upped to 100,000 then Fg increases by a factor of (10/3)^2 = 11.111. (Final voltage is proportional to rpm squared.) If we increase the radius then we increase the force proportionately, but also increase the distance the electrostatic field is maintained. Thus final voltage is also proportional to radius. If we increase radius to 14 cm (very difficult but maybe possible) then voltage is increased by (14/.75)^2 = 348.4. We got a lot more bang for the buck on rotor size it seems. Just increasing rotor size to 14 cm radius we get to (0.0285 volts)(348.4) = 9.93 volts! This is plenty good. If we could get 100,000 rpm with that rotor we would get to (9.93 volts)(11.111)= 110.3 volts. Now that is sizzling! To get more realiztic for proof of principle, suppose we want to get to 2.8 volts at 20,000 rpm. We then have: (0.0285 volts) * (2/3)^2 * (r/0.75 cm)^2 = 2.8 volts r^2 = (2.8/0.0285) * (3/2)^2 * (0.75)^2 cm^2 r^2 = 124.34 cm^2 r = 11.15 cm and for proof of concept that seems very feasible indeed! Many vacuum sweeper motors and routers run at 20,000 rpm, as do many commercial centrifuges. The problem for amateurs like me then is mostly machining a strong balanced rotor and obtaining good bearings. I hope I have not made a serious calculation error. The 2.8 V estimated is high, with the intent of at least making the 1.481 volts needed for electrolysis. In any case it appears a test of concept is clearly feasible. Designing overkill may be good too, in that it is not known what the bouyancy of H3O+ or OH- is. It has not been determined exactly the electrochemistry that can be expected at the electrodes. Also, given the excess margin that looks feasible, it would be good to determine a more soluble and available electrolyte also. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 00:21:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA09324; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:20:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:20:30 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:24:34 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"TQ47A3.0.cH2.-iNw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50831 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Let's just see what might actually be possible. Reviewing a sample calc: 15 mm diameter centrifuge, 30,000 rpm, cesium chloride as the electrolyte. That's a radius of 7.5 mm, or 0.0075 m. A rotation speed of 5,000 rev/s. The outer speed is (2 * Pi * (0.0075 m)/rev) * (5,000 rev/s) = 235.6 m/s. The acceleration a = v^2/r = (235.6 m/s)^2/(0.0075m) = 7.4 m/s^2 = 0.755 Mg. Looking at the Gravi-chem table: 17 Cl -1 35.453 1.81 14.96 2.37 -1.41 2.14633 55 Cs 1 132.905 1.74 13.29 10.00 -9.04 -12.21387 ========= -10.06754 We see that CsCl balances Fe and Fg at (10.067 V/m/Mg)(0.755 Mg) = 7.6 V/m. This sets an upper limit of much less than half that for total potential. To avoid taking the time to integate across a radial cross section, let's assume the electrolyte is about half a radius deep, and this sets a maximum potential at (7.6 V/m)((0.0075 m)/2 = 0.0285 volts. Not very good. Let's stretch a bit to see what we might be able to achieve. If the rpm is upped to 100,000 then Fg increases by a factor of (10/3)^2 = 11.111. (Final voltage is proportional to rpm squared.) If we increase the radius then we increase the force proportionately, but also increase the distance the electrostatic field is maintained. Thus final voltage is thus also proportional to radius^2. If we increase radius to 14 cm (very difficult but maybe possible) then voltage is increased by (14/.75)^2 = 348.4. We got a lot more bang for the buck on rotor size it seems. Just increasing rotor size to 14 cm radius we get to (0.0285 volts)(348.4) = 9.93 volts! This is plenty good. If we could get 100,000 rpm with that rotor we would get to (9.93 volts)(11.111)= 110.3 volts. Now that is sizzling! To get more realiztic for proof of principle, suppose we want to get to 2.8 volts at 20,000 rpm. We then have: (0.0285 volts) * (2/3)^2 * (r/0.75 cm)^2 = 2.8 volts r^2 = (2.8/0.0285) * (3/2)^2 * (0.75)^2 cm^2 r^2 = 124.34 cm^2 r = 11.15 cm and for proof of concept that seems very feasible indeed! Many vacuum sweeper motors and routers run at 20,000 rpm, as do many commercial centrifuges. The problem for amateurs like me then is mostly machining a strong balanced rotor and obtaining good bearings. I hope I have not made a serious calculation error. The 2.8 V estimated is high, with the intent of at least making the 1.481 volts needed for electrolysis. In any case it appears a test of concept is clearly feasible. Designing overkill may be good too, in that it is not known what the bouyancy of H3O+ or OH- is. It has not been determined exactly the electrochemistry that can be expected at the electrodes. Also, given the excess margin that looks feasible, it would be good to determine a more soluble and available electrolyte also. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 02:07:51 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id CAA13027; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:06:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:06:14 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 04:05:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Another method of extracting energy from water Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Resent-Message-ID: <"D-QAW2.0.NB3.6GPw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50832 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Some of you have heard of Dale Pond, webmaster of http://www.svpvril.com , Dale has spent the last 20 some years studying the work of John E W Keeley, 19th century American inventor. His findings are in his books, which are available on the website, and on the website. Keeley managed to spend his way through lots of OPM, other people's money. His investors hated him because, AFAIK, none of his inventions ever made any money. Of particular interest to me is the Compound Disintergrator. Dale's first book is full of pictures of the inventor posing with lots of nifty machines, which according to the story did all kinds of marvelous things. Among his inventions were water engines, a title which, IMHO, needs no further explanation. Some of them worked by inducing cavitation. Near the end of the book however there is a drawing of Keeley demonstrating a gun which was powered by water. There is also a drawing of an arm with 15 inch marks on it. The falcrum is at one end, about 1 inch over a piston is attached. At the 15 inch mark a 200 lb weight is attached. Consequently the weight had a 15 to one advantage over the piston. The cylinder into which the piston went was connected to something called a Liberator. According to Dale, this device demonstrated a pressure of 20,000. Keeley's distractors claim that the effects he demonstrated were the result of compressed air, I doubt that an air compressor of the 19th century could have produced air at that pressure. I suppose it depends on the size of the piston. According to the theory, at higher frequencies, the subatomic particles can be made to spin. I assume that when this happens, then the entire particle will start spinning, and then the material flies apart. Dale and I were discussing the possibility of causing water molecules to fly apart when the appropriate vibration was applied. He thinks that he knows how to make this happen. He also believes that at a high enough frequency, the energy of the expanding water would exceed the energy required to produce the effect. I suggested forming a corporation to raise money to investigate this. He thinks that this is a terrible idea, and that was the end of the conversation. If any of you think that this is a good idea, I'm available to discuss it. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 02:28:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id CAA20065; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:27:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:27:41 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:31:40 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Gravi-chem Computation Methods Resent-Message-ID: <"Vn6_L1.0.Rv4.DaPw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50833 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Variables: r = radius in meters rpm = revolutions per minute of the centrifuge g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.80665 m/s^2 Mg = acceleration of 1 million g's = 9.80665x10^6 m/s^2 Pi = 3.14159 r_1 = radius of top (innermost) surface of electrolyte in meters r_2 = radius of bottom (outermost) surface of electrolyte in meters E_ion1 = anion balanced E_ion for given g, in (V/m)/Mg E_ion2 = cation balanced E_ion for given g, in (V/m)/Mg a = acceleration in Mg U = total voltage drop sustainable in volts Note: both E_ion1 and E_ion2 taken from Gravi-chem table appended here >From the given: a = 10^-6 * r/g * (2 * Pi * rpm / 60)^2 So the incremental potential dU sustained for small radial increment dr is: dU = [(E_ion1 + E_ion2)/g * 10^-6 * (2 * Pi * rpm / 60)^2] r dr And integrating for r = r_1 to r_2: U = [(E_ion1 + E_ion2)/g * 2x10^-6 * (Pi * rpm / 60)^2] [(r_2)^2 - (r_1)^2] where U is given in volts. Note: if U is negative then hydroxils (OH-) are concentrated at the bottom of the cell. If U is positive, then hydronium (H3O+) is concentrated at the bottom of the cell. The Gravi-chem table follows: Gravi-chem Table for Selected Ions R-ion Vol_ion rho_ion F_b E_ion Atomic Ionic Ion Ion Bouyancy Balanced E vs g Atomic Ion Weight Radius Volume Density in water H2O 100 C Number Name q (g/mol) (ang.) (cm^3/mol)(g/cm^3) (g/cm^3) (V/m/mega-g) 3 Li 1 6.941 0.76 1.11 6.27 -5.31 -0.59761 4 Be 2 9.012 0.45 0.23 39.21 -38.25 -0.44680 5 * B 3 10.810 0.30 0.07 158.72 -157.76 -0.36403 6 * C 4 12.011 0.35 0.11 111.05 -110.10 -0.30256 7 * N 5 14.007 0.12 0.00 3213.31 -3212.35 -0.28464 8 O -2 15.999 1.40 6.92 2.31 -1.35 0.47595 9 F -1 18.998 1.33 5.93 3.20 -2.24 1.35288 11 Na 1 22.990 1.02 2.68 8.59 -7.63 -2.07589 12 Mg 2 24.305 0.72 0.94 25.81 -24.86 -1.18931 13 Al 3 26.982 0.54 0.40 67.93 -66.97 -0.90123 14 Si 4 28.086 0.26 0.04 633.47 -632.51 -0.71256 15 P 5 30.974 0.17 0.01 2499.24 -2498.28 -0.62939 16 S -2 32.060 1.84 15.71 2.04 -1.08 0.86390 17 Cl -1 35.453 1.81 14.96 2.37 -1.41 2.14633 19 K 1 39.098 1.51 8.69 4.50 -3.54 -3.12789 20 Ca 2 40.080 1.00 2.52 15.89 -14.93 -1.91398 21 Sc 3 44.956 0.75 1.06 42.24 -41.29 -1.48853 22 Ti 4 47.900 0.61 0.57 83.66 -82.70 -1.20318 23 V 5 50.942 0.54 0.40 128.25 -127.29 -1.02779 24 Cr 3 51.996 0.62 0.60 86.49 -85.53 -1.74208 25 Mn 2 54.938 0.67 0.76 72.41 -71.45 -2.75496 26 Fe 3 55.847 0.55 0.42 133.07 -132.11 -1.87845 27 Co 2 58.933 0.65 0.69 85.07 -84.11 -2.96121 28 Ni 2 58.700 0.69 0.83 70.84 -69.88 -2.94274 29 Cu 2 63.546 0.73 0.98 64.76 -63.80 -3.18158 20 Zn 2 65.380 0.74 1.02 63.96 -63.00 -3.27279 31 Ga 3 69.720 0.62 0.60 115.97 -115.01 -2.34257 32 Ge 4 72.590 0.53 0.38 193.29 -192.33 -1.83534 33 As 3 74.922 0.58 0.49 152.22 -151.27 -2.52233 34 Se -2 78.960 1.98 19.58 4.03 -3.07 3.05900 35 Br -1 79.904 1.96 18.99 4.21 -3.25 6.27117 37 Rb 1 85.468 1.61 10.53 8.12 -7.16 -7.66138 38 SR 2 87.620 1.26 5.05 17.36 -16.41 -4.20703 39 Y 3 88.906 1.02 2.68 33.21 -32.25 -2.92518 40 Zr 4 91.220 0.84 1.50 61.01 -60.05 -2.28146 41 Nb 5 92.906 0.64 0.66 140.50 -139.54 -1.87570 42 Mo 6 95.940 0.59 0.52 185.18 -184.23 -1.61679 44 Ru 3 101.070 0.68 0.79 127.43 -126.47 -3.39846 45 Rh 3 102.906 0.67 0.76 135.64 -134.68 -3.46176 46 Pd 2 106.400 0.64 0.66 160.90 -159.94 -5.37498 47 Ag 1 107.868 1.15 3.84 28.12 -27.16 -10.58986 48 Cd 2 112.410 0.95 2.16 51.98 -51.02 -5.60727 49 In 3 114.820 0.80 1.29 88.90 -87.94 -3.84812 50 Sn 4 118.890 0.45 0.23 517.21 -516.25 -3.01536 51 Sb 3 121.750 0.76 1.11 109.95 -108.99 -4.08889 52 Te -2 127.600 1.07 3.09 41.29 -40.33 6.33405 53 I -1 126.905 2.20 26.86 4.72 -3.77 10.28197 55 Cs 1 132.905 1.74 13.29 10.00 -9.04 -12.21387 56 Ba 2 137.330 1.42 7.22 19.01 -18.06 -6.62724 73 Ta 5 180.948 0.64 0.66 273.64 -272.68 -3.66538 74 W 6 183.850 0.60 0.54 337.42 -336.46 -3.10554 78 Pt 4 195.090 0.63 0.63 309.30 -308.34 -4.94182 79 Au 3 196.967 0.85 1.55 127.14 -126.19 -6.62285 80 Hg 2 200.590 1.02 2.68 74.93 -73.97 -10.06348 82 Pb 2 207.200 1.19 4.25 48.74 -47.78 -10.32274 83 Bi 3 208.980 1.03 2.76 75.81 -74.86 -6.99067 90 Th 4 232.038 1.05 2.92 79.46 -78.50 -5.82491 92 U 6 238.029 0.81 1.34 177.56 -176.60 -4.01040 Notes: * - means estimated ion radius. (Wildly guessed based on proportions) 1. In equilibrium , the force of acceleration equals the electrostatic force: Fg = m*a = Fe = q * E Thus we can compute the field strength corresponding to an acceleration: E = m*a/q 2. Acceleration is normalized to 10^6 g's in the table, or 9.80665x10^6 m/s^2, a "mega-g" or Mg. However, m in this case is M_b, bouyant mass: M_b = F_b * Vol_ion / Na where Na is Avogadro's number, so we see how the units work out by: M_b (g/ion) = F_b (in g/cm^3) * Vol_ion (cm^3/mol) /(6.0221367x10^23 ions/mol) 3. The density of water used in computing bouyancy, 0.9584, is the value for water at 100 C at 1 Bar. 4. Warning: There may be typos and other errors! Also, there may be significant errors in the source data, especially for ionic radius. Posting of corrections is encouraged! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 03:10:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id DAA00880; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:09:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:09:51 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:13:51 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"BghhD2.0.bD.lBQw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50834 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Now that the grav-ichem computation method is available, lets compute again what might actually be a feasible test of principle. Assume cesium chloride as the electrolyte, a rotation of 20,000 rpm. Assume r_1 (radius at top of electrolyte) is 30 percent of r_2 (radius at bottom of electrolyte.) We want r_1 and r_2 so that we obtain -1.6 volts. Looking at the Gravi-chem table we see: 17 Cl -1 35.453 1.81 14.96 2.37 -1.41 2.14633 55 Cs 1 132.905 1.74 13.29 10.00 -9.04 -12.21387 ========= -10.06754 V/m/Mg Now, using the Gravi-chem formula: U = [(E_ion1 + E_ion2)/g * 2x10^-6 * (Pi * rpm / 60)^2] [(r_2)^2 - (r_1)^2] or with variables in unitless values: U = [(E_ion1 + E_ion2) * 5.591x10^-10 * (rpm)^2] [(r_2)^2 - (r_1)^2] we have: U = [(-10.06754) * 5.591x10^-10 * (20,000)^2] [(r_2)^2 - (0.3*r_2)^2] U = -2.252 * (1-.09) (r_2)^2 but we want U = -1.6 volts so: -1.6 = -2.052 (r_2)^2 (r_2)^2 = 0.7797 r_2 = .883 m r_1 = 0.3 r_2 = .265 m and we have the answer of r_2 = 88.3 cm and r_1 = 26.5 cm. I must have had an error in a prior calc, or one here, or both. If the above is correct, then this is pretty tough to pull off. Bumping to 30,000 rpm we have: -1.6 = -5.0658 r^2 (r_2)^2 = .3158 r_2 = .562 m r_1 = 0.3 r_2 = .169 m which is still very difficult. I better check things when I have had some sleep. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 03:58:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id DAA16879; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:57:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:57:16 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:59:08 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: <3g9jev4a6a8tr989op4haikmn2tcit2njf 4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 DAA16856 Resent-Message-ID: <"PLAC12.0.d74.BuQw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50835 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:55:21 -0800, you wrote: >>--- > >The above merely denies the premise that you can remove an electron and >keep it removed. --- Not at all. It merely states that if a free electron is removed from a surface the remaining electrons will reorient themselves on the surface of the sphere in order to stabilize the [new] charge distribution. --- >This is not a valid agument beause the model matches (was >created to match) the situation that you framed, a static situation where >there are voids in the charge distribution. It is then not a good argument >to say that no void can be sustained. That is changing the initial ground >rules. I suggest that you consider this on an instantanteous basis. Then >a hole is a hole is a hole. --- I disagree. You posit that a hole is anywhere an electron isn't, but in truth a hole is where an electron should be. Just for the sake of argument let's look a two Van de Graaf generators; one's globe is charged to a particular voltage and the second one's globe is charged to the same voltage minus one electron. Wouls you say that the second one's globe contains a hole? --- > No receptor is necessary. No semiconductor is >necessary. Alternatively, if it makes you feel more comfortable, make the >sphere a super thin semiconductor. --- A dielectric will serve admirably. --- >>>BTW,is that cat fur stiil ON the cat! 8^) >> >>--- >>Yes, but our oldest is 15 or 16 so it may not be too long before I can >>run the experiment without wearing armor!^) > > >Zounds! Could this be (or become?) the famed quantum cat? --- Maybe, maybe not!^) --- >To simplify, merely computing Ex, Ey,and Ez at points uniformly spaced >along a radius should be very informative. Now that I think about this, >the electrons would have to be spaced in a geodesic pattern in order to be >uniformly distributed. That might be the hard part. --- I agree. -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 06:20:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA03184; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:19:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:19:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3EE9CFCC.4040004 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:21:16 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003 References: <001701c33149$be66fd20$3910b83f computer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"szNLC3.0.gn.rzSw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50836 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber wrote: >Always a downside. Would Hydrino Hydride do any better? > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/12/hydrogen.ozone.ap/index.html > The article states: "Leaks could cool stratosphere Because hydrogen readily travels skyward, the researchers estimated that its increased use could lead to as much as a tripling of hydrogen molecules -- both manmade and from natural sources -- going into the stratosphere, where it would oxidize and form water. "This would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and the disturbance of ozone chemistry," the researchers wrote, resulting in bigger and longer-lasting ozone "holes" in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, where drops in ozone levels have been recorded over the past 20 years. They estimated that ozone depletion could be as much as 8 percent. " Huh? Houzzat? Last time I checked, the oxidation of hydrogen was exothermic. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 07:28:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA03844; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:26:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:26:41 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:28:30 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 HAA03815 Resent-Message-ID: <"mKqRF2.0.yx.WyTw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50837 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:20:54 -0800, you wrote: >Let's just see what might actually be possible. > >Reviewing a sample calc: 15 mm diameter centrifuge, 30,000 rpm, cesium >chloride as the electrolyte. > >That's a radius of 7.5 mm, or 0.0075 m. A rotation speed of 5,000 rev/s. --- 30,000 revolutions per minute / 60 seconds per minute = 500 rev/s. :-) -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 07:41:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA11121; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:40:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:40:35 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01c331b9$840f1e80$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:38:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA11085 Resent-Message-ID: <"BxolU2.0.aj2.Y9Uw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50838 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just a note about how the general premise is shaping up: In expending this effort to find one and a half volts or so for electrolysis, don't overlook the fact that any amount of essentially "free" high current voltage, even a tenth of a volt, might be very useful, esp. with the advent of appropriate technology or in catalytic chemical reactions that convert non-fuel to fuel. Of course, it hasn't been determined that the high-g technique is non-conservative, nor even feasible, and indeed it may end up being proportional to the kinetic or rotational energy expended...that isn't clear, but if any almost free source of extremely high current but very low voltage is feasible through gravi-chem or any other technique, it opens up opportunities that are not generally recognized because there has never been much thought expended towards the subject of extremely low voltage.... and in general, since heat losses in conductors are a function of only current, then normal resistance would spoil the free lunch. An interesting premise is "could there exist a free-electron voltage that is low enough to be non-conservative - i.e. essentially what is normally considered to be "ground" but which is nevertheless high enough current-wise to be useful with advancing technology?" Perhaps this is where those pursuing the homopolar generator gave up also, having found less than a volt, usually, they may have felt that losses to step that volt up an order of magnitude would be prohibitive, and that is probably true of the normal situation. The Ultraconductor of Mark Goldes' venture, or the long-awaited RTSC could change that situation in the near future.... Harnassing the aqueous electron poses essentially the same problem. If, as some suggest, there are natural sources of water containing as many as 10^21 aqueous electrons per mole, encased within the natural dieletric water structure so as to yeild an apparent voltage of only a tenth of a volt or so, then the question becomes, can one use natural forces to accelerate these in a coordinated manner and collect the "free energy"? Is there something to all this talk about an alternating sequence of vacuum/cavitation/compression/shockwave that facilitates accelerating aqueous electrons? Could the presence or absense of large numbers of aqueous electrons in the water used in sonofusion/cavitation experiments be the *real* but previously neglected issue? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 08:49:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA10618; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:46:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:46:50 -0700 Message-ID: <005501c331c2$c338c580$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612184908.02ea0c08 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Info. on thermoelectrics Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:45:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA10525 Resent-Message-ID: <"MGkiZ.0.ob2.g7Vw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50839 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Interesting stuff on thermoelectric R&D. See: > > http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/darpa2002/darpa2002wkshp.html This is an EXCELLENT resource ! The article: "Nanowires for Thermoelectric Applications" by Mildred Dresselhaus is an indication of how nano-technology is merging into energy applications. One interesting prospect is that they have now developed nano-porous matrices with holes that are geometrically near to the wavelength or the "energy holes" of R. Mills hydrino. There had been speculation here on Vortex in past years that a "real" hole might substitute for the catalytic hole... it might not take long to find out about that... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 10:06:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24735; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:05:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:05:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:09:16 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Nuclear displacement by high g forces Resent-Message-ID: <"2ot5U1.0.N26.FHWw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50840 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:28 AM 6/13/3, John Fields wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:20:54 -0800, you wrote: > >>Let's just see what might actually be possible. >> >>Reviewing a sample calc: 15 mm diameter centrifuge, 30,000 rpm, cesium >>chloride as the electrolyte. >> >>That's a radius of 7.5 mm, or 0.0075 m. A rotation speed of 5,000 rev/s. > >--- >30,000 revolutions per minute / 60 seconds per minute = 500 rev/s. :-) >-- >John Fields Thanks! I just woke up with the prospect of having to hunt down that error. That accounts for a discrepancy by a factor of about 3.16, the square root of 10. There is also the 1/2 constant that integration brought. I'll have ot see if that accounts for all the difference. It does look like the new complete method posted in "Gravi-chem Computation Methods" is correct though. Getting results won't be so easy as it first appeared. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 10:06:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24932; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:05:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:05:42 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:09:39 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: 10 meter Electrolytic Cell Experiment - Part 1 Resent-Message-ID: <"r5qmV1.0.P56.bHWw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50842 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: 10 meter Electrolytic Cell Experiment - Part 1 Horace Heffner - 4/15/96 To further investigate the rate of electric potential travel and conductivty changes vs. flow rate, I constructed a super-stretch 10 m cell to enable measurement of timing using my very unstable 1960's vintage war surplus oscilloscpe. If I ever get a Patterson Power Cell to output as much heat as that scope I will jump for joy. The 10 m cell length is actually 10.31 m of 1/8" ID tygon tubing. The length of the Pt exposed to the electrolyte is 6 cm, the NiCr wire 18 cm. The length of Pt wire exposed to moving electrolyte is 3 cm., the NiCr wire, 13 cm. The difference is due to the fact the wires are inserted into the flow using a 1/8" ID barbed T connector, where the electrolyte enters from a 90 degree angle and the wire goes straight through the T. The end seals are compression fittings made by cutting halfway though a rubber stopper and inserting the wire. This was fit into the large end of a threaded 1/4" pipe to hose fitting. A compression cap was made by drilling a 1/4" hole in an ordinary 1/4" pipe cap. A piece of 1/6" thick rubber spacer was cut to fit on the end of the stopper and a small hole was punched through the middle to accept the wire. The compression cap was fitted over the spacer with the wire extending through the middle and tightened down. All the seal parts were bought at Eagle Hardware. The electrolyte used was 200 ml of 1 M Li2SO4. Fluid flow velocity was 9'5" in 60 s or 4.78 cm/s. Fluid flow rate was 23.9 ml in 60 s or 0.40 ml/s. Pressure oscillated between 21 and 22 mmHg at the pump rotational frequency of 2 Hz. A drip degasser was included in the fluid circuit to ensure the current flow was one way. The steady state and flowing state battery voltage from the Pt-NiCr battery was .382 V. For this experiment flow was always from the NiCr electrode towards the Pt. electrode. The electrode leads were switched between the two sets of measurements. The following V vs uA measurements were made: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 11, 39.1, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 The measurements were made by starting with a steady flow at 3 V and moving up to 11 V, then turning on the pump and varying the voltage dowward to 3 V, and the turning off the pump and variying the voltage upward. The significance of this is in the fact the changes in uA between steady and flowing involved no change of settings on the power supply, the current simply increased when the flow was turned on, i.e. 39.1->49.9, 49.4->49.6, 53.6->55.3, 51.9->55.2. The current increases took place over a period of about 10 seconds. I have no explanation for the very large increase of 39.1->49.9 uA atr 11 V in the first set of data, but it is not an error in recroding the data. It is possible (but not likely) some bubbles were very slowly cleaned off the electrodes, but the other data was taken in the same fashion and the 10 V change never occurred again. To check propagation rate a 5 V 1 kHz A/C square wave, with the plus pulse slightly longer than the negative pulse, was applied in both flowing and steady state electrolytes. The results were indistinguishable. The output waveform matched the shape of the input, except the there was a typical RC response delay curve in both the rise and fall edges, indicating a significant capacitance. To check that the RC curve was not due to inductance, a copper wire was laid out on the floor next to the 10 m loop of Tygon and connected in the circuit in place of the fluid circuit. The ouput waveform exactly matched the square input waveform. The time constant of the RC response was about 40 us, i.e. the waveform reached 66 percent in two divisions or 4x10-5 seconds. This means the peak voltage is 99 percent reached in 2x10-4 s on a pulse width of 1/2000 th of a second, or 5x10-4 s. To check this the Tygon tubing was pinched with thumb and forefinger, thus increasing resistance, and the curve flattened out. As a cross check a DMM was used to measure the capacitance. With the + lead connected to the Pt the capacitance was .094 nF or 9.4x10^-11 F. Reversing the leads the capacitance was measured at .084 nF, or 8.4x10-11 F. Using the first V vs uA table value of 17.8 uA at 5 V, we get a resistance of 280k, or 2.8x10^5 ohms. This yields a time constant Tc = (9.4E-11 F)*(2.8E5 Ohm) = 2.6E-5 s, or about 26 microseconds, which is not far from the 40 microsecond Tc approximated from the waveform. This large time constant is an indication that the capacitance of the fluid will prevent better measurments of propagation rate of the electric pulse using this technique, even with a better oscilloscope, due to the long rise time caused by the fluid capacitance and resistance in a 10 m cell. Earlier Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer gat.com wrote: "First, with regard to speed. What moves at the speed of light is the electromagnetic field. You apply a source of electrical energy to a system and electric and magnetic fields propagate throughtout in accordance with the CHANGE in conditions, in this case connection of the source. Of course, the EM fields are modified by the environment, such as by wires, pure water, electrolyte, dielectric, magnetic materials, etc. The speed of an EM wave in water (from DC to microwave range of frequencies) is about 1/9 its speed in vacuum." This experiment is completely in accord with 1/9 C as a propagation time, but can not confirm it, as at this speed the propagation time in the 10.31 m cell would be 3.44x10^-8 s, or .034 microseconds, which makes the 40 microsecond rise time look gigantic. However, the pulse leading edges matched the input waveform to a resolution of about 1 part in 100 or to 10 microseconds. This means the propagation speed can not be less than 100,000 m/s. This greatly exceeds the 1,500 m/s speed of sound in water. EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = 1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of this experiment. It would be good to repeat the experiment using a two channel digital oscilloscope. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 10:07:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24876; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:05:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:05:37 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:09:21 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: 10 meter Electrolytic Cell Experiment - Part 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"1MOfn1.0.b46.XHWw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50841 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: 10 meter Electrolytic Cell Experiment - Part 2 Horace Heffner - 4/15/96 Images of the oscilloscope traces from the super-stretch electrolytic cell EMF propagation speed experiments are now available on www at: These images are provided so others can interpret the data directly. The images were taken today, by direct video. with the Pt elctrode as input and nichrome electrode as output. They are representative of the waveforms referenced in prior posts. Electrolyte flow was from the nichrome electrode toward the platinum electrode. Other cell conditions were as stated in the orginal post, and as restated below for convienience. Exactly the same waveforms ocurred regardless of fluid direction or reversing the leads. The input waveform appears at the top of the first two photos, and is 10 V peak to peak and 1 kHz. In the first two photos the two waveforms are presented simultaneously on the oscilloscope by chopping together the output of two preamplifiers. The quality of the third image is much improved because it was obtained by replacing the two-cahnnel chopping pe-amp module in the scope with a single channel wide-band (well it was wide-band in the 60's) pre-amplifier module to get a better picture of rise time. The output waveform was obtained using a 100 MHz rated probe purchased yesterday, but that did not change the waveform from prior measurements using a lesser probe. The ouput waveform is between 7.5 an 8 V, indicating a current draw is present corresponding to about a 1 megohm impedence from the scope and probe. Both probes were set to 1x. Note that photo 2 shows no readily discernable time delay between leading edges of the input and output traces. The reaminder of this post was extracted from the original post regarding this experiment. The cell length is 10.31 m of 1/8" ID tygon tubing. The length of the Pt exposed to the electrolyte is 6 cm, the NiCr wire 18 cm. The length of Pt wire exposed to moving electrolyte is 3 cm., the NiCr wire, 13 cm. The difference is due to the fact the wires are inserted into the flow using a 1/8" ID barbed T connector, where the electrolyte enters from a 90 degree angle and the wire goes straight through the T. The end seals are compression fittings made by cutting halfway though a rubber stopper and inserting the wire. This was fit into the large end of a threaded 1/4" pipe to hose fitting. A compression cap was made by drilling a 1/4" hole in an ordinary 1/4" pipe cap. A piece of 1/6" thick rubber spacer was cut to fit on the end of the stopper and a small hole was punched through the middle to accept the wire. The compression cap was fitted over the spacer with the wire extending through the middle and tightened down. All the seal parts were bought at Eagle Hardware. The electrolyte used was 200 ml of 1 M Li2SO4. Fluid flow velocity was 9'5" in 60 s or 4.78 cm/s. Fluid flow rate was 23.9 ml in 60 s or 0.40 ml/s. Pressure oscillated between 21 and 22 mmHg at the pump rotational frequency of 2 Hz. A drip degasser was included in the fluid circuit to ensure the current flow was one way. The steady state and flowing state battery voltage from the Pt-NiCr battery was .382 V. For this experiment flow was always from the NiCr electrode towards the Pt. electrode. The electrode leads were switched between the two sets of measurements. The following V vs uA measurements were made: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 11, 39.1, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 The measurements were made by starting with a steady flow at 3 V and moving up to 11 V, then turning on the pump and varying the voltage dowward to 3 V, and the turning off the pump and variying the voltage upward. The significance of this is in the fact the changes in uA between steady and flowing involved no change of settings on the power supply, the current simply increased when the flow was turned on, i.e. 39.1->49.9, 49.4->49.6, 53.6->55.3, 51.9->55.2. The current increases took place over a period of about 10 seconds. I have no explanation for the very large increase of 39.1->49.9 uA atr 11 V in the first set of data, but it is not an error in recroding the data. It is possible (but not likely) some bubbles were very slowly cleaned off the electrodes, but the other data was taken in the same fashion and the 10 V change never occurred again. To check propagation rate a 5 V 1 kHz A/C square wave, with the plus pulse slightly longer than the negative pulse, was applied in both flowing and steady state electrolytes. The results were indistinguishable. The output waveform matched the shape of the input, except the there was a typical RC response delay curve in both the rise and fall edges, indicating a significant capacitance. To check that the RC curve was not due to inductance, a copper wire was laid out on the floor next to the 10 m loop of Tygon and connected in the circuit in place of the fluid circuit. The ouput waveform exactly matched the square input waveform. The time constant of the RC response was about 40 us, i.e. the waveform reached 66 percent in two divisions or 4x10-5 seconds. This means the peak voltage is 99 percent reached in 2x10-4 s on a pulse width of 1/2000 th of a second, or 5x10-4 s. To check this the Tygon tubing was pinched with thumb and forefinger, thus increasing resistance, and the curve flattened out. As a cross check a DMM was used to measure the capacitance. With the + lead connected to the Pt the capacitance was .094 nF or 9.4x10^-11 F. Reversing the leads the capacitance was measured at .084 nF, or 8.4x10-11 F. Using the first V vs uA table value of 17.8 uA at 5 V, we get a resistance of 280k, or 2.8x10^5 ohms. This yields a time constant Tc = (9.4E-11 F)*(2.8E5 Ohm) = 2.6E-5 s, or about 26 microseconds, which is not far from the 40 microsecond Tc approximated from the waveform. This large time constant is an indication that the capacitance of the fluid will prevent better measurments of propagation rate of the electric pulse using this technique, even with a better oscilloscope, due to the long rise time caused by the fluid capacitance and resistance in a 10 m cell. Earlier Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer gat.com wrote: "First, with regard to speed. What moves at the speed of light is the electromagnetic field. You apply a source of electrical energy to a system and electric and magnetic fields propagate throughtout in accordance with the CHANGE in conditions, in this case connection of the source. Of course, the EM fields are modified by the environment, such as by wires, pure water, electrolyte, dielectric, magnetic materials, etc. The speed of an EM wave in water (from DC to microwave range of frequencies) is about 1/9 its speed in vacuum." This experiment is completely in accord with 1/9 C as a propagation time, but can not confirm it, as at this speed the propagation time in the 10.31 m cell would be 3.44x10^-8 s, or .034 microseconds, which makes the 40 microsecond rise time look gigantic. However, the pulse leading edges matched the input waveform to a resolution of about 1 part in 100 or to 10 microseconds. This means the propagation speed can not be less than 100,000 m/s. This greatly exceeds the 1,500 m/s speed of sound in water. EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = 1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of this experiment. It would be good to repeat the experiment using a two channel digital oscilloscope. -- Taking a second look at the oscilloscope traces on www at: and considering I said in the prior posts: "This experiment is completely in accord with 1/9 C as a propagation time, but can not confirm it, as at this speed the propagation time in the 10.31 m cell would be 3.44x10^-8 s, or .034 microseconds, which makes the 40 microsecond rise time look gigantic. However, the pulse leading edges matched the input waveform to a resolution of about 1 part in 100 or to 10 microseconds. This means the propagation speed can not be less than 100,000 m/s. This greatly exceeds the 1,500 m/s speed of sound in water. EM waves in wires are propagated via electrons in metal conduction bands. Since the proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, it seems like a propagation mechanism involving the proton would be limited to C/1836 = 1.63x10^5 m/s, unfortunately very close to, but outside, the resolution of this experiment. It would be good to repeat the experiment using a two channel digital oscilloscope." it seemed a detailed specification of the EMF propagation velocity calculation would be a good idea. Noting the middle photo, there is appx 10 cm per 1x10^-3 seconds. Each cm is therefore about 10^-4 s, and each 2 mm division about 2x10^-5 s. The two waveforms match to at least .5 divison, which is 1x10^-5 s. The distance traveled is 10.31 m., so the minimum velocity must be (10.31 m)/(1x10^-5 s) = 1x10^6 m/s. My earlier estimate of 100,000 m/s was low because of the mental error of forgetting the cell was 10 m long. The corrected upper limit for propagation velocity is much faster than the suggested 1.63x10^5 m/s upper limit for EMF propagation speed via the proton, so, by the arguments earlier posted regarding EMF propagation mechanisms, confirms that the only viable mechanism for propagating the EMF is via the electron. --- The electrolyte used was 200 ml of 1 M Li2SO4. Fluid flow velocity was 9'5" in 60 s or 4.78 cm/s. Fluid flow rate was 23.9 ml in 60 s or 0.40 ml/s. Pressure oscillated between 21 and 22 mmHg at the pump rotational frequency of 1.5 Hz. A drip degasser was included in the fluid circuit to ensure the current flow was one way. The steady state and flowing state battery voltage from the Pt-NiCr battery was .382 V. For this experiment flow was always from the NiCr electrode towards the Pt. electrode. The electrode leads were switched between the two sets of measurements. The following V vs uA measurements were made: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 I included a 150.6 K ohm resistor between the cell output and ground. Thus the cell and the resistor would act like a voltage divider, plus the voltage measured at the resistor would determine the current through the resistor. Using the prior data to estimate cell resistance: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 Using a 10 V supply we get a current of 44.3 uA and a resistance Rc = V/I = 10/44,3x10^-6 = 226 k ohms. Because in the original tests the voltage dropped about 20 percent, it can be estimated that the scope itself has an impedence of roughly 904 k ohms. The combined impedence of the scope plus the 151 k ohm resistor is Re = R1*R2/(R1+R2) = 151*904/(151+904) = 129 k ohms. The combined circuit resistance is 192 k + 226 k = 418 k ohms. The voltage at the cell output to the resistor should be roughly (10 V)*(192 k)/(418 k) = 4.59 V. This voltage was measured at roughly 4.6 V by comparing the trace with the output of a 4.61 V series of 3 AA batteries. This means the peak current through the resistor is Ir = Vr/Rr = 4.6/150,600 = 30.5 uA. The peak current through the scope is 4.6/904,000 = 5 uA. The cell peak current was 35.5 uA. The scope output showed almost exactly the same timing as before. However, the output peak flattened out a bit due to the better matched impedence, and there was a small overshoot to the leading edge. The overshoot had a duration of roughly 50 microseconds, and a voltage of less than .2 V. The most startling result was that, when the fluid was flowing, the little overshoot oscillated (pulsed up and down like a human pulse rate) at a rate matching the pump pressure cycle as shown on the pressure guage. Also, the leading edge looked animated, as if it were flowing, with little bright spots. The very strangest part of this is the exact same results were obtained by switching leads. It appeared that *any* flow rate increase would momentarily drop the cell resistance, increase the current, by a very small fraction (2 percent), *no matter which way the leads were connected.* I still stick by my orginal statement. EM waves in conductors are carried by electrons, and the delay is a function of their mass. An EMF can only be carried by charge motion I=dQ/dT. True photon based propagation can occur in waveguides or on the surface, but these will not propagate a DC EMF or current. A photon can not get very far inside a copper wire. It must displace a charged particle to proapagate the EMF wave. It appears the EMF wave in a PPC travels at over 1x10^6 m/s. Thus charge deficits are quickly equalized via elctron motion. It appears, due to the Faradaic efficency, though, that much of the current is carried via ions, but I think maybe this should be discussed a bit. EXISTING DATA For a while the oscilloscope trace data will be at URL: . The first test was done to get a picture of cell current vs time with a fixed supply of 10 V. This test was done with the Pt electrode positive, and the nichrome electrode negative. Electrolyte flow in all tests reported here were from the nichrome electrode toward the Pt electrode, regardless of the polarity used for any particular test. The I vs T data follows: Time Current in uA 0 s 47.1 (Electrolyte flow turned off) 15 s 46.5 30 s 46.1 45 s 45.9 60 s 45.7 75 s 45.7 90 s 45.6 105 s 45.5 2 m 45.4 2 m 45.8 (after tapping electrodes) 3 m 45.5 (Electrolyte flow turned on) 6 m 45.9 8 m 45.9 10 m 45.8 15 m 45.7 20 m 45.7 30 m 45.6 1 h 45.4 1.5 h 45.5 The following uA measurements and calculations of average current for flowing electrolyte conditions (Iavg) and corresponding V/I resistance k ohms (Ravg), and the V/I resistance assuming a -0.4 V battery voltage correction (Ravg at V-0.4), were made: uA with resistor still in place, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 714 619 5 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.1 495 455 7 15.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 437 413 9 22.0 22.1 22.0 22.1 22.1 407 389 10 25.0 25.1 24.9 25.1 25.1 398 382 11 27.9 28.1 27.9 28.1 28.1 391 377 uA with resistor removed, - NiCr, + Pt V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg Ravg at V-0.4 3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 400 346 5 18.1 18.5 18.2 18.3 18.4 276 250 7 29.4 29.7 29.4 29.6 29.7 236 222 9 40.6 41.1 40.6 41.1 41.1 219 209 10 46.1 46.7 46.2 46.7 46.7 214 205 11 51.8 52.4 51.6 52.4 52.4 209 202 uA with resistor removed, - Pt, + NiCr V Steady Flow Steady Flow Iavg Ravg 3 16.7 14.1 14.0 13.9 14.0 214 5 26.2 25.2 24.9 24.9 25.1 201 7 36.2 36.7 35.9 35.9 36.5 191 9 47.1 48.0 45.8 47.9 48.0 187 10 52.5 53.8 51.3 53.7 53.8 186 11 58.1 59.8 56.7 59.4 59.6 185 For convenience here are the prior experimental results for camparison with the above two results: uA with - on NiCr and + on Pt V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 7.9, 7.8, 7.8, 7.5 7.7 7.5 5, 18.3, 17.8, 18.2 17.7 17.8 18.4 7, 28.6, 28.0, 28.4, 28.0 28.0 29.7 9, 39.1, 38.9 38.8, 39.0 39.0 41.1 11, 49.6, 49.9, 49.4, 49.6 49.8 52.4 uA with - on Pt and + on NiCr V, Steady, Flow, Steady, Flow Iavg Iavg (new) 3, 13.1, 12.6, 12.5, 12.4 12.5 14.0 5, 23.3, 22.9, 23.0 22.9 22.9 25.1 7, 33.3, 33.5, 32.7, 33.3 33.4 36.5 9, 43.7, 44.5, 42.3, 44.4 44.5 48.0 11, 53.6, 55.3, 51.9, 55.2 55.3 59.6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Even though a current probe was not available, an effort was made to look at current by running the cell output through a ferrite core before going to ground. A 5 turn loop of wire was wrapped around the core and connected to the oscilloscope ground and a 100 mHz rated probe. The resulting trace was very low voltage but yielded some information about the current. First, the trace consisted of spikes of unmeasurable width at a location on the time scale corresponding to the square wave rising and falling edges. Even though the spikes could not be resolved, it was very clear that there was a complex waveform in the spike. This was clear because there were bright spots in the waveform corresponding to what must be current peaks at various times. A good scope should be able to break that spike out into a kind of arrival time spectrum which might be related to electrolyte composition. SUGGESTED METHODS OF IMPROVING THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE FOR FUTURE EXPERIMENTS (1) Don't use metal parts in electrode seals. Some related correlaries to Murphy's law: places that are supposed to be on the dry side of a seal aren't. If they were dry yesterday, they won't be dry today. (2) Based on the current vs time (at 10 V) curve above, the cell should be allowed to stabilize at least one minute after changing cell voltage before taking a current measurement. Failure to do so results in an up to 3 percent error. (3) The electrolyte should be cleaned of impurities by filtering with a carbon filter for and doing electrolysis (4) The electrodes used in the experiment were fed through a T connector. This means a partion of the electrode was in a stagnent location. This could be improved by insulating the electrode up to the point where it is immersed in flowing electrolyte. A possibility is to insert the electrode through a fine hole in the tubing and seal it with goop or epoxy. (5) Control the absolute pressure. This should not be dangerous because of the very small amount of H2 generated by the uA current of a 10 m cell. This can be done by using a hermetically sealed drip chamber and applying fluid pressure via maintaining water level in a piece of tubing branched from the system via a T connector. The elevation of the water level can be adjusted by moving the tube up or down so the pressure guage at the pump remains at a constant level. (6) Use a high bandwidth digital scope with voltage and current probes. DIRECT CONCLUSIONS FROM DATA (1) The most significant conclusion is that charge differential can be equalized in a 1 m Li2SO4 electrolytic cell at a velocity of more than 10^6 m/s in a field gradient as small as 1 V/m, and this can happen in an electrolyte flowing at over 4 cm/s in either direction. This is determined by looking at the rise time of the square wave at output of cell vs input of cell. (2) Cell current appears to be slightly improved by a flowing electrolyte. (3) The unexpected 0.4 V drop in the output voltage square wave appears to be the well understood faradaic rectification effect. ANALYSIS Since it is well known this analysis is by an untrained amateur, appropriate preceeding clauses like "as far as I know", or "in my limited experience", or "I think" are assumed and deleted in the interest of brevity, with most all of my posts. It is resonable to assume there are two very different electrolyte regimes in the electrolytic cell (a) The several micron thick electrode interface and (b) the solution. The electrode interface is an area of intense field gradients and electron transfer. It is significantly affected by electron tunneling. The electron flux is massive in *both directions*, but there is a net electron flux equal to the cell current. The interface has been a subject of much study and modelling. The nature and performace of the interface seems to be well known. The solution is a low field graient regime where charge is assumed to be carried strictly by ions and charge transport, as well as all other matter transport is almost entirely by diffusion. This is because the field gradient is primarily at the interface, and not in the solution. An H+ deficit in the nearby vicinity of the cathode results in a concentration gradient approaching the cathode which results in diffusion. It is assumed that charge can be transported in the solution regime by species not directly involved in the primary reactions evolving H2 and O2, namely by Li+ and SO4- radicals. Their role is to carry the current. Again this role is filled by diffusion. Based the fact that charge can clearly move through the solution at 10^6 m/s, much faster than heavy nuclear ions can propagate a wave via a local field gradient change, there appears to be an inconsistancy in the assumptions. I suggest the possibility that, to some degree, charge is transported through the solution regime via electrons. It is interresting that this could be true without changing any existing model for steady state electrolysis. This is because the electron charge transport would occur in the solution regime and terminate with great likelyhood when the electron reaches the ion gradient at the boundary of the interface regime. The net effect of the electron transport could look like an actual ion transport. It is just that a charged species is replaced (in net effet) by an uncharge species at the end of the electron propagation chain, or vice versa. For example, given a starting condition of an Li atom at the anode and Li+ at the cathode, and electron exchange could occur of the form: Li.............Li+ (initial condition, Li momentarily created by electonation) Li+...e-..->...Li+ (electron transiting) Li+............Li (electron transit complete. Li then quickly gives up e-) The net effect is equivalent to a charged species diffusing in one direction, and an uncharged species in the other. The electron propagation could be via holes or actual electrons. It is already suggested that the proton propagation rate is high and tunneling is being suggested as a possibility. Due to the electron's far greater ability to tunnel, it seems like electron tunneling in the solution regime should be considered a possibility. SIGNIFICANCE TO COLD FUSION INVESTIGATIONS (1) Due to the suggested electron conductance, there would be no change expected in the ratio of electrons through the cell to evolved H2 (or O2) because the suggested electron conduction would only affect the mechanics of charge transport in the solution regime. (2) There should be no difference in the chemistry, other than recombination rate, of a cell with electrolyte flowing from cathode to anode (normal cell) or in a purpendicular way, between the two electrodes (orthogonal cell). The flowing electrolyte, according to the above data, increases the current flow, as would be expected, due to the fact that the rate of diffusion at the boundary of the interface is enhanced via the flowing electrolyte. (3) The lack of difference in chemistry between the normal cell and orthogonal cell is extremely good for the development of CF, because the orthogonal cell can be easily scaled up to any required size, as per my prior posts. The one significant difference, that of recombination avoidance by the orthogonal cell, is beneficial. By placing a bubble barrier between the two electrodes, and maintaining separate elecrolyte steams and degassers, the H2 and O2 can be separated for use in fuel cells, etc. The benfit of flowing electrolyte increasing the diffusion rate, and purging the bubbles, is still present. (4) The rapid electron conduction rate is an indication that there is a very large domain of possibilities to explore in the high frequency range. Of special interest are nonlinear conditions at the interface where small (e.g. 120 mV) voltage change result in 10 times more current. Since the cell has a natural inductance and capacitance it may be possible to use the cell in this regime as a tank oscillator which can "hammer" the H+ ions into the lattice. The natural resonant frequency could be tuned by changing electrolyte concentrations and electrode geometries. An oscillating current electrode might be designed that would evolve O2 and adsorb or recombine nearly 100 percent of the hydrogen. (5) Further investigation and analysis of the rate of charge equalization in the solution regime of an electrolytic cell seems warranted. It appears most investigations have been carred out using cells with electrodes, and thus electode interfaces. This muddies the water with regard to transport in the fluid regime. Using electrodeless cells might assist in investigating electron charge transport, if existant. Charge differentials can be generated in tubing carrying electrolyte via induction, thus avoiding the need for elctrodes altogether. Resulting currents can still be examined via current probes, which do not require electrodes. Such configurations might possibly be used to generate pressure peaks, i.e hammering pulses, in a sonoluminescence based fusion devices. It may be possible to generate such pulses in electrodeless MHD pulse generators. Understanding the mechanism of current propagation would be essential for engineering such devices. SOME DISCUSSION Electromagnetic fields can convey only oscillating fields, not a static charge. Only a particle can carry a charge. Even a purely static electrostatic field can only extend potentials according to the inverse square law. A static 10 V EMF at the tip of a .015" wire can barely be measured at 1 m, much less 10 m. You certainly can not do it with my equipment. If EM fields conveyed potential thrtough conductors you could simply remove the water from the 10 m cell and still measure the same EMF. That will not work. The EMF can not be carried by photons, except *between* particles. The charge bearing particles receiving the impulse then must *move* to propagate a field strength change on to the neighboring (chargewise downstream) particles. I can believe an EM pulse could induce voltages, at least a momentary field gradient, at 10 m distance, but it would require major energy, and would be clearly dynamic. If you look at the 1 kHz pulse it comes up to equilibrium - it in effect is not a pulse. If you connected a 10 V battery instead of the square wave generator, it would come up to the same potential at the same speed and stay there indefinitely. An electromagnetic field is propagated in a sinusoidal form. For every potential swing there is an equal energy but opposite polarity swing due to the generated magnetic field collapse. Think about this. There would be some indication of backswing before the particle carried pulse arrived. What do you think? Try to work out an example with some numbers as to how your mental model of this could possibly work. Where am I wrong? It appears I definitely was wrong earlier when I was thinking molecular ions carried the potential forward. Am I wrong about this too? There is some evidenence the potential can be carried forward by electrons in electrolytes. That evidence is the fact the Faradaic efficiency is not 100 percent. Some of the currrent must be in the form of electrons. It takes only a very small number of electrons to carry a potential forward. The number required to do so in a conductor that is open at the end strictly depends on the capacitance of the conductor, as determined strictly by it' surface area and geometry. Electrons must carry forward the potential in electrolytes in a manner similar to the way a lightning leader is formed. The heavy nuclear ions would respond eventually with motion. Fast charge propagation via electrons is not surprizing when you think about the size of the de Broglie wavelength of a thermal Electron. It is huge, much larger than the largest atom. And the mass is very small. Free electrons, and conduction band electrons, must be very very good at EMF propagation. Thinking aloud about this a bit, it is possible for electrons to propagate charge without leaving their orbitals. This is by simply deforming their atoms to create dipoles. The electron orbital moves relative to its nucleus, in a local field gradient, but the enertia of the nucleus prevents motion so the wave potential is propagated. Ions in the solution can then eventually respond (but in parallel) to the local gradients in a speed that approximates spontaneous inertial recovery of the atomic dipoles, i.e. due to the atomic dipole nuclei finally responding with motion. It seems like each atomic dipole nucleus would overshoot, resulting in a resonant decay mode frequency characteristic of the mass of the nucleus. Wierd thought, EMP resonance instead of NMR. Forensics applicatio there? Much slower effects, like H2O (nautrally a dipole) molecular rotation could also complete the job of EMF propagation. It is interresting that Storms in his "Critical Review of the "Cold Fusion Effect", page 42, item 10, states that RF frequencies, especially 82 MHz, is helpful. Maybe the electrolyte plays a role as a resonator/oscillator in this regard. If your get the right electrolyte mix, you get the right resonant frequency. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 11:37:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA15671; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:35:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:35:55 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:39:56 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"kZO7p.0.iq3.AcXw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50844 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:38 AM 6/13/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Just a note about how the general premise is shaping up: > >In expending this effort to find one and a half volts or so for >electrolysis, don't overlook the fact that any amount of essentially >"free" high current voltage, even a tenth of a volt, might be very useful, >esp. with the advent of appropriate technology or in catalytic chemical >reactions that convert non-fuel to fuel. > >Of course, it hasn't been determined that the high-g technique is >non-conservative, nor even feasible, and indeed it may end up being >proportional to the kinetic or rotational energy expended...that isn't >clear, but if any almost free source of extremely high current but very >low voltage is feasible through gravi-chem or any other technique, it >opens up opportunities that are not generally recognized because there has >never been much thought expended towards the subject of extremely low >voltage.... and in general, since heat losses in conductors are a function >of only current, then normal resistance would spoil the free lunch. > >An interesting premise is "could there exist a free-electron voltage that >is low enough to be non-conservative - i.e. essentially what is normally >considered to be "ground" but which is nevertheless high enough >current-wise to be useful with advancing technology?" > >Perhaps this is where those pursuing the homopolar generator gave up also, >having found less than a volt, usually, they may have felt that losses to >step that volt up an order of magnitude would be prohibitive, and that is >probably true of the normal situation. The Ultraconductor of Mark Goldes' >venture, or the long-awaited RTSC could change that situation in the near >future.... There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that free energy in the form of large low voltage currents is useful. Large currents can be broken and a large dI/dt means a large dV/dt in the secondary of a transformer. The problem of achieving large currents at low voltage does require low circuit resistance. I am not sure this is so significant for electrolysis or batteries. Low internal resistance is important, but a million 1.5 volt dry cell batteries can still put out a lot of power despite their high internal resistance. However, as you point out, resistance is a major engineering concern. > >Harnassing the aqueous electron poses essentially the same problem. If, as >some suggest, there are natural sources of water containing as many as >10^21 aqueous electrons per mole, encased within the natural dieletric >water structure so as to yeild an apparent voltage of only a tenth of a >volt or so, then the question becomes, can one use natural forces to >accelerate these in a coordinated manner and collect the "free energy"? I have some limited experimental experience in this area. A summary of posts I made in 1996 regarding a 10 meter (between plates) electrolytic cell was sent to vortex some minutes ago under separate title: "10 meter Electrolytic Cell Experiment - Part n". My experimental experience and reasoning indicates: 1. Free electrons do exist in electrolytes, at least in weak Li2SO4. 2. The binding energy of these free electrons to H2O is practically nill. This is because the wavelength of the free electron is very large compared to the size of the water molecule. 3. Any structure that forms around them when drifting in neutral field is easily breached by the electron in even extremely small fields. 4. The low mass of the electron means potentials that can be generated by them in a centrifuge is about 4 orders of magnitude less than those that can be generated by ions. 5. Since electron mobility is very high, they can easily be dragged along with the heavy cations, thus of setting the expected OH- radical concentration. However, this effect is practically nil due to the low numbers of hydrated electrons. 7. To my knowledge, no electrochemical theory has been affected significantly by the existance of hydrated electrons. It may be, though,that they can account for the unusual Faradaic efficiencies. 8. Moving electrolyte has lower resistance than static electrolyte. This effect might be used to further improve electrolyser design. Of special interest migth be the effects of electrolyte tubulence between close plates on electrolyte conductivity. > >Is there something to all this talk about an alternating sequence of >vacuum/cavitation/compression/shockwave that facilitates accelerating >aqueous electrons? If electrons are accelerated, this then still does not indicate that there is free energy involved. There has to be something more involved. True there is "concentratin of energy", but this occurs in many forms. The problem is to engineer a way to use this energy concentration to violate thermodynamic laws. > >Could the presence or absense of large numbers of aqueous electrons in the >water used in sonofusion/cavitation experiments be the *real* but >previously neglected issue? How can this be true in the small concentrations they appear to exist in? If they have a large effect then it seems that either it must be due to their catalytic effect, or than some means in the process affected generates large concentrations of them. For example, the case of Mizuno's experiments there is a an obvious possible source of them in the high voltage DC cathode. This might affect the Faradaic efficiency, but at first consideration, I would think it would make it *lower* since some of the current is then carried by free electrons instead of ions. Very strange. > >Jones Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 11:38:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA15625; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:35:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:35:51 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:39:51 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"5cvL61.0.3q3.7cXw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50843 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:59 AM 6/13/3, John Fields wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:55:21 -0800, you wrote: > > >>>--- >> >>The above merely denies the premise that you can remove an electron and >>keep it removed. > >--- >Not at all. It merely states that if a free electron is removed from a >surface the remaining electrons will reorient themselves on the surface >of the sphere in order to stabilize the [new] charge distribution. The above merely denies the premise that you can remove an electron and keep it removed, i.e. avoid the filling of the hole. The above is the same as me saying your initial proposition is invalid because the electrons you assumed to be placed on the sphere initially, a pair at a time, would move. I say in your model as proposed there ARE gaps between the electrons. If you can bear with my supposition that a gap of a single electron can be created (really no different than your base assumptions) then the rest of what I have said should be flat obvious to a school child. >--- > >>This is not a valid agument beause the model matches (was >>created to match) the situation that you framed, a static situation where >>there are voids in the charge distribution. It is then not a good argument >>to say that no void can be sustained. That is changing the initial ground >>rules. I suggest that you consider this on an instantanteous basis. Then >>a hole is a hole is a hole. > >--- >I disagree. You posit that a hole is anywhere an electron isn't, but in >truth a hole is where an electron should be. Just for the sake of >argument let's look a two Van de Graaf generators; one's globe is >charged to a particular voltage and the second one's globe is charged to >the same voltage minus one electron. Wouls you say that the second >one's globe contains a hole? The above argument is irrelevant in that it talks about a "real" situation, vs the artificial argument you started with. If that was the base assumption for the model of analysis, I would say obviously "yes", the second globe contains a hole. It might only be true on an instantaneous basis at the moment the electron were magically removed, as I posited. But since our thought experiments can and do specify any conditions desired for understanding, that doesn't matter either. What really matters is understanding the composite field produced by the geometry. >--- > >> No receptor is necessary. No semiconductor is >>necessary. Alternatively, if it makes you feel more comfortable, make the >>sphere a super thin semiconductor. > >--- >A dielectric will serve admirably. Yes, but a semiconductor blows your initial argument out of the water. When you remove that single electron, a hole appears. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 13:17:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA31455; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:14:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:14:35 -0700 Message-ID: <00ad01c331e8$2c0366e0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:12:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id NAA31432 Resent-Message-ID: <"GM25a1.0.Ph7.h2Zw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50845 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner writes > The binding energy of these free electrons to H2O is practically nill. > This is because the wavelength of the free electron is very large > compared to the size of the water molecule. Yes and No... Although the de Broglie wavelength of an electron with a kinetic energy of a fractional eV is very large compared to an individual water molecule, that factoid is almost *meaningless*, as that water molecule itself is almost immaterial to the actual structure of water in the liquid and solid phases. That is to say, hydrogen bonding is so prevalent, so unavoidable, and so strong in water that the actual molecular structure is almost immaterial to its important physical properties except at very high temperatures. Please visit the best (by far) site on the web for the study of water: http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/ http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/clusters.html Most of the important physical properties of H2O at lower temperature are due to its macro-structure. Water as we know it from a sensory standpoint is essentially "clusters," not individual molecules. Twenty of the 14-molecule tetrahedral units, together containing 280 molecules of water, form a *3 nm* diameter (external) icosahedral structure. This 280 molecule sphere is what water "is" wrt its important physical properties ! IMHO this 280 molecule sphere seems like an ideal dielectric containment structure for the capture and isolation of a free electron... in fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit, if that transport mechanism of atmospheric free electrons to "ground" through rainwater were not the very reason that we even have such an electrical phenomenon known as ground.... Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 13:32:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA06258; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:29:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:29:07 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:33:09 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"KSVkS1.0.gX1.IGZw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50846 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:12 PM 6/13/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Horace Heffner writes > >> The binding energy of these free electrons to H2O is practically nill. >> This is because the wavelength of the free electron is very large >> compared to the size of the water molecule. > > >Yes and No... According to my data, yes and yes. I gave my opinion according to what I observed and common sense. The de Broglie wavelength may not play a role in high mobility in electrolytes, but it certainly does in semiconductors, according to Hall anyway. Where's the difference? All that aside, as it is based on a thoeretical model, the fact remains the mobility is high. I would have to go to much lower voltages than 1 volt per meter to detect such a small binding energy. At atomic scale 1 V/m is practically nothing at all. > >Although the de Broglie wavelength of an electron with a kinetic energy of >a fractional eV is very large compared to an individual water molecule, >that factoid is almost *meaningless*, as that water molecule itself is >almost immaterial to the actual structure of water in the liquid and solid >phases. That is to say, hydrogen bonding is so prevalent, so unavoidable, >and so strong in water that the actual molecular structure is almost >immaterial to its important physical properties except at very high >temperatures. > >Please visit the best (by far) site on the web for the study of water: >http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/ >http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/clusters.html I'll have to do that. I'm running out of time to work on Gravi-chem. My other obligations are stacking up. > >Most of the important physical properties of H2O at lower temperature are >due to its macro-structure. Water as we know it from a sensory standpoint >is essentially "clusters," not individual molecules. Twenty of the >14-molecule tetrahedral units, together containing 280 molecules of water, >form a *3 nm* diameter (external) icosahedral structure. > >This 280 molecule sphere is what water "is" wrt its important physical >properties ! > >IMHO this 280 molecule sphere seems like an ideal dielectric containment >structure for the capture and isolation of a free electron... in fact, it >wouldn't surprise me a bit, if that transport mechanism of atmospheric >free electrons to "ground" through rainwater were not the very reason that >we even have such an electrical phenomenon known as ground.... The fact is my data shows neither this sphere nor anything else captures the electron. Which counts, data or theory? How do you account for the fact the electron has higher mobility in an electrolyte than even a proton in vacuum, even in a nominal electric gradient? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 14:25:11 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA03099; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:21:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:21:00 -0700 Message-ID: <00d301c331f1$717e7c60$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:19:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id OAA03003 Resent-Message-ID: <"r5jV8.0.Cm.x0aw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50847 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner writes, > The fact is my data shows neither this sphere nor anything else captures > the electron. I think we are talking about two differeen things now. Are you referring to the 10 meter experiment in this thread? (BTW, very interesting setup and I have some questions about that in a post to that thread) In re: aqueous electrons - no electron with a high potential can even be an aqueous electron, almost by definition the kinetic energy of the electron will need to be matched to the energy of the water matrix... Which counts, data or theory? Data, so long as it is accurate and properly interpreted > How do you account for the > fact the electron has higher mobility in an electrolyte than even a proton > in vacuum, even in a nominal electric gradient? > Far lower mass? Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 14:29:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA05490; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:26:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:26:35 -0700 Message-ID: <000701c331f0$f4cb92c0$ce1de044 lv.cox.net> From: "Vince Cockeram" To: "vortex" Subject: NASA studies a Mills Hydrino Plasma Thruster Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:15:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Disposition-Notification-To: "Vince Cockeram" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Resent-Message-ID: <"YTNy91.0.iL1.B6aw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50848 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Interesting news, NASA is testing a Hydrino Plasma Thruster. http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/NASA%20NIAC%20Phase%20I%20Study%20T he%20BlackLight%20Rocket%20Engine%2011.30.02.pdf Regards, Vince From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 14:34:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA08419; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:32:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:32:15 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:36:17 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"M9Bix1.0.T32.VBaw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50849 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:19 PM 6/13/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Horace Heffner writes, > >> The fact is my data shows neither this sphere nor anything else captures >> the electron. > >I think we are talking about two differeen things now. Are you referring >to the 10 meter experiment in this thread? (BTW, very interesting setup >and I have some questions about that in a post to that thread) > >In re: aqueous electrons - no electron with a high potential can even be >an aqueous electron, almost by definition the kinetic energy of the >electron will need to be matched to the energy of the water matrix... The electrons moved fast in a LOW field. This has nothing to do with their thermal velocities as far as I can see. > >Which counts, data or theory? > >Data, so long as it is accurate and properly interpreted > >> How do you account for the >> fact the electron has higher mobility in an electrolyte than even a proton >> in vacuum, even in a nominal electric gradient? >> > >Far lower mass? Yes, that's how I account for it too. The fact that its effective mass is way less than a proton indiates it is not bound to some molecule or collection of molecules, which have a much higher mass. If the electron is bound to a higher mass, then it has to act like it or break the bond. Assuming such bonds exist, they have to be very very weak to be broken by a 1 V/m field. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 15:26:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA30088; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:22:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:22:30 -0700 Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:21:43 +1000 From: Robin van Spaandonk Subject: Re: CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003 In-reply-to: <3EE9CFCC.4040004 rtpatlanta.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <13jkev4k0ol66f0m5vjnkrp0vhk038dlsh 4ax.com> Organization: Improving MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <001701c33149$be66fd20$3910b83f computer> <3EE9CFCC.4040004 rtpatlanta.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"YSiO12.0.rL7.Zwaw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50850 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, 13 Jun 2003 09:21:16 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Frederick Sparber wrote: > >>Always a downside. Would Hydrino Hydride do any better? >> >> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/12/hydrogen.ozone.ap/index.html >> > >The article states: > >"Leaks could cool stratosphere > >Because hydrogen readily travels skyward, the researchers estimated that >its increased use could lead to as much as a tripling of hydrogen >molecules -- both manmade and from natural sources -- going into the >stratosphere, where it would oxidize and form water. > >"This would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and the >disturbance of ozone chemistry," the researchers wrote, resulting in >bigger and longer-lasting ozone "holes" in both the Arctic and Antarctic >regions, where drops in ozone levels have been recorded over the past 20 >years. They estimated that ozone depletion could be as much as 8 percent. " > >Huh? Houzzat? > >Last time I checked, the oxidation of hydrogen was exothermic. > I was wondering the same thing, but don't have full access in order to read the original article. However superficially it seems to me they have ignored at least two important points. 1) Consumption of fossil fuels already produces a fair amount of H2O anyway, because hydrogen is a large part of hydrocarbons. 2) The hydrogen would be displacing fossil fuels (assuming it wasn't created from fossil fuels), which implies a drop in CO2 emissions, and hence a drop in global warming, which in turn implies less normal evaporation. This latter effect would probably vastly outweigh the effect of extra H2O due to hydrogen combustion. All in all I have the feeling that this report was commissioned by the fossil fuel industry to frighten a gullible public into staying with fossil fuels. Regards, R. van Spaandonk When you are counting the dead, remember who voted for the man that made it all possible. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 15:42:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA05668; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:40:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:40:09 -0700 Message-ID: <00e101c331fc$7e23c960$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:38:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id PAA05630 Resent-Message-ID: <"M4osD1.0.RO1.8Bbw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50851 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner writes, > The fact that its effective mass is > way less than a proton indiates it is not bound to some molecule or > collection of molecules, which have a much higher mass. Yes, for that electron (or that segment of the population of electrons) - but for the small amount of current that your are dealing with, only a small proportion of the total free electrons present in the water may be particiapating, specifically excluding those aqueous electrons that may be encased in the dielectric cage of the water icosahedron...which could be as high as 1 per 240 molecules of H2O or over 10^20 per mole...which is in addition to those which would be the mobile variety that you are talking about.... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 15:45:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA06875; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:43:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:43:18 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613183928.02c9d420 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:43:11 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003 In-Reply-To: <13jkev4k0ol66f0m5vjnkrp0vhk038dlsh 4ax.com> References: <3EE9CFCC.4040004 rtpatlanta.com> <001701c33149$be66fd20$3910b83f computer> <3EE9CFCC.4040004 rtpatlanta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"fFr2q2.0.9h1.5Ebw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50852 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Somebody wrote: >Because hydrogen readily travels skyward, the researchers estimated that >its increased use could lead to as much as a tripling of hydrogen >molecules -- both manmade and from natural sources -- going into the >stratosphere, where it would oxidize and form water. I do not know much about it, but I doubt it would reach the stratosphere. Mizuno and others have told me that free hydrogen quickly recombines with the surrounding oxygen. I agree with Robin; this sounds like fossil fuel propaganda. It reminds me of the stories they spread about birds being killed by wind turbines. A certain number are killed, naturally, but orders of magnitude more birds are killed by the smoke from coal plants, and the steam from coal and nuclear cooling towers. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 17:47:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA05317; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:45:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:45:56 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:50:00 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"EdgQT2.0.zI1.31dw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50853 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: After some thinking, I will CONCEDE that my analogy of the removal of an electron is bad. Not because it is untrue, under the explicit assumption that all else stays static, but rather because it is circular reasoning. I thought the concept was very handily pedagogic. However, implicit in the assumption of a hole in a semiconductor is the assumption of a uniform surrounding envelope of positive charges as well. When the electron is removed, the positive charge might be thought of as unmasked or "shining through" the veil of electrons. In my mind this of course is no problem, because the sphere of positive charges has no effect on the interior of the sphere. It is the missing electron then that causes the force. This is circular reasoning, however, and the concept then really teaches nothing. I still believe it is all true, though this specific argument is invalid. It is amazing how underlying beliefs, however well founded, provide us with invalid arguments and muddle our own thinking. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 18:17:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA20878; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:14:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:14:41 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:18:44 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"qjhW7.0.365.1Sdw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50854 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:38 PM 6/13/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Horace Heffner writes, > >> The fact that its effective mass is >> way less than a proton indiates it is not bound to some molecule or >> collection of molecules, which have a much higher mass. > >Yes, for that electron (or that segment of the population of electrons) - >but for the small amount of current that your are dealing with, only a >small proportion of the total free electrons present in the water may be >particiapating, specifically excluding those aqueous electrons that may be >encased in the dielectric cage of the water icosahedron...which could be >as high as 1 per 240 molecules of H2O or over 10^20 per mole...which is in >addition to those which would be the mobile variety that you are talking >about.... This is true. The effect I measured should in fact be due the motion of a very small number of electrons and may even be indicative of the existence a much larger population which do not move in the process. I wonder what differentiates the two sets though? Maybe the equilibrium of the spontaneous (thermal) destruction/reconstruction rate of the cages? The free electrons have nowhere to be trapped, or at least have a long mean free path, because the existing cages are all occupied? If this is true, then electron conductivity should increase measurably with temperature increase. Electrolyte conductivity in general increases with temperature. Wow! This information, if true, could provide a means to catalyse cold fusion! If the free electrons truely can be accelerated to light speed in a large field, then they can obtain highly reduced wavelengths. These small fast moving electrons then can then go between a pair of protons and catalyse the fusion. The only place the protons are suffciently close, though, is possibly on the surface of the Pd or Ni cathodes, or maybe in the comparatively rare H3O+. Such catalysis can happen in a plasma, but the electrons are inhibited by local charges and have a very low mean free path. They are strictly thermal, so the plasma has to be very hot to produce electron catalysis. This thinking also leads the way to an interesting experiment. If there *are* such free electrons, even though very sparse, then their acceleration by an ultra high voltage field should at some voltage be capable of producing x-rays. The electric field so imposed would have to be very high frequency or have a very fast rise time to overcome the very rapid neutralization of the field by the induced electrolyte ion motion and dielectric effects. The dielectric effect is very fast, so maybe this could not be made to work. Worth thinking about further I think ... Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 18:58:33 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA11451; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:56:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:56:12 -0700 Message-ID: <005601c33217$e4733d20$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:54:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA11429 Resent-Message-ID: <"cAenQ3.0.qo2.y2ew-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50855 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner writes, > If there *are* such free electrons, even though very sparse, then their acceleration > by an ultra high voltage field should at some voltage be capable of > producing x-rays. Let me remind you of a previous reference here last month to Russian research that has found x-rays in pressure-induced ice explosion. This kind of explosion is one of the premises behind the water-fuel phenomenon and the attempted CAMFR explanation that I have been posting lately (perhaps too incessantly for those who don't buy it). When ice and free electrons are involved in a triggered implosion event, perhaps the aq(-) which is trapped in the icosahedron structure is accelerated by the fast approaching electric fields of the collapsing 280 molecule broken cage. This can be best analogized perhaps as the most extreme (minimized) possible form of sonoluminescence - i.e. a 280 molecule "bubble". Supercomputer simulations conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have shown that sonoluminescence may involve temperatures as high as 100,000 degrees Kelvin and pressures of millions of atmospheres. That in itself does not imply any "excess" energy is being created but it does indicate that energy "multiplication" of a trillion-to-one is feasible in a small device using only focused sound. Energy multiplication is likely due to two interlocking factors: 1) Spherical convergence 2) Jounce resulting in an implosion shockwave. There is an emerging Shockwave theory for sonoluminescence that suggests that as the shock wave with radius Rs closes in on the focal point, the amplitude and speed increases rapidly. Therefore, the equation of hydrodynamics becomes: Rs = At^b where A is a constant, t is time measured from the moment of focusing when Rs = 0 and b is a Mach number. Every shockwave has a Mach number associated with it, determined by the ratio of shock velocity to the ambient speed of sound. Since the temperature of the area behind a shock wave is usually higher than in front, the ratio of the two temperatures is proportional to the square of the mach number. However, when a shockwave is imploding (rather than exploding as in the typical situation) something remarkable happens as it is focusing on the center: the Mach number approaches INFINITY, which results in extraordinary heating and phenomenal temperatures. Once the wave hits the center and explodes outwards, the molecules that were behind the shock wave are once again in front of it which causes the already high temperatures to raise even higher or another factor of the square of the Mach number. The above info comes from another post-in-progress which attempts to explain how energy multiplication, though not in itself free-energy, is able to cohere free-energy without recourse to actual fusion - and it has a little more than your average speculative credibility as a Nobel prize winner pretty much came up with the basic idea... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 19:16:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA20760; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:15:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:15:53 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <10.318c127f.2c1bdf36 aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:15:18 EDT Subject: Articles on Energy To Matter Technologies To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com, prj@mail.msen.com CC: tom rhfweb.com, ConexTom@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10.318c127f.2c1bdf36_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"tNZVA1.0.G45.OLew-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50856 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_10.318c127f.2c1bdf36_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Through information technology copying a real object to produce another rea= l=20 object without the use of its material seems to be an ideal way of solving=20 energy and food problems of the world and it seems to be a long way to=20 accomplish htt= p://hadograviton.easter.ne.jp/karita88.htm Re-Phenomenology through=20 IT ByMasakazu Karita=A0=A0copy right January 5th, 2003" Thank you for the above quote at your website.=A0 I found an article which=20 explained an experiment on how to transmute subatomic particles by changing=20= the=20 magnetic hologram of the subatomic matrix of the atom and molecule posted at= http://www.befreetech.com/top_ten_inventions.htm.=A0=A0 One only needs t= o copy into a=20 holographic computer and holographic memory chip the holographic magnetic=20 matrix of a food molecule of an apple for instance, and then beam the hologr= aphic=20 magnetic image of the apple onto an energy source, to recreate the apple,=20 which is similar to the Star Trek movie's creation of food from energy.=A0= =A0 The=20 above technologies already exist, but are classified on Earth, which means i= t is=20 possible to create food and mineral resources and other elements with pure=20 sunlight energy.=A0=A0=20 I have been working on a device that transforms pure sunlight and air into=20 water.=A0 The H2 ions can be created by transmuting ions in the air with sun= light=20 directed into a miniature magnetic accelerometer which has a holographic=20 magnetic image of a hydrogen atom in the accelerometer to reform the sunligh= t=20 energy into H ions and combining them with oxygen ions to create water, so t= hat=20 water can be created anywhere.=A0 Even the oxygen and hydrogen ions can be c= reated=20 in a space ship from pure sunlight with a holographic image of the oxygen an= d=20 hydrogen ions placed in the accelerometer. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om --part1_10.318c127f.2c1bdf36_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Through information technology copying a real object=20= to produce another real object without the use of its material seems to be a= n ideal way of solving energy and food problems of the world and it seems to= be a long way to accomplish     http://hadograviton.easter.ne.jp/karita88= .htm  Re-Phenomenology through IT ByMasakazu Karita=A0=A0copy right= January 5th, 2003"

Thank you for the above quote at your website.=A0 I found an article which e= xplained an experiment on how to transmute subatomic particles by changing t= he magnetic hologram of the subatomic matrix of the atom and molecule posted= at http://www.= befreetech.com/top_ten_inventions.htm.=A0=A0 One only needs to copy into= a holographic computer and holographic memory chip the holographic magnetic= matrix of a food molecule of an apple for instance, and then beam the holog= raphic magnetic image of the apple onto an energy source, to recreate the ap= ple, which is similar to the Star Trek movie's creation of food from energy.= =A0=A0 The above technologies already exist, but are classified on Earth, wh= ich means it is possible to create food and mineral resources and other elem= ents with pure sunlight energy.=A0=A0

I have been working on a device that transforms pure sunlight and air into w= ater.=A0 The H2 ions can be created by transmuting ions in the air with sunl= ight directed into a miniature magnetic accelerometer which has a holographi= c magnetic image of a hydrogen atom in the accelerometer to reform the sunli= ght energy into H ions and combining them with oxygen ions to create water,=20= so that water can be created anywhere.=A0 Even the oxygen and hydrogen ions=20= can be created in a space ship from pure sunlight with a holographic image o= f the oxygen and hydrogen ions placed in the accelerometer.

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om











 --part1_10.318c127f.2c1bdf36_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 19:31:15 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA26861; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:30:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:30:44 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:34:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"IUl3P3.0.cZ6.JZew-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50857 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:54 PM 6/13/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Horace Heffner writes, > >> If there *are* such free electrons, even though very sparse, then their >>acceleration >> by an ultra high voltage field should at some voltage be capable of >> producing x-rays. > >Let me remind you of a previous reference here last month to Russian >research that has found x-rays in pressure-induced ice explosion. This >kind of explosion is one of the premises behind the water-fuel phenomenon >and the attempted CAMFR explanation that I have been posting lately >(perhaps too incessantly for those who don't buy it). > >When ice and free electrons are involved in a triggered implosion event, >perhaps the aq(-) which is trapped in the icosahedron structure is >accelerated by the fast approaching electric fields of the collapsing 280 >molecule broken cage. This can be best analogized perhaps as the most >extreme (minimized) possible form of sonoluminescence - i.e. a 280 >molecule "bubble". > >Supercomputer simulations conducted at Lawrence Livermore National >Laboratory have shown that sonoluminescence may involve temperatures as >high as 100,000 degrees Kelvin and pressures of millions of atmospheres. >That in itself does not imply any "excess" energy is being created but it >does indicate that energy "multiplication" of a trillion-to-one is >feasible in a small device using only focused sound. > >Energy multiplication is likely due to two interlocking factors: >1) Spherical convergence >2) Jounce >resulting in an implosion shockwave. > >There is an emerging Shockwave theory for sonoluminescence that suggests >that as the shock wave with radius Rs closes in on the focal point, the >amplitude and speed increases rapidly. Therefore, the equation of >hydrodynamics becomes: Rs = At^b where A is a constant, t is time measured >from the moment of focusing when Rs = 0 and b is a Mach number. Every >shockwave has a Mach number associated with it, determined by the ratio of >shock velocity to the ambient speed of sound. Since the temperature of the >area behind a shock wave is usually higher than in front, the ratio of the >two temperatures is proportional to the square of the mach number. >However, when a shockwave is imploding (rather than exploding as in the >typical situation) something remarkable happens as it is focusing on the >center: the Mach number approaches INFINITY, which results in >extraordinary heating and phenomenal temperatures. Once the wave hits the >center and explodes outwards, the molecules that were behind t! >he shock wave are once again in front of it which causes the already high >temperatures to raise even higher or another factor of the square of the >Mach number. > >The above info comes from another post-in-progress which attempts to >explain how energy multiplication, though not in itself free-energy, is >able to cohere free-energy without recourse to actual fusion - and it has >a little more than your average speculative credibility as a Nobel prize >winner pretty much came up with the basic idea... > >Jones Again I have to say there is no indication of a significant source of energy thus far from sonoluminescence or fractofusion. The energy production is barely measurable and the neutrons produced pretty well match theory AFIK. It is going to take some major breakthrough inventing to make an energy source out of sonoluminescence or fracto fusion or any energy focusing phenomenon. If there is any seriously anomalous data I have not seen it published. I think Gravi-chem is interesting because, if the effect is real, it is highly engineerable. A normal slow process of technology development should bring it to fruition. The source of free energy, assuming there is such as calculated, is basically understood and formalized, quantified. If an experimental proof of principle works as already quantified, then things do not require any miracle to proceed. further, applications exist that have nothing to do with energy production, only shifting chemical energy balances. The good news is that these things are not mutually exclusive and in fact could be synergistic (or at least the discussion thereof here.) As for energy production from fusion, that problem may in fact be close to solution: >PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE >The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News >Number 641 June 12, 2003 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and >James Riordon > >THE TWISTED ORIGIN OF SPHEROMAKS. Researchers at the California >Institute of Technology have made important progress in solving a >long-standing mystery concerning the formation of spheromaks, >self-organizing toroidal plasma configurations that are >superficially reminiscent of smoke rings. It is well known that >current-carrying plasmas embedded in an initial seed magnetic field >can form spheromaks. The formation process is believed to involve >some kind of dynamo process, whereby the internal magnetic fields >become re-arranged or even amplified so as to achieve a stable >minimum energy state for the internal magnetic forces. (Similar >minimal-energy state arguments help explain why soap bubbles, for >example, tend to be spheres rather than cubes or other shapes.) But >until now, no one has definitively demonstrated just how a plasma >transforms from an unstable, high internal energy configuration into >a spheromak. The new experiment sheds light on the phenomenon by >capturing images of plasmas as spheromaks form. The images show that >plasma currents initially flow in straight lines along a confining >magnetic field. Owing to an effect known as the kink instability, >the plasma currents develop bends that twist into a helix (see image >at www.aip.org/mgr/png ). The helix acts like a coiled current >element, or solenoid, which amplifies the original, straight >magnetic field. Above a certain threshold in the initial magnetic >field, detached plasma spheromaks are formed. The researchers >(contact: Paul Bellan, pbellan its.caltech.edu, 626-395-4827) >confirmed the theory behind the effect by measuring the rapid >amplification of the magnetic field inside developing plasma >solenoids. Spheromaks are potentially promising routes to >plasma-based nuclear fusion, and insight into their formation will >help in the design of future experiments-and possibly even a clean, >safe energy source. In addition, spheromak formation is important >for explaining the behavior of plasma in the solar corona, as well >as understanding the physics of jets that sprout from black holes, >galactic nuclei, and other astrophysical objects. (S. C. Hsu and P. >M. Bellan, Physical Review Letters, 30 May 2003) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 13 19:40:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA31332; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:39:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:39:57 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:44:02 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003 Resent-Message-ID: <"MRTFx3.0.Of7.yhew-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50858 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:43 PM 6/13/3, Jed Rothwell wrote: >I agree with Robin; this sounds like fossil fuel propaganda. It reminds me >of the stories they spread about birds being killed by wind turbines. A >certain number are killed, naturally, but orders of magnitude more birds >are killed by the smoke from coal plants, and the steam from coal and >nuclear cooling towers. > >- Jed Amen - and let's not forget that burning coal releases a vast amount of radioactivity into the air. Seriously! This fact I think provides some justification or preference for coal gassification over coal burning. However, producing methane from coal for use in automobiles seems to me like a more sensible thing than producing hydrogen from coal energy. The technology to run cars and trucks on methane is already here today, as is most of the distribution structure needed. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 00:03:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA06092; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 00:02:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 00:02:37 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:06:42 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"5yh563.0.6V1.DYiw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50859 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:38 PM 6/13/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Horace Heffner writes, > >> The fact that its effective mass is >> way less than a proton indiates it is not bound to some molecule or >> collection of molecules, which have a much higher mass. > >Yes, for that electron (or that segment of the population of electrons) - >but for the small amount of current that your are dealing with, only a >small proportion of the total free electrons present in the water may be >particiapating, specifically excluding those aqueous electrons that may be >encased in the dielectric cage of the water icosahedron...which could be >as high as 1 per 240 molecules of H2O or over 10^20 per mole...which is in >addition to those which would be the mobile variety that you are talking >about.... Hey, wait a second! That 16 coulombs worth of electrons per 18 grams of water does not seem right. What offsets that massive charge? If nothing offsets that charge then: The 18 grams of water occupies 4/3 Pi r^3 = 18 cc r^3 = 3/(4 Pi) 18 cc r = 1.6257 cm The surface potential on the surface of a spherical mole would then be roughly: V = kQ/r = (9x10^9)(16)/0.016257 = 8.85x10^12 volts Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 04:12:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA15002; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:11:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:11:58 -0700 Message-ID: <009d01c33265$b0b87470$6c5accd1 asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <000701c331f0$f4cb92c0$ce1de044 lv.cox.net> Subject: Re: NASA studies a Mills Hydrino Plasma Thruster Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:58:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Resent-Message-ID: <"-yicr.0.Kg3.-Bmw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50860 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vince Cockeram" To: "vortex" Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:15 PM Subject: NASA studies a Mills Hydrino Plasma Thruster > Interesting news, NASA is testing a Hydrino Plasma Thruster. > > http://blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/NASA%20NIAC%20Phase%20I%20Study%20T > he%20BlackLight%20Rocket%20Engine%2011.30.02.pdf > > Regards, > Vince This Phase 1 project was completed last year. Application was made for a Phase 2 project this year, but a decision has not come down from NASA. A team from Rowan University in New Jersey made measurements of thrust from a BLP reactor using hydrogen as fuel and helium as a catalyst. They formed a nozzle at the output of the cell, but were unable to get definitive doppler measurements against the glare of the reacting plasma. Planned further tests were not done because they ran out of the $75,000 funding. Rowan spent their money well, including scrounging some high vacuum equipment from eBay. As part of their due diligence, they witnessed a number of experiments performed for them by the staff at BlackLight Power. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 07:05:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA02527; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:04:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:04:06 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c3327d$94059340$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:02:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA02495 Resent-Message-ID: <"MCHZS.0.Jd.Ljow-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50862 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner writes, > Hey, wait a second! That 16 coulombs worth of electrons per 18 grams of > water does not seem right. What offsets that massive charge? The dielectric of each 280 molecule icosahedron in this model would tend to make each water-cage "look" like a unipolar capacitor. The large dielectric constant of water means that the force between the remaining ions (uncaged H2O, i.e. the "liquid" phase, or any added salt) is much reduced, permitting the ions to separate. These separated ions become surrounded by the oppositely charged ends of the uncaged water dipoles and become hydrated. Water itself dissociates into ions but the dissociation constant is very small ( Kw = 4.3 x 10-16 mmol/l). This tends to be counteracted by the random thermal motions of the molecules. Uncaged water molecules (liquid phase) are always associated with each other through around four hydrogen bonds and this ordering of the structure of water resists the random thermal motions and the migration of charge to the surface. Indeed it is likely that hydrogen bonding is responsible for the large dielectric constant. OTOH 16 coulombs per mole does sound extreme. I don't know what the maximum practical value would be for water near zero degree C. but that maximum range, whatever it would be, would be the *goal* for preparing water-fuel. By that I mean that one could not just substitute H2O for a hydrocarbon and expect it to "burn" (explosively sublimate). There must certainly be an optimum temperature range (near freezing) and a continuous process of "charging," to maintain the fully charged condition prior to use. All of this definitely appears to be involved in the Dingle water engine. He mounts a separate ignition coil onto his electrolyzer that both serves to capacitive couple to the cold water supply, as well as "ring" at the resonant frequency of the ferrite in the coil, giving a uniform cold fog to serve as fuel. In fact, he apparently sometimes refers to his electrolyzer as a capacitor (but it also has 12 volt plates on the inside). The surprising thing, if you can believe what has been written about this conversion is that the energy content of the prepared water appears to be about double that of gasoline, at least in terms of how far his converted Corolla is said to travel on a liter or prepared water. BUT of course, the fly in the ointment...it doesn't always work on demand...even so, one would expect more interest in this from other parties. So far it appears BMW is the only auto company to have sent over engineers... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 07:54:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA16171; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:53:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:53:30 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3EEB27A3.579B0063 centurytel.net> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:48:19 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CNN.com - Hydrogen fuel may disturb ozone layer - Jun. 12, 2003 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xh" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xh" Resent-Message-ID: <"yfJea2.0.by3.gRpw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50863 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: Amen - and let's not forget that burning coal releases a vast amount of radioactivity into the air. Seriously! This fact I think provides some justification or preference for coal gassification over coal burning. However, producing methane from coal for use in automobiles seems to me like a more sensible thing than producing hydrogen from coal energy. The technology to run cars and trucks on methane is already here today, as is most of the distribution structure needed. Hi All, Even better is converting methane (natural gas, from coal, from biomass, etc.) to methanol to fuel our cars at conventional "gas stations". Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 07:54:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA16275; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:53:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:53:44 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:55:30 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 HAA16246 Resent-Message-ID: <"MxrXJ.0.8-3.uRpw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50864 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:39:51 -0800, you wrote: >At 5:59 AM 6/13/3, John Fields wrote: >>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:55:21 -0800, you wrote: >> >> >>>>--- >>> >>>The above merely denies the premise that you can remove an electron and >>>keep it removed. >> >>--- >>Not at all. It merely states that if a free electron is removed from a >>surface the remaining electrons will reorient themselves on the surface >>of the sphere in order to stabilize the [new] charge distribution. > > > >The above merely denies the premise that you can remove an electron and >keep it removed, i.e. avoid the filling of the hole. The above is the same >as me saying your initial proposition is invalid because the electrons you >assumed to be placed on the sphere initially, a pair at a time, would move. >I say in your model as proposed there ARE gaps between the electrons. >If you can bear with my supposition that a gap of a single electron can be >created (really no different than your base assumptions) then the rest of >what I have said should be flat obvious to a school child. --- Why are you being insulting? We're merely discussing what _might_ happen under various circumstances. I disagree with your premise that a single electron can be removed from a "sheet" of electrons populating the inner wall of a dielectric sphere and result in a net positive charge at that location for an appreciable length of time. You disagree with my premise that a single electron located at the center of the sphere will be levitated by the combination of the repulsive forces exerted by the electrons in the sheet. Fine. I have an experiment planned which should put the discussion to rest soon. If you're interested I'll describe it, if not I'll just do it and post the results. --- >The above argument is irrelevant in that it talks about a "real" situation, >vs the artificial argument you started with. If that was the base >assumption for the model of analysis, I would say obviously "yes", the >second globe contains a hole. It might only be true on an instantaneous >basis at the moment the electron were magically removed, as I posited. But >since our thought experiments can and do specify any conditions desired for >understanding, that doesn't matter either. What really matters is >understanding the composite field produced by the geometry. --- Agreed. So look at it another way; we have three electrons trapped in, but free to move around in, a very thin evacuated sealed glass tube. Where do you think they will be? Now envision two tubes at right angles to each other, joined at their centers so their interiors are common enclosing five electrons. Where do you think they will be? Keep adding tubes and eventually a point will be reached where the only glass in the system will be a sphere surrounding a sheet of electrons (which are probably not going to be all that happy about being crowded that close together) and the single electron at the center of the sphere. (I think) --- >>> No receptor is necessary. No semiconductor is >>>necessary. Alternatively, if it makes you feel more comfortable, make the >>>sphere a super thin semiconductor. >> >>--- >>A dielectric will serve admirably. > > >Yes, but a semiconductor blows your initial argument out of the water. >When you remove that single electron, a hole appears. --- The semiconductor is an artifact of _yours_ designed to blow my argument out of the water. I originally posed a dielectric as the restraining structure and that's what I'll stick with, thanks very much. :-) -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 09:21:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA17113; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:19:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:19:58 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:24:03 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"ga3VN3.0.FB4.jiqw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50865 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:02 AM 6/14/3, Jones Beene wrote: >The dielectric of each 280 molecule icosahedron in this model would tend >to make each water-cage "look" like a unipolar capacitor. The large >dielectric constant of water means that the force between the remaining >ions (uncaged H2O, i.e. the "liquid" phase, or any added salt) is much >reduced, permitting the ions to separate. These separated ions become >surrounded by the oppositely charged ends of the uncaged water dipoles and >become hydrated. Water itself dissociates into ions but the dissociation >constant is very small ( Kw = 4.3 x 10-16 mmol/l). Dielectrics can not account for unbalanced charge. Dissociation of water can not account for unbalanced charge no matter what the dissciation constant, because the two parts of each molecule dissociated have opposite, and thus net zero, charge. Molecules have total zero charge, thus if dissociated into multiple parts, the sum of the charges is still zero. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 09:27:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA20047; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:26:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:26:06 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:30:12 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"LnpER1.0.5v4.Toqw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50866 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John, You must have missed this post: At 4:50 PM 6/13/3, Horace Heffner wrote: >After some thinking, I will CONCEDE that my analogy of the removal of an >electron is bad. Not because it is untrue, under the explicit assumption >that all else stays static, but rather because it is circular reasoning. I >thought the concept was very handily pedagogic. However, implicit in the >assumption of a hole in a semiconductor is the assumption of a uniform >surrounding envelope of positive charges as well. When the electron is >removed, the positive charge might be thought of as unmasked or "shining >through" the veil of electrons. In my mind this of course is no problem, >because the sphere of positive charges has no effect on the interior of the >sphere. It is the missing electron then that causes the force. This is >circular reasoning, however, and the concept then really teaches nothing. >I still believe it is all true, though this specific argument is invalid. >It is amazing how underlying beliefs, however well founded, provide us with >invalid arguments and muddle our own thinking. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 10:08:10 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA01424; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:07:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:07:20 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:11:27 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: A Paradoxical Perpetual Motion Machine Resent-Message-ID: <"SygIb1.0.AM.8Prw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50867 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Suppose there is a large collection of charge Q distributed uniformly around a conductive sphere of radius r and center C. If we are a point containing charge Q' = -Q and are located distance R away from C we experience a force equivalent to the entire Q being at the "center of charge" of all the charges inside the radius r, no matter how they are distributed inside radius r. However, since the set of charges Q is distributed uniformly around the sphere, we see the center of charge located at C. The force upon us is k Q Q'/R. The potential at radius r is k Q/r. We gain energy k Q^2/r when approaching the sphere from infinity. When we are inside the sphere, we see no force at all. Suppose there is a pair of small holes in the sphere and we are free to move on a path through the sphere. Further, suppose that while we are moving through the sphere the charge dissipates and then reverses . We do not feel the dissipation because the force from that charge remains at zero. When we exit the uncharged sphere we gain potential energy k Q^2/r, and when we have been repulsed to infinity, we gain a total of 2k Q^2/r energy. Now, to make a perpetual motion machine using these principles. Suppose there are a series of an even number of conductive spheres as discussed above, located in a ring, with an oscillating charge maintained at opposite polarity and magnitude on alternate spheres. Suppose there is an armature comprised of a dielectric ring that is free to rotate on an axis that is at the central point of the ring of spheres. The ring goes through the 2 holes cut in each sphere. On the ring is located the charge Q'. The oscillation is maintained such that the polarity is reversed when the charge Q' is inside each sphere. Each time the charge Q' travels through a sphere it gains an amount of energy, something less than k Q^2/r, but still sustantial portion of that energy. It takes very little energy to maintain the oscillating charge, especially if done in resonance and the spheres are very large, so as to reduce the frequency of osciallation and thus any radiation. Yet a large amount of energy is obtained from the torque applied to the ring. This violates conservation of energy, thus creating a paradox. The paradox is that potential and kinetic energy between any two pair of charges is conserved when the charges are free to move. However, the charges in the case sited were not free to move. Their motion was constained and timed. Does this condition of constraint and timing then eliminate the conservation of energy law? Or is there an energy cost in the process, a hidden cost to maintain the constraints, that balances the energy gained per cycle back to zero. It could be that magnetics returns the balance to zero, but I don't see how. It could be that "mirrored charge" somehow does it, but the effect of that too seems to zero out, because energy gained upon approaching the sphere is exactly balanced by energy leaving. How is this paradox resolved? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 10:13:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA03743; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:12:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:12:36 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:16:43 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"i1B6y.0.Lw.3Urw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50869 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:08 PM 6/14/3, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >Content-Language: en > >In a message dated 6/14/2003 7:33:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, >fjsparber earthlink.net writes: > > >> 3.16e6 Hz. > >That's pie times my constants one megahertz meter. A magahertz meter is a velocity of 1 million meters per second. The 3.16e6 Hz is a frequency. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 10:15:17 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA02062; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:08:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:08:53 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Message-ID: <72.2ec0ff71.2c1cb07e aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:08:14 EDT Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_72.2ec0ff71.2c1cb07e_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10638 Resent-Message-ID: <"nckSF3.0.3W.aQrw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50868 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_72.2ec0ff71.2c1cb07e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 6/14/2003 7:33:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,=20 fjsparber earthlink.net writes: > 3.16e6 Hz.=20 That's pie times my constants one megahertz meter. =E2=80=A2=C2=A0 Who's Who of Cold Fusion=C2=A0 =E2=80=A2=20 Frank Z --part1_72.2ec0ff71.2c1cb07e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 6/14/2003 7:33:40 AM Eastern Standa= rd Time, fjsparber earthlink.net writes:


3.16e6 Hz.


That's pie times my constants one megahertz meter.

=E2=80=A2=C2=A0 Who's Who of Cold Fusion=C2=A0 =E2=80=A2

Frank Z --part1_72.2ec0ff71.2c1cb07e_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 10:44:17 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA14930; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:43:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:43:20 -0700 Message-ID: <004601c3329c$3345b840$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:41:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA14905 Resent-Message-ID: <"EDqjS.0.Cf3.uwrw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50870 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Dielectrics can not account for unbalanced charge. What do you mean by account? No one is suggesting that the dielectric "causes" the charge unbalance, but rather that it is able to maintain a large imbalance for a period of time, based upon its permittivity and other factors. There is ALWAYS an unbalanced charge at the surface of every dielectric ! that is true even if the capacitor is balanced overall, but there is no requirement that a capacitor be balanced over any shorter term period. Admittedly imbalance could cause problems with delicate electronic components - unless it has been planned that way in advance, but here we are dealing with a situation where the maximum imbalance is probably desirable. One might have to expend some work in order to maintain the charge imbalance over time, BUT perhaps that is part and parcel of where the excess energy is coming from. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 10:52:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA18143; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:52:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:52:09 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:53:58 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: <6vlmevk1t99nh1tj625ou3vrdqi08b2jcf 4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 KAA18121 Resent-Message-ID: <"411W3.0.PR4.93sw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50871 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:30:12 -0800, you wrote: >John, > >You must have missed this post: > >At 4:50 PM 6/13/3, Horace Heffner wrote: >>After some thinking, I will CONCEDE that my analogy of the removal of an >>electron is bad. Not because it is untrue, under the explicit assumption >>that all else stays static, but rather because it is circular reasoning. I >>thought the concept was very handily pedagogic. However, implicit in the >>assumption of a hole in a semiconductor is the assumption of a uniform >>surrounding envelope of positive charges as well. When the electron is >>removed, the positive charge might be thought of as unmasked or "shining >>through" the veil of electrons. In my mind this of course is no problem, >>because the sphere of positive charges has no effect on the interior of the >>sphere. It is the missing electron then that causes the force. This is >>circular reasoning, however, and the concept then really teaches nothing. >>I still believe it is all true, though this specific argument is invalid. >>It is amazing how underlying beliefs, however well founded, provide us with >>invalid arguments and muddle our own thinking. --- Yes, I did. Thanks. BTW, the experiment was interesting. What I did was to pull apart a styrofoam(?) packing fill "peanut" until I had a piece about the size of a pea, then I put it into a balloon, inflated the balloon, tied off the filling tube and rubbed the balloon. While the peanut didn't immediately (or ever) jump to the center of the balloon and stay there, :-( it would hop madly about, leaving the wall and returning when I was rubbing the balloon and come to rest when I stopped. On several occasions it jumped across the entire diameter of the balloon and, most interesting, on several occasions it jumped toward the center, reversed its trajectory and came to rest on the same side of the balloon it started from. The end of the experiment came when the balloon burst, startling the hell out of me! Thanks, -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 11:41:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA04490; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:40:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:40:24 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:44:29 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"CO-uj2.0.y51.Omsw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50872 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:41 AM 6/14/3, Jones Beene wrote: > >> Dielectrics can not account for unbalanced charge. > >What do you mean by account? No one is suggesting that the dielectric >"causes" the charge unbalance, but rather that it is able to maintain a >large imbalance for a period of time, based upon its permittivity and >other factors. There is ALWAYS an unbalanced charge at the surface of >every dielectric ! that is true even if the capacitor is balanced overall, >but there is no requirement that a capacitor be balanced over any shorter >term period. Admittedly imbalance could cause problems with delicate >electronic components - unless it has been planned that way in advance, >but here we are dealing with a situation where the maximum imbalance is >probably desirable. One might have to expend some work in order to >maintain the charge imbalance over time, BUT perhaps that is part and >parcel of where the excess energy is coming from. I mean that it can not balance the net charge back to zero. A net charge is a net charge. Charge can not be shielded except by matching charge. The unbalanced charge in this case would create an astromical sized field. It would be unmistakably violent to even the casual observer. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 11:53:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA09826; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:53:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:53:15 -0700 Message-ID: <006e01c332a5$f8e42600$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:51:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id LAA09803 Resent-Message-ID: <"JN49U.0.SP2.Qysw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50873 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > The unbalanced charge in this case would create an astromical sized field. > It would be unmistakably violent to even the casual observer. Violent enough, perhaps, to turn H2O into a transportation fuel? After all, we're not talking about something that hasn't happened every day since the beginning of time, somewhere.... in your basic thunder cloud.... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 16:17:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA17998; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:16:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:16:06 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:20:15 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Paradoxical Perpetual Motion Machine Resent-Message-ID: <"bYkW73.0.3P4.soww-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50874 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The answer to the paradox must be that, even though the charge inside the the sphere feels no net force, the charges on the outside of the sphere feel a net force. It therefore takes energy to remove them from the sphere and twice that to reverse the charge on the sphere. This in itself seems paradoxical. It appears that the charge inside the sphere dos not feel any force yet the charge outside does feel a force between them. However, this is not really the case. The force that is applied where work is done is upon the very few electrons (at a given time) moving in the wire between adjacent spheres. These electrons are not part of the set of elecrons which are uniformly distributed on the sphere, so they feel any net charge from the sphere, they are affected by both the charges on the sphere surface and the charge inside the sphere, and vice versa. They do exert a force on the charge inside and vice versa. Ah well, no free lunch, no surprise. 8^( Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 16:25:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA21535; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:23:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:23:58 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:28:06 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: 1941 John Deer Model A tractor powered by water Resent-Message-ID: <"JyNwI3.0.PG5.Dwww-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50875 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I just went to the "Palmer Days" parade and exhibits in Palmer. It was fun except for getting caught in a hail storm and lightning on the 2 mile bike ride back from Palmer to my house. I got a good look at a 2 cylinder 1941 John Deer, Model A, tractor. It had a spin starter wheel, big magneto, and a bunch of other interesting novelties. Most interesting was a stop-cock type valve that permitted mixing water and gasoline in order to get extra power from the steam generated. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 16:40:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA25870; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:39:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:39:09 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:40:50 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: 1941 John Deer Model A tractor powered by water To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <002801c332ce$63e66080$0798a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Resent-Message-ID: <"UV1dg1.0.5K6.S8xw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50876 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Could you mix vegetable oil and water fore the purpose of combustion not explosion with the stop-cock type and to get it to combust Regards RBR --- - Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" To: Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 11:28 AM Subject: 1941 John Deer Model A tractor powered by water > I just went to the "Palmer Days" parade and exhibits in Palmer. It was fun > except for getting caught in a hail storm and lightning on the 2 mile bike > ride back from Palmer to my house. > > I got a good look at a 2 cylinder 1941 John Deer, Model A, tractor. It had > a spin starter wheel, big magneto, and a bunch of other interesting > novelties. Most interesting was a stop-cock type valve that permitted > mixing water and gasoline in order to get extra power from the steam > generated. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 16:43:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA27030; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:42:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:42:35 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:46:44 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"9dsOH.0.Fc6.hBxw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50877 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:51 AM 6/14/3, Jones Beene wrote: >> The unbalanced charge in this case would create an astromical sized field. >> It would be unmistakably violent to even the casual observer. > >Violent enough, perhaps, to turn H2O into a transportation fuel? > >After all, we're not talking about something that hasn't happened every >day since the beginning of time, somewhere.... in your basic thunder >cloud.... The only way such a charge could be neutralized is with a massive infusion of positive ions. This would happen fairly fast and at the initial potetnial of 8,850 trillion volts the gammas would be significant. These "free" electrons are netralized in any water that is not massively charged. To neutralize 16 coulombs worth of electrons per 18 grams of water you need .000166 mol of anions per mole of water to neutralize them. This would readily be detected. The number of 10^20 hydrated electrons per mole is impossible without mixing in anions to balance them. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 16:55:51 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA30519; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:54:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:54:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:58:29 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: 1941 John Deer Model A tractor powered by water Resent-Message-ID: <"uNop3.0.jS7.iMxw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50878 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Horace > Could you mix vegetable oil and water fore the purpose of >combustion not explosion with the stop-cock type and to get it to combust >Regards RBR The tractor I looked at only had two fuel tank fill caps that I could see. They were right on top in front of the steering wheel. I have heard that vegetable oil *can* be used in an internal combustion engine if the compression ratio is high enough - which pretty much limits it to diesel engines. Since there is reduced efficiency due to high exhaust heat, it would seem natural that some energy efficiency might be gained be injecting water (mist) in to the cylinder at some point in the power stroke. I don't know that simply mixing water with the vegetable oil would work very well in a diesel, which depends somewhat on the heat of compression to sustain ignition. Perhaps glow plugs could be sustained at high temperature using a constant and comparatively high currentm or maybe a very heavy duty spark could be used. The tractor mixed the water and gas prior to the carburator. Pretty amazing. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 17:05:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA00863; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:04:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:04:27 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:08:35 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravi-chem feasibility check Resent-Message-ID: <"qWsGU.0.PD.AWxw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50879 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:51 AM 6/14/3, Jones Beene wrote: >> The unbalanced charge in this case would create an astromical sized field. >> It would be unmistakably violent to even the casual observer. > >Violent enough, perhaps, to turn H2O into a transportation fuel? > >After all, we're not talking about something that hasn't happened every >day since the beginning of time, somewhere.... in your basic thunder >cloud.... The only way such a charge could be neutralized is with a massive infusion of positive ions. This would happen fairly fast and at the initial potential of 8,850 trillion volts the gammas would be significant. These "free" electrons are netralized in any water that is not massively charged. To neutralize 16 coulombs worth of electrons per 18 grams of water you need .000166 mol of anions per mole of water to neutralize them. This would readily be detected. The number of 10^20 hydrated electrons per mole is impossible without mixing in cations (e.g. metals) to balance them. If it were possible to mix in positrons to balance the charge then I would certainly agree that a massive energy storage mechanism is available! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 17:15:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA04117; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:14:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:14:45 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:18:52 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Resent-Message-ID: <"oTAsb3.0.E01.rfxw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50880 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:53 PM 6/14/3, John Fields wrote: >What I did was to pull apart a styrofoam(?) packing fill "peanut" until >I had a piece about the size of a pea, then I put it into a balloon, >inflated the balloon, tied off the filling tube and rubbed the balloon. >While the peanut didn't immediately (or ever) jump to the center of the >balloon and stay there, :-( it would hop madly about, leaving the wall >and returning when I was rubbing the balloon and come to rest when I >stopped. On several occasions it jumped across the entire diameter of >the balloon and, most interesting, on several occasions it jumped toward >the center, reversed its trajectory and came to rest on the same side of >the balloon it started from. The end of the experiment came when the >balloon burst, startling the hell out of me! What happened to the cat? 8^) This is an interesting experiment in that the peanut was apparently not initially charged? It sounds like the charge on the ballon surface was not uniform. The peanut could have been in various states of charge at different times due to charge transfer from the inside of the ballon due to friction and/or due to contact transfer. Thi also implies non-uniformity of charge distribution on the *inside* of the ballon as well. To assure uniform charge distribution it would be better to use a metal sphere, but then it is hard to see inside. Might be able to cut holes and fill them in with metal screen? Sounds like a really big tea ball would be useful. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 18:13:52 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA23669; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:13:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:13:10 -0700 Message-ID: <001301c332d2$d22273a0$7708bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:12:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940b1cd8b2aaa7a69faba201e547e84a8df350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"-stWh.0.ln5.cWyw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50881 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:33:16 Frederick Sparber wrote: **IMHO, it seems that the particles see each other with an electromagnetic type force that is not accessible by the electromagnetic forces generated in "our reference frame".** ***How do you bridge the relativistic "frame gap" to tie into the gravity field? :-)*** OTOH, this doesn't preclude the generation of a "5th Force" that mimics gravity, and act on the atoms/molecules of gases and solids, as demonstrated by Podkletnov and others, simply by the spinning of rotors etc. BTW, David Bergman and others; http://www.commonsensescience.org/ came up with a particle model similar to the one I have been bird-dogging for the past 15 years. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 18:42:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA00568; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:40:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:40:49 -0700 Message-ID: <001f01c332d6$ae7fb120$7708bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: 1941 John Deer Model A tractor powered by water Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:40:06 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940680eac824c1b4e5b45a042bd94eb146e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"36m9R2.0.g8.Wwyw-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50882 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:24:37 Horace Heffner wrote: > >I got a good look at a 2 cylinder 1941 John Deer, Model A, tractor. It had >a spin starter wheel, big magneto, and a bunch of other interesting >novelties. Most interesting was a stop-cock type valve that permitted >mixing water and gasoline in order to get extra power from the steam >generated. > Hey Horace. I'll bet I've spent more time on a pre-1941 John Deere A (and ~1937 B) (prior to 1950) than you have on Vortex. :-) Did you notice the petcocks on the cylinders of the A that have to be opened to lower the compression ratio so that hand-turning of the flywheel for starting was possible? The A and B tractors both had to be started on gasoline (in the rear tank) then switched to kerosene off the main tank with a valve near the sediment bowl. When coming in off the field at dusk the exhaust on the A was usually a visible cherry red. It wasn't unusual to set a field on fire with sparks from the exhaust, too. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 14 22:51:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA18172; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:49:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:49:17 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:50:58 +1200 From: RBR Subject: steam in vaccum To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <00c501c33302$190c6620$0798a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C33366.AD9045A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"xxoMB3.0.sR4.SZ0x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50883 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C33366.AD9045A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I posted a request about increasing a vacuum by adding steam to increase = the vacuum ......both Horace and Jones Beene replied and confirmed it = would ......I ran some test and was a bit taken back by the results I = got a 12% increase in vacuum .Just thought I would pass it on=20 =20 many thanks RBR. ------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C33366.AD9045A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I posted a request about increasing a=20 vacuum by adding steam to increase the vacuum ......both Horace and = Jones Beene replied and  confirmed it would ......I ran some = test and=20 was a bit taken back by the results I got a 12% increase in = vacuum .Just=20 thought I would pass it on
 
 many thanks = RBR.
------=_NextPart_000_00C2_01C33366.AD9045A0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 01:28:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA26284; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:28:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:28:03 -0700 Message-ID: <006b01c3330f$924aaf80$7708bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Spinning Supermagnets & The "5th Force" Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:26:24 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9406ca6a869d4c133fb314c26b2929b4b86350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"NHRsn2.0.XQ6.Ju2x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50884 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Maxwell's equations state that, " a moving charge creates a magnetic field, and a time-varying magnetic field creates an electrostatic field". Could spinning magnets cause a 1/R or 1/R^2 force on atoms/molecules, or other objects? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 01:53:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA01027; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:52:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:52:51 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:56:55 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"aW3P12.0.zF.ZF3x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50885 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: These results are *very* preliminary and need very careful checking. The results startled me, but probably will delight John Fields! The results show a repulsive force on an electron inside the sphere that is away from the center of the sphere and is increasing with radius. Near the sphere surface the force approaches a force equivalent to that which would be observed if all the outer electrons were at the center of the sphere. Just to convince myself that the field inside a charged sphere is zero, I wrote a program to position lots of electrons (fairly) uniformly about a 1 meter sphere by an ad-hoc algorithm I just today cooked up. It calculates the *relative* field at each of N points evenly spaced along a radius lying on the x axis. In Run1 N is set to 10. The fact that the field strength in non-radial directions is very near zero provides some encouragement that the electron positioning algorithm obtains fairly uniform placement as hoped. Despite the erroneous report title I put in the program (after all this is Revision 00) the field is normalized to units relative to a field produced by an electron at 1 meter. This makes the data very easy to interpret, especially when adding 1 electron or deleting 1 electron from the shell. Run1 of the program follows. The formatting gets slightly messed up when converting from PC to Mac disks. Leading blanks get stripped. I hope I haven't made a really bad blunder in the code, but no matter how you cut it I've blundered one way or another! It's back to the math books for me! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Qball Program Run1 06-15-2003 01:09:25 Evaluation intervals per quadrant = 90 Number of data points on x axis = 10 Approximate point separation = 0.1745D-01 meters (on a sphere of 1 meter radius) Relative E field at data points on selected radius ----- (Relative to the force between two electrons with one meter separation.) x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3282D-10 0.1859D-11 -.5217D-10 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2744D+04 -.4777D-12 -.5198D-10 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5487D+04 0.1266D-11 -.5149D-10 0.3000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8231D+04 -.2112D-12 -.5073D-10 0.4000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1098D+05 0.7110D-12 -.4968D-10 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1372D+05 -.1788D-12 -.4841D-10 0.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1646D+05 0.6629D-12 -.4692D-10 0.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1921D+05 0.2478D-11 -.4528D-10 0.8000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2195D+05 0.3876D-11 -.4353D-10 0.9000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2470D+05 -.2642D-11 -.4164D-10 Total electrons positioned = 41165 End of Run 06-15-2003 01:10:02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Following is the QBASIC program Qball that produced the results: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' --- Qball - integrate E about a sphere rev 00 6/14/03 ----- ' DOS QBX VERSION Author: H. Heffner ' --------------------------------------------------------------- ' ' ' ' DEFLNG I-O DEFDBL A-H, P-Z ' ' --- Main Line of Program ----------------------------------- ' GOSUB open.up GOSUB init.txtout GOSUB do.calc GOSUB print.final GOSUB end.of.txtout INPUT "Hit return to end"; xend$ STOP ' ' --- open files for processing ------------------------------ ' open.up: CLS run$ = "12345678" WHILE LEN(run$) > 5 INPUT "Run Number"; run$ IF LEN(run$) <= 5 THEN rept$ = "QB" + run$ + "L.txt" g$ = "Run" + run$ OPEN rept$ FOR OUTPUT AS #4 END IF WEND Pi = 3.14159265358979# Pi2 = Pi + Pi qe = 1.60217733D-19 ' charge of electron in coulombs qk = 8987551787# ' constant for Coulomb's law ' = (1/4*Pi*epsilon0) ' ~= 9E9 N m^2/C^2 Fbase = qk * qe * qe ' F = k Q^2/r, r = 1 meter ' the force between 2 electrons ' one meter apart D1 = 1# ' double precision 1 RETURN ' ' --- Do a calculation and report -------------------- ' do.calc: Nints = 1 WHILE Nints > 0! AND Nints <= 500! INPUT "Evaluation intervals per quadrant"; Nints IF Nints > 0! AND Nints <= 500! THEN INPUT "Number of data reporting points"; Ndata deltax = 1# / Ndata ' 1 meter radius ps = (Pi / 2#) / Nints ' mean point separation ' both in radians and meters PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "Evaluation intervals"; PRINT #4, " per quadrant = "; Nints PRINT #4, "Number of data points on x axis ="; Ndata PRINT #4, "Approximate point separation = "; PRINT #4, USING " #.####^^^^ "; ps; PRINT #4, " meters" PRINT #4, " (on a sphere of 1 meter radius)" PRINT #4, y1 = 0# z1 = 0# Ex = 0# Ey = 0# Ez = 0# ' --- print report title ----------- PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "----- Relative E field at data points on selected radius -----" PRINT #4, " (Relative to the force between two electrons" PRINT #4, " with one meter separation.)" PRINT #4, PRINT #4, " x1 "; PRINT #4, " y1 "; PRINT #4, " z1 "; PRINT #4, " Ex "; PRINT #4, " Ey "; PRINT #4, " Ez " ' --- compute and print each data point --- FOR i = 1 TO Ndata x1 = (i - 1) * deltax Ex = 0# Ey = 0# Ez = 0# GOSUB gen.points ' distribute charge and compute E PRINT #4, USING " #.#### "; x1; y1; z1; PRINT #4, USING " #.####^^^^ "; Ex; Ey; Ez NEXT i PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "-----------------------------------------------" PRINT #4, "Total electrons positioned = ", Npoints PRINT #4, END IF WEND RETURN ' ' --- distribute charge and compute relative E ' gen.points: ' ' --- distribute charge by computing theta and phi ' polar coordinates in a fairly uniform ad-hoc ' manner. ' Npoints = 0 ' total points generated dphi = (Pi / 2#) / Nints ' quadrant has Nints segments RANDOMIZE 123 ' reseed random sequence to get ' set of points on every call ' --- first do equator --- phi = Pi / 2# ' always at equator in next loop Ntheta = INT(Pi2 / ps) ' number of points at ps separation dtheta = Pi2 / Ntheta ' angular increment FOR Itheta = 1 TO Ntheta theta = (Itheta - 1) * dtheta GOSUB do1.point NEXT Itheta ' --- now do both hemispheres at once --- Nints1 = Nints - 1 FOR Iphi = 1 TO Nints1 phi = Iphi * dphi rtheta = SIN(phi) Ntheta = INT(Pi2 * rtheta / ps)' number of points at ps separation dtheta = Pi2 / Ntheta ' angular increment theta1 = RND * dtheta ' start arraying points at random place FOR Itheta = 1 TO Ntheta theta = (Itheta - 1) * dtheta + theta1 IF theta > Pi2 THEN theta = theta - Pi2 GOSUB do1.point ' do southern hemisphere save = phi phi = Pi - phi ' note - hemispheres symmetric GOSUB do1.point phi = save NEXT Itheta NEXT Iphi ' --- now do 2 poles phi = 0# ' north pole theta = 0# GOSUB do1.point phi = Pi ' south pole GOSUB do1.point ' --- now have true force in Ex, Ey, Ez. Convert now ' to normalized force and/or field E. Ex = Ex / (Fbase) Ey = Ey / (Fbase) Ez = Ez / (Fbase) ' Note: E is now expressed in units of force or field ' as compared to the force or field between a pair ' of electrons at 1 meter separation. RETURN ' ' --- place electron at one point and accumulate force ' ' input is theta and phi spherical coordinates (r=1) ' do1.point: Npoints = Npoints + 1 ' convert from spherical to cartesian coordinates x2 = SIN(phi) * COS(theta) ' standard coordinate conv. y2 = SIN(phi) * SIN(theta) z2 = COS(phi) ' --- compute vector components of force dx = x1 - x2 dy = y1 - y2 dz = z1 - z2 d = SQR(dx * dx + dy * dy + dz * dz) Ex = Ex + Fbase * (dx / d) Ey = Ey + Fbase * (dy / d) Ez = Ez + Fbase * (dz / d) RETURN ' --- initialize program and report file creation -------------------- ' init.txtout: PRINT #4, "Qball Program "; g$; " "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT #4, PRINT "Qball Program "; g$; " "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT RETURN ' ' --- print final summaries --------------------------------- ' print.final: PRINT #4, PRINT PRINT #4, "End of Run "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT "End of Run "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ RETURN ' ' --- close report file ------------------------------------------ ' end.of.txtout: CLOSE #4 RETURN Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 02:58:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id CAA19882; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:57:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:57:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:01:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"MPA4L.0.as4.1C4x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50886 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Well, I did find one stupid mistake. The output now looks much more like I had anticipated. However, there is a small centering effect equivalent to about 1/4000th the charge on the sphere. Given the separation between charges on the 1 meter sphere is about 1.7 centimeters and errors in uniformity are also about on the order of half that, the data is looking fairly good. Still the x axis looks very different from the y and z, so it is going to take some work to find out if the difference is "real", a precision error, or a program(mer) error. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Qball Program Run2 06-15-2003 02:41:15 Evaluation intervals per quadrant = 90 Number of data points on x axis = 10 Approximate point separation = 0.1745D-01 meters (on a sphere of 1 meter radius) ***** Relative E field at data points on selected radius ***** * (Relative to the field from an electron * at one meter separation.) * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3282D-10 0.1867D-11 -.5217D-10 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1847D+01 -.2876D-12 -.5181D-10 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 -.3631D+01 -.8019D-12 -.5092D-10 0.3000 0.0000 0.0000 -.5307D+01 -.1350D-11 -.4964D-10 0.4000 0.0000 0.0000 -.6848D+01 0.4293D-11 -.4795D-10 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 -.8248D+01 -.6678D-11 -.4600D-10 0.6000 0.0000 0.0000 -.9490D+01 -.9703D-11 -.4386D-10 0.7000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1048D+02 0.7842D-11 -.4176D-10 0.8000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1086D+02 0.9559D-11 -.3975D-10 0.9000 0.0000 0.0000 -.8864D+01 -.1163D-10 -.3743D-10 Total electrons positioned = 41165 End of Run 06-15-2003 02:41:49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Following is the QBASIC program Qball that produced the results: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' --- Qball - integrate E about a sphere rev 01 6/14/03 ----- ' DOS QBX VERSION Author: H. Heffner ' --------------------------------------------------------------- ' ' ' ' DEFLNG I-O DEFDBL A-H, P-Z ' ' --- Main Line of Program ----------------------------------- ' GOSUB open.up GOSUB init.txtout GOSUB do.calc GOSUB print.final GOSUB end.of.txtout INPUT "Hit return to end"; xend$ STOP ' ' --- open files for processing ------------------------------ ' open.up: CLS run$ = "12345678" WHILE LEN(run$) > 5 INPUT "Run Number"; run$ IF LEN(run$) <= 5 THEN rept$ = "QB" + run$ + "L.txt" g$ = "Run" + run$ OPEN rept$ FOR OUTPUT AS #4 END IF WEND Pi = 3.14159265358979# Pi2 = Pi + Pi qe = 1.60217733D-19 ' charge of electron in coulombs qk = 8987551787# ' constant for Coulomb's law ' = (1/4*Pi*epsilon0) ' ~= 9E9 N m^2/C^2 Fbase = qk * qe * qe ' F = k Q^2/r, r = 1 meter ' the force between 2 electrons ' one meter apart D1 = 1# ' double precision 1 RETURN ' ' --- Do a calculation and report -------------------- ' do.calc: Nints = 1 WHILE Nints > 0! AND Nints <= 500! INPUT "Evaluation intervals per quadrant"; Nints IF Nints > 0! AND Nints <= 500! THEN INPUT "Number of data reporting points"; Ndata deltax = 1# / Ndata ' 1 meter radius ps = (Pi / 2#) / Nints ' mean point separation ' both in radians and meters PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "Evaluation intervals"; PRINT #4, " per quadrant = "; Nints PRINT #4, "Number of data points on x axis ="; Ndata PRINT #4, "Approximate point separation = "; PRINT #4, USING " #.####^^^^ "; ps; PRINT #4, " meters" PRINT #4, " (on a sphere of 1 meter radius)" PRINT #4, x1 = 0# y1 = 0# z1 = 0# Ex = 0# Ey = 0# Ez = 0# ' --- print report title ----------- PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "***** Relative E field at data points on selected radius *****" PRINT #4, "* (Relative to the field from an electron" PRINT #4, "* at one meter separation.)" PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "* x1 "; PRINT #4, " y1 "; PRINT #4, " z1 "; PRINT #4, " Ex "; PRINT #4, " Ey "; PRINT #4, " Ez " ' --- compute and print each data point --- FOR i = 1 TO Ndata x1 = (i - 1) * deltax Ex = 0# Ey = 0# Ez = 0# GOSUB gen.points ' distribute charge and compute E PRINT #4, USING " #.#### "; x1; y1; z1; PRINT #4, USING " #.####^^^^ "; Ex; Ey; Ez NEXT i PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "-----------------------------------------------" PRINT #4, "Total electrons positioned = ", Npoints PRINT #4, END IF WEND RETURN ' ' --- distribute charge and compute relative E ' gen.points: ' ' --- distribute charge by computing theta and phi ' polar coordinates in a fairly uniform ad-hoc ' manner. ' Npoints = 0 ' total points generated dphi = (Pi / 2#) / Nints ' quadrant has Nints segments RANDOMIZE 123 ' reseed random sequence to get ' set of points on every call ' --- first do equator --- phi = Pi / 2# ' always at equator in next loop Ntheta = INT(Pi2 / ps) ' number of points at ps separation dtheta = Pi2 / Ntheta ' angular increment FOR Itheta = 1 TO Ntheta theta = (Itheta - 1) * dtheta GOSUB do1.point NEXT Itheta ' --- now do both hemispheres at once --- Nints1 = Nints - 1 FOR Iphi = 1 TO Nints1 phi = Iphi * dphi rtheta = SIN(phi) Ntheta = INT(Pi2 * rtheta / ps)' number of points at ps separation dtheta = Pi2 / Ntheta ' angular increment theta1 = RND * dtheta ' start arraying points at random place FOR Itheta = 1 TO Ntheta theta = (Itheta - 1) * dtheta + theta1 IF theta > Pi2 THEN theta = theta - Pi2 GOSUB do1.point ' do southern hemisphere save = phi phi = Pi - phi ' note - hemispheres symmetric GOSUB do1.point phi = save NEXT Itheta NEXT Iphi ' --- now do 2 poles phi = 0# ' north pole theta = 0# GOSUB do1.point phi = Pi ' south pole GOSUB do1.point ' --- now have true force in Ex, Ey, Ez. Convert now ' to normalized force and/or field E. Ex = Ex / (Fbase) Ey = Ey / (Fbase) Ez = Ez / (Fbase) ' Note: E is now expressed in units of force or field ' as compared to the force or field between a pair ' of electrons at 1 meter separation. RETURN ' ' --- place electron at one point and accumulate force ' ' input is theta and phi spherical coordinates (r=1) ' do1.point: Npoints = Npoints + 1 ' convert from spherical to cartesian coordinates x2 = SIN(phi) * COS(theta) ' standard coordinate conv. y2 = SIN(phi) * SIN(theta) z2 = COS(phi) ' --- compute vector components of force dx = x1 - x2 dy = y1 - y2 dz = z1 - z2 d = SQR(dx * dx + dy * dy + dz * dz) Fr = qk * qe * qe / d ^ 2 ' F = k Q^2/r^2, r = 1 meter Ex = Ex + Fr * (dx / d) Ey = Ey + Fr * (dy / d) Ez = Ez + Fr * (dz / d) RETURN ' --- initialize program and report file creation -------------------- ' init.txtout: PRINT #4, "Qball Program "; g$; " "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT #4, PRINT "Qball Program "; g$; " "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT RETURN ' ' --- print final summaries --------------------------------- ' print.final: PRINT #4, PRINT PRINT #4, "End of Run "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT "End of Run "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ RETURN ' ' --- close report file ------------------------------------------ ' end.of.txtout: CLOSE #4 RETURN Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 04:21:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA10501; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:20:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:20:35 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:19:55 EDT Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_de.3a2bce42.2c1db05b_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10638 Resent-Message-ID: <"V669n.0._Z2.2Q5x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50887 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_de.3a2bce42.2c1db05b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/14/2003 7:33:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, fjsparb earthlink.net writes: er > The potential (V) = I*Zo = 1.02e6 volts for the electron A max voltage implies a quantum of capacitance or an elastic limit of free space as per my work. q = cv http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html Frank Znidarsic --part1_de.3a2bce42.2c1db05b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/14/2003 7:33:40 AM Eastern Standa= rd Time, fjsparb earthlink.net writes:
er

The potential (V) =3D I*Zo =3D=20= 1.02e6 volts for the electron


A max voltage implies a quantum of capacitance or an elastic limit of free s= pace as per my work.

q =3D cv

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html

Frank Znidarsic
 --part1_de.3a2bce42.2c1db05b_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 04:21:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA10588; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:20:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:20:53 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Message-ID: <1d5.bb7993e.2c1db072 aol.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:20:18 EDT Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1d5.bb7993e.2c1db072_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10638 Resent-Message-ID: <"4akf91.0.Ib2.KQ5x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50888 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_1d5.bb7993e.2c1db072_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/14/2003 7:33:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, fjsparber earthlink.net writes: > The potential (V) = I*Zo = 1.02e6 volts for the electron --part1_1d5.bb7993e.2c1db072_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/14/2003 7:33:40 AM Eastern Standa= rd Time, fjsparber earthlink.net writes:


The potential (V) =3D I*Zo =3D=20= 1.02e6 volts for the electron


 --part1_1d5.bb7993e.2c1db072_boundary-- clock" in the frame of the particles slows the frequency (f) (as they see it) for the electron to 1.7e22/gamma = 1.7e22/2.0e21= 8.5 Hz and the frequency of the quark/s to 1.06e25/3.345e18 = 3.16e6 Hz. . **The impedance of space (Zo) = 377 ohms** **The potential (V) = I*Zo = 1.02e6 volts for the electron.** **For a quark with charge (+/- q) the potential (V) = 612 * 1.02e6 = 6.24e8 volts, I = 624* 2.718 = 1.70e6 amperes (thus implying a radius of 4.5e-18 meters for each of the three quarks (+/- current loops) that make up a proton).** **However, the square root of the ratio of the electrostatic force (Fes) = (kq^2/R^2) to the gravitational force (Fg) =(G*m^2/R^2) suggests a relativistic time-dilation effect (or gamma) that reduces the electrostatic or magnetic (gravity)force between particles:** **IOW, I = q*c/[2(pi)r *gamma]** Thus, the displacement current (I) = 2.718e3/2.0e21 = 1.36e-18 amperes for the electron, and 1.697e6/3.345e18 = 4.92e-13 amperes for the quark/s. **(Fes/Fg)^1/2 = Gamma for any particular particle.** **IMHO, it seems that the particles see each other with an electromagnetic type force that is not accessible by the electromagnetic forces generated in "our reference frame".** How do you bridge the relativistic "frame gap" to tie into the gravity field? :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 06:45:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA15850; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:44:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:44:51 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01c33344$0cd6c3e0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:43:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA15808 Resent-Message-ID: <"wNj-R.0.Zt3.IX7x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50889 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner writes, > The results > show a repulsive force on an electron inside the sphere that is away from > the center of the sphere and is increasing with radius. Near the sphere > surface the force approaches a force equivalent to that which would be > observed if all the outer electrons were at the center of the sphere. To combine two different trains of thought, how would that model work at the nanoscale? Would a small 3 nm sphere (actually an icosahedron) that was composed of 280 molecules in a Fullerene-type spherical arrangement (having 5,040 electrons rather evenly spaced around the circumference) be able to contain a single thermalized "free" electron (with a wavelength of about 1 nm) within its encircling cage, so that the e field of the electron was essentially isolated from the environment outside the sphere? Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 06:55:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA19797; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:54:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:54:20 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c33345$5fbeb6c0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <001d01c33344$0cd6c3e0$0a016ea8@cpq> Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:52:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA19657 Resent-Message-ID: <"lMaHP2.0.Dr4.Bg7x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50890 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I meant to add this to the previous post: It is an interesting, possibly related factoid, paraphrased from the web: An EM resonator cavity is a space enclosed entirely by conducting walls. If something inside a cavity creates a disturbance of the EM field, for example by taking a bar magnet and spinning it so that the poles are swapping ends, this normally would radiate EM waves to infinity. However, the charges in the boundary conductors respond to this field by moving, and in their response they radiate their own EM waves. These waves turn out to be just right to exactly cancel the direct waves from the magnet in the universe outside the cavity. The conductor appears to be preventing the field from leaving the cavity, and at the same time, the field radiated from the moving charges within the boundaries makes its own significant contribution to the inside field. Inside the cavity, the direct waves from the rotating magnet, and the extra waves radiated from the cavity walls, tend to combine supportively to give a more or less strong field (depending on just where you are in the cavity). This ability of a cavity to contain EM radiation has many useful consequences. Natural cavities can form and we have an example with that of the earth (which roughly speaking is a conductor) and the ionosphere - a set of conductive layers in the earth's atmosphere at several tens of miles altitude. Between them, earth and ionosphere make a rough sort of cavity, more or less a spherical shell.... Horace Heffner writes, > The results > show a repulsive force on an electron inside the sphere that is away from > the center of the sphere and is increasing with radius. Near the sphere > surface the force approaches a force equivalent to that which would be > observed if all the outer electrons were at the center of the sphere. To combine two different trains of thought, how would that model work at the nanoscale? Would a small 3 nm sphere (actually an icosahedron) that was composed of 280 molecules in a Fullerene-type spherical arrangement (having 5,040 electrons rather evenly spaced around the circumference) be able to contain a single thermalized "free" electron (with a wavelength of about 1 nm) within its encircling cage, so that the e field of the electron was essentially isolated from the environment outside the sphere? Regards, Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 07:26:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA29203; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:25:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:25:24 -0700 Message-ID: <003c01c33349$b6a67fa0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <00c501c33302$190c6620$0798a7cb vuw.ac.nz> Subject: Re: steam in vaccum Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:23:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id HAA29183 Resent-Message-ID: <"5BfD41.0.D87.K78x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50891 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: "RBR" Subject: steam in vaccum "I posted a request about increasing a vacuum by adding steam to increase the vacuum ......both Horace and Jones Beene replied and confirmed it would ......I ran some test and was a bit taken back by the results I got a 12% increase in vacuum .Just thought I would pass it on " many thanks RBR. Well, you may be on the verge of performing the very experiment that got me interested in the prospect of water-as-fuel. And you might be interested in the charts that Frank Grimer has recently posted to the watercar forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar/files/Vapour%20Pressures/ Frank's commentary: "To the best of my knowledge these graphs showing the 12th and 4th power laws are a new discovery which has never been published before.... In the light of these power laws, water may be viewed as mixture of one dimensional "steam" vapour and 3 dimensional "ice" vapour as foreshadowed in Professor Martin Chaplin's website on water. It is the release of the intrinsic hierarchical strain between these two separate phases in water which is driving the watercar engines. Frank is of the opinion that we may not need to specify the actual mechanics of overunity any further than that, but I am struggling to find more specificity and detail in what could be going on - thus the barrage of posts recently exploring different possibilities with Horace. The post about my experiment is in the Vortex archive from Nov of last year. The experiment involved injecting chilled water (not steam) with and without additives into a vacuum and testing the results in a number of ways. Repeatability was never achieved in this experiment and it has languished due to a number of issues, mostly economic. BTW an induction coil placed next to the chamber will detect an impressive EM pulse from the injected water, but unfortunately, a decent soft x-ray signal was not identified. Had I gotten a soft x-ray signal, or any semblance of repeatability, I would have made an aggressive attempt to get enough funding to upgrade the experiment. Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 08:36:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA16261; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 08:35:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 08:35:15 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 07:39:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"MH7zx.0.xz3.p89x-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50892 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: After experimenting a while it appears that a slight inward force exists in the x and y axies that increases somewhat with radius, and in the z axis that diminishes with radius. This force is equivalent to a very small proportion of the electrons. It appears that this force is likely due to the inherent lack of pure uniformity in the distribution of electrons about the sphere surface which is due to the ad-hoc algorithm I created to distribute the electrons. When the resolution is increased, i.e. the number of electrons positioned is increased, it increases the uniformity, but the resulting *net* forces remain because the number of electrons producing the forces has increased. If the net fields Ex, Ey, and Ez were further normalized by dividing by the number of electrons in the outer sphere, then it appears they would converge to zero (as expected in the standard calculus rendition) as the uniformity of the charge distribution is improved by increasing granularity. This is equivalent to using a fixed amount of charge on the sphere and distributing it in an increasingly uniform manner depending on the number of points chosen. This artifact of the computer model may indeed say something about our universe! It may be serendipity that it is difficult to impossible to obtain uniform spacing of points in a spherical shell, excepting of course the 5 regular polyhedra which are the basis of geodesic domes. If the polarity of the model were reversed, so as to model a positron inside the sphere, or gravity, then it would show a small but *outward* force that is fairly uniform with distance but slightly increasing with distance in the x and y axies, and *inward* in the z axis. This is equivalent to gravity diminishing toward the outer shell in the x and y axis but increasing in the z axis. Such a nearly uniform but changing nature of gravity with distance was in fact observed in Pioneer 10 doppler data. Perhaps this was due to the nonuniformity of mass distribution in our galaxy. Perhaps galaxies near the edge of the universe, assuming that most of the mass from the big bang is there, and it has a small non-uniformity, as evidenced by the cosmic background radiation, experience a diminshing gravity or increasing gravity from the center of the universe, depending on their neighborhood. If real, this unusual incremental gravity near the edge of the universe, I would think it has no effect though on whether the universe continually expands or not, because the force on the outermost envelope is that normally expected by the law of gravitation. The final outcome remains unchanged. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 17:22:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA00931; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:16:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:16:15 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift. Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:17:57 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 RAA00844 Resent-Message-ID: <"xJWxF2.0.SE.EnGx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50893 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:18:52 -0800, you wrote: >At 12:53 PM 6/14/3, John Fields wrote: > >>What I did was to pull apart a styrofoam(?) packing fill "peanut" until >>I had a piece about the size of a pea, then I put it into a balloon, >>inflated the balloon, tied off the filling tube and rubbed the balloon. >>While the peanut didn't immediately (or ever) jump to the center of the >>balloon and stay there, :-( it would hop madly about, leaving the wall >>and returning when I was rubbing the balloon and come to rest when I >>stopped. On several occasions it jumped across the entire diameter of >>the balloon and, most interesting, on several occasions it jumped toward >>the center, reversed its trajectory and came to rest on the same side of >>the balloon it started from. The end of the experiment came when the >>balloon burst, startling the hell out of me! > > >What happened to the cat? 8^) --- She refused to get into the balloon!^) --- >This is an interesting experiment in that the peanut was apparently not >initially charged? --- True. My intent was to determine whether the peanut would take up the charge developed on the inside of the balloon generated by rubbing the outside of the balloon and consequently be repelled away from the inner wall. It worked! --- >It sounds like the charge on the ballon surface was not uniform. The >peanut could have been in various states of charge at different times due >to charge transfer from the inside of the ballon due to friction and/or due >to contact transfer. Thi also implies non-uniformity of charge >distribution on the *inside* of the ballon as well. --- Yes. it was horribly crude. Moisture-laden air on the inside of the balloon, a peanut with anything _but_ a spherical cross section, and a field gradient on the ouside of the balloon which varied enough to attract the hair on my arm more in some places than others... Hardly precision work. I think my next attempt will be to expand the balloon externally by placing it in a vacuum chamber while leaving its interior exposed to the atmosphere. That way I can easily spray charge into the balloon's interior, charge a peanut, and insert it into the balloon's interior with a long pair of plastic tweezers. --- >To assure uniform charge distribution it would be better to use a metal >sphere, but then it is hard to see inside. Might be able to cut holes and >fill them in with metal screen? Sounds like a really big tea ball would be >useful. 8^) --- Perhaps a dip in some conductive fluid before the trip to the vacuum chamber would render the outside of the balloon conductive and transparent and would allow charge to be placed on the outside of the balloon instead of on the inside? -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 20:01:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA11625; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:01:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:01:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:02:40 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: steam in vaccum To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <008301c333b3$c5650380$3c98a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <00c501c33302$190c6620$0798a7cb vuw.ac.nz> <003c01c33349$b6a67fa0$0a016ea8 cpq> Resent-Message-ID: <"RGGVg3.0.Tr2.pBJx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50894 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: thanks JP working through your suggestions Cant find Prof Martin Chaplin's web site Googled it and got every thing but his site - ---- RBR inal Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 2:23 AM Subject: Re: steam in vaccum > From: "RBR" > Subject: steam in vaccum > > > "I posted a request about increasing a vacuum by adding steam to increase the vacuum ......both Horace and Jones Beene replied and confirmed it would ......I ran some test and was a bit taken back by the results I got a 12% increase in vacuum .Just thought I would pass it on " > > many thanks RBR. > > > Well, you may be on the verge of performing the very experiment that got me interested in the prospect of water-as-fuel. And you might be interested in the charts that Frank Grimer has recently posted to the watercar forum: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar/files/Vapour%20Pressures/ > > Frank's commentary: "To the best of my knowledge these graphs showing the 12th and 4th power laws are a new discovery which has never been published before.... In the light of these power laws, water may be viewed as mixture of one dimensional "steam" vapour and 3 dimensional "ice" vapour as foreshadowed in Professor Martin Chaplin's website on water. It is the release of the intrinsic hierarchical strain between these two separate phases in water which is driving the watercar engines. > > Frank is of the opinion that we may not need to specify the actual mechanics of overunity any further than that, but I am struggling to find more specificity and detail in what could be going on - thus the barrage of posts recently exploring different possibilities with Horace. > > The post about my experiment is in the Vortex archive from Nov of last year. The experiment involved injecting chilled water (not steam) with and without additives into a vacuum and testing the results in a number of ways. Repeatability was never achieved in this experiment and it has languished due to a number of issues, mostly economic. > > BTW an induction coil placed next to the chamber will detect an impressive EM > pulse from the injected water, but unfortunately, a decent soft x-ray signal was not identified. Had I gotten a soft x-ray signal, or any semblance of repeatability, I would have made an aggressive attempt to get enough funding to upgrade the experiment. > > Jones > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 20:02:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA12275; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:02:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:02:13 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:22:30 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"A9AuF2.0.i_2.qCJx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50895 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Geeze Horace, BASIC??? Gag me. You know, two thoughts come to mind from these exchanges. 1) Equal distribution of the charges is very easy, just switch coordinate systems from rectilinear to spherical. I'm sure you can easily imagine a simple algorithm to do the distribution in spherical coordinates. Then convert back to rectilinear. Use floating point numbers... 2) My intuition tells me that John is right, but my education tells me otherwise. Consider this link for example. http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/Gauss/node3.html Or any of the million more you can find on the subject. I'm surprised you don't just quote directly from an undergrad physics text on this. K. -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 11:39 AM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator After experimenting a while it appears that a slight inward force exists in the x and y axies that increases somewhat with radius, and in the z axis that diminishes with radius. This force is equivalent to a very small proportion of the electrons. It appears that this force is likely due to the inherent lack of pure uniformity in the distribution of electrons about the sphere surface which is due to the ad-hoc algorithm I created to distribute the electrons. When the resolution is increased, i.e. the number of electrons positioned is increased, it increases the uniformity, but the resulting *net* forces remain because the number of electrons producing the forces has increased. If the net fields Ex, Ey, and Ez were further normalized by dividing by the number of electrons in the outer sphere, then it appears they would converge to zero (as expected in the standard calculus rendition) as the uniformity of the charge distribution is improved by increasing granularity. This is equivalent to using a fixed amount of charge on the sphere and distributing it in an increasingly uniform manner depending on the number of points chosen. This artifact of the computer model may indeed say something about our universe! It may be serendipity that it is difficult to impossible to obtain uniform spacing of points in a spherical shell, excepting of course the 5 regular polyhedra which are the basis of geodesic domes. If the polarity of the model were reversed, so as to model a positron inside the sphere, or gravity, then it would show a small but *outward* force that is fairly uniform with distance but slightly increasing with distance in the x and y axies, and *inward* in the z axis. This is equivalent to gravity diminishing toward the outer shell in the x and y axis but increasing in the z axis. Such a nearly uniform but changing nature of gravity with distance was in fact observed in Pioneer 10 doppler data. Perhaps this was due to the nonuniformity of mass distribution in our galaxy. Perhaps galaxies near the edge of the universe, assuming that most of the mass from the big bang is there, and it has a small non-uniformity, as evidenced by the cosmic background radiation, experience a diminshing gravity or increasing gravity from the center of the universe, depending on their neighborhood. If real, this unusual incremental gravity near the edge of the universe, I would think it has no effect though on whether the universe continually expands or not, because the force on the outermost envelope is that normally expected by the law of gravitation. The final outcome remains unchanged. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 21:50:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA32517; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:50:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:50:19 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:54:27 -0800 To: From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"BGdJc.0._x7.AoKx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50896 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:22 PM 6/15/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Geeze Horace, BASIC??? > >Gag me. > >You know, two thoughts come to mind from these exchanges. > >1) Equal distribution of the charges is very easy, just >switch coordinate systems from rectilinear to spherical. >I'm sure you can easily imagine a simple algorithm >to do the distribution in spherical coordinates. Then >convert back to rectilinear. Use floating point numbers... If you look at the program I posted you will see that I did use spherical coordinates and used double precision floating point or long precsion integers everywhere, including all phsically related constants. I then converted to cartesian for the vector addition. I you have any suggestion about how to distribute charges uniformly in a more simple manner I would be very interested in hearing about it. > >2) My intuition tells me that John is right, but my >education tells me otherwise. That's the problem in a nutshell. How to make the principle intuitively understandable in a simple and convincing manner. Calculus provides a mode of proof, but really leaves the intuitive convincing behind. As I experienced, calculus also uses ideal assumptions which can not be met in reality. This problem presents a real learning opportunity in my opinion. >Consider this link >for example. > >http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/Gauss/node3.html > >Or any of the million more you can find on the subject. >I'm surprised you don't just quote directly from an >undergrad physics text on this. I assumed John fields has had exposure to this since many high school phyiscs and calculus courses and most first year college courses deal with this issue. And, as you point out, there are lots of sources of info on the www. The problem as I see it then is a matter of true convincing, of trying to make the issue understandable and intuitive. It is an issue of word craft and creative thinking that I think is very challenging. This in my opinion is not easy. Others may find it easy to explain. I've learned a few things from the exercise, like how to distribute charge evenly over a spherical surface in an mannner that is uniform *in the limit*, and I think that this is as about as good as can be achieved with large numbers of points since there are only 5 regular polyhedra, and they are small. I have constructed and made available a "mini-lab" in BASIC, a language which I assume most people interested in physics understand. I have probably worked in more than a couple dozen languages since I began programming in 1962, and IBM 360/370 assmbler was my forte at one time, but I still think BASIC is a handy language for little "quick and dirty" physics problems. It only took a couple hours of programming to cobble together the little Qball program, and a few hours of playing around with it to get a handle on the nature of the problem. That's plenty good enough for me. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 22:36:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA20372; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:35:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:35:22 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.20030616063510.006958f0 pop.freeserve.net> X-Sender: grimer2.freeserve.co.uk pop.freeserve.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:35:10 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Grimer Subject: Re: steam in vaccum Resent-Message-ID: <"aM-qq.0.C-4.QSLx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50897 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:02 pm 16-06-03 +1200, you wrote: >thanks JP working through your suggestions Cant find Prof Martin Chaplin's >web site Googled it and got every thing but his site >- ---- RBR Try http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/index.html Frank From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 15 23:03:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA31519; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:02:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:02:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3EED5CE5.C39BF04C att.net> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:00:05 -0600 From: Rich Murray X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: R. Foot & S. Mitra, 7.30.2: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8cVkZ2.0.Ki7.prLx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50898 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: R. Foot & S. Mitra, 7.30.2: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall http://www.geocities.com/mirrorplanets/ The Mirror Matter Webpage http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0207175 Does mirror matter exist? July 17 2002 http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/hep-ph/0204256 Robert Foot foot physics.unimelb.edu.au Saibal Mitra smitra zonnet.nl arXiv:hep-ph/0204256 v2 30 Jul 2002 May 2002 Ordinary atom-mirror atom bound states: A new window on the mirror world Robert Foot and S. Mitra foot physics.unimelb.edu.au School of Physics Research Centre for High Energy Physics The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia saibalm science.uva.nl Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica Universiteit van Amsterdam 1018 XE Amsterdam The Netherlands Abstract Mirror symmetry is a plausible candidate for a fundamental symmetry of particle interactions which can be exactly conserved if a set of mirror particles exist. The properties of the mirror particles seem to provide an excellent candidate to explain the inferred dark matter of the Universe and might also be responsible for a variety of other puzzles in particle physics, astrophysics, meteoritics and planetary science. One such puzzle – the orthopositronium lifetime problem – can be explained if there is a small kinetic mixing of ordinary and mirror photons. We show that this kinetic mixing implies the existence of ordinary atom - mirror atom bound states with interesting terrestrial and astrophysical implications. We suggest that sensitive mass spectroscopic studies of ordinary samples containing heavy elements such as lead might reveal the presence of these bound states, as they would appear as anomalously heavy elements. In addition to the e ects of single mirror atoms, collective effects from embedded fragments of mirror matter (such as mirror iron microparticles) are also possible. We speculate that such mirror matter fragments might explain a mysterious UV photon burst observed coming from a laser irradiated lead target in a recent experiment. They calculate that Fe' [mirror Fe] will be stably bound to Fe, Au, and similarly massive ordinary massive atoms, forming pairs in which the mirror atom will be almost invisible to all ordinary fields except gravity. If a sample of iron or gold contained a percentage of these pairs, the mirror atom component may radiate heat away into interplanetary space, causing an apparently constant energy loss to the object-- an apparent anomaly. These might have been noticed since Stone Age times. This might be recorded as myths about various objects that are unusually heavy, cold, or even invisible, or about strange, magical environments that, for instance, invoke the "chill of death". Artifacts hidden away in museums may have mirror matter components. There may be many obscure records of such objects and anomalies in the scientific record since 1600. If a cave were to exist in porous, insulating vocanic rock or pumice, with only a single, limited, upward tunnel to the surface, it might tend to concentrate MM' [matter-mirror matter bound states], for instance, with krypton, xenon, mercury, and radon, which would settle over millions of years, creating ice caves, even in hot, dry areas, even though rock temperatures usually increase with depth. Preferential evaporation of the slightly warmer normal matter gases would tend to concentrate the MM' molecules. A search on Google reveals many articles, with photos, of exactly such caves in the USA, often with the explanation that in winter cold air and water settle into the cave, leading to permanent ice accumulation. http://www.icecaves.com/index.html#3 Write to us at Ice Caves Trading Co. 12000 Ice Caves Rd. Grants, New Mexico 87020 Call us at: 1-888-ICE-CAVE, or send E-Mail To: icecaves cia-g.com http://www.icecaves.com/cavetrail.html The temperature in this cave never gets above 31 degrees Fahrenheit. As rain water and snow melt seep into the cave, the ice floor thickens. The floor of the ice is approximately 20 feet thick. The deepest ice is the oldest and dates back to 1100 BP. The green tint is caused by an Arctic algae. The back wall was formed in the early days when ancient Indians and early settlers mined the ice. In 1946, ice removal was stopped at which time the ice wall was nearly 12 feet high. Since then, the ice floor has risen relative to the back wall. The rate of ice accumulation varies with annual precipitation. The cause of original formation of ice back in 170 AD is uncertain. However, its perpetuation is due to a combination of existing conditions that make a natural ice box: 20 feet of ice in a well insulated cave shaped to trap frigid air. The Ice Cave was known to the Pueblo Indians as the Winter Lake. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/education/rockin2000/aa-ice.html GPS LOCATION: N34° 59.556' W108° 04.926' photo CAPTION: This is the site of a collapsed lava tube, referred to locally as "the natural ice box." The temperature inside is approximately 50°F, significantly cooler than the summertime above-ground ambient temperature. The well-insulated pit approximates the mean annual temperature. Locals once stored food here to keep it from spoiling. The temperature inside is relatively constant, year-round. http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ame2m/newmexico/icecave.html photos http://www.caver.com/crf/labe98.htm Monitoring We continued with long-term monitoring of ice levels in the ice caves, and winter bat population counts. An interesting phenomena in Merrill Ice Cave was observed this fall. The ice at the base of the ice pond apparently melted and drained out, leaving a small ice cavern beneath the ice slab that once was the top of the pond. As far as we know this has not been observed at Lava Beds before. This coming February we will thoroughly document the status of the ice in Merrill and try to understand what happened. Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall att.net 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA 505-986-9103 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/984 aspartame review: methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid toxicity: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/983 aspartame & formaldehyde toxicity: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages for 999 posts in a public searchable archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/ 658 member group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/989 EU votes 440 to 20 to approve sucralose, limit cyclamates & reevaluate aspartame & stevia: Murray 4.12.3 rmforall http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific Committee on Food re aspartame (12.4.2): 59 pages, 230 references ************************************************************************ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 07:19:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA03727; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:18:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:18:51 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:22:54 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Qball: Runs 3-5, fully normalized data Resent-Message-ID: <"Lsoqz3.0.8w.B7Tx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50899 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Qball Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator program was modified to print field data points on all 3 major axes in a run. It also was modified to normalize the amount of charge spread on the sphere to 1 unit of charge. The result is that it is now easy to see that the fields inside the sphere converge toward zero as the number of points chosen for distributing the charge about the sphere increases. Runs 3 through 5 generated 2,018, 41,165 , and 164,837 charge location points respectively. Average charge separation on the sphere surface went from 7.85 cm, to 1.75 cm to .873 cm respectively. The data gets far less "grainy" with each run, especially for data points near the surface of the sphere. One surprising thing happened. I expected the relative E field to be exactly 1 at the surface of the sphere. That is the relative field strength from a unit charge located at the center of the sphere. I expected the field strength to jump from 0 to 1 at the surface of the sphere. Instead, it consistently jumped from near 0 to about 0.5 at the surface, i.e. at radius 1.0. I have not figured out if this is an artifact due to the graininess of the model. I feel fairly certain it is not due to the fact that if a data point happens to lie exactly on a selected charge point then the field is assumed to be zero rather than infinity (at a discontinuity point). At radius 1.1 the field is as expected, i.e. about 1/(1-(1.1)^2) = 0.8264. It is only right exactly on the surface the field seems low by a half. The program source is being sent to vortex in a separate posting. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Qball Program Run3 06-16-2003 05:52:35 Evaluation intervals per quadrant = 20 Number of data points on x axis = 20 Approximate charge separation = 0.7854D-01 meters (on a sphere of 1 meter radius) ***** Relative E field at data points on selected radius ***** * (The 'relative E' from an electron * at one meter separation is 1.) * (The total charge distributed on the surface # is normalized also, to 1 q, so that * total charge distributed is independent of * number of distribution points utilized. *** x axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8104D-15 -.2701D-16 -.1271D-14 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2242D-03 0.3049D-13 -.1266D-14 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 -.4447D-03 0.6267D-12 -.1243D-14 0.3000 0.0000 0.0000 -.6584D-03 -.5224D-11 -.1210D-14 0.4000 0.0000 0.0000 -.8628D-03 -.7353D-11 -.1174D-14 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1056D-02 0.1945D-10 -.1122D-14 0.6000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1237D-02 0.3956D-10 -.1080D-14 0.7000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1408D-02 0.2514D-10 -.1021D-14 0.8000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1572D-02 -.1004D-07 -.9773D-15 0.9000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2317D-02 -.4971D-04 -.9757D-15 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4882D+00 0.3054D-02 0.6308D-14 1.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8294D+00 -.4801D-04 -.7522D-15 1.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6959D+00 0.1037D-06 -.5505D-15 1.3000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5928D+00 0.6045D-10 -.4500D-15 1.4000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5110D+00 0.1484D-10 -.3676D-15 1.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4451D+00 0.1210D-10 -.3055D-15 1.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3911D+00 -.8416D-11 -.2571D-15 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3464D+00 0.5968D-11 -.2183D-15 1.8000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3089D+00 -.4356D-11 -.1862D-15 1.9000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2773D+00 -.2000D-11 -.1598D-15 *** y axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8239D-15 0.3731D-16 -.1271D-14 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.3263D-13 -.2242D-03 -.1270D-14 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.2841D-12 -.4447D-03 -.1249D-14 0.0000 0.3000 0.0000 0.5216D-11 -.6584D-03 -.1214D-14 0.0000 0.4000 0.0000 0.1453D-10 -.8628D-03 -.1179D-14 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 -.6706D-11 -.1056D-02 -.1128D-14 0.0000 0.6000 0.0000 -.2614D-10 -.1237D-02 -.1077D-14 0.0000 0.7000 0.0000 -.3764D-10 -.1408D-02 -.1037D-14 0.0000 0.8000 0.0000 -.9235D-08 -.1572D-02 -.9737D-15 0.0000 0.9000 0.0000 -.2135D-04 -.2256D-02 -.9751D-15 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.2752D-02 0.4882D+00 0.6336D-14 0.0000 1.1000 0.0000 0.3617D-04 0.8294D+00 -.7776D-15 0.0000 1.2000 0.0000 0.1117D-06 0.6959D+00 -.5572D-15 0.0000 1.3000 0.0000 -.2919D-09 0.5928D+00 -.4473D-15 0.0000 1.4000 0.0000 0.1407D-10 0.5110D+00 -.3674D-15 0.0000 1.5000 0.0000 0.7850D-11 0.4451D+00 -.3073D-15 0.0000 1.6000 0.0000 -.6521D-11 0.3911D+00 -.2564D-15 0.0000 1.7000 0.0000 -.7706D-11 0.3464D+00 -.2184D-15 0.0000 1.8000 0.0000 -.2264D-11 0.3089D+00 -.1873D-15 0.0000 1.9000 0.0000 0.1881D-11 0.2773D+00 -.1610D-15 *** z axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8335D-15 -.1215D-16 -.1271D-14 0.0000 0.0000 0.1000 0.8110D-15 0.1142D-16 0.4512D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.8260D-15 -.3752D-16 0.9127D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.3000 0.8249D-15 -.1590D-16 0.1396D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.4000 0.8679D-15 0.2133D-16 0.1914D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.9104D-15 -.3820D-16 0.2477D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.6000 0.9549D-15 -.1966D-17 0.3059D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.7000 0.1019D-14 -.9195D-18 0.3443D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.8000 0.1141D-14 -.6013D-16 0.2338D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.9000 0.1358D-14 0.5203D-16 -.1019D-01 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.1727D-14 -.2425D-15 0.4880D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.1000 0.1050D-14 -.1108D-16 0.8356D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.2000 0.7023D-15 -.2323D-16 0.6929D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.3000 0.4945D-15 -.4463D-17 0.5895D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.4000 0.3780D-15 0.4762D-17 0.5083D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.5000 0.2910D-15 -.8342D-18 0.4430D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000 0.2327D-15 -.6488D-17 0.3895D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000 0.1940D-15 -.5368D-17 0.3451D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000 0.1606D-15 0.3133D-17 0.3079D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000 0.1361D-15 -.1639D-17 0.2764D+00 Total charge location points selected on sphere = 2018 End of Run 06-16-2003 05:52:47 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Qball Program Run4 06-16-2003 06:06:34 Evaluation intervals per quadrant = 90 Number of data points on x axis = 20 Approximate charge separation = 0.1745D-01 meters (on a sphere of 1 meter radius) ***** Relative E field at data points on selected radius ***** * (The 'relative E' from an electron * at one meter separation is 1.) * (The total charge distributed on the surface # is normalized also, to 1 q, so that * total charge distributed is independent of * number of distribution points utilized. *** x axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7973D-15 0.4535D-16 -.1267D-14 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 -.4486D-04 -.6986D-17 -.1259D-14 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 -.8822D-04 -.1948D-16 -.1237D-14 0.3000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1289D-03 -.3279D-16 -.1206D-14 0.4000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1664D-03 0.1043D-15 -.1165D-14 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2004D-03 -.1622D-15 -.1118D-14 0.6000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2305D-03 -.2357D-15 -.1065D-14 0.7000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2546D-03 0.1905D-15 -.1014D-14 0.8000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2637D-03 0.2322D-15 -.9657D-15 0.9000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2153D-03 -.2826D-15 -.9093D-15 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4974D+00 0.3505D-02 0.3082D-13 1.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8267D+00 -.1029D-14 -.6843D-15 1.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6947D+00 0.3343D-15 -.5440D-15 1.3000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5919D+00 0.1141D-15 -.4451D-15 1.4000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5104D+00 -.1046D-15 -.3670D-15 1.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4446D+00 0.2777D-16 -.3066D-15 1.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3907D+00 -.2414D-16 -.2577D-15 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3461D+00 -.6389D-17 -.2191D-15 1.8000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3087D+00 -.2990D-16 -.1872D-15 1.9000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2771D+00 0.1462D-16 -.1613D-15 *** y axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8037D-15 0.3254D-16 -.1267D-14 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.8111D-15 -.4486D-04 -.1257D-14 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.7808D-15 -.8822D-04 -.1238D-14 0.0000 0.3000 0.0000 0.7158D-15 -.1289D-03 -.1206D-14 0.0000 0.4000 0.0000 0.7049D-15 -.1664D-03 -.1164D-14 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.7373D-15 -.2004D-03 -.1118D-14 0.0000 0.6000 0.0000 0.7300D-15 -.2305D-03 -.1067D-14 0.0000 0.7000 0.0000 0.6739D-15 -.2546D-03 -.1015D-14 0.0000 0.8000 0.0000 0.5356D-15 -.2637D-03 -.9628D-15 0.0000 0.9000 0.0000 0.2014D-15 -.2153D-03 -.9118D-15 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.1166D+01 0.5002D+00 -.4455D-12 0.0000 1.1000 0.0000 0.1853D-16 0.8267D+00 -.6801D-15 0.0000 1.2000 0.0000 0.3056D-15 0.6947D+00 -.5461D-15 0.0000 1.3000 0.0000 0.2461D-15 0.5919D+00 -.4459D-15 0.0000 1.4000 0.0000 0.1331D-15 0.5104D+00 -.3668D-15 0.0000 1.5000 0.0000 0.1996D-15 0.4446D+00 -.3058D-15 0.0000 1.6000 0.0000 0.1232D-15 0.3907D+00 -.2576D-15 0.0000 1.7000 0.0000 0.6533D-16 0.3461D+00 -.2187D-15 0.0000 1.8000 0.0000 0.1322D-15 0.3087D+00 -.1875D-15 0.0000 1.9000 0.0000 0.1058D-15 0.2771D+00 -.1614D-15 *** z axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8072D-15 -.6678D-16 -.1268D-14 0.0000 0.0000 0.1000 0.8231D-15 -.7815D-17 0.9097D-04 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.8381D-15 -.1375D-17 0.1866D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.3000 0.8382D-15 -.4178D-16 0.2929D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.4000 0.8741D-15 -.3547D-16 0.4202D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.8976D-15 0.5093D-17 0.5872D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.6000 0.9458D-15 -.9596D-17 0.8327D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.7000 0.1045D-14 -.1105D-16 0.1245D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.8000 0.1158D-14 -.2263D-17 0.2050D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.9000 0.1430D-14 -.2097D-16 0.3907D-02 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.2457D-14 0.2083D-15 0.4969D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.1000 0.1085D-14 -.1443D-16 0.8227D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.2000 0.7119D-15 0.4078D-17 0.6926D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.3000 0.5109D-15 0.4288D-17 0.5907D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.4000 0.3839D-15 0.4018D-17 0.5096D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.5000 0.3029D-15 0.1074D-16 0.4440D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000 0.2368D-15 -.3718D-17 0.3903D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000 0.1925D-15 0.1441D-18 0.3458D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000 0.1603D-15 -.1586D-17 0.3085D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000 0.1327D-15 -.1417D-17 0.2769D+00 Total charge location points selected on sphere = 41165 End of Run 06-16-2003 06:09:06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Qball Program Run5 06-16-2003 06:15:33 Evaluation intervals per quadrant = 180 Number of data points on x axis = 20 Approximate charge separation = 0.8727D-02 meters (on a sphere of 1 meter radius) ***** Relative E field at data points on selected radius ***** * (The 'relative E' from an electron * at one meter separation is 1.) * (The total charge distributed on the surface # is normalized also, to 1 q, so that * total charge distributed is independent of * number of distribution points utilized. *** x axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8498D-15 -.1242D-17 -.1268D-14 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 -.2336D-04 -.1064D-16 -.1258D-14 0.2000 0.0000 0.0000 -.4550D-04 0.1331D-16 -.1237D-14 0.3000 0.0000 0.0000 -.6537D-04 -.2312D-16 -.1205D-14 0.4000 0.0000 0.0000 -.8232D-04 0.3948D-16 -.1165D-14 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 -.9607D-04 -.2367D-16 -.1117D-14 0.6000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1067D-03 -.3459D-16 -.1067D-14 0.7000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1144D-03 0.1074D-15 -.1013D-14 0.8000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1179D-03 0.1834D-15 -.9599D-15 0.9000 0.0000 0.0000 -.1065D-03 -.1781D-17 -.9086D-15 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4987D+00 0.1517D-02 0.6535D-13 1.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8266D+00 0.1095D-15 -.6817D-15 1.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6946D+00 0.7678D-17 -.5465D-15 1.3000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5918D+00 -.5854D-16 -.4452D-15 1.4000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5103D+00 -.9238D-17 -.3674D-15 1.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4445D+00 -.2076D-16 -.3063D-15 1.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3907D+00 -.1371D-16 -.2576D-15 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3461D+00 -.6231D-17 -.2187D-15 1.8000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3087D+00 0.6003D-18 -.1872D-15 1.9000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2770D+00 -.3258D-17 -.1614D-15 *** y axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7917D-15 0.1251D-16 -.1268D-14 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.7817D-15 -.2336D-04 -.1258D-14 0.0000 0.2000 0.0000 0.8040D-15 -.4550D-04 -.1238D-14 0.0000 0.3000 0.0000 0.7142D-15 -.6537D-04 -.1206D-14 0.0000 0.4000 0.0000 0.6541D-15 -.8232D-04 -.1165D-14 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.6110D-15 -.9607D-04 -.1117D-14 0.0000 0.6000 0.0000 0.5387D-15 -.1067D-03 -.1066D-14 0.0000 0.7000 0.0000 0.4554D-15 -.1144D-03 -.1015D-14 0.0000 0.8000 0.0000 0.3881D-15 -.1179D-03 -.9582D-15 0.0000 0.9000 0.0000 0.3250D-15 -.1065D-03 -.9024D-15 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.1161D+01 0.5001D+00 -.8947D-12 0.0000 1.1000 0.0000 0.2107D-15 0.8266D+00 -.6747D-15 0.0000 1.2000 0.0000 0.2129D-15 0.6946D+00 -.5465D-15 0.0000 1.3000 0.0000 0.1957D-15 0.5918D+00 -.4455D-15 0.0000 1.4000 0.0000 0.1690D-15 0.5103D+00 -.3674D-15 0.0000 1.5000 0.0000 0.1454D-15 0.4445D+00 -.3065D-15 0.0000 1.6000 0.0000 0.1166D-15 0.3907D+00 -.2579D-15 0.0000 1.7000 0.0000 0.1091D-15 0.3461D+00 -.2189D-15 0.0000 1.8000 0.0000 0.8724D-16 0.3087D+00 -.1873D-15 0.0000 1.9000 0.0000 0.8132D-16 0.2770D+00 -.1614D-15 *** z axis data points follow *** * x1 y1 z1 Ex Ey Ez 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8154D-15 -.3163D-17 -.1268D-14 0.0000 0.0000 0.1000 0.8234D-15 -.1238D-16 0.4773D-04 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.8520D-15 -.8671D-17 0.9908D-04 0.0000 0.0000 0.3000 0.8594D-15 -.1329D-16 0.1585D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.4000 0.8918D-15 0.2458D-16 0.2325D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.9168D-15 -.4705D-18 0.3319D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.6000 0.9485D-15 0.3315D-16 0.4781D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.7000 0.1062D-14 0.3448D-16 0.7199D-03 0.0000 0.0000 0.8000 0.1179D-14 -.1561D-16 0.1200D-02 0.0000 0.0000 0.9000 0.1419D-14 0.1921D-16 0.2535D-02 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.2936D-14 -.7459D-16 0.4983D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.1000 0.1101D-14 -.4117D-16 0.8240D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.2000 0.7106D-15 0.4053D-17 0.6934D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.3000 0.5110D-15 0.1286D-16 0.5911D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.4000 0.3858D-15 0.2131D-17 0.5098D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.5000 0.2983D-15 0.4841D-17 0.4442D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000 0.2417D-15 -.2943D-18 0.3904D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000 0.1893D-15 -.3919D-17 0.3459D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000 0.1609D-15 0.2681D-17 0.3085D+00 0.0000 0.0000 1.9000 0.1341D-15 0.6005D-17 0.2769D+00 Total charge location points selected on sphere = 164837 End of Run 06-16-2003 06:26:17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 07:19:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA03792; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:18:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:18:59 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:23:06 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Qball: Revision 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"oCFZ81.0.7x.J7Tx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50900 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ' --- Qball - integrate E about a sphere rev 02 6/16/03 ----- ' DOS QBX VERSION Author: H. Heffner ' ' rev 1: Bug fixes ' rev 2: Program enhanced to compute data point on 3 axes to 2r ' charge on sphere normalized to 1 q ' --------------------------------------------------------------- ' ' ' ' DEFLNG I-O DEFDBL A-H, P-Z ' ' --- Main Line of Program ----------------------------------- ' GOSUB open.up GOSUB init.txtout GOSUB do.calc GOSUB print.final GOSUB end.of.txtout INPUT "Hit return to end"; xend$ STOP ' ' --- open files for processing ------------------------------ ' open.up: CLS run$ = "12345678" WHILE LEN(run$) > 5 INPUT "Run Number"; run$ IF LEN(run$) <= 5 THEN rept$ = "QB" + run$ + "L.txt" g$ = "Run" + run$ OPEN rept$ FOR OUTPUT AS #4 END IF WEND Pi = 3.14159265358979# Pi2 = Pi + Pi qe = 1.60217733D-19 ' charge of electron in coulombs qk = 8987551787# ' constant for Coulomb's law ' = (1/4*Pi*epsilon0) ' ~= 9E9 N m^2/C^2 Fbase = qk * qe * qe ' F = k Q^2/r, r = 1 meter ' the force between 2 electrons ' one meter apart D1 = 1# ' double precision 1 RETURN ' ' --- Do a calculation and report -------------------- ' do.calc: Nints = 1 WHILE Nints > 0! AND Nints <= 500! INPUT "Evaluation intervals per quadrant"; Nints IF Nints > 0! AND Nints <= 500! THEN INPUT "Number of data reporting points"; Ndata deltax = 1# / Ndata ' 1 meter radius ps = (Pi / 2#) / Nints ' mean point separation ' both in radians and meters PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "Evaluation intervals"; PRINT #4, " per quadrant = "; Nints PRINT #4, "Number of data points on x axis ="; Ndata PRINT #4, "Approximate charge separation = "; PRINT #4, USING " #.####^^^^ "; ps; PRINT #4, " meters" PRINT #4, " (on a sphere of 1 meter radius)" PRINT #4, ' --- print report title ----------- PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "***** Relative E field at data points on selected radius *****" PRINT #4, "* (The 'relative E' from an electron" PRINT #4, "* at one meter separation is 1.)" PRINT #4, "* (The total charge distributed on the surface" PRINT #4, "# is normalized also, to 1 q, so that" PRINT #4, "* total charge distributed is independent of" PRINT #4, "* number of distribution points utilized." FOR Iaxis = 1 TO 3 ' do for all 3 axies PRINT #4, IF Iaxis = 1 THEN PRINT #4, "*** x axis data points follow ***" IF Iaxis = 2 THEN PRINT #4, "*** y axis data points follow ***" IF Iaxis = 3 THEN PRINT #4, "*** z axis data points follow ***" IF Iaxis = 1 THEN PRINT "*** x axis data points follow ***" IF Iaxis = 2 THEN PRINT "*** y axis data points follow ***" IF Iaxis = 3 THEN PRINT "*** z axis data points follow ***" PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "* x1 "; PRINT #4, " y1 "; PRINT #4, " z1 "; PRINT #4, " Ex "; PRINT #4, " Ey "; PRINT #4, " Ez " ' --- compute and print each data point --- x1 = 0# y1 = 0# z1 = 0# Ex = 0# Ey = 0# Ez = 0# FOR i = 1 TO Ndata PRINT "I="; i IF Iaxis = 1 THEN x1 = (i - 1) * deltax * 2# IF Iaxis = 2 THEN y1 = (i - 1) * deltax * 2# IF Iaxis = 3 THEN z1 = (i - 1) * deltax * 2# Ex = 0# Ey = 0# Ez = 0# GOSUB gen.points ' distribute charge and compute E PRINT #4, USING " #.#### "; x1; y1; z1; PRINT #4, USING " #.####^^^^ "; Ex; Ey; Ez NEXT i NEXT Iaxis PRINT #4, PRINT #4, "-----------------------------------------------" PRINT #4, "Total charge location points selected "; PRINT #4, "on sphere = ", Npoints PRINT #4, END IF WEND RETURN ' ' --- distribute charge and compute relative E ' gen.points: ' ' --- distribute charge by computing theta and phi ' polar coordinates in a fairly uniform ad-hoc ' manner. ' Npoints = 0 ' total points generated dphi = (Pi / 2#) / Nints ' quadrant has Nints segments RANDOMIZE 123 ' reseed random sequence to get ' set of points on every call ' --- first do equator --- phi = Pi / 2# ' always at equator in next loop Ntheta = INT(Pi2 / ps) ' number of points at ps separation dtheta = Pi2 / Ntheta ' angular increment FOR Itheta = 1 TO Ntheta theta = (Itheta - 1) * dtheta GOSUB do1.point NEXT Itheta ' --- now do both hemispheres at once --- Nints1 = Nints - 1 FOR Iphi = 1 TO Nints1 phi = Iphi * dphi rtheta = SIN(phi) Ntheta = INT(Pi2 * rtheta / ps)' number of points at ps separation dtheta = Pi2 / Ntheta ' angular increment theta1 = RND * dtheta ' start arraying points at random place FOR Itheta = 1 TO Ntheta theta = (Itheta - 1) * dtheta + theta1 IF theta > Pi2 THEN theta = theta - Pi2 GOSUB do1.point ' do southern hemisphere save = phi phi = Pi - phi ' note - hemispheres symmetric GOSUB do1.point phi = save NEXT Itheta NEXT Iphi ' --- now do 2 poles phi = 0# ' north pole theta = 0# GOSUB do1.point phi = Pi ' south pole GOSUB do1.point ' --- now have true force in Ex, Ey, Ez. Convert now ' to normalized force and/or field E. Ex = Ex / (Fbase * Npoints) Ey = Ey / (Fbase * Npoints) Ez = Ez / (Fbase * Npoints) ' Note: E is now expressed in units of force or field ' as compared to the force or field between a pair ' of electrons at 1 meter separation. ' The total charge distributed is normalized to 1 q. RETURN ' ' --- place electron at one point and accumulate force ' ' input is theta and phi spherical coordinates (r=1) ' do1.point: Npoints = Npoints + 1 ' convert from spherical to cartesian coordinates x2 = SIN(phi) * COS(theta) ' standard coordinate conv. y2 = SIN(phi) * SIN(theta) z2 = COS(phi) ' --- compute vector components of force dx = x1 - x2 dy = y1 - y2 dz = z1 - z2 d = SQR(dx * dx + dy * dy + dz * dz) IF d > .000000001# THEN Fr = qk * qe * qe / d ^ 2 ' Note above: F = k Q^2/r^2, r = 1 meter Ex = Ex + Fr * (dx / d) Ey = Ey + Fr * (dy / d) Ez = Ez + Fr * (dz / d) END IF RETURN ' --- initialize program and report file creation -------------------- ' init.txtout: PRINT #4, "Qball Program "; g$; " "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT #4, PRINT "Qball Program "; g$; " "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT RETURN ' ' --- print final summaries --------------------------------- ' print.final: PRINT #4, PRINT PRINT #4, "End of Run "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ PRINT "End of Run "; DATE$; " "; TIME$ RETURN ' ' --- close report file ------------------------------------------ ' end.of.txtout: CLOSE #4 RETURN Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 12:19:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA30257; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:53 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:18:28 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: My postings Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"YQX_Y1.0.hO7.TWXx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50901 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I posted a letter on the use of sympathetic vibrations as a potential method of causing water to fly apart. I never noticed it come back. Did anyone else see it? Thomas Malloy From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 13:01:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA16614; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:57:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:57:17 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:01:18 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Mirror matter fragments, a place to look Resent-Message-ID: <"yMKYD.0.Q34.T4Yx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50902 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A good searching place for mirror matter may be in the vicinity of vats used to process uranium, lead, or possibly even iron ore, especially in the material underneath them, including the soil. As the ore crystal structure is broken down, bound lattices of mirror matter fragments would be set free to drift downward in earth's gravity. Such fragments of mirror matter metals could be expected to be ubiquitous, since meteoric dust itself is ubiquitous on the earth's surface. One logical means of search involves dissolving massive quantities of lead or uranium ore in the hopes of concentrating mirror matter fragments in the vicinity, possibly in a uranium or lead trap at the bottom of or beneath the processing vat. Since this kind of work, breaking down ore lattices, has already been done in massive quantities in ore processing facilities, why not look there? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 13:03:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA18188; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:00:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:00:51 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:04:57 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: My postings Resent-Message-ID: <"zM8Rq2.0.5S4.o7Yx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50903 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:18 PM 6/16/3, thomas malloy wrote: >I posted a letter on the use of sympathetic vibrations as a potential >method of causing water to fly apart. I never noticed it come back. >Did anyone else see it? > >Thomas Malloy If you mean the post quoted below, I saw it twice in recent days. At 4:05 AM 6/13/3, thomas malloy wrote: > Some of you have heard of Dale Pond, webmaster of >http://www.svpvril.com , Dale has spent the last 20 some years >studying the work of John E W Keeley, 19th century American inventor. >His findings are in his books, which are available on the website, >and on the website. Keeley managed to spend his way through lots of >OPM, other people's money. His investors hated him because, AFAIK, >none of his inventions ever made any money. Of particular interest to >me is the Compound Disintergrator. Dale's first book is full of >pictures of the inventor posing with lots of nifty machines, which >according to the story did all kinds of marvelous things. > >Among his inventions were water engines, a title which, IMHO, needs >no further explanation. Some of them worked by inducing cavitation. >Near the end of the book however there is a drawing of Keeley >demonstrating a gun which was powered by water. There is also a >drawing of an arm with 15 inch marks on it. The falcrum is at one >end, about 1 inch over a piston is attached. At the 15 inch mark a >200 lb weight is attached. Consequently the weight had a 15 to one >advantage over the piston. The cylinder into which the piston went >was connected to something called a Liberator. According to Dale, >this device demonstrated a pressure of 20,000. Keeley's distractors >claim that the effects he demonstrated were the result of compressed >air, I doubt that an air compressor of the 19th century could have >produced air at that pressure. I suppose it depends on the size of >the piston. > >According to the theory, at higher frequencies, the subatomic >particles can be made to spin. I assume that when this happens, then >the entire particle will start spinning, and then the material flies >apart. > >Dale and I were discussing the possibility of causing water molecules >to fly apart when the appropriate vibration was applied. He thinks >that he knows how to make this happen. He also believes that at a >high enough frequency, the energy of the expanding water would exceed >the energy required to produce the effect. I suggested forming a >corporation to raise money to investigate this. He thinks that this >is a terrible idea, and that was the end of the conversation. > >If any of you think that this is a good idea, I'm available to discuss it. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 13:22:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA25867; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:15:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:15:39 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:19:50 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly Resent-Message-ID: <"3dWQL3.0.0K6.gLYx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50904 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Based on experience gained using the Qball program, it seems reasonable to speculate that the Pioneer 10/11 gravitational anomaly might be caused by a systematic non-uniformity in the distribution of mass, both ordinary and mirror mass, in the vicinty of the (spherical) Oort cloud and beyond. Regards, Horace Heffner From rmforall att.net Sun Jun 15 23:02:26 2003 Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA31480; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:02:25 -0700 Received: from att.net (185.phoenix-08rh15rt-az.dial-access.att.net[12.83.94.185]) by mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <20030616060133112007av3ge>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:01:51 +0000 Message-ID: <3EED5CE5.C39BF04C att.net> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:00:05 -0600 From: Rich Murray X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: R. Foot & S. Mitra, 7.30.2: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Suspected-Spam: my jon2b Status: RO X-Status: ordinary matter-mirror matter bound states: R. Foot & S. Mitra, 7.30.2: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall http://www.geocities.com/mirrorplanets/ The Mirror Matter Webpage http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0207175 Does mirror matter exist? July 17 2002 http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/hep-ph/0204256 Robert Foot foot physics.unimelb.edu.au Saibal Mitra smitra zonnet.nl arXiv:hep-ph/0204256 v2 30 Jul 2002 May 2002 Ordinary atom-mirror atom bound states: A new window on the mirror world Robert Foot and S. Mitra foot physics.unimelb.edu.au School of Physics Research Centre for High Energy Physics The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia saibalm science.uva.nl Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica Universiteit van Amsterdam 1018 XE Amsterdam The Netherlands Abstract Mirror symmetry is a plausible candidate for a fundamental symmetry of particle interactions which can be exactly conserved if a set of mirror particles exist. The properties of the mirror particles seem to provide an excellent candidate to explain the inferred dark matter of the Universe and might also be responsible for a variety of other puzzles in particle physics, astrophysics, meteoritics and planetary science. One such puzzle – the orthopositronium lifetime problem – can be explained if there is a small kinetic mixing of ordinary and mirror photons. We show that this kinetic mixing implies the existence of ordinary atom - mirror atom bound states with interesting terrestrial and astrophysical implications. We suggest that sensitive mass spectroscopic studies of ordinary samples containing heavy elements such as lead might reveal the presence of these bound states, as they would appear as anomalously heavy elements. In addition to the e ects of single mirror atoms, collective effects from embedded fragments of mirror matter (such as mirror iron microparticles) are also possible. We speculate that such mirror matter fragments might explain a mysterious UV photon burst observed coming from a laser irradiated lead target in a recent experiment. They calculate that Fe' [mirror Fe] will be stably bound to Fe, Au, and similarly massive ordinary massive atoms, forming pairs in which the mirror atom will be almost invisible to all ordinary fields except gravity. If a sample of iron or gold contained a percentage of these pairs, the mirror atom component may radiate heat away into interplanetary space, causing an apparently constant energy loss to the object-- an apparent anomaly. These might have been noticed since Stone Age times. This might be recorded as myths about various objects that are unusually heavy, cold, or even invisible, or about strange, magical environments that, for instance, invoke the "chill of death". Artifacts hidden away in museums may have mirror matter components. There may be many obscure records of such objects and anomalies in the scientific record since 1600. If a cave were to exist in porous, insulating vocanic rock or pumice, with only a single, limited, upward tunnel to the surface, it might tend to concentrate MM' [matter-mirror matter bound states], for instance, with krypton, xenon, mercury, and radon, which would settle over millions of years, creating ice caves, even in hot, dry areas, even though rock temperatures usually increase with depth. Preferential evaporation of the slightly warmer normal matter gases would tend to concentrate the MM' molecules. A search on Google reveals many articles, with photos, of exactly such caves in the USA, often with the explanation that in winter cold air and water settle into the cave, leading to permanent ice accumulation. http://www.icecaves.com/index.html#3 Write to us at Ice Caves Trading Co. 12000 Ice Caves Rd. Grants, New Mexico 87020 Call us at: 1-888-ICE-CAVE, or send E-Mail To: icecaves cia-g.com http://www.icecaves.com/cavetrail.html The temperature in this cave never gets above 31 degrees Fahrenheit. As rain water and snow melt seep into the cave, the ice floor thickens. The floor of the ice is approximately 20 feet thick. The deepest ice is the oldest and dates back to 1100 BP. The green tint is caused by an Arctic algae. The back wall was formed in the early days when ancient Indians and early settlers mined the ice. In 1946, ice removal was stopped at which time the ice wall was nearly 12 feet high. Since then, the ice floor has risen relative to the back wall. The rate of ice accumulation varies with annual precipitation. The cause of original formation of ice back in 170 AD is uncertain. However, its perpetuation is due to a combination of existing conditions that make a natural ice box: 20 feet of ice in a well insulated cave shaped to trap frigid air. The Ice Cave was known to the Pueblo Indians as the Winter Lake. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/education/rockin2000/aa-ice.html GPS LOCATION: N34° 59.556' W108° 04.926' photo CAPTION: This is the site of a collapsed lava tube, referred to locally as "the natural ice box." The temperature inside is approximately 50°F, significantly cooler than the summertime above-ground ambient temperature. The well-insulated pit approximates the mean annual temperature. Locals once stored food here to keep it from spoiling. The temperature inside is relatively constant, year-round. http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ame2m/newmexico/icecave.html photos http://www.caver.com/crf/labe98.htm Monitoring We continued with long-term monitoring of ice levels in the ice caves, and winter bat population counts. An interesting phenomena in Merrill Ice Cave was observed this fall. The ice at the base of the ice pond apparently melted and drained out, leaving a small ice cavern beneath the ice slab that once was the top of the pond. As far as we know this has not been observed at Lava Beds before. This coming February we will thoroughly document the status of the ice in Merrill and try to understand what happened. Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall att.net 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA 505-986-9103 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/984 aspartame review: methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid toxicity: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/983 aspartame & formaldehyde toxicity: Murray 6.15.3 rmforall http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages for 999 posts in a public searchable archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/ 658 member group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/989 EU votes 440 to 20 to approve sucralose, limit cyclamates & reevaluate aspartame & stevia: Murray 4.12.3 rmforall http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific Committee on Food re aspartame (12.4.2): 59 pages, 230 references ************************************************************************ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 14:52:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA11730; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:51:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:51:27 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:50:59 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Another idea for producing energy from water Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"uWUux3.0.Bt2.VlZx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50905 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Given the discussion regarding the Beta Aether I decided to attempt to find another method of making water molecules fly apart. I contacted Dale Pond the webmaster of http://www.svpvril.com . Dale has spent the last 20 some years studying the writings of John E W Keeley and is the author of several books on his technology. Keeley, was an American inventor of the 19th century. His first book on Universal Laws has lots of pictures of Keeley with various machines that he built. Unfortunately Keeley did all this using other people's money, OPM, and his investors hated him because he never released anything of commercial value. One group of his machines were water engines. Some of them worked by induced cavitation and some by using vibrations which caused the water molecules to fly apart. On page 240 of Universal Laws there is a section which discusses the former method. There is a drawing of Keeley demonstrating a gun which was powered by water. This phenomena was induced by a machine called the Liberator. The Liberator was connected to the gun by a pipe composed of three layers of metal, platinium, gold and silver. Dale has a series of frequencies which increase in a manner similar to musical cords which affect smaller and smaller elements of the molecule and then the atoms. I assume that the higher frequency the lower the energy required to produce the effect. Keeley's critics attacked his results as being produced by compressed air. One of the pictures show a lever with a piston attached at what appears to be one inch from the fulcrum, there are 15 inch marks on the lever beyond the piston and a steel ball which was said to weigh 200 lbs, hanging on to it. The piston is small, lets say that it is one inch across, then it's area would be .785 sq in, consequently the pressure required to raise that weight would be 3821 pounds. According to Dale, the device showed that the Liberator was generating a pressure of 20,000 pounds. I guess that all depends on the size of the piston. Dale believes that an engine could be powered by a liberator the out put of which was vented into the spark plug hole of an engine. I suggested the organization of a corporation to raise the capital in order to raise capital to conduct an experiment to see if the effect would be reproduced. Dale responded that in his opinion, that was a terrible idea, and that was the end of that. If any of you people are interested in pursuing this matter, I would suggest that you visit his website. I've spent many hours reading Dale's books and website and would love to discuss the subject with anyone who is interested. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 15:55:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA08133; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:49:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:49:30 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030616184040.00ac0a98 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:49:31 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Another idea for producing energy from water In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"QSPc32.0.--1.wbax-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50906 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: thomas malloy wrote: >Dale believes that an engine could be powered by a liberator the out put >of which was vented into the spark plug hole of an engine. I suggested the >organization of a corporation to raise the capital in order to raise >capital to conduct an experiment to see if the effect would be reproduced. >Dale responded that in his opinion, that was a terrible idea, and that was >the end of that. I do not think you could find any capital for this anywhere on earth. Everyone with money assumes Keeley was a fake. Even if the experiment appeared to be cheap and easy, I doubt you could find anyone qualified to do it, and there is no point to going off half-cocked and trying to do a quick & dirty replication. That never works, and it never clarifies the issue or reveals anything. However, putting aside these real-world problems, I cannot understand why Dale Pond opposes this idea. He has spent 20 years studying Keeley's work. Why does he say it would be a bad idea to attempt an actual replication?! Or does he only oppose commercial development? What is the point of studying this, except with goal of replicating it? I assume Pond thinks Keeley's results were real. If he thinks they were fake, surely he would not devote 20 years to studying them. Honestly, I cannot fathom the mindset of people like Keeley or Pond. Anyway, it is a moot point, as I said. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 16:11:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA18151; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:10:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:10:11 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:14:15 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Proton "orbital" mobility and CF Resent-Message-ID: <"q5mXd3.0.WR4.Ivax-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50907 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Based upon experience gained using the Qball program, and knowing that the electron orbital probability distribution over the diameter of the hydrogen atom is somewhat shaped like a bell curve, we see that the "electron center of charge" concept used by Hall and others might be misapplied to the hydrogen atom and possibly other atoms or molecules. The reason for this is that the nucleus is located inside of what is effectively nested spherical shells of charge locus. The net force on the nucleus within any such a spherical shell of charge locus, by the same set of assumtions that are used to even define "center of charge", is zero or nearly zero. The force on the nucleus increases with distance from the center of charge, but can can not follow the normal 1/r^2 law because the effective electron charge located inside the sphere of radius r, outside of which the nucleus is located, increases also. Near the center of charge , the increase in charge within a sphere of radius r grows roughly as r^3, as does the volume of that sphere. Assuming momentarily that the locus of the electron shell is fixed, this makes the "centering force" on the proton equal to k*r^3*(1/r^2) ~= r*k. It is not a 1/r^2 force but in fact increases with the displacement between the center of charge and the nucleus is fairly small. As the nucleus gets further away the centering force approaches k*r^2/r^2 = k, and then eventually reaches k*(1/r^2) near the periphery. This gives the proton a considerably different kind of mobility within the hydrogen atom than might have been otherwise thought under the "center of charge" concept. It gives a far more unstable kind of constraint. Such unexpected mobility of the nucleus within the center of the hydrogen atom can significantly increase the probability of the nucleus being located close enough to the boundary of the atom to tunnel to an adjacent nucleus (vs what was expected under the center of charge assumption). This is especially true for heavy hydrogen nucleii, and for atoms which are kinetically stimulated. Due to the linearity of the centering force, and its variability with location, the orbital mechanics should be highly unstable, producing wild motions. In the case of nuclear confinement in non-spherical electron orbitals, or in the case where only partial orbitals and ionic bonding exist, as in the case of adsorbed hydrogen, the shells do not have a uniform probability distribution, thus even negative feedback might occur in some inter-atomic volumes with respect to "proton orbital" mechanics. A wide range of stimulating frequencies might build resonances or at least extreme nuclear orbital instabilities and thereby trigger increased cold fusion (CF) rates, or even nuclear interactions with heavy nuclei within the lattice. It is perhaps to some extent a novel notion that the proton should in fact have its own very strange orbital mechanics within the hydrogen or other atoms. However, this notion is not so novel to the extent it is commonly known that the sun has its own (1/r^2 type) orbital within the solar system. However, since the mass of the sun is so large, and the locale of the planets so discrete, the sun's orbital is not very novel, nor is it outside the radius of the sun itself. Inside a lattice, the lightweight electron shell is held in place by a heavy lattice structure. The tail wags the dog, so to speak. At one time I envisioned the hydrogen nucleus calmly sitting still relative to its electron shell, or to the boundaries of its own intestitial space when confined within a lattice. However, this is not possible. The lattice has thermal motion, and the nucleus itself has its own Zitterbewegung, or zero point motion. It can never "sit still." Small motions coordinated can amplify. Given the extreme abnormality of the proton orbital mechanics, and the probable high degree of interaction between adjacent gyrating nuclei that are confined within a lattice, it is reasonable to expect hydrogen nucleus orbitals that are at highly energetic extremes at various points in time, obtaining their unusual energy from a kind of "energy focusing." Perhaps this can help explain CF to some small degree? Such non-discrete non-conical cross section type heavy particle orbital mechanisms should provide a wide blurred range of nucleus photon emissions and absorbtions at an unexpectedly low energy range. Perhaps a broad energy absorbtion range can help to some degree explain a coordinated lattice high energy absorbtion by adsorbed nuclii, thus the masking of hot fusion signatures. All just food for thought. However, it may be somewhat novel at least. I don't think the notion of such a comparatively free-wheeling "orbiting" nucleus is commonplace, and this notion really only applies to adsorbed nucleii because only then is the locus of the electron orbitals comparatively fixed. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 16:34:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA29481; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:36 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:34:33 +1200 From: RBR Subject: meths and water To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <001301c3345f$f21b03a0$3e98a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C334C4.6C5D6400" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"fInAE2.0.UC7.FFbx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50908 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C334C4.6C5D6400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems methylated spirits will absorb water ........ does any one know = the maximum amount it will absorb?(the ratios). Thanks RBR ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C334C4.6C5D6400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It seems methylated spirits will absorb = water=20 ........ does any one know the maximum amount it will absorb?(the=20 ratios).
      Thanks=20  RBR
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C334C4.6C5D6400-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 16 17:02:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA12884; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:01:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:01:16 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:05:18 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Nuclear mobility within the atom and Gravi-chem Resent-Message-ID: <"n2N3X3.0.C93.Bfbx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50909 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Based upon experience gained using the Qball program, and knowing that the electron orbital probability distribution over the diameter of the hydrogen atom is somewhat shaped like a bell curve, we see that the "electron center of charge" concept used by Hall and others might be misapplied to the hydrogen atom and possibly other atoms or molecules. The reason for this is that the nucleus is located inside of what is effectively nested spherical shells of charge locus. The net force on the nucleus within any such a spherical shell of charge locus, by the same set of assumtions that are used to even define "center of charge", is zero or nearly zero. The force on the nucleus increases with distance from the center of charge, but can can not follow the normal 1/r^2 law because the effective electron charge located inside the sphere of radius r, outside of which the nucleus is located, increases also. Near the center of charge , the increase in charge within a sphere of radius r grows roughly as r^3, as does the volume of that sphere. Assuming momentarily that the locus of the electron shell is fixed, this makes the "centering force" on the proton equal to k*r^3*(1/r^2) ~= r*k. It is not a 1/r^2 force but in fact increases with the displacement between the center of charge and the nucleus is fairly small. As the nucleus gets further away the centering force approaches F=k*r^2/r^2 = k, and then eventually reaches k*(1/r^2) near the periphery. This gives the proton a considerably different kind of mobility within the hydrogen atom than might have been otherwise thought under the "center of charge" concept. It gives a far more unstable kind of constraint. At r=0, in the F=r*k "shells" model, there can no constraining force whatsoever. In the F=k/r^2 "center of charge" model, the restraining force should be maximum at r=0, or at least somewhere near the center of charge. This unanticipated nuclear mobility can account for a much larger gravito-electric effect than anticipated under the F=k/r^2 center of charge model. This could make gravi-chemistry in the centrifuge much easier to pull off than previously anticipated or formulated. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 06:26:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA31978; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:23:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:23:40 -0700 Message-ID: <002701c334cb$23fe9c40$e110b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Ferrite Electromagnets for Antigravity? Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:22:22 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9408dcfa4dfe165e974dc59fb0b43e3c93b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"qobHb1.0.Ip7.QPnx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50910 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: According to some astute calculations , an electromagnet cycled at 8.5 Hz with enough drive to develop an ampere-meter of "pole strength" an antigravity force of ~ 20 grams may be attained. OTOH, a ferrite-rod electromagnet cycled at ~ 3.16 MHz with enough drive to develop an ampere-meter of "pole strength" may show an antigravity force of ~ 40 kg. If successful, more power to you. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 07:21:33 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA24681; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:20:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:20:38 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:20:28 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: another solution to H2 power problem :) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"IKsfL2.0.R16.qEox-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50911 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Old one, but funnier because of current topics... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 03:52:16 +0000 From: patrick O'Dowd Subject: Scientists decode the first message from an alien civilization! > > >the first interstellar email was recently decoded by SETI >researchers: > > THIS IS NOT A MEME! IT REALLY WORKS! > SIMPLY SEND 6 TIMES 10 TO THE 50 ATOMS OF HYDROGEN TO THE > STAR SYSTEM AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, CROSS OFF THAT STAR SYSTEM, > THEN PUT YOUR STAR SYSTEM AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST AND SEND IT > TO 100 OTHER STAR SYSTEMS. WITHIN ONE TENTH GALACTIC ROTATION > YOU WILL RECEIVE ENOUGH HYDROGREN TO POWER YOUR CIVILIZATION > UNTIL ENTROPY REACHES ITS MAXIMUM! > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 09:24:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA20766; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030617121413.02ccf248 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:17:05 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, Ed Storms From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Geranium, not germanium Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"5THds.0.F45.M0qx-" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50912 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I was telling Ed Storms about a new method of producing unusual gold nanoparticles with geraniums (the plants). He thought I said germanium (metal substrate). That's what I thought the article said, but they mean geranium (the plants - as in "geraniums make a house a home"). See: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993828 - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 10:27:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA30706; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:26:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:26:22 -0700 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:23:42 +0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"7IGll.0.cV7.zyqx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50914 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Don't recall the circumstances, but did they rule out accumulated static charge? In light of what Fred has posted from time to time, the drag due to deviation from net neutral charge might be a factor, or not.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] > Sent: Tuesday, 2003 June 17 03:20 > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly > > > Based on experience gained using the Qball program, it seems reasonable to > speculate that the Pioneer 10/11 gravitational anomaly might be > caused by a > systematic non-uniformity in the distribution of mass, both ordinary and > mirror mass, in the vicinty of the (spherical) Oort cloud and beyond. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 10:27:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA30391; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:26:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:26:14 -0700 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: My postings Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:23:43 +0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"iPiR22.0.eQ7.ryqx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50913 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I saw it. Still thinking about it. May even have a reply. Some day. I have seen explosive decomposition of water, perhaps influenced by such resonance, but until I get my next test chamber set up ('tis taking forever), I can't really comment. > -----Original Message----- > From: thomas malloy [mailto:temalloy metro.lakes.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 2003 June 17 02:18 > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: My postings > > > I posted a letter on the use of sympathetic vibrations as a potential > method of causing water to fly apart. I never noticed it come back. > Did anyone else see it? > > Thomas Malloy > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 10:53:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA17604; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:51:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:51:54 -0700 Message-ID: <06ab01c334e9$5466e680$6401a8c0 cs910664a> Reply-To: "Colin Quinney" From: "Colin Quinney" To: References: <001301c332d2$d22273a0$7708bf3f computer> Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:58:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.180.21] using ID at Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:00:07 -0400 Resent-Message-ID: <"HuNy-3.0.zI4.vKrx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50915 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: message follows.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity > On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 04:33:16 > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > **IMHO, it seems that the particles see each other with an electromagnetic type force > that is not accessible by the electromagnetic forces generated in "our reference > frame".** > > ***How do you bridge the relativistic "frame gap" to tie into the gravity field? > :-)*** > > OTOH, this doesn't preclude the generation of a "5th Force" that mimics gravity, and > act on the atoms/molecules of gases and solids, as demonstrated by Podkletnov and > others, simply by the spinning of rotors etc. > > BTW, David Bergman and others; > > http://www.commonsensescience.org/ > > came up with a particle model similar to the one I have been bird-dogging for the > past 15 years. > > Regards, > > Frederick Hi Fred and All, Yes I've been rather quiet here of late. The last time I introduced someone's ideas and their experimental researches to Vo we got it in the neck from Dr. Mallove. Once burned- I'm very shy. Also- I hesitate because I have learned that I have no mind for math, yet I can reference. So once again I leap into the fiery pit :-) With the caveat's now over I would like to point out that the gravity "reduction" force generated with Podkletnov's spinning superconductive disc increased by 4 times (from 0.5% to 2.1%) *as* the disc was slowly decelerating (over ~ 25 seconds) from 5000 RPM to 3300 RPM. Although Modanese's analysis of Podkletov's SC spinning disc is not as simple as is suggested here, any spinning object should generate a gravitomagnetic field. The Maxwell equations for gravity suggest that a changing gravitomagnetic field (gM) will induce a changing gravito-electric field (gE).* * {The Maxwell equations for gravity: Amongst many other papers, see "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation"- Oleg D. Jefimenko. p 96. (called "mass currents": consistent with and predating Einstein's relativity.). See also: frame dragging, and the Lense Thirring effect. } Since a gE field is basically just gravity, do any of your or Horace's calculations account for a spinning particle's gM fields inducing gE fields *as* their orbit diameters are changing? I'm ignoring all electrokinetic effects for this. Sorry if I missed it. The [spin-up vs spin-down] "self-cancelling" gM fields within the nucleus may be locally extremely strong, (perhaps even accounting for the nuclear strong force,) therefore even a *tiny* change in a nucleus's spin-orbit diameter may "induce" a measurable gE.** {** from: "They All Told the Truth.. The Antigravity Papers", 2003. Richard Crandall.} Also- would not the impedance of space (and c) also change around any spinning objects? Surely something of this can be tested in the lab. At least one experiment (Wallace) suggests that spinning elements with half or odd integer nucleon numbers as have bismuth, copper, aluminum, etc, will generate "measurable" fields. Surely a beam of light multiply-reflected from mirrors positioned between the ends of and directly between two long counter-rotating Bi rods should curve the beam, indicating that there can be generated a measurable motion of ether (aether) but since most of us were **inculcated** to not believe in an (a)ether, then perhaps suggest a space-time "displacement" of some sort. "Inculcated". See: Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look* by James DeMeo, PhD. http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm Colin --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/15/2003 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 10:54:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA17751; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:52:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:52:07 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:56:20 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: meths and water Resent-Message-ID: <"9rLdt.0.CL4.6Lrx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50916 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:34 AM 6/17/3, RBR wrote: >It seems methylated spirits will absorb water ........ does any one know >the maximum amount it will absorb?(the ratios). > Thanks RBR Alcohols and water are mutually soluble. One percent methyl alcohol has specific gravity 0.99727, One hundred percent methyl alcohol has specific gravity 0.79577. I hope that helps. An alternative answer is: as much as a drunken ghost can drink! 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 11:44:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA19211; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:42:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:42:37 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:46:49 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly Resent-Message-ID: <"AGUAA.0.5i4.S4sx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50917 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:23 AM 6/18/3, xplorer wrote: >Don't recall the circumstances, > but did they rule out accumulated static charge? > >In light of what Fred has posted from time to time, > the drag due to deviation from net neutral charge > might be a factor, or not.... I think a coulombic effect was ruled out on the basis that the incremental acceleration was not 1/r^2, but rather fairly linear with distance. This assumed I think the notion that the sun or vicinity might have a net charge. However, a coulombic effect based on semi-randomly distributed charge in the spherical heliopause or Ooort cloud, and beyond, would not necessarily be any different a solution than the gravitational spherical shell imbalance, if based upon much smaller quantities of imbalance. Nothing I can see could preclude combined effects based on the same principle. On the other hand, if an electrostatic effect is based upon the two pioneer craft picking up charge as they go, then it would seem to me that this should cause significant fluctuations, differences in the force on the two craft over time. Such a force should also differ for the two craft due to being sent in differing directions, as unbalanced charge sprayed into space by the sun should vary in density based upon the declination. That difference in force was not oberved. If I recall correctly, I think one of the most significant phrases I noticed in one of the NASA news releases on this subject was reference to the force being "*approximately* in the direction of the sun." This *proximity* in direction would be characteristic of the effect noted in the Qball calculation, yet one not even hinted at in the idealized calculus approach to spherically distributed mass or charge. The spherical shell imbalance hypothesis could be disproved if a third craft were sent out in a direction as orthogonal as possible to the Pioneer 10 and 11 trajectories. In that axis, the incremental force should be directed away from the sun. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 12:58:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA30194; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:57:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:57:08 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:01:18 -0800 To: "Colin Quinney" , From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Charge (q), Lightspeed (c), Impedance (Zo) and Gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"zgjo43.0.YN7.JAtx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50918 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:58 AM 6/17/3, Colin Quinney wrote: [snip] >* {The Maxwell equations for gravity: Amongst many other papers, see >"Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation"- Oleg D. Jefimenko. >p 96. (called "mass currents": consistent with and predating Einstein's >relativity.). See also: frame dragging, and the Lense Thirring effect. } > > > >Since a gE field is basically just gravity, do any of your or Horace's >calculations account for a spinning particle's gM fields inducing gE fields >*as* their orbit diameters are changing? I'm ignoring all electrokinetic >effects for this. Sorry if I missed it. When some years ago I ordered the Jefimenko text referenced above, I eagerly awaited its arrival with the anticipation that I would be enlightened with regard to the unification of the theories of gravity and electromagnetism. I was geatly disappointed in this regard. I was all ready to build an electromagnetic inirtial space drive! Such unbridled optimism! 8^) I guess I should have first mentioned that I think the text is brilliant, and that it must be a terrific opportunity for those young university students who get to study physics under Jefimenko. However, the text does not, and did not intend to, unify electromagnetic theory and gravitational theory. With great success the text shows how, when delays due to the tranmission speed of gravity are taken into account, and the concept of a co-gravity K similar to magnetism B is intrduced, Newton's gravitational laws are exactly identical in *form* to the electromagnetic laws. For every law of electromagnetism, there is an analogous gravitational law. After deducing a few basic laws from Newtonian gravity, with the addition of accounting for time delays, ie. "retardation", Jefimenko brilliantly reverses course and makes these postulates from which all else can be deduced by analogy to corresponding EM laws. In short, he demonstrated an isomorphism between gravtiy and electromagnitism so that all else falls out easily. The tie between the two worlds lies in the correspondence of permittivity epsilon_0 to -(1/4)*Pi*G and permeability mu_0 to -4*Pi*G/c^2 in the isomorphism. All else falls out by 1-1 corrspondence of symbols, values, and laws. It is terrific that, if general relativity should fail, that here is such an alternative and yet not very conflicting theory like Jefimeko's, which also as a subset fully embodies Newton's laws, waiting in the wings... My disappointment lay in the fact that while Jefimenko's gravitational laws may describe (gravitational) reality in a handy way, they do not provide an inkling of information as to how gravity and electromagnetics, or even the spacial constants, are directly related other, other than by delays caused by c. They are merely perfectly *analogous* but independent disciplines. They only cross paths in that particles with charge coincidentally happen to carry mass and inertia. There is no good insight provided then as to how to utilize the huge force constants related to electromagnetics to produce a powerful gravitaitonal drive. Jefimenko's world of gravitational kinetics and fields is a world still dominated by the tiny constant G. The gravitational forces involved with HUGE massflows are miniscule. Further, in developing this theoretical world, Jefimenko explicitly made the assumption of the law of conservation of momentum. Developing a gravity space ship drive then seems out of the question in this framework. A further problem is that circular mass flows, or more to the point anngularly *accelerating* circular mass flows, are analogous to changing circular flows of current, which creata a force, or at least a field analagous to the "changing vector magnetic potential" field that is essentiall dipolar in nature and thus limited to a 1/r^4 effect. This does not agree physically with the beam like effects observed by Podkelnov. Further, the magnitide of any effect predicted by Jefimenko's laws are so small as to be unobservable for the spinning disk of Podkletnov. The Podkletnov disk suprconducivity , as far as I can see, is irrelevent to Jefimenko's laws, at least in the subject text. My background and capability in this gravitational arena is of course extremely limited. Unfortunately it is so limited as to make it impossible for me to see how to make any practical use of it! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 13:26:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA11389; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:19:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:19:57 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"xqTkA2.0.rn2.iVtx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50919 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Horace. You write: >If you look at the program I posted you will see that I did use spherical >coordinates and used double precision floating point or long precsion >integers everywhere, including all phsically related constants. I then >converted to cartesian for the vector addition. So you do. Ahhh, BASIC sweet BASIC. >That's the problem in a nutshell. How to make the principle intuitively >understandable in a simple and convincing manner. Calculus provides a mode >of proof, but really leaves the intuitive convincing behind. As I >experienced, calculus also uses ideal assumptions which can not be met in >reality. This problem presents a real learning opportunity in my opinion. A variety of free 2D and even 3D field solvers are available on the net, although most are crippled in some fashion they're a nice way to toy with these sorts of problems. This one is inexpensive, and is fun to play with. http://www.electrostatics3d.com/ Much better is available for those willing to shell out a little cash. Based on the symmetry of your problem, wouldn't a 2D circle of charge be equivalent? When you can see the field lines it becomes very obvious why things work the way they do in the limit, and how quantizing the charge around the sphere affects the field distribution within. By the way, if you're willing to spend a few hours to write QBall, why not devote a couple more to back engineering the file format for the program above? We could have a lot of fun with this software if you could import your own datasets. K. >Consider this link >for example. > >http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/Gauss/node3.html > >Or any of the million more you can find on the subject. >I'm surprised you don't just quote directly from an >undergrad physics text on this. I assumed John fields has had exposure to this since many high school phyiscs and calculus courses and most first year college courses deal with this issue. And, as you point out, there are lots of sources of info on the www. The problem as I see it then is a matter of true convincing, of trying to make the issue understandable and intuitive. It is an issue of word craft and creative thinking that I think is very challenging. This in my opinion is not easy. Others may find it easy to explain. I've learned a few things from the exercise, like how to distribute charge evenly over a spherical surface in an mannner that is uniform *in the limit*, and I think that this is as about as good as can be achieved with large numbers of points since there are only 5 regular polyhedra, and they are small. I have constructed and made available a "mini-lab" in BASIC, a language which I assume most people interested in physics understand. I have probably worked in more than a couple dozen languages since I began programming in 1962, and IBM 360/370 assmbler was my forte at one time, but I still think BASIC is a handy language for little "quick and dirty" physics problems. It only took a couple hours of programming to cobble together the little Qball program, and a few hours of playing around with it to get a handle on the nature of the problem. That's plenty good enough for me. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 14:09:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA12018; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:07:54 +1200 From: RBR Subject: Re: meths and water To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-id: <006501c33514$bc37d6e0$c391a7cb vuw.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Resent-Message-ID: <"imou03.0.ix2.TCux-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50920 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks.... the % were of help.... the alternative answer brings a whole new slant to dream interpretation . regards RBR > Alcohols and water are mutually soluble. One percent methyl alcohol has > specific gravity 0.99727, One hundred percent methyl alcohol has specific > gravity 0.79577. I hope that helps. > > > An alternative answer is: as much as a drunken ghost can drink! 8^) > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 15:39:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA27404; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:32:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:32:40 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:34:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 10 meter Electrolytic Cell Experiment - Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ZTGOx3.0.5i6.7Svx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50921 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., As an experiment the idea of using a length of tubing to make a long electrolytic cell, to be abbreviated EC, the set up of HH should be applauded for simple low cost realization. It is worth while to offer a general body of comment and suggestion on this experiment if the object is to acquire useful information: A) The general field of work may fall under Analytical, Qualitative and Quantitative, or Q and Q, Electrochemistry, or AQQE. This falls in the subset of aqueous AQQE. B) Some..... underline some .... terms used to describe the general type of work include but are by no means limited to: 1] Polarography 2] Chronoamperometry 3] Voltammetry Subsets of non steady state work must include: a] Pulse b] AC c] Cyclic d] Various parameters of duty cycle, wave form, staircase and other attribute[s] of the electric current applied to interrogate the electrolyte are important C) The specific nature of the power source and the front end used to acquire information are critical to the work. D) Until such time as all parties wish to become familiar with the above, in general, and-or someone wishes to write or transcribe a tutorial on the topic, the information and what it means is partial and may be misleading. E) Two basic aspects and a simple series of tests should make the complex nature of the work a little less distant. Please try to understand: 1] Nature of what appears to be capacitance of a solution. 2] The effects of Motion of any part of the work ... of the fluid and-or the apparatus. Some simple tests: With static electrolyte: A-1) Carefully place a visual indicator near one end of the cell.... a crystal or fragment of an organic dye and an inorganic dye such as a permangante. A-2) Use a pH indicator A-3) Use several different types of barriers: cotton wool gelatin filter paper or other filter media, micropore and millipore are examples. A-4) Use no barrier and use indicator[s] THEN: SLOWLY increase the flow of fluid. The above suggestions and notes are intended to help the investigator[s] and the persons reading of the the work begin to understand the physical and electrical and chemical aspects of this type of work are nontrivial with respect to manifold variabilities. This is not a shot or a slam.... this note is tendered in good spirit and in good faith in an attempt to gently and generally point one and several ways that readers and investigators may wish to broaden their knowledge, horizons of knowledge and scope with respect to this interesting and in many ways yet young field of endeavor. JH From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 20:23:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA32275; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:22:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:22:40 -0700 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:13:55 +0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"jQak01.0.8u7.0izx-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50922 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I should try to be a bit less concise sometimes, I guess: what I meant was, if the craft had a net charge of some sort, a charge slowly increasing in value as they journeyed out, then the drag from the aether/ZPE/ or whatever you care to name it increases as well, in time. Although Fred refers mostly to the particles working against some neighboring masses (planets/etc.) I am looking at the particle forces working against the ZPE. cheers > -----Original Message----- > From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 2003 June 18 01:47 > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly > > > At 12:23 AM 6/18/3, xplorer wrote: > >Don't recall the circumstances, > > but did they rule out accumulated static charge? > > > >In light of what Fred has posted from time to time, > > the drag due to deviation from net neutral charge > > might be a factor, or not.... > > > I think a coulombic effect was ruled out on the basis that the incremental > acceleration was not 1/r^2, but rather fairly linear with distance. This > assumed I think the notion that the sun or vicinity might have a net > charge. > > However, a coulombic effect based on semi-randomly distributed charge in > the spherical heliopause or Ooort cloud, and beyond, would not necessarily > be any different a solution than the gravitational spherical shell > imbalance, if based upon much smaller quantities of imbalance. Nothing I > can see could preclude combined effects based on the same principle. > > On the other hand, if an electrostatic effect is based upon the > two pioneer > craft picking up charge as they go, then it would seem to me that this > should cause significant fluctuations, differences in the force on the two > craft over time. Such a force should also differ for the two craft due to > being sent in differing directions, as unbalanced charge sprayed into > space by the sun should vary in density based upon the declination. That > difference in force was not oberved. > > If I recall correctly, I think one of the most significant phrases I > noticed in one of the NASA news releases on this subject was reference to > the force being "*approximately* in the direction of the sun." This > *proximity* in direction would be characteristic of the effect > noted in the > Qball calculation, yet one not even hinted at in the idealized calculus > approach to spherically distributed mass or charge. > > The spherical shell imbalance hypothesis could be disproved if a third > craft were sent out in a direction as orthogonal as possible to > the Pioneer > 10 and 11 trajectories. In that axis, the incremental force should be > directed away from the sun. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 17 23:41:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA14331; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:40:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:40:23 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:44:37 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly Resent-Message-ID: <"eDD_w3.0.rV3.Mb0y-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50923 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:13 AM 6/18/3, xplorer wrote: >I should try to be a bit less concise sometimes, I guess: > >what I meant was, if the craft had a net charge of some sort, > a charge slowly increasing in value as they journeyed out, > then the drag from the aether/ZPE/ or whatever you care to name it > increases as well, in time. What drag? I would have no idea how to quantify this. > >Although Fred refers mostly to the particles working against > some neighboring masses (planets/etc.) > I am looking at the particle forces working against the ZPE. >cheers Gee, and I thought *I* was being speculative! 8^) I have difficulty seeing how both spacecraft would be affected in the same linear manner in the same distances. Quite a coincidence that charge accumulates at a rate that also compensates for the changing radius from the sun, creating an appoximatley linear force with distance! The alternative suggested, a nearly uniform, but not exactly uniform, distant spherical distribution of mass might account for this - for two axes anyway. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 00:11:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA25089; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:10:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:10:28 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:14:42 -0800 To: From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"47AOS.0.t76.a11y-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50924 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:40 PM 6/17/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Horace. > >You write: >>If you look at the program I posted you will see that I did use spherical >>coordinates and used double precision floating point or long precsion >>integers everywhere, including all phsically related constants. I then >>converted to cartesian for the vector addition. > >So you do. Ahhh, BASIC sweet BASIC. > >>That's the problem in a nutshell. How to make the principle intuitively >>understandable in a simple and convincing manner. Calculus provides a mode >>of proof, but really leaves the intuitive convincing behind. As I >>experienced, calculus also uses ideal assumptions which can not be met in >>reality. This problem presents a real learning opportunity in my opinion. > >A variety of free 2D and even 3D field solvers >are available on the net, although most >are crippled in some fashion they're a nice >way to toy with these sorts of problems. >This one is inexpensive, and is fun to play with. > >http://www.electrostatics3d.com/ Arg! Why pay money when a fairly simple and open solution is at hand for free? > >Much better is available for those willing to shell >out a little cash. Based on the symmetry of your >problem, wouldn't a 2D circle of charge be >equivalent? Not at all! In fact, I think it is 2 dimensional thinking that makes the problem non-intuitive in the first place! A two dimensional "ring charge" in fact acts within its plane in a manner exactly as John Fields described, with a confining field increasing with radius, but on the outside of the ring a repulsing field from the center of charge. Interestingly, in the free z axis the field increases in a repelling nature for a brief while and than acts in a nearly linear manner for a while before approaching a 1/r^2 field. >When you can see the field lines it >becomes very obvious why things work the way they >do in the limit, and how quantizing the charge >around the sphere affects the field distribution >within. > >By the way, if you're willing to spend a few hours >to write QBall, why not devote a couple more >to back engineering the file format for the program >above? We could have a lot of fun with this software >if you could import your own datasets. What fun is that? Do you have a problem to solve? I would be interested in hearing whether John Fields is feeling any more intuitive about the issue, or if things are just muddled up more. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 08:11:01 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA24838; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:09:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:09:30 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:11:14 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 IAA24812 Resent-Message-ID: <"GnO6s2.0.046.f28y-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50925 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:14:42 -0800, you wrote: >I would be interested in hearing whether John Fields is feeling any more >intuitive about the issue, or if things are just muddled up more. --- Muddled up more, I'm afraid, but I'm trying to "intuit" it from a different perspective. If I envision a magical container with infinitessimally smooth walls and no electrical properties surrounding a perfect vacuum into which I have inserted two electrons, then the repulsive force between the electrons will force them away from each other and they will eventually come to rest diametrically opposed to each other on the inner wall of the container. Now, if the container somehow doesn't interact with the electrical properties of the electrons, the fields surrounding the electrons will look like two perfectly spherical balloons which have been squeezed together, with the places where the balloons touch describing a disk normal to a line drawn between the two electrons. If I now place a third electron precisely between the other two, the places where the [now three] balloons touch will no longer describe a plane, but rather two mirrored surfaces with central bulges which flatten but never touch as the distance from the center of the sphere increases. This arrangement will remain stable as long as the central electron is axially aligned with the other two, BUT if the center electron moves the slightest bit off-axis the effect will be like squeezing a wet watermelon seed between thumb and forefinger and the center electon will go shooting off toward the wall! At the same time, the forces between all three electrons will be changing and will not become stable again until the three electrons are located on the wall 120° apart from each other. This new arrangement will yield three balloons touching each other, but insead of a disk the points of common contact for all three balloons will describe a line perpendicular to the triangle describing the plane containing the three electrons. Now, if a fourth electron is inserted at the center of the sphere, the watermelon seed only has two directions in which it can travel, both of which lie on the line perpendicular to the plane. It seems that in the three-electron case, when the central electron goes unstable, the next stable arrangement will be a tetrahedron inscribed in the sphere. It seems now there will not be just a single channel for the central electron to travel, but four, each originating at the center of the sphere and being perpendicular to and centered on a face of the tetrahedron. My conclusion is that, in line with what you stated originally, there will always be a channel available for the central electron to travel. Counter-intuitively (to me, at least) it seems that as the number of electrons on the shell grows, the more paths will be made available for the electron to traverse, and the more difficult it will become to levitate a lone electron at the center of the sphere. -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 08:26:17 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA03005; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:25:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:25:20 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030618112316.026bac08 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:25:19 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC Boeing 727 stolen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"uSVbt3.0.sk.WH8y-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50926 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here's something you don't see every day. A Boeing 727 was stolen in Angola: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7403-2003Jun17.html?nav=hptop_tb Quote: U.S. embassy personnel are traveling around Africa to ask host aviation ministries for any sign of the aircraft. "They haven't seen hide nor hair of it," said one government official. "It's so odd." It *is* odd! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 10:57:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA28207; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:55:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:55:03 -0700 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:52:22 +0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"mmhMj.0.Zu6.sTAy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50928 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > -----Original Message----- > From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 2003 June 18 13:45 > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Pioneer 10/11 anomaly > > > At 10:13 AM 6/18/3, xplorer wrote: > >I should try to be a bit less concise sometimes, I guess: > > > >what I meant was, if the craft had a net charge of some sort, > > a charge slowly increasing in value as they journeyed out, > > then the drag from the aether/ZPE/ or whatever you care to name it > > increases as well, in time. > > What drag? I would have no idea how to quantify this. > Bad idea - the charge would never increase that gradually anyway, scratch that derailed thought train. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 11:01:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA28135; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:54:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:54:54 -0700 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: OFF TOPIC Boeing 727 stolen Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:52:21 +0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030618112316.026bac08 pop.mindspring.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"tX9NA1.0.Xt6.kTAy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50927 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Outfitted as a giant flying fuel tank, no less: : ... said a firm that had leased the plane : from Aerospace Sales -- a company whose : name he said he couldn't recall -- had removed the seats and : replaced them with fuel tanks. It flew the 727 to Luanda : with a plan to deliver fuel to remote African airfields, he said. Wonder how far they plan to fly it? Or what gets loaded into the tanks, if not fuel.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:JedRothwell mindspring.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 2003 June 18 22:25 > To: vortex-L eskimo.com > Subject: OFF TOPIC Boeing 727 stolen > > > Here's something you don't see every day. A Boeing 727 was stolen > in Angola: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7403-2003Jun17.html > ?nav=hptop_tb > > Quote: > > U.S. embassy personnel are traveling around Africa to ask host aviation > ministries for any sign of the aircraft. "They haven't seen hide nor hair > of it," said one government official. "It's so odd." > > > It *is* odd! > > - Jed > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 11:37:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA18624; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:35:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:35:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:39:32 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id LAA18585 Resent-Message-ID: <"37ym3.0.wY4.e3By-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50929 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:11 AM 6/18/3, John Fields wrote: >On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:14:42 -0800, you wrote: > > >>I would be interested in hearing whether John Fields is feeling any more >>intuitive about the issue, or if things are just muddled up more. > >--- >Muddled up more, I'm afraid, but I'm trying to "intuit" it from a >different perspective. > >If I envision a magical container with infinitessimally smooth walls and >no electrical properties surrounding a perfect vacuum into which I have >inserted two electrons, then the repulsive force between the electrons >will force them away from each other and they will eventually come to >rest diametrically opposed to each other on the inner wall of the >container. Now, if the container somehow doesn't interact with the >electrical properties of the electrons, the fields surrounding the >electrons will look like two perfectly spherical balloons ? which have >been squeezed together, with the places where the balloons touch >describing a disk normal to a line drawn between the two electrons. You are not actually visualizing the field here. You are visualizing a miniscule fraction of a field, called an equipotential surface. These equipotential surfaces are not "real". They don't act lilke "real" surfaces in the sense that they have foces against each other. The intuiting of "squeezing" of these surfaces, for example, loses some meaning in the analogy. An EM or gravity field is infinite and spacial, even when considered only in 3D. It is a collection of vectors at every point in space. Personally, I think our brains are mostly set up to handle 2D representations, which can be easily had by looking at the vector components (observations of field vector component magnitude) in a regularly spaced series of points along a line of some kind, whether that line is straight or not. This for a given vector direction, is easily converted into x-y graphical form, to make for a kind of "cross section of field intensity" type view. Other visualizations are also very nice too, like equipotential surfaces or lines, but the above "field intensity cross section" method I have found to be very handy for quick experimental type EM simulations. > >If I now place a third electron precisely between the other two, the >places where the [now three] balloons touch will no longer describe a >plane, but rather two mirrored surfaces with central bulges which >flatten but never touch as the distance from the center of the sphere >increases. This arrangement will remain stable as long as the central >electron is axially aligned with the other two, BUT if the center >electron moves the slightest bit off-axis the effect will be like >squeezing a wet watermelon seed between thumb and forefinger and the >center electon will go shooting off toward the wall! At the same time, >the forces between all three electrons will be changing and will not >become stable again until the three electrons are located on the wall >120° apart from each other. This new arrangement will yield three >balloons touching each other, They only "touch" if you pick the potential exactly right for the surface mapping. >but insead of a disk the points of common >contact for all three balloons will describe a line perpendicular to the >triangle describing the plane containing the three electrons. Now, if a >fourth electron is inserted at the center of the sphere, the watermelon >seed only has two directions in which it can travel, both of which lie >on the line perpendicular to the plane. > >It seems that in the three-electron case, when the central electron goes >unstable, the next stable arrangement will be a tetrahedron inscribed in >the sphere. It seems now there will not be just a single channel for >the central electron to travel, but four, each originating at the center >of the sphere and being perpendicular to and centered on a face of the >tetrahedron. > >My conclusion is that, in line with what you stated originally, there >will always be a channel available for the central electron to travel. > >Counter-intuitively (to me, at least) it seems that as the number of >electrons on the shell grows, the more paths will be made available for >the electron to traverse, and the more difficult it will become to >levitate a lone electron at the center of the sphere. By "levitate" I assume you mean "confine." As seen in the Qball results, as more charge points are added to the spherical shell, and thus more paths of escape are added, the force along each path diminishes *provided* the total amount of charge distributed amoungst those points is constant. If you keep adding fixed magnitude charges then the escape path field strength does not appreciably diminish because the total charge is increasing. This is in fact the reason that using finite points is very different from the infinitely smooth, thin and uniform manifold of calculus. This increase in total charge problem is why I normalized the field data into unit free form. The data points I provided (in Runs 3-5) work for any set of charge values, or even for gravity. For charges just multiply by k*q to obtain the actual field values, and for any q distributed on the sphere and any q' used as a "test charge" or observation point, compute the force by multiplying by k*q*q'. For gravity you simply use mass m and G for gravitational field and G*m*m' to compute forces. Everything is thus all relative in the unit free expression of the data. I hope all that makes sense. > >-- >John Fields Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 13:38:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA15465; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:37:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:37:00 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:24:37 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: More evidence for mirror mass? Resent-Message-ID: <"vFNby3.0.Yn3.irCy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50930 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following new observation may provide yet more evidence for mirror mass, in that Achernar may be comprised of a large portion of mirror mass. I think it is most intersting to speculate that the mirror mass is in the form of a neutron star at the core of Achernar. This sets a much higher limit on the acievable oblateness. Otherwise, maximum oblateness is achieved when the mirror mass and ordinary mass are equal, assuming similar compositions. >PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE >The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News >Number 642 June 18, 2003 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and >James Riordon [snip] > >STAR OUT OF ROUND. The Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI), >an array of 2 telescopes which combine their light signals to >achieve a higher angular resolution than is possible with any one >scope, has determined that the star Achernar is the flattest star >ever studied. The VLTI, which does not provide an actual image of >the star but can provide an accurate estimate of the star's profile, >has determined that Achernar's equatorial radius is 50% larger than >its polar radius. This is quite oblate compared to most other >celestial bodies, such as our Earth, whose equatorial radius is only >0.3% larger than its polar radius. Theorists do not yet know how to >explain how a star like this could turn fast enough to adopt with >such a shape without flying apart. Achernar is about 145 light years >away from Earth in the southern sky and has a mass of about 6 solar >masses. The telescopes used to make the interference map were not >the giant 8.2-m VLT telescopes, but more modest 40-cm reflectors set >at various configurations with separations as large as 140 m. >(European Southern Observatory press release, 11 June, >www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-14-03.htm ) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 14:53:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA20787; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:46:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:46:48 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:07:02 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"co-QB2.0.j45.7tDy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50931 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Horace. You write: >Arg! Why pay money when a fairly simple and open solution is at hand for free? Good question. Here's my stock answer... Time to develop QBall : 6 Hrs. Cost of 3D solver : 19 USD Your hourly rate : ~3$/hr If you're willing to work at that rate, I have a boatload of coding tasks that need doing. Lets make a deal (grin). >Not at all! In fact, I think it is 2 dimensional thinking that makes the >problem non-intuitive in the first place! I agree. It's really an approximation of a long cylinder rather than a sphere. But you get a similar effect, tight concentration of potential change by the surface and a broad area of relatively constant potential near the center. K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 15:41:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA21612; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:39:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:39:11 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030618173353.0265b070 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:07:08 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, NR38@Cornell.edu From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Modern inexperience and over-dependence on experts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"R-wXn1.0.XH5.FeEy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50932 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday I saw a brief public-service advertisement on TV from the DOE. It said something like: "experts say that if you lower your thermostat in winter, you will reduce pollution. Not only that, you save money." That was all it said. Two things struck me: 1. It does not take an expert to know this. Why does the DOE suggest it does? We often turn to expert opinion in matters that a generation ago people considered themselves competent to deal with. 2. Why didn't they elaborate? Why not say: "if you lower your thermostat in winter you will burn less fuel, and reduce pollution while you save money"? Do they really believe only an expert would understand this? Perhaps it is my imagination, but there seem to be fewer attempts to explain simple mechanical and physical facts to the public. Editors and ad copywriters no longer assume that readers know how automobiles work, or even how furnaces work. Popular magazines from the 1940s and 50s were not written for geniuses. They often had simpleminded explanations. But I think they would have said "furnaces consume fuel and fuel causes pollution," whereas nowadays even the simplest technical details are glossed over. Probably, modern editors judge their audience correctly. I suspect people really are growing more ignorant. SUV buyers have been complaining to the government lately that their cars get low gas mileage. What did they expect? Didn't they read the EPA mileage estimate? People sometimes ask me for help with computers and other high-tech gadgets. A surprising number have asked me whether it saves energy to turn off a computer at night. Years ago there was a joke about a policeman who pulls over a couple who are zooming along at 80 miles an hour on a deserted highway at night. He asks them, "what's the rush?" The driver responds, "we are nearly out of gas and we want to get to the next gas station before the needle drops to zero." The policeman turns on his siren and escorts them at high speed. I wonder if ordinary readers would get the joke nowadays. The other day I mentioned that the so-called chemical weapons trucks found in Iraq may have been used to inflate weather balloons. Any expert could tell at a glance whether these trucks were intended for bio-weapons production, by looking for thermostatic controls. You cannot easily tear out the thermostats and hide all evidence of them, and I doubt that Iraqi troops about to abandon the trucks would think to do that anyway. In other words, the debate should have been concluded quickly, with a simple, definitive, irrefutable observation that any expert could make in a matter of minutes. I have been on the lookout, or "on the look" as Bush says, but so far I have seen no word about this in the mainstream press. It seems the experts have not looked at the truck yet, or their conclusions are being kept secret. Anyway, this simple, basic technical detail has not made it into the New York Times. I do not mean this as a partisan dig against the administration. Democrats are as bad as Republicans. No one asks the simple questions anymore. No one notices the Emperor wears no clothes. No one envisions a bunch of Iraqi soldiers in a truck, with a toolbox, seeing American tanks on the horizon. There are other straws in the wind. The other day Martin Fleischmann was grousing that young researchers nowadays are addicted to computerized instruments. They become prisoners of convenience. When the job requires a test the computers cannot handle, or were never designed to handle, the researchers simply do not do the test. The famous Japanese inventor S. Nakamura in his book "Ikari no Burekusuruu" said that he made changes to his experiments in a matter of days or even hours because he built the parts himself, whereas in other corporations researchers order in parts from specialized firms, and they often have to wait weeks before the parts arrive. Mizuno said the NEDO cold fusion program was often held up by this kind of delay. Ed Storms has made similar observations. This problem runs deeper than you might think. As most readers here probably noted, the other day the editor of the Scientific American told me he is a mere journalist, and he cannot judge the complex issues surrounding cold fusion. That floored me! Either he is pretending to be ignorant, which would be inexplicable, since he was trying to impress me, or he really is grossly ignorant of basic science. So ignorant, he cannot judge 19th-century calorimetry and he would fail my daughters' junior high school science courses. Of course he knows a terrific amount about some advanced theories and some highly detailed physics -- way more than I know. Anyone can see from his articles. But evidently there are large gaps in his knowledge. He knows the details but he fails to grasp the ABCs. He has no practical feel for things; no ability to read original sources and reach a conclusion. As he told me, he depends on experts to do this for him, the way young researchers depend on their computerized instruments to give an answer. He is incapable of working things out on first principles for himself. Yet he is in charge of the most important science magazine in the world! How did he get there? This has been puzzling me for weeks. Of course there were many ignorant fools in high places back in 1900, as opposition to the airplane and other infamous incidents showed. People made horrible misjudgments, such as World War I. Before the war, the Encyclopedia Britannica and other expert sources declared that machine guns would be less deadly in combat than the smoothbore rifle. I recall the main reason was that the machine gun would "decide the issue quickly." This was wishful thinking taken to an unimaginable extreme. But this was a different kind of ignorance, you might say. One should not exaggerate present problems or idealize the past. I sense this new kind of ignorance that has become pervasive today is born of inexperience. It is a peculiar, unprecedented sort of inexperience. Really, it is unimaginable, even to people who grow up in the 1950s. I do not mean to denigrate modern people. It isn't their fault. People no longer have a chance to do work-a-day tasks that teach lessons about basic science. In 1950, that DOE advertisement about experts and furnaces would have seemed peculiar because many people still stoked coal-fired furnaces. People understood that the warmer you make your house, the more fuel you use, and the more smoke the fire makes. In my periodic forays into the countryside I sometimes invite city folks. I am no wilderness survival expert. I never sleep in a tent if I can help it. I have never farmed. I have only helped farmers (mainly in-laws) for a few weeks at a time, picking oranges and carrying crates of produce, most inexpertly. But I realize now that I have far more knowledge than most people in their 20s today. I have met young adults who have never built a fire, for example. They do not realize you put the kindling on the bottom, and fire burns up. One did not know what "kindling" is. In State Park cabins there are signs explaining what a damper is and how it works. I imagine some poor befuddled person in a roomful of smoke wondering what to do. It makes me sad that people grow up with such restricted, adult-supervised lives. Apparently, many children never play with matches. They never fly a kite, fish, or cut wood. Some have never cut a melon. I once handed a teenage girl a sharp knife and asked her to cut up a watermelon. After watching her performance for a few moments with increasing trepidation, I realized that she had never handled a sharp knife before. Apparently her mother never imagined the child would grow up and have to cook for herself. This may seem off-topic, but it has a direct bearing on science, science education, and cold fusion. I have been mulling it over for weeks, and I have concluded it is the root of the problem we face, when we fight for public acceptance of CF. I have read many biographies of 20th century scientists and engineers, ranging from the Wright Brothers, to John Pierce, Charles Townes and others. They all said they learned science basics by working with machines -- tractors, old junked equipment, clocks, printing presses and so on. Of course they also learned theory, chemistry and so on in formal classes at school, but they got a feel for these things by direct experience. Pierce wrote: ". . . People built radios. I never became a radio amateur, but I built radio receivers, and read a few of Gernsback's Radio News and other radio magazines. I knew a number of people at high school the year I was in St. Paul who were tinkerers . . . Yes, tinkering was a part of youthful activities in those days. There were lots of things around. I often wonder how children are ever exposed to anything that really works these days. In those days there were still blacksmith shops, there were machine shops. People still lived in towns rather than in suburbs, and there were all sorts of technical activities going on within walking distance. You walked right past them." People are not to blame for their own inexperience, or their sheltered childhoods. There are no ponds where children can fish in suburbia, only shopping malls. Imagine some kids get together, catch fish, gut them, build a bonfire, and roast them, the way I used to do -- in the places I used to do that. The police and fire departments would descend upon the kids. They would be arrested and shown on the 5:00 o'clock local news. Expert counsellors would spend a week in their schools lecturing the whole class about these antisocial, fish-murdering, perverted, politically-incorrect monsters. We have impoverished our children and robbed them of some of life's greatest pleasures. We deprive them of experience, which is the source of real knowledge. We impoverish their imaginations. Imagine the opposite situation: a primitive person is brought into a city for the first time. He cannot open a can of food, and he accidentally blunders into traffic, because he has no experience of modern life. Not only are people strangely ignorant, they gravitate toward peculiar, radical, outrageously expensive or impractical notions, and plans that ordinary people in the past would have judged ineffectual. After the anthrax scare, letters to newspapers seriously suggested that the postal system should be permanently closed down and "replaced by the Internet." It did not occur to people that you cannot transmit packages electronically. Years ago some important official supposedly said that cause pollution, so all the mines in the US should be shut down and we should import raw materials from other countries. The other day a pilot wrote a letter to the editor saying something like: "aircrew are subjected to the same rigorous airport search procedures as passengers. Before I can proceed to the gate, I am scanned like all passengers. If I am carrying a pair of tweezers, it is confiscated. Then I go to the cockpit, take my place in the pilot's seat, and there behind me within easy reach is an ax." It is common knowledge that aircraft cockpits are equipped with fire axes. They always have been. Surely the people who designed safety procedures in response to 9/11 know this. Why are they incapable of making simple logical decisions? For the past several months I have been trying in vain to purchase liability insurance for property in Pennsylvania which is mostly wilderness, with some acres of wetland and a pond. The insurance companies have turned me down because. They cite "new concerns caused by 9/11." I cannot imagine what connection there could be between a pond and 9/11, but that is what they say. They are worried that a trespasser will ignore the signs I have put up, sneak in, and drown in the pond or be bitten by a snake or snapping turtle. The aggrieved trespasser or his survivors will sue me. I understand it is a litigation crazy world and insurance companies must be cautious. Here is the part I do not understand. These insurance agents are middle-aged people living in rural Pennsylvania. Surely they must have been around woods and fields for much of their lives, or at least they have seen woods from a distance as they drive to work. Yet some of them have suggested to me that I bring in a backhoe to drain the wetlands, and some hinted I should "do something about" those snakes and snapping turtles, as if I were keeping a dangerous breed of dog. Exactly how would a person get rid of snapping turtles? By serving them with a court injunction? With explosives, or massive doses of poison? Not only are such measures impossible, I assume they would be a violation of state and federal environmental laws. I hope so! But these insurance people see all problems as a policy violation. Harry Truman, a longtime farmer, said of the elite Washington press pundits: "they do not have enough sense to pound sand down a rathole." That is literally true of people nowadays. They have no clue how to deal with rats, wildlife or the natural world, or -- by extension -- the ordinary physics of fire, water, ponds, trees, streams, dams and earth. Perhaps this is an apocryphal story, but a few years ago at a county fair 4H tent, a farmer explained to a small child how to milk a cow. A few minutes later the child's parents came stomping into the tent, outraged with the farmer for telling the child disgusting tales about "teats" and other pornographic filth. Apparently these adults did not know where milk comes from. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 18 18:31:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA20286; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:28:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:28:49 -0700 Message-ID: <000401c33602$21189700$89bd4943 metrogr.org> From: "Jeff & Dorothy Kooistra" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030618173353.0265b070 pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Modern inexperience and over-dependence on experts Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:28:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"88OJ6.0.uy4.H7Hy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50933 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Amen to almost all of this. One of the depressing things I noticed when I first got to college was how many engineering students had gotten into the field solely because someone told them there was money it. My guess is that most of those kids had never so much as taken a clock apart to see how it works. Yet, they had all learned how to do the "succeed in school" shuffle, so they did their seat work (and if they couldn't they switched to a business major) and did their rote labs, and left with a degree in engineering, able perhaps to fit into a narrow engineering niche, but without any real grasp on what engineering should be. In my case, my father was a jack-of-all-trades who built our house himself, so I was exposed to drill presses and power tools of all kinds. In junior high one cherished gift I asked for and got was a small lathe with a jig saw table on top. My dad also repaired TVs on the side, so I had access to electronic gizmos and whatnots galore, and could read electronics schematics (with vacuum tubes!) before I could do algebra. But at the time it didn't impress me that there was anything unusual about this--I thought everyone had about the same kind of exposure to "neat stuff." One of my goals as a parent is to ensure that my kids do learn many of the "practical skills"--it must be as much a part of their education as anything they learn in school. Fortunately, my in-laws live on a river in the sticks, so "messing around in boats" is an activity easy for them to experience--but my guess is, most of their peers will grow up without these experiences, being both poorer for it, and more tragically, unable to appreciate how much poorer. Jeff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 00:13:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA17380; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:07:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:07:29 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:11:42 -0800 To: , From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"2gr601.0.RF4.n4My-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50934 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:07 PM 6/18/3, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Horace. > >You write: >>Arg! Why pay money when a fairly simple and open solution is at hand for >free? > >Good question. Here's my stock answer... > >Time to develop QBall : 6 Hrs. >Cost of 3D solver : 19 USD >Your hourly rate : ~3$/hr What is the value of getting the right answer to the question at hand, the flexibility of total control and application visibility that comes from having the source code, and the serendipity of discovery? In my opinion it is far better to work effectively than efficiently. However, I must confess, I am not sure I have done either for John Fields, or anyone else. I definitely learned a lot from the experience though. > >If you're willing to work at that rate, I have a boatload >of coding tasks that need doing. Lets make a deal (grin). Although I work for free, when I chose to work that is, I maintain artistic freedom in my work, so my budget unfortunately matches my income. 8^) > >>Not at all! In fact, I think it is 2 dimensional thinking that makes the >>problem non-intuitive in the first place! > >I agree. It's really an approximation of a long >cylinder rather than a sphere. I take it that "It's" above refers to the planar ring of charge? If so then yes, a cylindrical surface of Radius R with charge density rho has field strength at radius rBut you get a similar >effect, tight concentration of potential change by the surface >and a broad area of relatively constant potential >near the center. Both the cylinder and ring carrying a uniform charge density have a field intensity that decreases as the central axis is approached. They both "center" or confine a charge (of like charge to the outer surface) located inside the cylinder or ring boundaries, but which is further confined to move only in a plane normal to the cylinder or within the ring's plane. A perfect spherical shell with uniform charge density exerts no force on a charge inside. A spherical shell with very slightly non-uniformly distributed finite charge can center in up to two axes, but must drive a charge to the outer boundary in at least the third axis. The field intensity is surprisingly linear across much of the sphere radius when very small random non-uniformites exist in charge density on the spherical shell. I think this was a serndiptous finding. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 07:04:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA04317; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:01:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:01:43 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:59:40 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: <0ae3fv03q0c0vr5e6bsuemvla90elabci7 4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 HAA04152 Resent-Message-ID: <"92SW71.0.r21.59Sy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50935 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:11:42 -0800, you wrote: >What is the value of getting the right answer to the question at hand, the >flexibility of total control and application visibility that comes from >having the source code, and the serendipity of discovery? In my opinion it >is far better to work effectively than efficiently. However, I must >confess, I am not sure I have done either for John Fields, or anyone else. >I definitely learned a lot from the experience though. --- Are you kidding?^) Before this exchange I was of the opinion that charge would be confined at the center of a like-charged perfect sphere with a uniform charge density and hadn't considered the possibility of "channels" existing which the central charge would travel rather than be confined. I also prefer to work effectively. Efficiency is always somewhere downstream since _after_ you find out how something works you can make it work better. --- > A perfect spherical shell with uniform charge density exerts no force on a >charge inside. --- I disagree with that one, but maybe it's just a matter of terminology. It seems to me that if the charge inside is located precisely at the center of the sphere, then the forces acting on it will be the same everywhere, (much like a fish at the bottom of the ocean experiencing 20000 PSI everywhere on its body, yet feeling no pressure) with the net effect being that the relative force on it will be zero. However, if the charge inside is not at the center of the sphere, forces acting on it will force it toward the shell. -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 08:02:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA18782; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:00:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:00:48 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:58:50 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 IAA18749 Resent-Message-ID: <"RIz9-2.0.Ob4.V0Ty-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50936 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:39:32 -0800, you wrote: >You are not actually visualizing the field here. You are visualizing a >miniscule fraction of a field, called an equipotential surface. These >equipotential surfaces are not "real". They don't act lilke "real" >surfaces in the sense that they have foces against each other. The >intuiting of "squeezing" of these surfaces, for example, loses some meaning >in the analogy. An EM or gravity field is infinite and spacial, even when >considered only in 3D. It is a collection of vectors at every point in >space. --- Yes, I agree. However, the equipotential surfaces look like infinitely thin nested spherical shells surrounding an undisturbed charged particle, and my analogy merely picked a balloon to represent a particular potential. Bringing two otherwise undisturbed charged particles together, then, should create a region between them (a plane perpendicular to a line drawn between the charges and extending to infinity) where the potential between them is equal and diminishes as the distance from the line drawn between their centers increases. Place a third charged particle on this plane where the line intersects it and it should stay there; place it anywhere else on the plane and it will go zooming off, but will be confined to the plane. Why? Construct two planes parallel to the plane centered between the charges and cutting the centers of the charges, and insert a charge anywhere in the region bounded by the outer planes. What do you think will happen? I think the inserted charge will be repelled by the charge closest to it until it crosses the central plane, then be repelled by the particle now closest to it and will thereafter be shepherded by both charges until its oscillations are damped to the point where it can be effectively considered to be confined to the central plane. Of course no analogy is perfect, but that's what mine was about. >By "levitate" I assume you mean "confine." --- Yes, thank you. A much better choice of word. --- > I hope all that makes sense. --- Well I'll have to hit the books for some of it, but it seems to hold together nicely. :-) -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 11:25:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA13588; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:23:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:23:15 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:27:24 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"W_6YT3.0.DK3.J-Vy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50937 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:58 AM 6/19/3, John Fields wrote: >Yes, I agree. However, the equipotential surfaces look like infinitely >thin nested spherical shells surrounding an undisturbed charged >particle, and my analogy merely picked a balloon to represent a >particular potential. Bringing two otherwise undisturbed charged >particles together, then, should create a region between them (a plane >perpendicular to a line drawn between the charges and extending to >infinity) where the potential between them is equal and diminishes as >the distance from the line drawn between their centers increases. Place >a third charged particle on this plane where the line intersects it and >it should stay there; place it anywhere else on the plane and it will go >zooming off, but will be confined to the plane. Note, however, that the force outward in the plane lying between them is smaller than if both charges were located at their midpoint. Their effectiveness is in effect diluted by their separation 2*r. Their effectiveness will be further diluted if we place two more charges in the central plain in another axis. At any point outside the central plain, these extra charges lying on the plain *repel* the test charge away from the plain to some degree. The centering force is reduced. There are still channels of confinement, but the field magnitudes in every channel is reduced with the increasing adding of charges. As the number of channels is increased, the field strength in each channel is reduced. However, understanding this slight reduction is only half the intuition problem. The fact that the channel strengh is reduced does not in itself guarantee that it goes to zero. In fact, I think as long as the number of points if finite, as you add more charge points, each with fixed charge Q, there will always exist channels of confinement and repelling channels. What was surprising to me was the comparatively large magnitude of the fields in these channels when the uniformity of the distribution is only fraction of a percent off. This was not intuitive to me. But let's get on with finding out why this analogy fails in the limit ... > >Why? Construct two planes parallel to the plane centered between the >charges and cutting the centers of the charges, and insert a charge >anywhere in the region bounded by the outer planes. What do you think >will happen? I think the inserted charge will be repelled by the charge >closest to it until it crosses the central plane, then be repelled by >the particle now closest to it and will thereafter be shepherded by both >charges until its oscillations are damped to the point where it can be >effectively considered to be confined to the central plane. Let's ignore the details about the above and assume it is completely correct with the caveat's I already noted above. > >Of course no analogy is perfect, but that's what mine was about. I think this analogy is very good except for consideration of charge dilution. To meet the criteria of the original problem we must assume that a fixed charge is distributed around the sphere. We have a charge density Q/A = rho. We have a fixed charge on the spherical shell, and a fixed area A in which the charge is (or in our case is to be) distributed. Note that we can not assume an infinite charge density, or we have a discontinuity, and all logic it would seem falls apart - but we can deal with that also by solving finite rho and then summing on finite rho's to infinity. I think what you have intuitively shown is that when the charge Q is distributed around a finite number of points, there will be volumes containing confining fields separated by volumes of repelling fields. These volumes are in the form of "channels". The maximum field strength in these channels is diluted by the fact the charges are separated from each other by distance 2*r, and by the fact that addition of more charge Q around the sphere adds more channels but reduces the fields in each of the channels. There is one other major dilution factor to considered. In your analogy, you keep adding more point charges. This is a false analogy in that the final charge Q aroud the sphere must be Q, a fixed value. As you add charge points in your scenario, the charge in Q_i each point must be diminshed. This is an error I made and then discovered and corrected between runs 2, and runs 3 of Qball. Runs 1-2 keep adding charge as the number of points is increased. Runs 3-5 in effect keep the total charge on the sphere constant. In runs 3-5 you can clearly see the field intensity drop across the entire sphere interior as the number of points goes up, the average charge separation distance goes down. Now to try to see if we can intuit why the field intensites go to zero as the number of charge location points goes to infinity. Let's imagine an initial state of N charge points spread around sphere in an approximately grid like fashion (this is technically not feasible on a sphere, but we are only approximating, and in fact the Qball program roughly does this, except the "rectangles" are mostly parallelograms.) The maximum field stength in any channel is Emax. The charge Q_i distributed at each point is Q/N. At each step j that follows, we double the number of points to 2*N, and distribute the new points in the centers of the old rectangles (or parallelograms.) We have thus doubled the number of channels and very slightly reduced the channel fields. However, we must now divide all the field strengths by 2. Emax_j <= Emax_(j-1)/2. Therefore E_max -> 0 as j-> inf. That division of charge at each point by 2 must be done to make the final total charge distributed around the sphere constant at Q. At each step j, we diminish the channel field strength by (1/2)^j. Since lim j->0 (1/2)^j = 0, the channel field strengths all go to zero. Now let's attempt to look at your initial problem of the bubble universe and an infinitely dense surrounding. The confinement force is now an expansion force, due to gravity being attractive, but all else is really the same, except for dealing with the infinite nature of the infinitely dense volume outside the bubble. To begin this we can examine a single shell, but only a finite portion of mass m in the shell, uniformly distributed. This gives us a finite mass density in the shell. Such a shell has zero force inside it, as we saw earier. We can now sum (integrate) an infinite number of such shells, all of the same fixed radius, each having mass m, so that the total mass in the resulting shell is infinite. Since the force of each shell everywhere is zero, the same is true of the final infinite sum. We can then sum (integrate) the shells at every radius r, with r-> inf. Since the force inside every shell is everywhere zero, this must be true inthe final sum. There is thus no force of gravity exerted by the external volume on the universe. Of ourse one tiny change in density out in that infinitely dense volume ... Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 12:50:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA25048; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:49:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:49:33 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619152107.02cfc9a0 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:49:11 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Shamoo echoes Rennie In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030618173353.0265b070 pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"tE44l2.0.376.CFXy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50938 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote about John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American: >Either he is pretending to be ignorant . . . or he really is grossly >ignorant of basic science. So ignorant, he cannot judge 19th-century >calorimetry and he would fail my daughters' junior high school science >courses. Of course he knows a terrific amount about some advanced theories >and some highly detailed physics -- way more than I know. Anyone can see >from his articles. But evidently there are large gaps in his knowledge. After thinking it over, I have decided that is not fair to Rennie. He is smart and technically competent. If he were to read the cold fusion papers I am sure he could understand the 19th-century calorimetry, along with the 20th-century spectroscopy. The thing is, he chooses not to read them. He seems to believe it would be inappropriate -- almost unseemly -- for him to read original scientific papers, or observe experiments firsthand, or talk to CF researchers. He feels that his role is to gather opinions from experts and transmit them to the public. He wants these opinions transmitted in pure form, unsullied by his own personal opinions, knowledge or experience. Any knowledge would be a bias, in his estimation. A generation ago this would have been considered a peculiar attitude for an editor, or for any other expert in a scientific or academic discipline. People were expected to master a subject before discussing it, editing papers on it, or expressing opinions about it. Not only does Rennie believe in this new standard, some of the lukewarm supporters of cold fusion go along with it. Adil Shamoo, the editor of Accountability and Research, wrote: "The process of educating myself about the [cold fusion] controversy lead me to reading the three major books about the subject, a large number of newspaper reports, and, most importantly, over sixty original papers on the subject. I do not claim that I follow the logic of the physics and mathematics in all the papers. However, I can follow the fundamentals. I am originally a physicist. I am still not making any judgement concerning the validity of the cold fusion claims. But, I found that not only was the process of scientific research not adequately resolved by the various individuals who claimed positive and negative results, a potentially much more rudimentary breakdown in the process seems to have taken place: information about the initial claims and subsequent work has not been made available to the wider scientific community." Frankly, I find this preposterous. I do not see how a person trained as a physicist could read three books and 60 papers and still not reach a firm conclusion one way or the other about research that is based on 19th-century calorimetry. Ed Storms agrees with me that Shamoo is being unreasonable. Shamoo is saying that a problem has occurred because experts are not doing their job. It is up to them to resolve this issue and then tell the public -- and Shamoo himself -- what the answers are. It has not occurred to him that this is everyone's job, and that anyone trained in physics who reads 60 papers has a moral and professional obligation to reach a conclusion (if he can), and then to see to it that this conclusion is fairly represented and that it prevails in debates. Shamoo reminds me of voters who complain that politicians are corrupt, and that "someone should stop them." In a democracy it is your job to understand the issues, reach conclusions, and to hire and fire political leaders. When they do a bad job *you* are responsible, not some far-away expert. I do not understand where this "hands-off, experts only" standard originated, but seems to me it is connected to our modern lifestyle, in which people have little connection to the physical world, and they seldom do work, build things, or come in direct contact with nature or machinery. In ancient times elite classes of people such as the Mandarins never did manual labor. They became similarly disconnected from the real world. Nowadays, the broad mass of humanity has many diseases that once affected only the elite, such as obesity, allergies (which apparently are caused by people *not* being exposed to animal hair early in life), inability to light fires or cut melons, and no ability to think for oneself. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 14:30:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA09025; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:29:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:29:06 -0700 From: John Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:27:05 -0500 Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc. Message-ID: <2274fvcj3i8tvvg67ba2bi549te6kdhcfa 4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) 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 OAA08951 Resent-Message-ID: <"_qzVQ2.0.vC2.XiYy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50939 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:27:24 -0800, you wrote: >Of ourse one tiny change in density out in that infinitely dense volume ... --- Say, another bubble? -- John Fields From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 19 17:25:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA18625; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:24:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:24:36 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:28:53 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator Resent-Message-ID: <"2WkN7.0.xY4.4Hby-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50940 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:27 PM 6/19/3, John Fields wrote: >On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:27:24 -0800, you wrote: > > >>Of ourse one tiny change in density out in that infinitely dense volume ... > >--- >Say, another bubble? > >-- >John Fields Yep, any other bubble of any size in an infinitely dense universe would collapse ours. Not likely one would form, though, because that would require an infinite energy. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 20 17:23:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA07979; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:19:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:19:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3EF3A373.12C1640B ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:14:43 -0700 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Subject: [Fwd: =?iso-8859-1?Q?WHAT=92S?= NEW Friday, 20 Jun 03] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tS1ly3.0.Yy1.5Iwy-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50941 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 Friday, 20 Jun 03 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:39:24 -0400 From: "What's New" Reply-To: opa aps.org To: "What's New" 1. THE HYDROGEN SCAM: THEY STILL HAVEN’T FOUND A HYDROGEN WELL! Far from feeling threatened, energy companies welcome the idea of a hydrogen economy. The main commercial source of hydrogen after all is reforming of fossil fuels, a highly polluting process (WN 31 Jan 03). The media, however, which tends to paint hydrogen as the savior of civilization, was in shock this week over a report in Science pointing out that hydrogen leakage could gobble up ozone faster than CFCs, which we banned. Perhaps, but that’s not the fundamental problem. We’ve been through this before. Eight years ago, the House Science Committee reported out the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995. It called for extracting hydrogen from water by electrolysis, and then using the hydrogen as fuel to generate electricity (WN 31 Mar 95). After the laughter died down, the bill was quietly revised. These days, hydrogen is described by the media as "a clean energy source," proving there is no scam so obvious it can’t be tried again. The hydrogen solution has even been exported to Europe, where the media gushes over it like their American counterparts. Franco Battaglia at the University of Rome put it this way: "You can buy an apple for one euro. If you really want an apple, you might pay five euros. You could even pay a thousand euros, but you would never pay two apples." 2. EMF: POWER LINES IN ITALY CAN STAY WHERE THEY ARE. The Greens had organized a referendum calling for property owners to gain the right to drive power lines off their land, potentially forcing the lines underground at great cost to protect citizens from the awful ravages of EMF exposure. But this week Italians gave it a big yawn, not bothering to vote. Since Italian law requires that more than half of the voting population take part before a referendum can be approved, it all came to nothing. 3. RISING TEMPERATURES: EPA LEAVES OUT SECTION ON CLIMATE-CHANGE. There had been speculation that the Bush administration doctors information to support its policies. It’s no longer speculation. An EPA report on the state of the environment was selectively edited. According to the New York Times, a major section describing the risks we face from rising global temperatures was so mangled by the White House that angry EPA staff decided to delete the entire discussion rather than appear to be selectively reporting science. References to reports of environmental effects of human activity were deleted and a reference to a study funded in part by petroleum interests was inserted. 4. MISSILE DEFENSE: SEA-BASED INTERCEPTOR TEST IS "OFF TARGET." On Wednesday, the Missile Defense Agency conducted an uneventful test of its Aegis interceptor system. Very uneventful; it fell into the Pacific Ocean with no fuss. The test, however, was not a failure; "the intercept was not the primary objective," a spokesman explained,"We just don’t know why it didn’t hit." (Andrew Essin contributed to this week’s WN.) 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. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN You are currently subscribed to whatsnew as: To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to: To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 06:10:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA26635; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 06:08:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 06:08:20 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Message-ID: <11c.23980739.2c25b29d aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:07:41 EDT Subject: I'm prowd of Jed To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11c.23980739.2c25b29d_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10638 Resent-Message-ID: <"E8pfx.0.zV6.3Z5z-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50942 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_11c.23980739.2c25b29d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jed keeps going despite of criticism and years of delay. It will make a difference. I hope the results of his efforts come within our lifetime. Frank Znidarsic --part1_11c.23980739.2c25b29d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jed keeps going despite of criticism and years of dela= y.  It will make a difference.  I hope the results of his efforts=20= come within our lifetime.

Frank Znidarsic --part1_11c.23980739.2c25b29d_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 11:54:17 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA23542; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:52:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:52:11 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:56:28 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Jefimenko, Isomorphism, and Field Unification Resent-Message-ID: <"S2SqC2.0.il5.RbAz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50943 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In establishing his correspondence between gravity and the electromagnetic field, Jefimenko, in *Causality, Electromagnetism, and Gravity*, creates the correspondence of G to -1/(4*Pi*epsilon_g_0) to -mu_0*c^2/(4*Pi). In Jefimenko's text the world of gravity and electromagnetism are maintained as separate worlds, and merely corresponded to each other. Jefimenko thus uses epsilon_0 in the gravity context to mean -1/(4*Pi*G), and mu_0 to mean -4*Pi*G/c^2. He also uses c to mean the speed of propagation of gravity. Here I would like to use the notation epsilon_g_0 to mean the permittivity of space to gravity, mu_g_0 to mean permeability of space to co-gravity, and c-g to mean the speed of gravity propagation. So far there is really no change with the view of Jefimenko, only an extended notation. There are some immediate advantages to this notation, however. First it provides corresponding constants which could have been nicely used in the of EM to gravity correspondences on page 104 of Jefimenko's book: *Causality, Electromagnetism, and Gravity*. Namely we could have the new table: Electric Gravitational q m E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 mu_0 mu_g_0 However, this is still not ideal. We have a problem with signs, as I think did Jefimenko, but which he remedies by place minus signs in the corresponding formulae. The problem lies in the fact that, to maintain the convention that a positive force is repelling, we end up with sign problems between: Fg = G*(m1*m2/r) and Fe = k*(q1*q2/r^2) = (1/(4*Pi*epsilon_0))(q1*q2/r^2) Jefimenko fixes this problem by making his equivalent to epsilon_g_0 negative. Thus, in effect he has the gravitational equivalent to the above: Fg =G*(m1*m2/r) = (-1/(4*Pi*epsilon_g_0))*(m1*m2/r^2) His gravitational permittivity and cogravitational permeability thus end up negative in order to preserve that right sign on force. This eventually causes problems in the correspondences in energy flow, especially with regard to the Poynting vector correspondence: S = (1/mu_0) E x B vs the Jefimenko gravitational version: P = (c^2/(4*Pi*G)) K x g = 1/mu_g_0) K x g (note the reversal) resulting in the energy density in a gravitational wave: U = -1/(4*Pi*G) g^2 = - c^2/(4*Pi*G) K^2, thus U = epsilon_g_0 g^2 = (1/mu_g_0) K^2 This indicates a negative energy density?? It appears to me that there is a handy way out of this lack of true isomorphism. That solution is specify the sign of the mass charge in terms of i = (-1)^(1/2), the imaginary number i. Charge has sign, so why not mass? This then makes the isomorphism complete. We now have epsilon_g_0 = 1/(4*Pi*G) mu_g_0 = 4*Pi*G/(c_g)^2 and all the formulae then exactly correspond, including signs. The disadvantage to this approach is that the imaginary number i must be carried throughout the gravitational field units. Perhaps this is really an unexpected advantage though. Gravitational fields are imaginary, electromagnetic are real. There is then some hidden meaning to this? one is that the two worlds ARE for the most part disconnected. Another obvious meaning is that anti-gravitational matter, if it exists by symmetry, would then carry sign (-i). Perhaps there is another. Charge fields, being real, can never operate on gravitational mass. Gravitational masses, however, at least in pairs, or in the form of simultaneous co-fields g and K, can operate on electromagnetic fields. Perhaps, and only perhaps, electromagnetism can operate on the energy or energy flux in gravitational waves? We thus have move a step toward field unification? There is another step toward field unification in Jefimenko's book. He notes (p. 135 ff.) that to account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, that the speed of propagation of gravity must be about 0.3 c. We thus have c_g = 0.3*c and we know that (c_g)^2 * epsilon_g_0 * mu_0_1 = 1 thus (0.09 c^2) * epsilon_g_0 * mu_0_1 = 1 and we also have mu_0 = (4/0.9)*Pi*G/c^2 We now have the full correspondence: Electric Gravitational q m E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 mu_0 mu_g_0 c c_g where we now (roughly) know epsilon_g_0, mu_g_0, and c_g, and mass is expressed in terms of imaginary units i. J_g is mass current. Mass everywhere in relativistic cases is the relativistic mass m*gamma. We now have a true isomorphism and possibly some new implied connection, as well as disconnection, between the two fields, a step toward a theory of electro-gravity. We also now have as fundamental constants: c_g = 8.99x10^7 m/s epsilon_g_0 = 1.192602x10^9 kg s^2/m^3 mu_g_0 = 1.037x10^-25 m/kg These are small differences, really consisting only in form and sign, but perhaps meaningful in some way. We might have an implication: q = (+-1)(q_e/m_e)*i*m/gamma where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5, m/gamma = rest mass, and m is in units of kg*i, where i is the square root of - 1. This is consistent with the notion that hadrons consist of fast moving but sometimes balanced charges, and further ties together the two worlds. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 15:49:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA21490; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:28 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:51:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Jefimenko, Isomorphism, and Field Unification Resent-Message-ID: <"1bsDq2.0.cF5._1Ez-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50944 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This post is only intended to clean up some typos and to make some clarifications. Jefimenko, Isomorphism, and Field Unification In establishing his correspondence between gravity and the electromagnetic field, Jefimenko, in *Causality, Electromagnetism, and Gravity*, creates the correspondence of G to -1/(4*Pi*epsilon_0) to -mu_0*c^2/(4*Pi). In Jefimenko's text the world of gravity and electromagnetism are maintained as separate worlds, and merely corresponded to each other. Jefimenko thus uses epsilon_0 in the gravity context to mean -1/(4*Pi*G), and mu_0 to mean (-4)*Pi*G/c^2. He also uses c to mean the speed of propagation of gravity. It is left to the reader to distinguish which is which by the context. Here I would like to use the notation epsilon_g_0 to mean the permittivity of space to gravity, mu_g_0 to mean permeability of space to co-gravity, and c_g to mean the speed of gravity propagation. So far there is really no change with the view of Jefimenko, only an extended notation. There are some immediate advantages to this notation, however. First it provides constants which could have been nicely used in Table 6-1, the "Corresponding Electromagnetic an Gravitational Symbols and Constants" table on page 104 of Jefimenko's book: *Causality, Electromagnetism, and Gravity*. We could thus have the new table: Electric Gravitational q m E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 mu_0 mu_g_0 However, this is still not ideal. We have a problem with signs, as I think did Jefimenko, but which he remedies by placing minus signs in the corresponding formulae. The problem lies in the fact that, to maintain the convention that a positive force is repelling, we end up with sign problems between the force equations: Fg = G*(m1*m2/r) and Fe = k*(q1*q2/r^2) = (1/(4*Pi*epsilon_0))(q1*q2/r^2) Jefimenko fixes this problem by making his equivalent to epsilon_g_0 negative. Thus, in effect he has the gravitational equivalent to the above: Fg =G*(m1*m2/r) = (-1/(4*Pi*epsilon_g_0))*(m1*m2/r^2) His gravitational permittivity and co-gravitational permeability thus end up negative in order to preserve the correct sign on force. This eventually causes problems in the correspondences in energy flow, especially with regard to the Poynting vector correspondence: S = (1/mu_0) E x B vs the Jefimenko gravitational version: P = (c^2/(4*Pi*G)) K x g = 1/mu_g_0) K x g (note the K, g reversal) resulting in the energy density in a gravitational wave: U = -1/(4*Pi*G) g^2 = - c^2/(4*Pi*G) K^2, thus U = epsilon_g_0 g^2 = (1/mu_g_0) K^2 This indicates a negative energy density?? It appears to me that there is a handy way out of this lack of true isomorphism. That solution is to specify the "sign component" of the mass charge in terms of i = (-1)^(1/2), the imaginary number i. Charge has a sign component (+-1), so why not mass? This then makes the isomorphism complete. We now have epsilon_g_0 = 1/(4*Pi*G) mu_g_0 = 4*Pi*G/(c_g)^2 and all the formulae now exactly correspond, including signs. The disadvantage to this approach is that the imaginary number i must be carried throughout the gravitational field units as a factor. Perhaps this is really an unexpected advantage though. Gravitational fields are imaginary, electromagnetic fields are real. There is then some hidden meaning to this? One is that the two worlds ARE for the most part disconnected. Another obvious meaning is that anti-gravitational matter, if it exists by symmetry, would then carry sign (-i). Perhaps there is another. Charge fields, being real, can never operate on gravitational mass, or directly on g or K. Gravitational masses, however, at least in pairs, or in the form of simultaneous co-fields g and K, can operate on electromagnetic fields, or are at least not prevented from doing so since their product is not imaginary, but rather real. We thus have yet another reason to think that gravitons do not respond to gravity, while photons respond to gravity. Perhaps, and only perhaps, electromagnetism can somehow operate on the energy or energy flux in gravitational waves? Perhaps this notation has moved us one small step toward field unification? There is another step toward field unification in Jefimenko's book. He notes (p. 135 ff.) that to account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, that the speed of propagation of gravity must be about 0.3 c. We thus have c_g = 0.3*c and we know that: (c_g)^2 * epsilon_g_0 * mu_0_1 = 1 thus: (0.09 c^2) * epsilon_g_0 * mu_0_1 = 1 and we also have: mu_0 = (4/0.9)*Pi*G/c^2 We now have the full correspondence for Table 6-1: Electric Gravitational q m E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 mu_0 mu_g_0 c c_g where we now (roughly) know epsilon_g_0, mu_g_0, and c_g, and mass is expressed in terms of imaginary units i. J_g is mass current. Mass everywhere in relativistic cases is the relativistic mass m*gamma. We now have a true isomorphism and possibly some new implied connection, as well as disconnection, between the two fields, a step toward a theory of electro-gravity. We also now have as fundamental constants: c_g = 8.99x10^7 m/s epsilon_g_0 = 1.192602x10^9 kg s^2/m^3 mu_g_0 = 1.037x10^-25 m/kg These are small differences, really consisting only in form and sign, but perhaps meaningful in some way, as noted above. We might further be able to assume the implication: q = (+-1)(q_e/m_e)*i*m/gamma where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5, m/gamma = rest mass, and m is in units of kg*i, where i is the square root of - 1. This is consistent with the notion that hadrons consist of fast moving but sometimes balanced charges, and further ties together the two worlds, by relating mass and charge within the scope of this notation. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 17:05:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA25236; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:31 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:02:45 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Jefimenko, Isomorphism, and Field Unification MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2DD7DD4E.7AE32B57.0AB10C99 aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uBBTy1.0.EA6.I9Fz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50945 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I also worked out the electromagnetic analogy to gravity. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html enjoy Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 17:11:11 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA28891; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:09:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:09:14 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:08:37 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Jefimenko, Isomorphism, and Field Unification MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <70B6483E.7CEA5387.0AB10C99 aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"x4RpT1.0.G37.fEFz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50946 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I also worked out an electromagnetic analoy to gravity. I gave the wrong chapter in my alst post. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter6.html enjoy Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 21 21:46:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA08107; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:44:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:44:22 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:48:44 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Jefimenko, Isomorphism, and Field Unification Resent-Message-ID: <"ahjcH2.0.X-1.bGJz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50947 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:08 PM 6/21/3, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: >I also worked out an electromagnetic analoy to gravity. >I gave the wrong chapter in my alst post. > >http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter6.html > The results certainly seem different. Isn't that true? Perhaps testably different? Jefimenko's version of EM fully accounts for causality, i.e. the fact the a cause at a distance d can not preceed the effect by time delta t which is less than d/c (or d/c_g in the case of gravity.) My suggestion takes the last tiny step to obtain an absolutely complete isomorphism between gravitational theory and electromagnetism, especially between Jefimenko's "causal" electromagnetism and a causal gravitational theory. The brilliance of Jefimenko's analogy was the invention of the co-gravitational field K, analagous to B, which makes the full isomorphism possible. Even more brilliant was Jefimenko's demonstation that B, and thus K, are merely computed quantities, secondary quantities that necessarily follow from the only true causes, the interaction of charge upon charge or mass upon mass. This provides strong evidence for the "real" existence of K, as "real" as B, i.e. that an (apparent) K can be observed experimentally to the same extent B can, though it is much more difficult to observe due to the extreme orders of magnitude involved. In other words, if the causal electromagnetism is correct, then the causal gravity is also necessarily correct. The isomorphism holds by necessity because the full set of postulates have already been experimentally verified. However, if it turns out that causal electromagnetism is incorrect, and B exists in a real sense, then it does not follow that K can (any longer) be assumed to exist on the basis that it is merely a computed quantity, like energy. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 01:09:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA17460; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:07:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:07:34 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:11:52 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Resent-Message-ID: <"ypUUq2.0.eG4.5FMz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50948 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Any theory of electromagnetism, including electromagnetism within the framework of relativity, can be used to create an isomorphism between electromagnetism and gravity, provided B is not real in the sense it is simply a byproduct of the other laws of the electromagnetic theory. Jefimenko showed that the law of causality, if postulated, ensures that B meets this criteria. The subject isomorphism is established by first measuring the rate of propagation of gravity, c_g. We then can compute the permeability of space to co-gravity: mu_g_0 = 4*Pi*G/(c_g)^2 and the permittivity of space to gravity: epsilon_g_0 = 1/(4*Pi*G). We now establish the isomorphism by applying the following rules to every electromagnetic law in order to obtain corresponding gravitational laws. Replace c, mu_0 and epsilon_0 with corresponding terms above. Co-gravity K is defined as the gravitational equivalent to (corresponds under the isomorphism to) B, the magnetic field intensity. Gravity g is defined as the gravitational equivalent of the electrostatic field E. Wherever charge is used, mass is substituted, with the sign of the charge removed. Wherever mass is used in either electromagnetic or gravitational laws, including where a substitution for charge has occurred when forming a gravitational law, the units of kg are replaced by the units i*kg, where i is the square root of -1. J_g is the mass current vector corresponding to current density vector J. We have thus established the following correspondences (substitutions): Electric Gravitational q m c c_g E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 mu_0 mu_g_0 Any other electromagnetic law variables that need distinguishing when the law is converted to a gravitational law may be replaced by adding a "g" subscript. Every electromagnetic law thus has an exact gravitational counterpart which is also valid. The isomorphism is complete. Note that both sets of laws are modified to create this isomorphism. If we can then establish a concrete and inviolable relation between charge and mass, we not only have a complete isomorphism, but the basis for a unified field theory. Such a correspondence might look something like: q = (+-1)(q_e/m_e)*i*m/gamma where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5, m/gamma = rest mass, and m is in units of kg*i, where i is the square root of - 1. Any terms having a factor i are imaginary and thus relate to gravitational fields, mass, or inertia. Other terms relate to electromagnetic fields or charges. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 13:21:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA27469; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:01 -0700 X-Sender: hheffner mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:23:24 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Resent-Message-ID: <"WgyE11.0._i6.qyWz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50949 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Eureka! The isomrphism previously described in this thread, which works for both Jefimenko's verison of the universe and more conventional views, leads to an immediate and glaring paradoxical relation between the "imaginary" world of mass and inertia, and the world of electromagnetism. We would expect any imaginary term to be non-related and non-relatable to any real term. However, the force of inertia itself, F = m*a, can be balanced against electromagnetic forces. It must therefore be a real force. However, in the above Newtonian form, as reformulated in the isomorphism, the force is imaginary, because the m is unbalanced by any other m. An obvious possible conclusion: this law is fundamentally wrong! It is merely a correlation. Inirtia must in fact be an electromagnetc force. The inertia must result from the interaction of circulating charges, which constitute all mass, whether their existence is hidden or not, with the vacuum itself. It is therefore reasonable to expect to be able to build an inertial drive. This would not be a gravity drive, as gravity and inertia are now clearly in separate worlds. Such drive must involve changes in charge circulation correlated with repetitive cycles of motion. It might take the form of a rotating arm with circuits at the two ends that oscillate in harmony with the rotation of the arm. Such a drive would not in a universal sense violate the laws of conservation of momentum or of energy. The missing counterparts of these in our physical world would exist within the vacuum. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 14:01:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA11998; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:59:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:59:43 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:20:04 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"XJTk91.0.Ox2.-YXz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50950 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Horace. Oddly enough, I've been reading Jefimenko's book for the past few months, although I'm focused on the first part and not the second. But a few words about the second... He's a bright guy, that Oleg. Although the notion of applying the apparatus of electromagnetic theory to gravitation has been around since the time of Heaviside, he was the first person to my knowledge to really develop the idea in an academic sense. Like you, I bought the book expecting that he would attempt to unify the two, but really he only expounds on the analogy. But what an intriguing analogy! I understand the importance of unification to the theorists, but as an experimentalist I find it more convenient to define "unify" as a system where both gravity and electromagnetics can interact. If it is true ( and it seems so ) that the cogravitational field exists, then the natural place to look for effects are in the atom. Gross physical experiments ( like weighing gyros ) seem far too crude to measure the tiny forces involved, but it would seem more likely that you could get spin aligned atoms to produce a palpable effect. The problem, as you point out, is that the speed of gravity is just too damn fast for reasonable size forces to develop out of benchtop experiments with masses. .3C is in the right direction, but still too fast to account for what little evidence there is of mass anomalies with large gyros. What is needed is a material which is either cogravitationally permeable, or gravitationally permittive. Then we can begin to engineer with this set of concepts. Henry Wallace attempted to demonstrate such materials in his patents US3823570 US3626606 US3626605 and it remains to be seen whether this experimental work is replicable. But it strikes me as the right direction to go, given that this analogy is correct and spinning masses can create cogravitational fields. BTW Wallace calls this field kinemassic, which I think is better terminology than cogravitation. ( As we don't call the magnetic field the coelectric field, huh? ). K. -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheffner mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:12 AM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Any theory of electromagnetism, including electromagnetism within the framework of relativity, can be used to create an isomorphism between electromagnetism and gravity, provided B is not real in the sense it is simply a byproduct of the other laws of the electromagnetic theory. Jefimenko showed that the law of causality, if postulated, ensures that B meets this criteria. The subject isomorphism is established by first measuring the rate of propagation of gravity, c_g. We then can compute the permeability of space to co-gravity: mu_g_0 = 4*Pi*G/(c_g)^2 and the permittivity of space to gravity: epsilon_g_0 = 1/(4*Pi*G). We now establish the isomorphism by applying the following rules to every electromagnetic law in order to obtain corresponding gravitational laws. Replace c, mu_0 and epsilon_0 with corresponding terms above. Co-gravity K is defined as the gravitational equivalent to (corresponds under the isomorphism to) B, the magnetic field intensity. Gravity g is defined as the gravitational equivalent of the electrostatic field E. Wherever charge is used, mass is substituted, with the sign of the charge removed. Wherever mass is used in either electromagnetic or gravitational laws, including where a substitution for charge has occurred when forming a gravitational law, the units of kg are replaced by the units i*kg, where i is the square root of -1. J_g is the mass current vector corresponding to current density vector J. We have thus established the following correspondences (substitutions): Electric Gravitational q m c c_g E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 mu_0 mu_g_0 Any other electromagnetic law variables that need distinguishing when the law is converted to a gravitational law may be replaced by adding a "g" subscript. Every electromagnetic law thus has an exact gravitational counterpart which is also valid. The isomorphism is complete. Note that both sets of laws are modified to create this isomorphism. If we can then establish a concrete and inviolable relation between charge and mass, we not only have a complete isomorphism, but the basis for a unified field theory. Such a correspondence might look something like: q = (+-1)(q_e/m_e)*i*m/gamma where gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5, m/gamma = rest mass, and m is in units of kg*i, where i is the square root of - 1. Any terms having a factor i are imaginary and thus relate to gravitational fields, mass, or inertia. Other terms relate to electromagnetic fields or charges. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 14:21:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA24785; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:19:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:19:39 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3EF60E26.3DCB55A9 centurytel.net> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:14:30 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xh" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xh" Resent-Message-ID: <"-uxmH2.0.536.grXz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50951 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace wrote: Inirtia must in fact be an electromagnetc force. Hi Horace, Fascinating. How does this relate to your statement that centrifugal force is the force of inertia? Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 18:34:52 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA31952; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:32:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:32:09 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <6e.2f494e79.2c27b273 aol.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:31:31 EDT Subject: Electron-Cloud Aeroshell Drag Negation - Patent Number 03823570 To: plasmajet smartgroups.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6e.2f494e79.2c27b273_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"lv-6t3.0.4p7.PYbz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50952 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_6e.2f494e79.2c27b273_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patent Number: 03823570, Heat Pump, Henry W. Wallace =A0-" A method of=20 transferring heat which comprises effecting rapid rotary motion of a body of= spin=20 nuclei material to generate a kinemassic force field, causing said force fie= ld to=20 interact with a relatively stationary body of spin nuclei material forming=20 with said rotating body a closed circuit for said field, and moving through=20= the=20 vicinity of said relatively stationary body a heat transfer means comprising= =20 spin nuclei material, whereby the specific hat of said heat transfer means i= s=20 altered to accomplish useful work. " =20 The above patent shows how to create a kinemassic force field around a space= =20 ship to transfer heat and friction around the space ship by means of a=20 subatomic heat pump which transfers heat by means of changing the subatomic= spin=20 properties of the space craft elements and gas around the craft to allow it=20= to=20 travel through air or other gasses without heat friction. The heat pump ca= n be=20 made by using radio and light laser waves which generate a series of=20 frequencies, circuits, and air ducts and alternating air pressures in the ai= r or gas=20 around the ship to create a kinemassic heat pump force field described in t= he=20 above patent around the space ship. The above patent uses a resonating=20 frequency of 1,234 cps to generate a kinemassic force which converts nuclear= spin=20 energies and heat energies to change the subatomic matrix to pump heat and i= t=20 also uses a rotating electrostatic force between 30,000 and 100,000 RPM=20 depending on the material elements and its spin properties and air pressure=20= in a=20 vortex to modify and change the properties of the subatomic particles and ma= trix=20 of the elements.=20 Where the above patent uses gears and air ducts to create a kinesmassic forc= e=20 and heat pump, a set of lasers and radio waves can also create the same=20 kinemassic forces and frequencies, pressures, circuits, and air ducts around= the=20 outside of ship to modify the subatomic matrix of the metal of the ship to p= ump=20 out heat to avoid heat friction depending on the gas type and pressures=20 around the ship and the elements of the metal of the ship. Nuclear magnetic= spin=20 properties of the particles of all elements are know and may be associated w= ith=20 the proper frequency range between 30,000 and 100,000 rpms to change and=20 resonate with the matrix of the element to transfer and pump out heat.=20 Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om --part1_6e.2f494e79.2c27b273_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patent Number: 03823570, Heat Pump, Henry W. Wallace= =A0-" A method of transferring heat which comprises effec= ting rapid rotary motion of a body of spin nuclei material to generate a kin= emassic force field, causing said force field to interact with a relatively=20= stationary body of spin nuclei material forming with said rotating body a cl= osed circuit for said field, and moving through the vicinity of said relativ= ely stationary body a heat transfer means comprising spin nuclei material, w= hereby the specific hat of said heat transfer means is altered to accomplish= useful work. " 

The above patent shows how to create a kinemassic force field around a space= ship to transfer heat and friction around the space ship by means of a suba= tomic heat pump which transfers heat by means of changing  the subatomi= c spin properties of the space craft elements and gas around the craft to al= low it to travel through air or other gasses without heat friction. &nb= sp; The heat pump can be made by using radio and light laser waves which gen= erate a series of frequencies, circuits, and air ducts and alternating air p= ressures in the air or gas around the ship  to create a kinemassic heat= pump force field described in the above patent around the space ship. =    The above patent uses a resonating frequency of 1,234 cps to ge= nerate a kinemassic force which converts nuclear spin energies and heat ener= gies to change the subatomic matrix to pump heat and it also uses a rotating= electrostatic force between 30,000 and 100,000 RPM depending on the materia= l elements and its spin properties and air pressure in a vortex to modify an= d change the properties of the subatomic particles and matrix of the element= s.

Where the above patent uses gears and air ducts to create a kinesmassic forc= e and heat pump, a set of lasers and radio waves can also create the same ki= nemassic forces and frequencies, pressures, circuits, and air ducts around t= he outside of ship to modify the subatomic matrix of the metal of the ship t= o pump out heat to avoid heat friction depending on the gas type and  p= ressures around the ship and the elements of the metal of the ship.  Nu= clear magnetic spin properties of the particles of all elements are know and= may be associated with the proper frequency range between 30,000 and 100,00= 0 rpms  to change and resonate with the matrix of the element to transf= er and pump out heat.

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om

 --part1_6e.2f494e79.2c27b273_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 22 20:34:38 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA01103; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:32:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:32:24 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <77.13bf2f13.2c27cea3 aol.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:31:47 EDT Subject: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance of Hydrogen Spectra, NMR Basics, & Electrolysis To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: ConexTom aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_77.13bf2f13.2c27cea3_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"VLNc53.0.7H.7Jdz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50953 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_77.13bf2f13.2c27cea3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Below are links to the nuclear magnetic resonance properties of hydrogen and the basics of NMR. Such NMR images and properties can be used to change the NMR image of hydrogen and water in electrolysis to make electrolysis more efficient by simply sensing the electrolysis water with an NMR Radio Frequency probe and then sending a response NMR radio frequency image of the ideal hydrogen and water NMR matrix properties and NMR differences to maximize the electrolysis and conversion of energy in hydrogen and water electrolysis. A simple computer chip which contains the NMR data of water and hydrogen electrolysis connected to a series of magnetic coils to sense the NMR of the water hydrogen electrolysis can send back an NMR radio frequency pulse of the ideal NMR electrolysis parameters needed to break the bonding energies in an electrolysis event to create over unity. http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/inside.htm http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/inside.htm 1-D Hydrogen Spectra There are several parameters, in addition to the ones already discussed in this chapter, which must be set before a spectrum can be recorded. These include the width of the spectrum, number of data points in the spectrum, and the receiver gain. Some of these are automatically set to default values on some spectrometers. You are encouraged to refer to Chapter 5 for a deeper appreciation of the significance of these parameters. Once an FID is recorded and Fourier transformed, the resultant spectrum must be phased so that all the absorption lines are positive. You are encouraged to review Chapter 5 for an explanation of the need to phase correcting a spectrum. There are various automatic and manual phase correction algorithms on most NMR spectrometers.Here are a few examples of simple hydrogen NMR spectra to demonstrate the capabilities of NMR spectroscopy. As you become more knowledgeable about NMR, you will learn the relationship between peak locations, peak splitting, and molecular structure in NMR spectra. MoleculeFormulaSolventSpectrum cyclohexaneC6H12CDCl3 benzeneC6H6CDCl3 tolueneC6H5CH3CDCl3 ethyl benzeneC6H5CH2CH3 CDCl3 acetoneCH3(C=O)CH3CDCl3 methyl ethyl ketoneCH3(C=O)CH2CH3CDCl3 waterH2O D2O ethanolCH3CH2OHCDCl3 ethanolCH3CH2OH D2O 1-propanolCH3CH2CH2OH CDCl3 2-propanol(CH3)2CHOH CDCl3 t-butanol(CH3)3COH CDCl3 2-butanolCH3CH2CH(OH)CH3CDCl3 pyridineC5H5NCDCl3 For example, consider the hydrogen NMR spectrum from three coupled nuclei A, B, and C with the following chemical shifts and J coupling constants. Nuclei (ppm) A 1.89 B 2.00 C 2.08 InteractionJ (Hz) AB 4 BC 8 Compare the 100 MHz and 400 MHz NMR spectra. The spectral lines from the B type spins are colored red. You can see how easy it would be to make the wrong choice as to the structure of the molecule based on the 100 MHz spectrum, although the chance of error might be reduced if you had further information, eg. the relative areas under the peaks. This topic is described in a later section of this chapter. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com --part1_77.13bf2f13.2c27cea3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Below are links to the nuclear magnetic resonance prop= erties of hydrogen and the basics of NMR.  Such NMR images and properti= es can be used to change the NMR image of hydrogen and water in electrolysis= to make electrolysis more efficient by simply sensing the electrolysis wate= r with an NMR Radio Frequency probe and then sending a response NMR radio fr= equency image of the ideal hydrogen and water NMR matrix properties and NMR=20= differences to maximize the electrolysis and conversion of energy in hydroge= n and water electrolysis.  A simple computer chip which contains the NM= R data of water and hydrogen electrolysis connected to a series of magnetic=20= coils to sense the NMR of the water hydrogen electrolysis can send back an N= MR radio frequency pulse of the ideal NMR electrolysis parameters needed to=20= break the bonding energies in an electrolysis event to create over unity.
http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/inside.htm

http://www.cis.rit.edu/htbooks/nmr/inside.htm

1-D Hydrogen Spectra

There are several parameters, in addition to the ones already discussed in t= his chapter, which must be set before a spectrum can be recorded. These incl= ude the width of the spectrum, number of data points in the spectrum, and th= e receiver gain. Some of these are automatically set to default values on so= me spectrometers. You are encouraged to refer to Chapter 5 for a deeper appreciatio= n of the significance of these parameters. Once an FID is recorded and Fouri= er transformed, the resultant spectrum must be phased so that all the absorp= tion lines are positive. You are encouraged to review Chapter 5 for an explanat= ion of the need to phase correcting a spectrum. There are various automatic=20= and manual phase correction algorithms on most NMR spectrometers.Here are a=20= few examples of simple hydrogen NMR spectra to demonstrate the capabilities=20= of NMR spectroscopy. As you become more knowledgeable about NMR, you will le= arn the relationship between peak locations, peak splitting, and molecular s= tructure in NMR spectra.

MoleculeFormulaSolventSpectrum cyclohexaneC6H12CDCl3

benzeneC6H6CDCl3


tolueneC6H5CH3CDCl3


ethyl benzeneC6H5CH2CH3 CDCl3


acetoneCH3(C=3DO)CH3CDCl3


methyl ethyl ketoneCH3(C=3DO)CH2CH3CDCl3


waterH2O D2O=


ethanolCH3CH= 2OHCDCl3


ethanolCH3CH= 2OH D2O


1-propanolCH= 3CH2CH2OH CDCl3


2-propanol(C= H3)2CHOH CDCl3


t-butanol(CH= 3)3COH CDCl3


2-butanolCH3= CH2CH(OH)CH3CDCl3


pyridineC5H5= NCDCl3





For example, consider the hydrogen NMR spectrum from three coupled nuclei A,= B, and C with the following chemical shifts and J coupling constants.

Nuclei (ppm)
A


1.89


B


2.00


C


2.08


InteractionJ (Hz)

AB


4


BC


8



Compare the 100 MHz and 400 MHz NMR spectra. The spectral lines from the B type spins are=20= colored red. You can see how easy it would be to make the wrong choice as to= the structure of the molecule based on the 100 MHz spectrum, although the c= hance of error might be reduced if you had further information, eg. the rela= tive areas under the peaks. This topic is described in a later section of th= is chapter.

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om





=

=

--part1_77.13bf2f13.2c27cea3_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 00:01:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA21111; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:00:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:00:36 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:04:53 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Resent-Message-ID: <"9cO8Z.0.i95.JMgz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50954 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:14 PM 6/22/3, Taylor J. Smith wrote: >Horace wrote: > >Inirtia must in fact be an electromagnetc force. > >Hi Horace, > >Fascinating. How does this relate to your statement >that centrifugal force is the force of inertia? There is a very strong relation. First, the subject theory provides an indication that the centrifugal force, i.e. inertia, is indeed a real force. Indulge me for a moment now while I take the risk of grinding an old ax, if way prematurely. Due to the possibility the force involves interaction with the rest of the universe, or at least the vacuum itself, the notion that all motion, including angular motion, is relative, is nonsense, as is the notion that a centrifugal force does not exist. Yes, it is true I think despite the fact that pundits from MIT and other prestigious places, who have written books on mechanics that are of highest intellectual quality and barely fathomable, think otherwise. As I have said here a number of times in the past, the proposition that rotation is merely relative I easily prove to myself as bunk by merely spinning around fast in my desk chair. I feel the outward force in my legs, when I rotate relative to the stars and do not when I don't. The notion may be true on a universal basis, but clearly is not on a local basis. There are a number of possible balancing centripital forces, which is the other ingredient required for circular motion and things like orbits. The obvious one is the electrostatic force (even in its masked co-form as magnetism). In this case the force is real because each of the components comprising the force, i.e. each variable multiplied to compute the force, is real. The force of gravity is real because two imaginary components, mass, are multiplied together in the force computation. The electrostatic forces in material bonds are similarly electromagnetic and thus real. For these reasons, we would expect the force of inertia, which balances these forces to also be real. For this reason, we would further expect the strong nuclear force, which counteracts the inertia of the partially charged quarks, to be real also. Another possible source for a centripetal force is mass ejection, i.e using inertia against inertia to create circular motion. A rocket that flies in circles is using this means. In this case we use inertia against inertia, so it is not possible to tell if it is imaginary or real. Now, here is what I think is by far the most intriguing fact. The force of inertia is far greater than any possible exchange of photon energy can provide. When we push on a shopping cart to accelerate it, we get a momentum exchange that would take thousands of watts worth of photons to achieve. When we push an a shopping cart, however, it radiates only in a barely detectable fashion, and little of that is related to its acceleration. So, it seems likely that there there IS a way to grab a foot-hold on the vacuum without radiating. What is the most exciting indication of the subject theory is that this foothold has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity. (At least nothing very obvious. We still have the unanswered questions of why inertial mass and gravity are so closely related and why fields have gravitational mass.) At any rate, the theory leads us in a very clear direction with respect to a space drive. That direction leads in the direction of grabbing a foothold on the vacuum electromagnetically, or possibly in the direction of inertial mass suppression via electromagnetic manipulation. An additional and totally weird possibility remains. That is the possibility of manufacturing mass with negative inertia, or at least matter which contains negative inertial components. This would be very strange matter indeed. The mass would react in an attractive way gravitationally speaking. It would weigh positively on a scale, but its buoyancy in water would indicate one mass and if it were placed on a scale the force experienced by the scale would be less than the mass indicated by the buoyancy. That is because when the scale "pushes" on the mass, its component of mass having negative inertia is caused to also push upward. Such a mass would act very strangely on the end of a pendulum. The pendulum would tend to automatically damp its swing at the ends, and accelerate more in the middle of its swing. Its inertia would not carry it as far forward, but the force or at least acceleration of the non-negative inertial component by gravity would be amplified when it pressed on the negative inertial mass. (I hope I got all that right! Maybe not about the scale part. I need to think that over some more!) Negative inertia mass is a really bizarre and unlikely possibility, but oddly one already considered in a very similar fashion by Paul Hill in *Unconventional Flying Objects*! In Hill's case he assumed though that such a mass might have a negative gravitational force as well. We would not have a clue from the subject theory though as to how to create such matter, as it would not involve electromagnetics. It would be a different kind of matter altogether, having a gravitational charge component of -i. However, a craft consisting of a significant amount of negative inertial mass would be almost equally as good out in space. The most interesting and practical experimental approach (indicated by the subject theory) I think must involve the oscillation or rotation of varying current circuits, especially circuits configured such that they do not radiate significantly. I do not believe significant mass changes are required, especially relativistic mass changes. Long term experimentation makes me predisposed to reject the vanilla ExB Poynting vector approach so often touted. The following I think must be a clue. This was discussed here on vortex at length some years ago. It is this thought experiment. Imagine a couple or three miles long straight and parallel wires carrying current around a loop. The wires go right and left in front of us. At both ends they are connected by a semicircular wire bend with a radius of a few inches. There is no longitudinal force on the long straight segments of wire predicted by EM theory, only a mutually outward force. The mutual force between the semicircular ends of the wire, being a force between two dipoles, and thus a 1/r^4 force, is minuscule. However, if we calculate the rightward force on the rightmost semicircle, we find that it is very large and to the right. It is similarly true that the leftmost semicircle exerts a very large force to the left. The two ends of the circuit, assuming a very large current, exert a very large tensile force on the wires. Let us call this force a self-force. There is no antecedent for this force. It violates Newton's law of equal action and reaction, unless each end of the wire pushes on space itself. Now, unfortunately for we inertial drive engineers, the forces around any circuit balance to zero ... at least for static circuits. However, this is not true necessarily for moving circuit elements. It is true perhaps in Jefimenko's theory, but, if I recall that is true only due to his judicious choice of gauge to make it so, and not an inherent requirement of the theory, or possibly of standard EM as well. One thing is for sure, there seems to be no *causal* explanation for the massive unbalanced forces at the ends of the wires. Using superconductors such forces can easily be made to range into the tons. Suppose instead of a wire we use a coax cable (there is still a massive current bend self-force at the ends). Suppose we could place a massive current pulse in such a wire (it would not have to be superconducting, merely very cold aluminum would do). When the current pulse gets to the right end it produces a very large pulse of momentum. Suppose that the coax is rotating horizontally such that when the pulse gets to the other end of the coax that end is located to the right also. We get another impulse to the right. The device is not radiating. Where does the net inertia come from? Perhaps it somehow comes in the form of potential drop at the current bend ... say, due to the Hall effect potential? I don't think so, in that a reverse potential occurs upon the current exiting the bend. Perhaps momentum is lost due to the fact the pulse flattens out with time and must be restored? One problem, the problem of the wire having to exceed the speed of light, might be taken care of by a pulse delay mechanism in the long straight segments. Such a mechanism might experience a negative momentum pulse (compared to the desired direction) when the current pulse arrives, and should have a counteracting momentum pulse when the current pulse departs. Unfortunately, the delay device would be facing in opposite directions during those two times. Provided this delay impulse is not due to conductor bends, but rather simply due to electron momentum, the slowing and accelerating momentum change forces should be minuscule compared to he self force at the ends, which are giant compared to the centrifugal force due to electron momentums or electron inertia. The problem to overcome in such a pulse delay device, or alternatively pulse generating and absorbing devices, which in tandem create a pulse delay, is to avoid magnetic self-forces which cancel those on the coax ends. I don't know the answer to all these questions, or what exactly is right, but I think there now is a very serious reason to take another look at these questions. I think maybe road signs are now in place, due to power of the field isomorphisms. All we have to do is walk down the road? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 04:55:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA06296; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 04:54:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 04:54:58 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:59:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Resent-Message-ID: <"Rfi1B1.0.IY1.Igkz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50955 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The radial inertial "space drive" design depicted in Fig. 1 has some interesting properties, at least as a thought experiment, with regard to the displacement current D, and other design problems. --------------------------------------------------------- | | |--P--O---------------------------------------------- | | | --------------------------------------------------------- -,| - vacuum filled coaxial shell with central conductor, capacitance of shell is C O - toroidal inductor, L P - AC power supply, tuned to the LC resonant frequency Fig. 1 - Coaxial Inertial Drive This device is intended to be built on a huge scale, perhaps miles in length. The resonant frequency then is so low as to be non-radiative. The skin could then possibly implemented as a super conductor. The principle of the design is that the current bend at the left end is not matched by a current bend on the right. The right end of the coax, in effect, is open ended. The end cap could be left off with very little effect. The energy is alternately stored in the toroidal core inductor, which has no external fields, and in the giant capacitor that the vacuum filled coaxial tube represents, which should also not radiate. It would seem that the effectiveness of the design boils down to the reality of the displacement current D in the vacuum in the coaxial capacitor section, as this is the only thing that can close the circuit and balance the self-force at the left end of the device. It can be shown that we can even include a large bulb in the coax at the inductor and power supply end, as shown in Fig. 2, without affecting the net current self-force there. ------------- | | | --------------------------------------------- |--P--O---------------------------------------------- | | --------------------------------------------- | | ------------- Fig. 1 - Inertial Drive With Bulb End So where is the problem with this drive design? One way to look at this problem is to think that the coaxial vacuum capacitance carries the full current in the form of a magical "displacement current" D which is well defined in the literature. However, as Jefimenko says, the forces from such a displacement current can be fully accounted for by current bends in the capacitor plates. It is not real. However, we now have to account for the current bends within the capacitor plates. There are in fact hidden current bends in the coaxial "capacitor plates." When the capacitor is fully charged, that charge lies on the conductor surface. When the charge flows in the coaxial conductors, it flows in the interior of those conductors. To get to the final resting point on the surface then it must make an inward bend, and those bends create self-forces that oppose the self-force at the left end. The net self-force it would appear, is thus at least mostly wiped out. How can this be fixed? One way might be to make the device very small. Then the resonant frequency would be very high and the current would travel entirely on the surface of the device. Unfortunately, a superconductor could not be used then, but possibly very cold aluminum would work nearly as well, because its conductivity approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero. There is then the problem of refrigeration. Another problem is that the self-force at any moment is proportional to the current squared. A high frequency will drive a lower current. There might also be some problems with external radiation loss. However, we still have the question as to a complete balance of net force. Is there any net force remaining? I am not sure. Consider a simple closed current loop: ------------ | | | I | I | I | I | | ------------ Fig. 3 - Simple closed current loop Consider the portion of the closed loop marked I in Fig. 3. Some force is exerted on that section by the rest of the circuit, and vice versa. If that section is removed, yet the current somehow magically allowed to remain, there would clearly be a net force. Is there then a net imbalance in forces in Fig. 1? All the current bends close, but there is still that open end ... Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 23 15:50:38 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA28875; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:49:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:49:01 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:53:20 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Resent-Message-ID: <"6CVGO3.0.w27.TFuz-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50956 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: COAXIAL CAPACITOR THRUSTER CONCEPT The field isomorphism created in this thread has lead to discussion of a coaxial thruster concept, at least in the context of a thought experiment. This thruster concept as discussed here is more or less closely tied to the ExB concept for generating thrust from the vacuum, thus at the outset there are serious doubts about the prospects for a working implementation. However, the clues given by the isomorphisms of gravity and electromagnetics indicate it may be worth the effort to review the issues that arise when designing a nearly static version of a self-force thruster for experimentation purposes. Examples which may be of use in formulating various designs, and sample calculations which may assist in analyzing various designs, is provided here, with the express hope of encouraging amateur experimentation. Fig. 4 illustrates in yet another way the basic concept behind the coaxial capacitor thruster: Current i diminishes -> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sheath Supply x F1 F5 : Coax x :cap -------- x F6 : | | F9 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Central |Power |xxxxxxxx F11 x F3 conductor |Supply|-----------------------x | |xxxxxxxx F12 x F4 | | F10 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -------- x F7 : x :cap x F2 F8 : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Key: SYMBOL MEANING ---------- --------------------------------------------------------- x cross section of sheet that is rotated about the coax central axis - or | cross section of conductor or metallic encasement Power Large toroidal coil driven in parallel resonance with Supply the coaxial capacitor above Supply Coaxial connection between power supply and coaxial Coax capacitor. May be split so as to supply multiple coaxial capacitors. : Imaginary conductive cap which shorts the plates of the coaxial capacitor. Fig. 4 - Basic Thruster Illustration THRUSTER POWER SUPPLY The thruster power supply is in the following configuration: Primary Power || || L1====xx====== Supply coax current i Key: ||, == coaxial power feeds xx coax T L1 toroidal inductor Fig. 5 - Power Supply Configuration This power supply configuration assures that the self force due to the primary supply are perpendicular to the intended net force of the overall device, due to the bilateral symmetry of the coax T, thus can be ignored with respect to changes in wattage or current provided. The net self-force of the inductor L1 is thus to the left, due to being on the left end of the power supply internal coax, and thus proportional to i^2. The primary supply is controlled so as to maintain the supply coax current i at a constant value. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT Assume the AC current supplied remains constant, and at a specific frequency. There is a self force inside the power supply, which can be assumed to be equal to the cap force for the supply coax. Momentarily assume the shorting cap ":" is in place over the right end of the coax capacitor. We then know the forces all balance, thus the net force from the coax capacitor must be equal to the net force from the power supply, since both are on opposite ends of a straight coax, the supply coax. The supply force plus the self forces at bends F1 - F4 are counteracted exactly by the self forces at F5 - F12, otherwise there is a net force from a closed conductive loop. Now, remove the cap. This removes the self-forces F5 to F8, which are to the right. All the other self-forces remain the same if the current is maintained at the same level. SELF FORCES IN THE STRAIGHT LATERAL CONDUCTORS OF THE CAPACITOR It appears this thought experiment demonstrates that, if the hoped for unbalanced force from this device does not exist, that the canceling force must exist in the long straight sections of the capacitor, because that's all that remains as a possibility. On such source might be in self forces of current bends that occur when the current bends to accumulate on the plate surface. In that case the capacitor plate might be considered having a cross section as shown in Fig. 7. Current i diminishes -> ---------------->--------------------- Outer wall | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |: v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v: : : : : | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |: v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v: -----------------<-------------------- Inner wall Opposing plates of capacitor Key: : cap plate - conductor main body | lateral current segments Fig. 6 - Plate Current Diagram As opposing charges are accumulated on the opposing surfaces of the capacitor plates, they change direction out of the current stream i. The charges leaving at the bottom could be viewed as opposed charges entering. This current bending within the capacitor plates creates a self-force, and also diminishes the current density, because charge deposited to the surface of the plates is no longest in the current stream i. However, the one critical thing that does no happen is diminishing of the inter plate gap width. It is the size of this gap that hopefully result in the net force. Here is a simplified diagram of this concept: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x P1 x ----------- x gap <==== thrust x ----------- x x P2 x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Key: ---- capacitor plate xxxx coil Pi power supply points Fig. 7 - Simplified diagram of concept The net thrust is exerted because the major current circuit is not closed except by the vacuum in the gap. Unfortunately, the above design is the old ExB Poynting vector thruster design, which I believe has been fully discredited. As to exactly why it doesn't work is I think a debatable matter, but a typical argument might focus on the displacement current or on the magnetic field generated between the plates, by the changing E, that in effect closes the gap by maintaining pressure on the leftmost end. Such a cause (argument) for failure, however, can be eliminated by simply increasing he width of the device as shown in Fig. 7, and thus moving the left vertical current segment away from the capacitor. The forces on the gap then come form the horizontal conductors and thus have no corresponding equal but opposite force. More importantly, the self-force manifest in the current bends in the left side of the circuit are then completely unchanged regardless of whether the segment I is in place or not, provided the current is somehow magically continued. RADIATION FORCES Any force due to photon radiation are minimal compared to the suggested net force due to the power limitations. However, such concerns can be further reduced by simple capping the ends of the coax: Current i diminishes -> xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x Supply x F1 x Coax x x -------- x x | | F9 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x |Power |xxxxxxxx F11 x F3 xxxx |Supply|-----------------------x | |xxxxxxxx F12 x F4 xxxx | | F10 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x -------- x x x x x F2 x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxx Fig 8 - Toroidal capacitor with non-shorting cap The cap at the end is insulated so will have a slight capacitive link to the main conductors. However, this should not create a significant current in the cap. Any force between the cap and the main body should be equal but opposite, thus balance. The main purpose of this insulated cap is to reflect any radiation back into the coax. Additional conductive envelopes about the entire device should eliminate any radiation, again without creating any significant self-force currents. If self-force inducing currents do not balance the forces from the lost end cap ":" , then field forces must, and must do so without corresponding radiation. Further, this net force must come about due to the change of removing the shorting end cap. How this might come about is unclear, unless it is from the change in current density j within the plates, which constantly diminishes across the capacitor when there is no shorting plate. A SAMPLE THRUSTER DESIGN CALCULATION The following is provided as a sample to illustrate computations typical for this kind of thruster design. TOROIDAL CONDUCTOR Assume the conductor is made of tubing about 0.5 cm diameter. Small radius of the torus is 4 cm. Inner radius of torus is 15 cm. Major radius Mr is thus 19 cm. and outer radius is 23 cm. Total of N = 45 turns Coil area A is about 50 cm^2. Coil conductor length is about 11.3 m. Inductance is approximated by: L = u N^2 A (1/Mr) (1.26x10^-6 H) L = (1) (45^2) (50) (1/(19)) (1.26x10^-6 H) L = 6.71 mH CAPACITOR Plate size is 23 cm x 50 cm, giving an area of 1150 cm^2. Plate separation is 0.5 cm, of which 0.12 cm is 20 kV insulation with dielectric constant Ke = 8 and the rest is dielectric constant Ke = 1. Capacitance is given by: C = Ke (A/d) (8.85x1010^-12 F) For the insulating layer: Ci = 8 (1150/0.12) (8.85x10^-12 F) Ci = 6.79x10^-7 F For the air layer: Ca = 1 (1150/0.38) (8.85x10^-12 F) Ca = 2.68x10^-8 F Total capacitance: 1/Ct = 1/Ci + 1/Ca 1/Ct = 1.473x10^6 + 3.73x10^7 (1/F) Ct = 2.58x10^-8 F ALTERNATE DESIGN FOR CAPACITOR - COAXIAL A design with similar values can be obtained by making the capacitor coaxial In that case the plate fed by P1 would be the outer sheath and P2 the inner conductor. This has the advantage of minimizing external waste AF radiation. Except for concerns about resistance, the coax can be made a long as necessary to accommodate the desired capacitance. To approximate an equivalent coaxial capacitor to the above flat plate design we can use an inner diameter of 7 cm and an outer diameter of about 7.5 cm, and length still of about 50 cm. The thrust comes from the fact the trailing end of capacitor is open, which is clear with the flat plate capacitor design, but not so clear with the coaxial design. Proof of that the two are equivalent may require running a high resolution FEA model. However, it appears that both are equivalent, and in any case that this point is comparatively moot in that the principle issue involved, namely waste audio frequency radiation, is a comparatively small issue compared to the issue of whether the basic concept works. RESONANT FREQUENCY The resonant frequency f0 is given by: f0 = 1/(2 Pi (L*C)^0.5) f0 = 1/(2* 3.1415 * 1/(1.73118x10^-10)^0.5) f0 = 12,096 Hz REACTANCE AND IMPEDANCE Capacitive reactance Xc is given by: Xc = 1/(2 Pi f0 C) = 1/(2 * 3.1415 * 12,096 * 2.58x10^-8) ohms Xc = 510 ohms Inductive reactance Xl is given by: Xl = 2 Pi f0 L Xl = 2 * 3.1415 * 12,096 * 6.71x10^-3 ohms Xl = 510 ohms (check) The impedance Z = (R^2 + (Xl-Xc)^2)^0.5 is thus equal to resistance R. POWER AND CURRENT If we assume a coil resistance of 1 ohm per 1000 m, or 0.001 ohms per meter, we have a coil resistance of 11.3 m * 0.001 ohms per meter = 0.0113 ohms. Assume the power supplied Ps = 1500 W. If It is the resonance tank current then the heat Ph dissipated in the coil is given by: Ps = Ph = 1500 W = It^2*(0.0113 ohms) So: It = 364 A We have a very high Q coil, because: Q = Xc/R = 510/0.0113 Q = 1858 This gives Is the supply current: Is = It / Q = 636/1858 Is = 0.196 A And the supply voltage: Vs = Ps / Is = 1500/ 0.196 Vs = 7653 V The apparent power in the tank circuit is: Pt = It * Vt = 7653 * 364 W Pt = 2.79 MW MAXIMUM RADIATION FORCE Note that the above numbers all ignore radiation. Additional power must be supplied to account for any radiation. However, note that, at 1500 W power supplied, that the *force* from any radiation can be ignored. There is 2.94x10^9 photonic watts per kg-f of thrust, so the 1500 watts could only produce 5.1x10^-7 kg-f thrust. SELF-FORCE OF A CLOSED END COAXIAL CAPACITOR We assume the net force provided by the open circuit is equal to the self-force which would exist in a cap closing off the trailing end of the coaxial capacitor (or in the conductor closing the end plates of the capacitor) under conditions of an identical current flowing through the momentarily affixed end conductor. The basis for this is that such a configuration would have no net force, being a closed circuit. The net force created is estimated to be that which disappears when the end conductor, i.e. cap, is removed. (It is assumed the current supplied at the leading end is increased to compensate for the momentary loss of resonance.) Estimating the cap force for a momentarily capped coax, using a derivation provided by Frank Stenger in 1999: Fc = (u_o/2 pi) * i^2 * ln(Ro/Ri) we have: Fc = ((4 pi x 10^-7 weber/amp-meter)/2 pi) * (342 A)^2 * ln(7.5/7) Fc = 2x10^-7 * 116,964 * 0.06899287 Fc = 1.61x10^-3 N Fc = 0.165 g-f Though small, a force of about 1/10 gram is sufficiently large to attempt detection, and to be very useful. Also, this rough design is only to provide sample calculations as a starting point for an actual experiment design. Such a device, or one of approximately the same dimensions can be fairly readily constructed from ordinary copper materials and a custom power supply. At 2.94x10^9 photonic watts per kg-f of thrust, the 10^-4 kg-f would require 294 kw of broadcast power. This number is way above the 1.5 kw power supplied, but interestingly way below the Pt = 2.79 MW apparent power of the resonant circuit. It is also notable that by using a larger inductance and capacitance that the frequency could be dropped further and thus Q improved by reducing the skin effect, and also by using a solid conductor for construction of the toroidal inductor. The estimated 0.5 cm wire size corresponds to 4 gage copper, which is 0.2533 ohms per 1000 feet, or 0.831 ohms per 1000 m. Using 3 gage copper, a 10 percent increase in wire diameter, gives only 0.659 ohms per 1000 m, thus improving R by 51 percent and net force by 230 percent, to 0.378 g-f. However, resistance of the capacitor has been ignored, due to its small length. Achieving low resonant frequency involves use of a much longer capacitor, thus capacitor resistance will play a significant role. Increasing capacitance by reducing the capacitor gap width is fruitless because net thrust is roughly proportional to the gap width. The thrust is essentially provided by the fact that some (angular) percent of a closed current loop is open. CRYOGENIC ALUMINUM Aluminum has a conductivity of 0.377x10^6 ohm^-1 cm^-1, while copper is 0.596 x10^6 ohm^-1 cm^-1, thus copper provides 58 percent better conductivity, but 250 percent better thrust per watt. Aluminum has advantages over copper for propulsion due to a 70 percent savings in weight. At 21 deg. kelvin high purity aluminum resistance drops to less than 1/500 to 1/1000 times that of room temperature, thus providing an over 100,000 improvement in thrust/watt over copper. At this amplification the 0.1 g-f thrust becomes 10 kg-f. This amply repays the cost of 1500 W of refrigeration, which in space can hopefully be provided at a power cost of less than 10 kW. If so, a thrust/power ratio of about 1 kg-f/kW is achieved. SUPERCONDUCTING RESONATOR The lower resonant frequency achieved by use of much larger capacitors and inductors should permit use of superconductors, with a much larger net thrust feasible, and lower refrigeration cost. The major impediment to the use of superconductors may be the radiation from SC surfaces exposed to high voltage gradients. PERPETUAL MOTION SELF-FORCE PISTON The energy delivered by the self-force caused when a pulse is sent down a coax, and is reflected back via a shorted end, is not dependent upon the net energy used to maintain the pulse so that it can be continually sent back and forth. For this reason, a piston of sorts can be created by sending and maintaining pulses traveling back and forth between shorted ends of a coax. This coax then acts like a piston that, purely through contact with the vacuum, jumps back and forth delivering an energy that is independent of the energy used to cause the jumping. This opens up the prospect of free energy. SUMMARY While some fun concepts have been explored here which may provide a spark of inspiration or motivation, it is only fair to say that none of this can realistically be expected to work as presented. However, now more than ever, I think there is reason to explore these things to look for a way to strongly couple electromagnetism to the vacuum, because, in my present optimistic opinion, nature likely does it every moment when enforcing Newton's inertial law: F = m*a, or when creating a self-force in a current carrying wire bend that is distant from other bent current elements of its circuit. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 06:36:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA05026; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:35:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:35:27 -0700 Sender: jack mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3EF8445B.3AA549C3 centurytel.net> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:30:19 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LEnXq3.0.QE1.VE5--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50957 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > COAXIAL CAPACITOR THRUSTER CONCEPT > > The field isomorphism created in this thread has lead to > discussion of a coaxial thruster concept, at least in the > context of a thought experiment. ... Hi Horace, Wow! It will probably take me 5 times longer to work through this than it took you to create it. Jack Smith From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 09:57:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA25216; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:55:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:55:02 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:59:28 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Toward Additional Field Isomorphisms Resent-Message-ID: <"eH-TD2.0.l96.b98--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50958 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:30 AM 6/24/3, Taylor J. Smith wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> >> COAXIAL CAPACITOR THRUSTER CONCEPT >> >> The field isomorphism created in this thread has lead to >> discussion of a coaxial thruster concept, at least in the >> context of a thought experiment. >... > >Hi Horace, > >Wow! > >It will probably take me 5 times longer to work >through this than it took you to create it. It probably would help greatly if I spent more time proofreading! However, I consider myself lucky to get the brief time I have had time to contribute, given my backlog of other things that need doing. The isomorphism is new, at least to me. The coaxial thruster idea is not new. It is rehashed stuff, though it originally only took a few hours to write, in a slightly differnt form, some years back when I was hot on thrusters. I suggested this experiment design a few years ago in a collaboration with Frank Stenger and Scott Little. It was fairly quickly dumped on grounds with which I agreed and to which I even contributed then, but now see good reason to re-examine. The net thrust number I produced is clearly too high, due to current bends within the capacitor plates, so the experiemnt is likely to be very difficult for an amateur, without some redesign. There is, however, I think a sound basis provided for that design in the material I posted. The power in the idea experimentally is in the reduction of external fields. I have built torsion pendulums which can measure forces (from large heavy devices) of the magnitude estimated, however the actual torque may be much much smaller. Very tiny room thermals make measurements of this sort nearly impossible, thus making a vacuum chamber might be a necessity for a device of the size specified. I have found that enclosing experiments in a foam box can briefly prevent thermals from the experiment itself from disrupting the experiment, but ultimately daily temperature changes are disruptive. This approach I can tell you from experience makes for very bulky experiment for doing in a house! A good place to do this kind of work might be in the dark sub-basements of large buildings. Thinking in this arena is clearly not new to me. On the contrary, I have done a lot of thinking, computational (FEA) modelling, and actual experimentation. I have many experiments conceived yet undone due to lack of space, time, and money ... and sound justification. The justification part I think might now have some breakthroughs in the offing however. Too bad I have other projects I am hot on at the moment. My brain has some difficulty switching gears these days. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Jun 24 10:40:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA17436; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:38:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:38:51 -0700 Message-ID: <011501c33a77$73988340$cb93cbc1 pc> From: "Noel Whitney" To: References: Subject: Re: My postings Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:38:36 +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: <"fOYs3.0.JG4.ho8--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50959 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: yep ! - i saw it Thomas , Keep the faith !! rgds Noel Whitney- Ireland ----- Original Message ----- From: thomas malloy To: Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 8:18 PM Subject: My postings > I posted a letter on the use of sympathetic vibrations as a potential > method of causing water to fly apart. I never noticed it come back. > Did anyone else see it? > > Thomas Malloy > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 04:52:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA02941; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:51:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:51:52 -0700 Message-ID: <002601c33b07$af48cea0$2a09bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Gravitational Frequencies and Forces Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 05:50:18 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da94091be84fd020cfaee8aed00a3ec60f873350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"Qe3jQ3.0.sj.NpO--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50960 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Determination of a relativistic time dilation effect (gamma) electrical (Fes) and magnetic (Fm) of an electron or quark can be made simply by taking the square root of the ratio of the electric force (Fes) = kq^2/R^2 to the gravitational force (Fg) = Gm^2/R^2 at unit separation: ELECTRICAL OR CHARGE FORCES: Undilated: Fes = kq^2/R^2 = 2.304e-28 newtons For the electron: gamma = [2.304e-28/5.523e-71]^1/2 = 2.04e21 The Dilated Charge (q") Responsible For Electrical Gravity Forces Between Two Electrons: q" = 1.6e-19/2.04e21 = 7.84e-41 coulombs Fg = 9e9(q")^2/R^2 = 5.53e-71 newtons The dilated or gravitational frequency: c/[gamma * 2(pi)r] = 8.33 Hz For each quark (three in each proton): gamma = [2.304e-28/2.04e-65]^1/2 = 3.36e18 The Dilated Charge (q') Responsible For Electrical Gravity Force Between Two Quarks: q' = 1.6e-19/3.36e18 = 4.76e-38 coulombs Fg = 9e9(q')^2/R^2 = 2.04e-65 newtons The dilated or gravitational frequency: c/[gamma * 2(pi)r] = 3.08e6 Hz MAGNETIC FORCES: Undilated: q*c = 4.8e-11 coulomb-meters/sec = ampere-meters Fm = 1.0e-7 * (4.8e-11)^2/R^2 = 2.304e-28 newtons, indicating a "unified field". Dilated: For the electron: Fm = Fg = 1.0e-7 (4.8e-11)^2/gamma^2 * R^2 or Fm = Fg = 2.304e-28/(2.04e21)^2 = 5.536e-71 newtons For the quarks: Fm = Fg = 2.304e-28/(3.36e18)^2 = 2.04e-65 newtons As small as these forces are (6.67e-11 newtons between 1.0 kg masses at 1.0 meters separation) if one could muster up a microcoulomb (1.0e-6 coulombs) of 3.1 MHz q' electrical antigravity charge the force developed at the earth's surface would be substantial: 5.98e24/5.53e-28 = 1.07e52 quarks x 4.76e-38 coulombs/quark = 5.13e14 q' coulombs as a total gravity charge located at the earth's center: Then F = 9e9*1.0e-6*5.13e14/(6.4e6)^2 = 1.13e5 newtons or about 11.6 tonnes of antigravity force. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 06:06:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA11693; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:04:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:04:51 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c33b11$e00df600$9e08bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Gravitational Frequencies and Forces Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:02:36 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da94078b42a974cff3563f865d789834bef1b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"3PPdy3.0.Ts2.otP--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50961 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: As a follow up, it seems that the time dilated charge q" (7.84e-41 coulombs at 8.33 Hz) for the electrons and q' (4.76e-38 coulombs at 3.08 MHz) for the quarks creates an electrical gravity field that is out of step with, or oblivious to conventional EM fields. Spinning magnets "showed a ~30% weight loss at ~ 480 RPM (~ 8.33 Hz or revs/second)". likewise spinning gyroscopes and electric motors have reportedly shown a weight loss effect. >From Lenz's Law: V = - d(phi)/dt (phi) = webers/square meter, or Tesla And since charge q = CV, q" or q' = k*eo * - d(phi)/dt eo = the capacitance of space, 8.85e-12 farad/meter k = the relative dielectric constant Perhaps "spinning" the charges in a Ferrite Rod by applying a ~ 8.33 Hz or 3.08 MHz sine wave signal to a coil wound on the rod to create a q" or q' field around the "solenoid" (if driven hard enough) might show weight loss effects? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 07:06:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA16795; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:04:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:04:38 -0700 Message-ID: <003101c33b22$698422a0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Implications of Naudin run Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:02:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01C33AE7.BC7D71E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Resent-Message-ID: <"SWfxN3.0.G64.rlQ--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50962 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C33AE7.BC7D71E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable J L Naudin has made an interesting finding re: the Mizuno type cell that = may have wider implications for trying to pinpoint the structural = variables which affect certain LENR protocols, particularly determining = where the overlap between CF and the hydrino may lie. If this has = already been known, his work may confirm that of others. Palladium apparently doesn't work very well in the Mizuno type cell. = This must indicate for one thing that the "anvil" effects of Pd are = specific to D2 as opposed to H2. Could that be due to the small = difference in inter-atomic spacing? One could further surmise that the = small amount of D in normal water, one part in 4000, probably is not = playing much of a role in the excess energy, but that conclusion is less = certain, as mass spec. work may be beyond his abilities. If not D+D = fusion, then this would be indicative of this type of cell being a = hydrino effect, as the H+H > D cross-section is way too far out there = for any kind of consideration. I think everyone has suspected the = hydrino for a long time due to the presence of a Mills' specified = hydrino catalyst - potassium. http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfrpd.htm "In spite of the voltage and the current used, with a Palladium cathode, = the=20 high temperature glow plasma around the cathode seems weaker than with a = Tungsten cathode. The palladium rod doesn't reach a full incandescent = state and it=20 seems that a higher voltage is required to get the same efficiency than = with the=20 Tungsten. More tests runs with different setups must be soon = conducted..." Jones ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C33AE7.BC7D71E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
J L Naudin has made an interesting finding re: the Mizuno type cell = that=20 may have wider implications for trying to pinpoint the structural = variables=20 which affect certain LENR protocols, particularly determining where the = overlap=20 between CF and the hydrino may lie. If this has already been known, his = work may=20 confirm that of others.
 
Palladium apparently doesn't work very well in the Mizuno type = cell. This=20 must indicate for one thing that the "anvil" effects of Pd are specific = to D2 as=20 opposed to H2. Could that be due to the small difference in inter-atomic = spacing? One could further surmise that the small amount of D in normal = water,=20 one part in 4000, probably is not playing much of a role in the excess = energy,=20 but that conclusion is less certain, as mass spec. work may be beyond = his=20 abilities. If not D+D fusion, then this would be = indicative of=20 this type of cell being a hydrino effect, as the H+H > = D cross-section=20 is way too far out there for any kind of consideration. I think everyone = has=20 suspected the hydrino for a long time due to the presence of a = Mills'=20 specified hydrino catalyst - potassium.
 
http://jlnlabs.onlin= e.fr/cfr/html/cfrpd.htm
 
"In spite of the voltage and the current used, with a Palladium = cathode,=20 the
high temperature glow plasma around the cathode seems weaker = than with a=20
Tungsten cathode. The palladium rod doesn't reach a full = incandescent state=20 and it
seems that a higher voltage is required to get the same = efficiency=20 than with the
Tungsten. More tests runs with different setups must = be soon=20 conducted..."
 
Jones
------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C33AE7.BC7D71E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 07:27:11 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA30776; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:26:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:26:09 -0700 Message-ID: <022d01c33b25$a4d4e3f0$6501a8c0 colinqamd1200> Reply-To: "Colin Quinney" From: "Colin Quinney" To: Cc: Subject: Chukanov's Patent. A macro [quantum] atom? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:25:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.180.21] using ID at Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:25:28 -0400 Resent-Message-ID: <"_Os9r2.0.nW7.04R--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50963 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: US patent application (number search) URL: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html Chukanov's patent application number: 20030094911 ( published May 22 / 2003.) Absolutely fascinating, (if this can be replicated.) FROM THE PAT: [0060] During some experiments, the quantum macro object was touched with a metal stick. In this experiment, the metal stick could not penetrate into the nucleus because the nucleus possessed no volume. Instead, the nucleus was deformed by the metal stick. Thus, the quantum macro object behaved like a solid. During these experiments, the dimensions of the surface of the nucleus did not change either. The quantum macro object nucleus is "closed to the inside," therefore, no macro-material formation can penetrate through the quantum surface. [0061] When observing the quantum macro object experimentally, the macro nucleus and the electron cloud are perfectly visible and distinguished from one another. In several of these experiments (using a quartz dielectric container and air as the gaseous substance), the color of the electron cloud was orange. The nucleus was observed as having a sharp spherical boundary between the orange-colored electron cloud and the volume of gas closed by this quantum boundary. Using various levels of input power, the quantum macro object may become transparent. In this state, the quantum macro object radiates a lot of heat, but no shining plasma formations are visible in its volume. This experiment provides a very good visual illustration of the two-dimensional structure of the nucleus of the quantum macro object. [0062] The nucleus of the quantum macro object is also impermeable to electrical current. In one experiment, a rather weak high voltage current (in some experiments: U=15,000 volts, I=0.01 amps) was used to create an arc discharge between two electrodes. Instead of penetrating the nucleus and taking the shortest route between two points (the electrodes), the electrical current traveled around the nucleus of the quantum macro object, thus sort of "sliding" along the surface of the nucleus. [0063] Several experiments have led the inventor to formulate many beliefs about the quantum macro object. First, the quantum macro object is a giant macro atom composed of a two-dimensional quantum nucleonic nucleus and a three-dimensional electronic shelf. Second, the quantum macro object is an unusual material object behaving much like a material point in space. On the quantum surface of this two-dimensional material body, there are no differentiated points or areas. Third, the nucleus of the quantum macro object is a closed two-dimensional material formation, which can be deformed without changing the volume of the surface. Fourth, it is not possible to create the quantum macro object between two closed surfaces (like ordinary plasma). Fifth, the surface of the nucleus of the quantum macro object is much like a mirror in which every particle can see its counterpart. ================================================ Best, Colin From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 09:32:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA12247; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:30:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:30:16 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:34:35 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravitational Frequencies and Forces Cc: Resent-Message-ID: <"4IXRQ3.0.C_2.NuS--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50964 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:50 AM 6/25/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >Determination of a relativistic time dilation effect (gamma) electrical >(Fes) and >magnetic (Fm) of an electron or quark can be made simply by taking the >square root of >the ratio of the electric force (Fes) = kq^2/R^2 to the gravitational >force (Fg) = >Gm^2/R^2 at unit separation: > >ELECTRICAL OR CHARGE FORCES: > >Undilated: Fes = kq^2/R^2 = 2.304e-28 newtons > >For the electron: > >gamma = [2.304e-28/5.523e-71]^1/2 = 2.04e21 > > >The Dilated Charge (q") Responsible For Electrical Gravity Forces Between Two >Electrons: > >q" = 1.6e-19/2.04e21 = 7.84e-41 coulombs > >Fg = 9e9(q")^2/R^2 = 5.53e-71 newtons > >The dilated or gravitational frequency: > >c/[gamma * 2(pi)r] = 8.33 Hz > >For each quark (three in each proton): > >gamma = [2.304e-28/2.04e-65]^1/2 = 3.36e18 > >The Dilated Charge (q') Responsible For Electrical Gravity Force Between >Two Quarks: > >q' = 1.6e-19/3.36e18 = 4.76e-38 coulombs > >Fg = 9e9(q')^2/R^2 = 2.04e-65 newtons > >The dilated or gravitational frequency: > >c/[gamma * 2(pi)r] = 3.08e6 Hz > >MAGNETIC FORCES: > >Undilated: > >q*c = 4.8e-11 coulomb-meters/sec = ampere-meters > >Fm = 1.0e-7 * (4.8e-11)^2/R^2 = 2.304e-28 newtons, indicating a "unified >field". Could you please provide input units and justification for the above formula for Fm? > >Dilated: > >For the electron: > >Fm = Fg = 1.0e-7 (4.8e-11)^2/gamma^2 * R^2 > >or > >Fm = Fg = 2.304e-28/(2.04e21)^2 = 5.536e-71 newtons > >For the quarks: > >Fm = Fg = 2.304e-28/(3.36e18)^2 = 2.04e-65 newtons > >As small as these forces are (6.67e-11 newtons between 1.0 kg masses at >1.0 meters >separation) if one could muster up a microcoulomb (1.0e-6 coulombs) of 3.1 >MHz q' >electrical antigravity charge the force developed at the earth's surface >would be >substantial: > >5.98e24/5.53e-28 = 1.07e52 quarks x 4.76e-38 coulombs/quark = 5.13e14 q' >coulombs as >a total gravity charge located at the earth's center: > >Then F = 9e9*1.0e-6*5.13e14/(6.4e6)^2 = 1.13e5 newtons or about 11.6 tonnes of >antigravity force. :-) > >Regards, > >Frederick Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 09:55:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA28499; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:52:52 -0700 Message-ID: <02d501c33b3a$22f947d0$6501a8c0 colinqamd1200> Reply-To: "Colin Quinney" From: "Colin Quinney" To: Subject: test ignore Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:52:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.180.21] using ID at Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:52:10 -0400 Resent-Message-ID: <"i08eC2.0.Bz6.ZDT--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50965 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 10:54:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA03551; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:52:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:52:04 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38 earthlink.net> References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38 earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:51:34 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... 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 KAA03486 Resent-Message-ID: <"GaWW21.0.Pt.35U--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50966 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This post from Pat Bailey pegged the BS meter. I've yet to see an insect fly without wings, or be invisible. Given the misqueto population, and the West Nile Virus, that is a good thing. >Thanks Walt! > >http://www.keelynet.com/greb/greb.htm [I just made a complete copy, >just in case...] > >The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects >due to the Grebennikov Cavity Structure Effect (CSE) > >Introduction > >by Iu. N. Cherednichenko, Senior Researcher, Biophysics Laboratory, >Institute of Human Pathology and Ecology, Russian Academy of Medical >Science > >Viktor Stepanovich Grebennikov is a naturalist, a professional >entomologist, an artist-simply put, an intellectual with a wide >range of interests and pursuits. He is known to many as the >discoverer of the Cavernous Structures Effect (CSE). But very few >people are familiar with his other discovery, one that also borrows >from Nature and its innermost secrets. > >Back in 1988 he discovered anti-gravitational effects of the chitin >shell of certain insects. But the most impressive concomitant >phenomenon discovered at the same time was that of complete or >partial invisibility or of distorted perception of material objects >entering the zone of compensated gravity. Based on this discovery, >the author used bionic principles to design and build an >anti-gravitational platform for dirigible flights at the speed of up >to 25 km/min. Since 1991-92 he has used this device for fast >transportation. > >Bio-gravitational effects are a wide spectrum of natural phenomena, >apparently not confined to just a few species of insects. There is >much empirical data to support the possibility of a lowered weight >or complete levitation of material objects as a result of directed >psycho-physical human action (psychokinesis) - e. g. levitation of >yogi practicing transcendental meditation according to the Maharishi >method. There are known cases of mediums levitating during >spiritistic sessions. However, it would be a mistake to think that >such abilities are only found in people who are gifted by nature. > >I am convinced that these abilities are an understudied biological >regularity. As is known, human weight significantly drops in the >state of somnambulistic automatism (sleepwalking). During their >nocturnal journeys, 80-90 kg sleepwalkers are able to tread on thin >planks, or step on people sleeping next to them without causing the >latter any physical discomfort (other than fright). Some clinical >cases of non-spasmodic epileptic fits often result in a short-term >reversible transformation of personality (people in such state are >commonly referred to as "possessed"), whereby a skinny, exhausted >girl or a ten-year-old boy acquire the physical prowess of a trained >athlete. > >[lots more…] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 13:15:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA23156; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:11:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:11:56 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <153.20ca11d2.2c2b5be4 aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:11:16 EDT Subject: Pyramid Power Cold Fusion To Clean Up Atmosphere & Create Clean Power To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com, prj@mail.msen.com, drboylan sbcglobal.net, mediator@mint.ocn.ne.jp, rbutner@earthlink.net, senatorlott lott.senate.gov, Antigravity@yahoogroups.com, wpeterson2 attbi.com CC: tom rhfweb.com, ConexTom@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_153.20ca11d2.2c2b5be4_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"1kb3J2.0.jf5.C8W--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50967 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_153.20ca11d2.2c2b5be4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cold Fusion Pyramid Power Principles >From my understanding the mass of the stone in a pyramid is intended to draw= =20 in the gravitational, nuclear, solar, and cosmic waves which get caught up i= n=20 the sacred geometric angles of the pyramid by refraction and negative=20 refraction, since pyramids are so massive and refractive, and the trapped so= lar and=20 gravitational waves heat up the center of the pyramid naturally without need= of=20 a warm nuclear reaction.=A0=A0=A0 If water and pumps which operate on the=20 sympathetic vibration of vacuums created by steam, pressure vortexes created= by pipes,=20 and gravitational heat energies pulled in from the atmosphere, are placed in= =20 the center of the pyramid in the proper geometric proportions and law of squ= ares=20 element ratios, then the pyramid will cause the water to create cold hydroge= n=20 fusion naturally without any warm nuclear fission or warm fusion reaction.= =A0=20 The stone is not meant to block out nuclear radiation but collect natural=20 gravitational radiation and create natural cold fusion, which then may be us= ed as a=20 power source to generate electricity, and as a means to radiate healthy=20 gravitational and electrical magnetic energies into the atmosphere by means=20= of=20 steam and energy copper pipes to strengthen the ozone, and the lower atmosph= ere.=A0=A0=20 Natural noble elements such as xenon, and the ormus elements (Cobalt, Nickel= ,=20 Copper, Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Silver, Osmium, Iridium, Platinum,=20 Gold, Mercury) can be placed into the water in the pyramid to not only encou= rage=20 cold fusion by means of chemical reaction but to also strengthen the=20 atmosphere with the 4th dimensional elements that cause the body to heal and= regenerate=20 itself to create eternal life and perfect health.=A0 A stronger atmosphere w= ith=20 a thicker ozone may cause the planet to spin faster by means of added=20 magnetic and electrical energies from the pyramids needed to strengthen the=20 atmosphere and repair ozone naturally, and place the planet in a better para= disical=20 orbit. The pyramids have to be placed in the proper places, and used at the= =20 proper times to synchronize the planet with the ideal and proper solar cycle= s.=20 Even a normal pyramid without any internal power energy engines as proposed=20 above, will break up nuclear fall out, smog and pollution within a radius 50= =20 miles of the pyramid depending on the size of the pyramid.=A0 The pyramid ma= y even=20 cause nuclear fall out to gravitate to the pyramid to be broken up into=20 harmless subatomic particles. This may be one reason why the Russians are pl= acing=20 pyramids in Russia, as the Russian pyramid web sites indicate at http://www.pyramidoflife.com/ and at http://www.gizapyramid.com/russian/picture-tou= r1.htm=20 engineered by Alexander Golod, where the nuclear reaction disaster occurred= in=20 Chernobyl, since the Pyramids will clean up the nuclear fall out, as you=20 stated by breaking up the nuclear particles into smaller particles that are=20 harmless, without the need of a nuclear reaction to create fusion to break u= p the=20 particles.=20 In California, there is a great deal of smog, which the pyramids can clean u= p=20 even without any pyramid power engines.=A0 I have a friend who already has b= een=20 working on the designs of the sympathetic vacuum pump that would fit=20 perfectly in the pyramid as stated above to create cold fusion.=A0 It may be= difficult=20 to get the business, scientific, and governmental community to accept the=20 benefits of cold fusion presently due to greed and politics, so that we may=20= only be=20 able to just build the pyramid which simply cleans up normal sewage waste an= d=20 smog in the atmosphere without the need for the internal pyramid power cold=20 fusion engine, since the gravitational waves of the pyramid should be enough= to=20 clean up the smog and most waste products.=20 Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om --part1_153.20ca11d2.2c2b5be4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cold Fusion Pyramid Power Principles

>From my understanding the mass of the stone in a pyramid is intended to draw= in the gravitational, nuclear, solar, and cosmic waves which get caught up=20= in the sacred geometric angles of the pyramid by refraction and negative ref= raction, since pyramids are so massive and refractive, and the trapped solar= and gravitational waves heat up the center of the pyramid naturally without= need of a warm nuclear reaction.=A0=A0=A0 If water and pumps which operate=20= on the sympathetic vibration of vacuums created by steam, pressure vortexes=20= created by pipes, and gravitational heat energies pulled in from the atmosph= ere, are placed in the center of the pyramid in the proper geometric proport= ions and law of squares element ratios, then the pyramid will cause the wate= r to create cold hydrogen fusion naturally without any warm nuclear fission=20= or warm fusion reaction.=A0 The stone is not meant to block out nuclear radi= ation but collect natural gravitational radiation and create natural cold fu= sion, which then may be used as a power source to generate electricity, and=20= as a means to radiate healthy gravitational and electrical magnetic energies= into the atmosphere by means of steam and energy copper pipes to strengthen= the ozone, and the lower atmosphere.=A0=A0 Natural noble elements such as x= enon, and the ormus elements (Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Ruthenium, Rhodium, Pa= lladium, Silver, Osmium, Iridium, Platinum, Gold, Mercury) can be placed int= o the water in the pyramid to not only encourage cold fusion by means of che= mical reaction but to also strengthen the atmosphere with the 4th dimensiona= l elements that cause the body to heal and regenerate itself to create etern= al life and perfect health.=A0 A stronger atmosphere with a thicker ozone ma= y cause the planet to spin faster by means of added magnetic and electrical=20= energies from the pyramids needed to strengthen the atmosphere and repair oz= one naturally, and place the planet in a better paradisical orbit.  The= pyramids have to be placed in the proper places, and used at the proper tim= es to synchronize the planet with the ideal and proper solar cycles.

Even a normal pyramid without any internal power energy engines as proposed=20= above, will break up nuclear fall out, smog and pollution within a radius 50= miles of the pyramid depending on the size of the pyramid.=A0 The pyramid m= ay even cause nuclear fall out to gravitate to the pyramid to be broken up i= nto harmless subatomic particles. This may be one reason why the Russians ar= e placing pyramids in Russia, as the Russian pyramid web sites indicate at <= A HREF=3D"http://www.pyramidoflife.com/">http://www.pyramidoflife.com/ a= nd at http:= //www.gizapyramid.com/russian/picture-tour1.htm engineered by Alexander=20= Golod, where the nuclear reaction  disaster occurred in Chernobyl, sinc= e the Pyramids will clean up the nuclear fall out, as you stated by breaking= up the nuclear particles into smaller particles that are harmless, without=20= the need of a nuclear reaction to create fusion to break up the particles. <= BR>
In California, there is a great deal of smog, which the pyramids can clean u= p even without any pyramid power engines.=A0 I have a friend who already has= been working on the designs of the sympathetic vacuum pump that would fit p= erfectly in the pyramid as stated above to create cold fusion.=A0 It may be=20= difficult to get the business, scientific, and governmental community to acc= ept the benefits of cold fusion presently due to greed and politics, so that= we may only be able to just build the pyramid which simply cleans up normal= sewage waste and smog in the atmosphere without the need for the internal p= yramid power cold fusion engine, since the gravitational waves of the pyrami= d should be enough to clean up the smog and most waste products.


Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om



 --part1_153.20ca11d2.2c2b5be4_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 15:06:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA30442; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:05:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:05:00 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030625172605.026d3138 pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:04:46 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38 earthlink.net> <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38 earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"ZfgM52.0.UR7.BoX--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50968 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: thomas malloy wrote: >This post from Pat Bailey pegged the BS meter. I've yet to see an insect >fly without wings, or be invisible. Insects by definition "usually have two sets of wings" but there a few wingless species, and there are also some adult members of social insect colonies that are wingless most of their life cycle, such as the queen bee. Insect ancestors were thought to be wingless. Wingless orders are usually primitive. See: http://www.philately.com/philately/insects.htm Collembola Orthoptera (grasshoppers etc., some species) Phthiraptera (Head lice etc. Should be listed as wingless, but this site forgot to mention that. Some researchers split them into Mallophaga and Anoplura) Protura Siphonaptera Strepsiptera ("Parasites of other insects, male winged, female wingless") Thysanura (silverfish) As far as I know all insects are visible to naked eye, and no living thing is really invisible, although jelly fish come close. I define invisible as transparent or too small to be detected with the naked eye. Is there any other kind of invisibility? >Given the misqueto population, and the West Nile Virus, that is a good thing. There are invisible flying life forms that spread disease: airborne bacteria and viruses. Fortunately they do not have wings, and they cannot control where they go. There are some slightly larger wingless airborne life forms that are still too small to control their movement in the air. They are carried along passively like algae in water. Some of them have been collected at remarkably high altitudes. I don't recall the names. As for "The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects due to the Grebennikov Cavity Structure Effect (CSE)," I think the existence of such species should be experimentally proved to the satisfaction of many people (hundreds of people, at least) before anyone should write speculative papers about these species. First things first. I apply that rule to all claims of perpetual motion machines, magic electric motors, Mills effect excess energy producing substances, and all other o-u claims. FIRST convince people the thing exists. THEN you can concentrate on spinning theories about it. If you skip Step 1 you are probably wasting your time in Step 2, because the gadget probably does not exist. It would be very difficult to convince people that invisible insects exist, because no one could observe them. It would particularly difficult when you specify they are REALLY invisible, even to microscopes or electron microscopes. No one would buy that, because the claim cannot be falsified. You cannot prove or disprove that an invisible object exists, such as the WMD in Iraq that have not been detected and may never be. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 16:43:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA30633; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:42:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:42:08 -0700 Message-ID: <002901c33b73$0f4d2e20$5e201f41 woh.rr.com> From: "Nicholas Reiter" To: References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38 earthlink.net> <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38@earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030625172605.026d3138@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:39:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"xxlwa2.0.ZU7.FDZ--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50969 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Ah, Grebbenikov! You guys have dredged up a weird one here. My three cents worth... I first came across the paper back a few years ago before it was translated into English, and cross posted everywhere. Of course, my mastery of Russian stops at "nyet", but gawd, I thought the pictures were so kitchy - cool! When I finally got to read the translated version, which is supposedly just one chapter out of a much larger book (!?), I was smitten, because I was completely incapable of pigeonholing what I had read... was it fiction? art? a hoax? or some mad attempt to nest possible legitimate "weird science" inside a fabulous fable. And in truth, I still do not know. But if you read it carefully, you will be able to navigate through the parts that MIGHT have some hope of empirical verification, if you don't stop to ponder the really wanky parts that are truly like something contrived on a mescaline bender. So this is what you might be able to do. Print out the whole thing, then use a black marker and wipe out the sections about Viktor on his invisible platform, and even the invisible insects. Then, if you are adventurous, and have no more grudge against it than you would about critically testing something like an orgone accumulator, or pyramid, or psi, or torsion fields, then you actually have a number of illustrated experiments in the text that you could try. If you are not careful, you might find that there ARE some vague but useful correlations to other previously travelled paths of weird research. Nano-structures influencing gravity? Chitin as a highly chiral long chain molecule - inducing vorticity in the vacuum? Uncle Al Schwartz' crusade for Chiral space-time-gravity influences? Dielectric natural antennae ala Phil Callahan? Torsion this and that? Myself, I enjoyed the hell out of it. It probably IS a mad scramble of wishful thinking and delusion and misinterpreted results. But goddarn it is SO COOL! I may not know art, but I know what makes me grin. NR ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:04 PM Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... > thomas malloy wrote: > > >This post from Pat Bailey pegged the BS meter. I've yet to see an insect > >fly without wings, or be invisible. > > Insects by definition "usually have two sets of wings" but there a few > wingless species, and there are also some adult members of social insect > colonies that are wingless most of their life cycle, such as the queen bee. > Insect ancestors were thought to be wingless. Wingless orders are usually > primitive. See: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 17:58:01 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA08529; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:56:40 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:56:40 -0700 Message-ID: <03ca01c33b7d$b996e290$6501a8c0 colinqamd1200> Reply-To: "Colin Quinney" From: "Colin Quinney" To: References: <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38 earthlink.net> <5.1.1.5.2.20030624154117.02512b38@earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030625172605.026d3138@pop.mindspring.com> <002901c33b73$0f4d2e20$5e201f41@woh.rr.com> Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep02-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.180.21] using ID at Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:55:51 -0400 Resent-Message-ID: <"7iqBy.0.B52.7Ja--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50970 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Nick, Hah. I also translated Grebnikov's Russian using http://babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn It took me a few hours, but I was also fascinated with those neat pictures. After I read what he was about, I contacted the Web Master and said, "what gives? and where's the English?" Surely this stuff can't be true? Mr Web-Master told me that an English translation was in the works and no. It was just prose. What a relief! My reality-base wouldn't have to change after all. I thought for a while there that I might have to dissect thousands of beetles and glue their wings onto a platform so I could fly around the countryside but thank my lucky stars this was not to be. Best, Colin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Reiter" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:39 PM Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... > Ah, Grebbenikov! > > You guys have dredged up a weird one here. My three cents worth... > > I first came across the paper back a few years ago before it was translated > into English, and cross posted everywhere. Of course, my mastery of Russian > stops at "nyet", but gawd, I thought the pictures were so kitchy - cool! > > When I finally got to read the translated version, which is supposedly just > one chapter out of a much larger book (!?), I was smitten, because I was > completely incapable of pigeonholing what I had read... was it fiction? > art? a hoax? or some mad attempt to nest possible legitimate "weird > science" inside a fabulous fable. And in truth, I still do not know. But > if you read it carefully, you will be able to navigate through the parts > that MIGHT have some hope of empirical verification, if you don't stop to > ponder the really wanky parts that are truly like something contrived on a > mescaline bender. > > So this is what you might be able to do. Print out the whole thing, then use > a black marker and wipe out the sections about Viktor on his invisible > platform, and even the invisible insects. Then, if you are adventurous, and > have no more grudge against it than you would about critically testing > something like an orgone accumulator, or pyramid, or psi, or torsion fields, > then you actually have a number of illustrated experiments in the text that > you could try. If you are not careful, you might find that there ARE some > vague but useful correlations to other previously travelled paths of weird > research. Nano-structures influencing gravity? Chitin as a highly chiral > long chain molecule - inducing vorticity in the vacuum? Uncle Al Schwartz' > crusade for Chiral space-time-gravity influences? Dielectric natural > antennae ala Phil Callahan? Torsion this and that? > > Myself, I enjoyed the hell out of it. It probably IS a mad scramble of > wishful thinking and delusion and misinterpreted results. But goddarn it is > SO COOL! I may not know art, but I know what makes me grin. > > NR > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jed Rothwell" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:04 PM > Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility > in Insects... > > > > thomas malloy wrote: > > > > >This post from Pat Bailey pegged the BS meter. I've yet to see an insect > > >fly without wings, or be invisible. > > > > Insects by definition "usually have two sets of wings" but there a few > > wingless species, and there are also some adult members of social insect > > colonies that are wingless most of their life cycle, such as the queen > bee. > > Insect ancestors were thought to be wingless. Wingless orders are usually > > primitive. See: > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Jun 25 19:54:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA06956; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:53:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:53:37 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:53:35 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... In-Reply-To: <002901c33b73$0f4d2e20$5e201f41 woh.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-MVeI3.0.ci1.n0c--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50971 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Nicholas Reiter wrote: > Ah, Grebbenikov! > > You guys have dredged up a weird one here. My three cents worth... It's like a children's science book from an alternate universe. Here's a copy (there are others out there somewhere.) http://amasci.com/greb/greb2.html Looks to me like straight-faced lying, Mark Twain style. Note that Mr. Grebbenikov was in poor health and since has died. Supposedly. > SO COOL! I may not know art, but I know what makes me grin. I love the part about accidentally tunneling into the ground. And those conical holes in window glass being caused by dust grains dropped by flying people or UFOs. All those "BB gun holes" commonly seen in storefront windows... what if they're not caused by guns! :) Remember, if you stumble across Grebbenikov's secret for antigrav flight, never eat any food found at the remote destination. Objects violently depart when carried back. (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty chem.washington.edu Research Engineer billb eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 06:37:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA12687; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:30:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:30:19 -0700 Message-ID: <002501c33be6$c6ac3fc0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:28:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id GAA12596 Resent-Message-ID: <"ywRS_.0.t53.fLl--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50972 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anyone who loves to visit that fuzzy zone between sicence and SciFi, or more precisely between "fringe science" and SciFi, has got to appreciate the implications of Grebbenikov's "cavity structural effect" (CSE) from just the name alone.... Shades of pyramid power.... Shades of cold fusion, hydrino.... Shades of beta-aether, AEH, sonofusion, etc..... Did I overlook anything provocative enough to balance on the fringe without tumbling over the edge? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 10:41:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA15146; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:34:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:34:27 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:54:41 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <002501c33be6$c6ac3fc0$0a016ea8 cpq> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"Z4tWG2.0.Ci3.Xwo--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50973 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi. My favorite bit was the flying machine itself, which doubled as his paint box. Freud had a term for this, condensation(?) I think, where you condense several complex ideas into one symbol. It reminds me a little of the writer Bill Burroughs and his "writing machine". A beautiful image, but clearly the man is a painter. And like most painters, he can tell a good story. What's a good story? It's one you are prepared ( and want ) to hear. We've seen a lot of that in recent times here in the states, so you might think folks would be more sensitive to it. K. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jonesb9 pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 9:28 AM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Anyone who loves to visit that fuzzy zone between sicence and SciFi, or more precisely between "fringe science" and SciFi, has got to appreciate the implications of Grebbenikov's "cavity structural effect" (CSE) from just the name alone.... Shades of pyramid power.... Shades of cold fusion, hydrino.... Shades of beta-aether, AEH, sonofusion, etc..... Did I overlook anything provocative enough to balance on the fringe without tumbling over the edge? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 12:08:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA22182; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:06:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:06:24 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <33.3ab737b1.2c2c9dfd aol.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:05:33 EDT Subject: Mathematics of Pyramid Resonance & Refracton to Create Force Fields To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com, prj@mail.msen.com, drboylan sbcglobal.net, mediator@mint.ocn.ne.jp, rbutner@earthlink.net, senatorlott lott.senate.gov, Antigravity@yahoogroups.com, wpeterson2 attbi.com, thebishop@usadatanet.net CC: tom rhfweb.com, ConexTom@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_33.3ab737b1.2c2c9dfd_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"pWwoq.0.MQ5.kGq--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50974 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_33.3ab737b1.2c2c9dfd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The size of the base, width and angles between the sides of a pyramidal structure may be engineered to resonate with gravity and other types of electrical magnetic waves of different sizes; and to focus the energy collected and resonated from the gravity waves from the base of the pyramid to the top into smaller energy beams, which may be directed up the pyramid to the top of the pyramid to create a fountain force field, which may radiate a force field around the pyramid and high into the sky at a distance that depends on the height of the pyramid and the intensity of the energy waves and their amplification. Also since the pyramid is a large structure, it may resonate with large waves and small waves of many different size along all sides of the pyramid, to refract waves into the local environment based on the angle and size of the pyramids main walls. If the bricks of the pyramid are made of ceramic materials, vacuum materials, with copper resonating nano circuits and connecting wires in them, which have different indexes of refraction greater than 1, equal to 1, less than 1, and less than 0, depending on the circuit design which may be fractal, holographic, or spilt or continuos, then the brick in the pyramid may focus, amplify, remember, and process natural gravatic and holographic energy patterns much like a giant computer chip, where the pyramid is the computer chip, the sensor, and the force field and beam generator all in one, to do work to create cold fusion conditions with resonating energy circuit parameters in high and low frequencies at various cycles, in a vacuum chamber full of water in the pyramid to generate steam and electricity from hydrogen and oxygen bonding energy transfer chemistry, and to change the steam into a plasma energy, by the time the steam reaches the top of the pyramid, which has also picked up processed and refined holographic 4th dimensional healing and protective energies encoded in the pyramids memory bricks, processor, and chips, and from the Natural noble elements in the water such as xenon, and the ormus elements (Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Silver, Osmium, Iridium, Platinum, Gold, Mercury). The steam may rise up into the sky to energize clouds and the atmosphere to have higher and holographic healing energies which may improve the ozone and the natural mixture of gases in the atmosphere. Also the force field energies spouting from the top of the pyramid may process, filter, and disintegrate harmful energies, nuclear waste, chemicals, and pollutants in the sky and atmosphere. The patent US 2003/0094911 A1 Kiril B Chukanov, explains the mechanisms, parameters and processes such as a high frequency generator, vacuum means, power generator for electromagnetics, and inlet feed for the gaseous substance, to modify quantum energy and photons in vacuum, gas, or liquid such as water to create high energy plasmas of various types. The high energy plasmas may be engineered to create force field plasmas which filter out specific types of pollutants and waste from nuclear, chemical, biological, and energetic sources. The high energy plasmas may also be focused into a laser beam by means of resonating circuits in the bricks of the pyramid, to be directed at specific clouds and areas in the atmosphere which have pollutants in them as sensed and identified by a sensor. The pyramid may also collect natural rain and atmospheric by condensation water as well as gravatic energies, to be used in the vacuum chamber as an energy source, so that the pyramid is self maintaining. The bricks in the pyramid can also be self repairing with tiny force field chips and ceramic regeneration holographic memory patterns in them so that the pyramids can last forever without maintenance. The pyramid may have computational elements in the bricks such as holographic memory chips and information and wave processors to sense the atmosphere conditions and harmful pollutants based on their chemical spectrographic signature, and to locate and identify the location of the pollutant within the range of the pyramids force field and sensors, and then the pyramid my direct a focused energy beam to disintegrate the pollutant or to break up the pollutant into harmless chemical by products and subatomic particles. Ordinary buildings and ships of any size and shape may also use bricks or plates with computational elements in them to sense and generate force fields and beams to protect the airspace around the building or ship, but buildings or ships which are not pyramidal in form may not be able to collect as many different energy waves as a pyramid, since a pyramid has so many different wave sizes in its form. In a sense the pyramid is an antenna which has many different antenna wave length sizes in its form, that other geometric forms may not have. The engineered computational bricks in different buildings in a city or nation may be connected together by information and communication processors and law enforcement regulating chips, so that the buildings may harmonize their force field patterns locally and globally based on the laws of the local and global community, to work together to make the best and safest atmospheres, and to eliminate the need for human law enforcement, corruption, and error based on atmosphere conditions, since each building in the nation and town self regulates it own atmosphere based on the laws of the land locally and globally, which are encoded in the building bricks, and communication processes between buildings. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com --part1_33.3ab737b1.2c2c9dfd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The size of the base, width and angles between the sid= es of a pyramidal structure may be engineered to resonate with gravity and o= ther types of electrical magnetic waves of different sizes; and to focus the= energy collected and resonated from the gravity waves from the base of the=20= pyramid to the top into smaller energy beams, which may be directed up the p= yramid to the top of the pyramid to create a fountain force field, which may= radiate a force field around the pyramid and high into the sky at a distanc= e that depends on the height of the pyramid and the intensity of the energy=20= waves and their amplification.   Also since the pyramid is a large= structure, it may resonate with large waves and small waves of many differe= nt size along all sides of the pyramid, to refract waves into the local envi= ronment based on the angle and size of the pyramids main walls.

If the bricks of the pyramid are made of ceramic materials, vacuum materials= , with copper resonating nano circuits and connecting wires in them, which h= ave different indexes of refraction greater than 1, equal to 1, less than 1,= and less than 0, depending on the circuit design which may be fractal, holo= graphic, or spilt or continuos, then the brick in the pyramid may focus, amp= lify, remember, and process natural gravatic and holographic energy patterns= much like a giant computer chip, where the pyramid is the computer chip, th= e sensor, and the force field and beam generator all in one, to do work to c= reate cold fusion conditions with resonating energy circuit parameters in hi= gh and low frequencies at various cycles, in a vacuum chamber full of water=20= in the pyramid to generate steam and electricity from hydrogen and oxygen bo= nding energy transfer chemistry, and to change the steam into a plasma energ= y, by the time the steam reaches the top of the pyramid, which has also pick= ed up processed and refined holographic 4th dimensional healing and protecti= ve energies encoded in the pyramids memory bricks, processor, and chips, and= from the Natural noble elements in the water such as xenon, and the ormus e= lements (Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Silver, Osmi= um, Iridium, Platinum, Gold, Mercury).  The steam may rise up into the=20= sky to energize clouds and the atmosphere to have higher and holographic hea= ling energies which may improve the ozone and the natural mixture of gases i= n the atmosphere. 

Also the force field energies spouting from the top of the pyramid may proce= ss, filter, and disintegrate harmful energies, nuclear waste, chemicals, and= pollutants in the sky and atmosphere. The patent US 2003/0094911 A1 Kiril B= Chukanov, explains the mechanisms, parameters and processes such as a high=20= frequency generator, vacuum means, power generator for electromagnetics, and= inlet feed for the gaseous substance, to modify quantum energy and photons=20= in vacuum, gas, or liquid such as water to create high energy plasmas of var= ious types.  The high energy plasmas may be engineered to create force=20= field plasmas which filter out specific types of pollutants and waste from n= uclear, chemical, biological, and energetic sources.  The high energy p= lasmas may also be focused into a laser beam by means of resonating circuits= in the bricks of the pyramid, to be directed at specific clouds and areas i= n the atmosphere which have pollutants in them as sensed and identified by a= sensor.
The pyramid may also collect natural rain and atmospheric by condensation wa= ter as well as gravatic energies, to be used in the vacuum chamber as an ene= rgy source, so that the pyramid is self maintaining.  The bricks in the= pyramid can also be self repairing with tiny force field chips and ceramic=20= regeneration holographic memory patterns in them so that the pyramids can la= st forever without maintenance.

The pyramid may have computational elements in the bricks such as holographi= c memory chips and information and wave processors to sense the atmosphere c= onditions and harmful pollutants based on their chemical spectrographic sign= ature, and to locate and identify the location of the pollutant within the r= ange of the pyramids force field and sensors, and then the pyramid my direct= a focused energy beam to disintegrate the pollutant or to break up the poll= utant into harmless chemical by products and subatomic particles. 

Ordinary buildings and ships of any size and shape may also use bricks or pl= ates with computational elements in them to sense and generate force fields=20= and beams to protect the airspace around the building or ship, but buildings= or ships which are not pyramidal in form may not be able to collect as many= different energy waves as a pyramid, since a pyramid has so many different=20= wave sizes in its form.  In a sense the pyramid is an antenna which has= many different antenna wave length sizes in its form, that other geometric=20= forms may not have. The engineered computational bricks in different buildin= gs in a city or nation may be connected together by information and communic= ation processors and law enforcement regulating chips, so that the buildings= may harmonize their force field patterns locally and globally based on the=20= laws of the local and global community, to work together to make the best an= d safest atmospheres, and to eliminate the need for human law enforcement, c= orruption, and error based on atmosphere conditions, since each building in=20= the nation and town self regulates it own atmosphere based on the laws of th= e land locally and globally, which are encoded in the building bricks, and c= ommunication processes between buildings.

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om

 --part1_33.3ab737b1.2c2c9dfd_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Jun 26 14:03:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA12062; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:02:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:02:39 -0700 Message-ID: <002d01c33c25$f4988a80$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" References: Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:00:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id OAA11963 Resent-Message-ID: <"PJuYn1.0.Ay2.jzr--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50975 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: KN: > My favorite bit was the flying machine itself, which > doubled as his paint box. Freud had a term for this, > condensation(?) I think, where you condense several > complex ideas into one symbol. It reminds me a little > of the writer Bill Burroughs and his "writing machine". Yup. Decline any lunch invitation from David Cronenberg and William S. Burroughs if you have an abnormal aversion to cockroaches.... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 00:45:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA26293; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:44:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:44:47 -0700 Message-ID: <001301c33c77$7f5d46a0$8211b83f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Homing in on Antigravity Hardware Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:43:55 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940ced702107fa78f76222b739be3fa2897350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"y2aB71.0.iQ6.kN_--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50976 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There are two frequencies of interest to be applied to Faraday's Induction Law, i.e.., the induced voltage (in vacuum) V = - d(Phi)/dt so that concurrent charge q" or q' (believed to be the source of the gravity force) are produced in the surrounding space/dielectric at 8.0 Hz and 3.0 MHz respectfully: q" = k*eo * - d(Phi)/dt" and q' = k*eo * - d(Phi)/dt' Where eo = 8.85e-12 farad/meter and k = the dielectric constant. At 8.0 Hz an antigravity force of 1.0 kilogram at the earth's surface should be produced when q" = 1.58e-7 coulombs or when q' = 8.3e-11 coulombs. Ferrite rods wound with magnet wire seem like a good bet for use as an "Antigravity Solenoid". CWS carries 0.5 inch diameter x 7.5 inch long ferrite rods (Types 33 and 61) for $12.00 each. http://www.cwsbytemark.com/ I have a couple of each type on hand and will ship them (no charge) to anyone suitably equipped to calculate the optimum coil windings and brave enough to run the experiment. :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 00:57:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA31660; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:56:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:56:02 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.1.20030627085151.0331cec0 pop3.newnet.co.uk> X-Sender: lawrence pop3.newnet.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:04:29 +0100 To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" From: Stephen Lawrence Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"SiXkJ2.0.ak7.IY_--" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50977 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Yes, isn't Grebbenikov extraordinary...! I love the B&W photos of him and his "levitator". So are they photos or not? Also of interest is John RIUS-CAMPS's research into insects flying in vacuo: see http://www.irreversiblesystems.com/pdf/foundations.pdf Stephen. From: Stephen Lawrence, 8 Supanee Court, French's Road, Cambridge, England, CB4 3LB. Tel/Fax +44 1223 564373 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 08:10:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA04980; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:07:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:07:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFC5E3A.2000405 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:09:46 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Free Books Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wRUkt2.0.ZD1.Dt5_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50978 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The National Acadamies Press has over 2,000 technical books online that you can read for free: http://www.nap.edu/browse.html Most are federally funded research documents and reports. Here's one with an interesting chapter on nuclear waste transmutation using nuclear flux: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309052262/html/49.html#pagetop You can also purchase the documents if you need to touch it. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 09:38:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA18843; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:36:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:36:00 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <6b.144e3b4a.2c2dcc45 aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:35:17 EDT Subject: Re: [Antigravity] Pyramid Power Cold Fusion To Clean Up Atmosphere & Create C... To: Antigravity yahoogroups.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, Roundtable7 yahoogroups.com, prj@mail.msen.com, wpeterson2@attbi.com CC: tom rhfweb.com, ConexTom@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6b.144e3b4a.2c2dcc45_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"CJbQz1.0.Ec4.l97_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50979 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_6b.144e3b4a.2c2dcc45_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/25/2003 6:13:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, focusing1 yahoo.com writes: > No doubt anything tiny enough and with motive force can reflect in many > directions inside a pyramid and depending upon dimensions can be essentially > focused at a point about 1/3 the altitude above the center of the base. This may > play a role in dehydration of mummies, but seems unlikely to me to do little > else except generate speculation. Old Roy. > According to the book The Giza Power Plant, Technologies of Ancient Egypt, by Christopher Dunn, ISBN 1-879181-50-9, there is ample evidence in the Giza Pyramid to show that the Queen's chamber was used as a place to mix hydrochloric acid with Zinc to produced Hydrogen and Zinc chloride solution, since there is salt on the walls of the Queen's chamber which is a byproduct of the reaction. The hydrogen gas was excited to its own resonant frequency around 1, 420, 405,751.786 hertz by the use of sympathetic vibrations resonate to the pyramid and the Earth, which was then further amplified by infrasonic sound waves, hall acoustics, and helmholst resonators in the hall between the Queens and Kings Chamber where the Hydrogen gas flowed up to the King's Chamber, and a series of resonator beams over the King's Chamber tuned to the natural F chord frequency of the Earth; and piezieoelectric quartz in granite of the Pyramid stone was also tuned to the resonant frequencies of the Earth, where the Pyramids height represents the radius of the Earth from the center to the North pole, and the base and circumference of the pyramid are the same in ratio to the circumference of the Earth. Natural microwave and photonic radiation passes through the granite quartz and an acoustic filter carved in stone just before the hydrogen gas reaches the King's chamber to further excite the hydrogen to create a hydrogen explosion, which then creates more microwave radiation from the explosion which channeled down a concave shaft and horn antenna leading out of the King's chamber to the surface of the pyramid, which then creates a microwave beam, which could be used to reflect off the troposphere of the atmosphere and collected at another point on the Earth to be used or the microwave beam could be used to increase the energy in the atmosphere to strengthen the ozone layer. The book records that the hydrogen explosions created cracks in the King's Chamber which were covered up with plaster, so that there may have been a great explosion which eventually prevented the pyramid power plant from working, which could have weakened the ozone layer and created a flood in biblical times, since the ozone needed to be reinforced by the pyramid microwave energies. Electrodes were even found in the tunnels leading to the Queens chamber where the chemicals were funneled down the tunnels, and measured by electrodes and a small door, to indicate when to place more chemicals in the pyramid. There is a chamber and tunnel beneath the pyramid which is used to create antiwaves to control the resonate frequency of the Earth entering the pyramid so that the Pyramid does not collapse due to much resonance energy in the Earth. The book even hints that the Egyptian used British measurements, which indicates that the Egyptian's may have gotten the technologies to build the power plant pyramids, from the British by means of time travel and remote sensing communication with the past. I have read books which indicate that the British went back in time to create Atlantis, which is when the Pyramids in Egypt would have been used. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com --part1_6b.144e3b4a.2c2dcc45_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 6/25/2003 6:13:03 PM Eastern Daylig= ht Time, focusing1 yahoo.com writes:

No doubt anything tiny enough and with motive force ca= n reflect in many directions inside a pyramid and depending upon dimensions=20= can be essentially focused at a point about 1/3 the altitude above the cente= r of the base. This may play a role in dehydration of mummies, but seems unl= ikely to me to do little else except generate speculation. Old Roy.


According to the book The Giza Power Plant, Technologies of Ancient Egypt, b= y Christopher Dunn, ISBN 1-879181-50-9, there is ample evidence in the Giza=20= Pyramid to show that the Queen's chamber was used as a place to mix hydrochl= oric acid with Zinc to produced Hydrogen and Zinc chloride solution, since t= here is salt on the walls of the Queen's chamber which is a byproduct of the= reaction.   The hydrogen gas was excited to its own resonant freq= uency around 1, 420, 405,751.786 hertz by the use of sympathetic vibrations=20= resonate to the pyramid and the Earth, which was then further amplified by i= nfrasonic sound waves, hall acoustics, and helmholst resonators in the hall=20= between the Queens and Kings Chamber where the Hydrogen gas flowed up to the= King's Chamber, and a series of resonator beams over the King's Chamber tun= ed to the natural F chord frequency of the Earth; and piezieoelectric quartz= in granite of the Pyramid stone was also tuned to the resonant frequencies=20= of the Earth, where the Pyramids height represents the radius of the Earth f= rom the center to the North pole, and the base and circumference of the pyra= mid are the same in ratio to the circumference of the Earth.  &nbs= p; Natural microwave and photonic radiation passes through the granite quart= z and an acoustic filter carved in stone just before the hydrogen gas reache= s the King's chamber to further excite the hydrogen to create a hydrogen exp= losion, which then creates more microwave radiation from the explosion which= channeled down a concave shaft and horn antenna leading out of the King's c= hamber to the surface of the pyramid, which then creates a microwave beam, w= hich could be used to reflect off the troposphere of the atmosphere and coll= ected at another point on the Earth to be used or the microwave beam could b= e used to increase the energy in the atmosphere to strengthen the ozone laye= r.   The book records that the hydrogen explosions created cracks=20= in the King's Chamber which were covered up with plaster, so that there may=20= have been a great explosion which eventually prevented the pyramid power pla= nt from working, which could have weakened the ozone layer and created a flo= od in biblical times, since the ozone needed to be reinforced by the pyramid= microwave energies.  Electrodes were even found in the tunnels leading= to the Queens chamber where the chemicals were funneled down the tunnels, a= nd measured by electrodes and a small door, to indicate when to place more c= hemicals in the pyramid.   There is a chamber and tunnel beneath t= he pyramid which is used to create antiwaves to control the resonate frequen= cy of the Earth entering the pyramid so that the Pyramid does not collapse d= ue to much resonance energy in the Earth.  The book even hints that the= Egyptian used British measurements, which indicates that the Egyptian's may= have gotten the technologies to build the power plant pyramids, from the Br= itish by means of time travel and remote sensing communication with the past= .  I have read books which indicate that the British went back in time=20= to create Atlantis, which is when the Pyramids in Egypt would have been used= .

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om

 --part1_6b.144e3b4a.2c2dcc45_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Jun 27 18:01:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA23504; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:01:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:01:03 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" cc: info earthtech.org Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.1.20030627085151.0331cec0 pop3.newnet.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"y3GE51.0.Al5.FZE_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50980 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Stephen Lawrence wrote: > Also of interest is John RIUS-CAMPS's research into insects flying in > vacuo: see > http://www.irreversiblesystems.com/pdf/foundations.pdf Cool! One thing mentioned during the whole Grebennikov debate: if some common insect motions actually involve reactionless propulsion, then one simple test would involve those famous beetles within Mexican seeds. Jumping beans! Those beans jump around very strangely, and it's hard to see how a larva can mechanically produce such a sharp impulse. However, if the beans were placed on something soft (fur or lint) or even suspended on a counterbalance arm, they'd lack a massive object from which to push off. Their jumping thrust should vanish. But does it? Any vortex-L subscribers in the southwest? Maybe Hal or Scott can lay hold of some jumping beans... http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug97.htm http://www.jbean.com/Jump.htm (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty chem.washington.edu Research Engineer billb eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 03:48:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id DAA04476; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001301c33d5a$24ca6220$7908bf3f computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Cc: , , Subject: Re: Faraday's Induction Law and A Steady-State Gravity Field Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 04:46:21 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940ae58b910785fc2e774cc3a63faf63a2b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"Gmlph.0.s51.n8N_-" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50981 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tenet of Faraday's Induction Law: "A time-varying magnetic field creates an electric field, the electric field is Constant if The Rate of Change of The Magnetic Field is Constant." IOW, the Gravity Field is a Steady-State Field, hence can readily penetrate any material: V = d(Phi)/dt = a Constant Electrical Potential due to a time-varying magnetic field. Also, since Charge (q) = CV, and C = k*eo * 2(pi)r, Hence, q = k*eo * d(Phi)/dt, implying that any time-varying magnetic field can create a Steady-State (Electrical) Gravity Field in the vacuum. Small wonder that a spinning magnet, running motors/gyroscopes, or spins in certain materials can show weight loss (antigravity) effects. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 08:20:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA16891; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:22 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c33d88$507e31c0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:16:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA16835 Resent-Message-ID: <"qf7zk3.0.k74.u7R_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50982 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: BB: > One thing mentioned during the whole Grebennikov debate: if some common > insect motions actually involve reactionless propulsion, then one simple > test would involve those famous beetles within Mexican seeds. Jumping > beans! Those beans jump around very strangely, and it's hard to see how a > larva can mechanically produce such a sharp impulse. However, if the > beans were placed on something soft (fur or lint) or even suspended on a > counterbalance arm, they'd lack a massive object from which to push off. > Their jumping thrust should vanish. But does it? BION there is a dedicated site, curiously in England (you must see "Angels & Insects" to appreciated that anomaly) : http://www.jumping-beans.co.uk/ >From the FAQs Do they really jump into the air ? Usually only in cartoons, I'm afraid ! In reality, they generally just tumble about sideways, although on a smooth surface they might move an inch or so. It's still very surprising if you've not seen them before though - your friends may spend ages looking for a "trick" ! How long will they continue to jump for ? This depends a lot on how well you look after them, but generally from a few months to one year maximum, although they do gradually become less energetic with time. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 08:56:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA00960; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:55:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:55:01 -0700 Message-ID: <004201c33d8d$4def0920$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" References: <001301c33d5a$24ca6220$7908bf3f computer> Subject: Re: Faraday's Induction Law and Bee-ta aether Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:52:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id IAA00892 Resent-Message-ID: <"Ng3Nt3.0.tE.KfR_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50983 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: > Tenet of Faraday's Induction Law: > "A time-varying magnetic field creates an electric field, the electric field is > Constant if The Rate of Change of The Magnetic Field is Constant." > > IOW, the Gravity Field is a Steady-State Field, hence can readily penetrate any > material: This message from Fred, was juxtaposed in my mail with a private message Re: http://www.irreversiblesystems.com/pdf/foundations.pdf Speculation on putative insect flight in a vacuum: Lets say that there is an invisible hidden structure in nature, the aether, which has no apparent mass in our three-space, but is felt by atoms inductively in a way like little spheres of a certain dimension, a medium that may even serve to "nucleate" regular mass - we will call the particulates of this medium "matrerons." Maybe the insects can electrically polarize this Bee-ta aether materon medium and give it either some temporary apparent mass for their wings to push against, or else induce a "braking" field in the beta-aether so that there is an apparent anti-gravity force... ...and, realizing that Bombus terrestris is said to navigate in nature by using aligned magnetic particles in its CNS, therefore it is likely that these magnetic particles must be present throughout the Bee's system, its wings et al.....ipso facto...? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 09:33:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA17033; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:32:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:32:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:36:49 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Faraday's Induction Law and A Steady-State Gravity Field Cc: , , Resent-Message-ID: <"Hqkz53.0.w94.JCS_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50984 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:46 AM 6/28/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >Tenet of Faraday's Induction Law: > >"A time-varying magnetic field creates an electric field, the electric field is >Constant if The Rate of Change of The Magnetic Field is Constant." > >IOW, the Gravity Field is a Steady-State Field, hence can readily penetrate any >material: > >V = d(Phi)/dt = a Constant Electrical Potential due to a time-varying >magnetic field. > >Also, since Charge (q) = CV, and C = k*eo * 2(pi)r, > >Hence, q = k*eo * d(Phi)/dt, implying that any time-varying magnetic field >can create >a Steady-State (Electrical) Gravity Field in the vacuum. > >Small wonder that a spinning magnet, running motors/gyroscopes, or spins >in certain >materials can show weight loss (antigravity) effects. > >Regards, > >Frederick How can this be? Electrostatic charge is polar. Gravity is non-polar. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 09:40:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA20746; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:39:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:39:37 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:44:08 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: URL: The Natural Phenomena of AntiGravitation and Invisibility in Insects... Resent-Message-ID: <"oQHmh.0.n35.6JS_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50985 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 8:16 AM 6/28/3, Jones Beene wrote: > >Do they really jump into the air ? > >Usually only in cartoons, I'm afraid ! > >In reality, they generally just tumble about sideways, although on a >smooth surface they might move an inch or so. It's still very surprising >if you've not seen them before though - your friends may spend ages >looking for a "trick" ! > >How long will they continue to jump for ? This depends a lot on how well >you look after them, but generally from a few months to one year maximum, >although they do gradually become less energetic with time. I had a chance to see some back in the 60's. They only jumped for about a week or so after being shipped by mail. However, some actually did jump into the air. Most were not so energetic. Having held them in my hand a while I know for sure that they exert a downward force when they jump. There was not even a hint of anti-gravity, though it is true I was not looking for it at the time. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 10:22:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA06464; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:21:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:21:19 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFDCE9F.AC195E83 ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:21:35 -0700 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 Friday, 27 Jun 03] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"o3Xc-1.0.sa1.DwS_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50986 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 Friday, 27 Jun 03 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:35:51 -0400 From: "What's New" Reply-To: opa aps.org To: "What's New" WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 27 Jun 03 Washington, DC 1. HYDROGEN SCAM? NUCLEAR POWER, WE'RE TOLD, IS A HYDROGEN WELL. Many readers of What's New took umbrage with last week's diatribe called "The Hydrogen Scam." They point out that hydrogen can be produced in ways that do not produce greenhouse gases. Sure, but will it be? 95% of the hydrogen currently produced in the United States comes from steam methane reforming (WN 30 Jan 03), which belches CO2 and does nothing to promote energy independence. Is a hydrogen economy an idea whose time has come? Maybe, but we need a more open congressional discussion of the administration plan, and less docile coverage by the media. 2. DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: PENTAGON PLANNERS MAY NEED GINKO BILOBA. The New York Times on Monday described the shoddy research done in support of scientific claims made by supplement makers. Under the 1994 Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act, supplement makers aren't required to prove that their product is either safe or effective, so they don't really need to do any research. But if they make scientific claims for their product, and they all do, they may have to back it up in court. They won't be able to: recently, NIH has begun to subject one magic herb after another to randomized double-blind testing, which one after another have failed miserably(WN 23 Aug 02). Yet, also on Monday, the Washington Post ran a totally credulous story on a project of the Pentagon's Combat Feeding Program to put herbal substances into lozenges and transdermal patches, to get the healthful properties of the natural remedies flowing in the bloodstream as quickly as possible. 3. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SCIENCE: WITH LIBERTY AND RESEARCH FOR ALL. On Wednesday, Rep. Martin O. Sabo (D-MN) released a draft of the Public Access to Science Act, which will eliminate copyright protection for publications stemming from federally funded research. The laudable goal of this measure is to make research easily accessible via the internet. Sabo's move appears to further the goals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), chaired by Harold Varmus, a group that wants to see scientific publishing move away from the subscription-based economics, which they claim limit the availability of the research. PLoS will release its first "open-access" journal, PLoS Biology, in October, and plans to release PLoS Medicine next year. 4. POWER LINES AND CANCER: DEAD HORSE IN HAMPTONS FLOGGED AGAIN. Long Island turns out to be just like the rest of world: power lines don't cause cancer there, either. That is the not entirely unexpected result of a large study, to be published next Tuesday. The study began in 1996 and studied the exposure of over 1000 women to magnetic fields; no correlation with breast cancer showed up. Does this result reassure the local activists? Not in the least. "I don't think anyone should be satisfied," the president of a local activist group told the Associated Press. "I think we need to push on." 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. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN You are currently subscribed to whatsnew as: To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to: To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 10:49:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA20976; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:48:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:48:28 -0700 Message-ID: <007201c33d9d$274503a0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <3EFC5E3A.2000405 rtpatlanta.com> Subject: Re: Free Books Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:46:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id KAA20921 Resent-Message-ID: <"jaFu42.0.f75.gJT_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50987 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: "Terry Blanton" > The National Acadamies Press has over 2,000 technical books online that > you can read for free: > > http://www.nap.edu/browse.html This is an interesting and wide ranging resource. I did a search for "cold fusion" and got 15 hits to peruse at some future date. Unfortunately, it seems that one is not able to copy text from the "Open Book" mode - maybe that is part of the copy protection scheme....OTOH it may be due to a limitation in the Opera Browser, as apparently they say that one can print out blocks of text. "The Open Book page image presentation framework is not designed to replace printed books. Rather, it is a free, browsable, nonproprietary, fully and deeply searchable version of the publication which we can inexpensively and quickly produce to make the material available worldwide." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 11:25:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA08198; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:24:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:24:54 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Free Books Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:45:16 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <007201c33d9d$274503a0$0a016ea8 cpq> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"uOCy9.0.p_1.qrT_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50988 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Jones. The server stores PDF images of each page, which can be downloaded, concatenated, and printed. The underlying format is CCITT fax image, same as the patent databases. As the format is an image and not text, you will need Acrobat to OCR the document if you wish to copy ascii text out into something else ( like a post... ). Of course, this being the internet, you could just send us a link to the page on the server directly. There is no attempt to prevent copying, as far as I can tell. Please post if you find a good title. If it's something I like I'll be happy to send you a complete file of the concatenated pages. K. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jonesb9 pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:46 PM To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Free Books From: "Terry Blanton" > The National Acadamies Press has over 2,000 technical books online that > you can read for free: > > http://www.nap.edu/browse.html This is an interesting and wide ranging resource. I did a search for "cold fusion" and got 15 hits to peruse at some future date. Unfortunately, it seems that one is not able to copy text from the "Open Book" mode - maybe that is part of the copy protection scheme....OTOH it may be due to a limitation in the Opera Browser, as apparently they say that one can print out blocks of text. "The Open Book page image presentation framework is not designed to replace printed books. Rather, it is a free, browsable, nonproprietary, fully and deeply searchable version of the publication which we can inexpensively and quickly produce to make the material available worldwide." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 12:02:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA25619; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:01:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:01:47 -0700 Message-ID: <002901c33da7$5c440420$5e201f41 woh.rr.com> From: "Nicholas Reiter" To: References: <001301c33d5a$24ca6220$7908bf3f computer> <004201c33d8d$4def0920$0a016ea8@cpq> Subject: Re: Faraday's Induction Law and Bee-ta aether Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:59:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"er6Kv.0.tF6.OOU_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50989 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I've been kicking around another nutty speculation, based on those damnable milligram weight fluctuations I still see with agitated or vibrated chiral materials. Sometimes. Anyway, one of the chiral materials that I actually had seen the weight transients most actively with was sucrose. This had led me to think that more complex polysaccharides could be potentially even more "active", especially if aligned coherently. One of these polysaccharides I had pegged as being worthwhile for study was chitin - from lobster and shrimpy shells, to bug wings. One of these days, I hope to find a deceased dragonfly whose wings could be posthumously donated to science. The thought would be to attach the wings to a piezo driver, encapsulate it in a sealed vessel, and mount the whole thing on a milligram balance to look for weight changes when the chiral chitinous nano-structured membranes are vibrated. For the most part, I am looking at this (if it is indeed a genuine effect) as having a mechanism rooted in the coupling of nano-structures under non-linear acceleration with the vacuum flux. If the bumblebee in vacuo is genuine, and not a hoax worthy of calling PETA about (kidding), the implications would not just be staggering, they would directly point (I believe) to a propulsion mechanism using manipulation of the quantum vacuum. I wonder if anyone has ever noticed EM disruption of sensitive instrumentation or data logging when a bumblebee or scarab beetle flies past!? Wouldn't that be just ginchy? Not too many bumblebees in the lab, but I gots lots of the little chums out in my sage and basil patch. buzzzzzz NR ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Faraday's Induction Law and Bee-ta aether > From: > > > Tenet of Faraday's Induction Law: > > > "A time-varying magnetic field creates an electric field, the electric field is > > Constant if The Rate of Change of The Magnetic Field is Constant." > > > > IOW, the Gravity Field is a Steady-State Field, hence can readily penetrate any > > material: > > This message from Fred, was juxtaposed in my mail with a private message Re: > http://www.irreversiblesystems.com/pdf/foundations.pdf > > Speculation on putative insect flight in a vacuum: > > Lets say that there is an invisible hidden structure in nature, the aether, which has no apparent mass in our three-space, but is felt by atoms inductively in a way like little spheres of a certain dimension, a medium that may even serve to "nucleate" regular mass - we will call the particulates of this medium "matrerons." > > Maybe the insects can electrically polarize this Bee-ta aether materon medium and give it either some temporary apparent mass for their wings to push against, or else induce a "braking" field in the beta-aether so that there is an apparent anti-gravity force... > > ...and, realizing that Bombus terrestris is said to navigate in nature by using aligned magnetic particles in its CNS, therefore it is likely that these magnetic particles must be present throughout the Bee's system, its wings et al.....ipso facto...? > > Jones > > > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 12:35:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA11436; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:34:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:34:25 -0700 Message-ID: <009301c33dab$f4a594a0$0a016ea8 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <001301c33d5a$24ca6220$7908bf3f computer> <004201c33d8d$4def0920$0a016ea8@cpq> <002901c33da7$5c440420$5e201f41@woh.rr.com> Subject: Re: Faraday's Induction Law and Bee-ta aether Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:32:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA11383 Resent-Message-ID: <"q3ctI3.0.Vo2._sU_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50990 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick, > Anyway, one of the chiral materials that I actually had seen the weight > transients most actively with was sucrose. This had led me to think that > more complex polysaccharides could be potentially even more "active", > especially if aligned coherently. One of these polysaccharides I had pegged > as being worthwhile for study was chitin - from lobster and shrimpy shells, > to bug wings. FWIW: A Google search for "magnetic chitin" returns 20 hits and an apparent source for the stuff....Now I would venture that this material is "potentially even more "active" especially if aligned coherently... Maybe it's what "Evinrude" the dragonfly used.... Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 13:25:33 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA05643; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:21 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:26:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Weight changes In-Reply-To: <009301c33dab$f4a594a0$0a016ea8 cpq> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"251F92.0.tN1.pbV_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50991 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., I understand some experiments have been done with sealed containers that exhibit "weight change". PLEASE: Can anyone let us know of: (A) Exact and specific experimental set up And (B) Specific methods used to determine the possibility of artifact or artifacts? And (C) Magnitudes of change Thanks, JH From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Jun 28 14:19:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA01101; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:13:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:13:33 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01c33db9$c5e6fec0$5e201f41 woh.rr.com> From: "Nicholas Reiter" To: References: Subject: Re: Weight changes Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:10:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"uflNw3.0.wG.xJW_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50992 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John, I have posted updates on this on several occasions for about 2 years. Perhaps you have missed them. Here are some links to my own work. http://www.alliancelink.com/users/avalon/pixies.htm http://www.alliancelink.com/users/avalon/kozyrev.htm http://www.alliancelink.com/users/avalon/ChiralQuartz150602A.htm http://www.alliancelink.com/users/avalon/AcceleratedQuartz.htm NR ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schnurer" To: Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 4:26 PM Subject: Weight changes > > > Dear Vo., > > > I understand some experiments have been done with sealed > containers that exhibit "weight change". > > PLEASE: > Can anyone let us know of: > > (A) Exact and specific experimental set up > > And > > (B) Specific methods used to determine the possibility of > artifact or artifacts? > > And > > (C) Magnitudes of change > > Thanks, > > JH > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 05:14:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA20210; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:13:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:13:12 -0700 Message-ID: <001f01c33e37$75e6f6e0$5e201f41 woh.rr.com> From: "Nicholas Reiter" To: "vortex-L" Subject: Magnetic chitin Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:10:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"vWchK1.0.hx4.NVj_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50993 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Well, well Here is a paper that contains the recipe that seems almost suited for the well stocked kitchen, for making magnetic chitosan and chitin! Well, maybe not for the kitchen, but its more than do-able and seems like something that could be improvised. Chemistry is like Italian cuisine. More fun to make and tastier to eat at home. It looks like the chitin polysaccharide is physically bonded with Fe2O3 magnetite nanoparticles during dissolution and lots of stirring. But I like this because if the chiral structure of the chitin molecules could be lined up with a helpful tug from a magnetic field, maybe some really surprising effects might occur - that is of course if there really is anything to my line of speculation. OOHHH! One could take a magnetic chitin solution and align the helical axes of the molecules with a constant field, then use a revolving high frequency field to rotate the little buggers like helicoid screws. A beaker full of nan-propellers. Here is das link. http://www.uek.cas.cz/people/safarik/5454.pdf NR From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 12:46:15 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA28655; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:44:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:44:17 -0700 From: ConexTom aol.com Message-ID: <182.1d4f6a26.2c309b5f aol.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:43:27 EDT Subject: Nasa Goofed- Antigravity Works By Richard Crandall To: Antigravity yahoogroups.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, Vacuon@aol.com, prj mail.msen.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com, mediator mint.ocn.ne.jp CC: tom rhfweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_182.1d4f6a26.2c309b5f_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 Resent-Message-ID: <"vVxw31.0.V_6.H6q_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50994 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_182.1d4f6a26.2c309b5f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://www.antigravitypapers.com/id53.htm "NASA's involvement with antigravity can best be seen by following the link=20 below: Link t= o NASA antigravity experiment information The two scientists who did most of the work for NASA (both theoretical and=20 experimental) were Ning Li and Douglas Torr. =A0I have read and understood s= everal=20 of the scholarly papers they published in various physics journals, and I=20 must say I was very impressed. =A0I rank these two people in the category of= =20 "brilliant and accomplished thinkers." =A0 Li and Torr had already done a certain amount of theoretical work in the are= a=20 of antigravity when the world got the news that someone in Finland named=20 Podkletnov had created a device which would shield gravity, and thus would c= ause=20 objects to weigh less when they were suspended above the device. =A0His devi= ce=20 consisted of a rotating superconductor disk which was magnetically suspended= .=20 =A0So apparently NASA commissioned Li and others to try to replicate the=20 experiment of Podkletnov, and this is what the online paper found at the abo= ve link is=20 all about. =A0 However, what the Physica C paper by Li, and others, discussed was an=20 experiment using a NON-rotating superconductor disk. =A0The overall results=20= of the=20 experiment were negative (or at least not anywhere near the magnitude of the= =20 effect Podkletnov had achieved). =A0They stated in the paper that they would= do later=20 research using a rotating superconductor disk and would publish the results.= =20 =A0As far as I am aware, the rotating disk experiment was either never done,= or=20 there were never any publications which resulted from it. =A0The last publis= hed=20 papers by Ning Li, as far as I can tell, were done in the 1997 time frame.=20= =A0If=20 I am wrong about this, please let me know. =A0 After looking at the writeups about the NASA experiment and the Podkletnov=20 experiment, I could see that both of the experiments were severely BLUNDERED= !=20 =A0Yes, you heard that right. =A0I'm sure both parties will be rather embara= ssed=20 when you tell them the following, and see what their reaction is. =A0Using t= he=20 "Maxwellized" equations of gravity, and knowing the fact that the vortical m= otion=20 (or spin vector) of the lattice ions in the disk must be aligned in a=20 direction perpendicular to the plane of the disk, then the field lines of th= e=20 "gravitomagnetic field" must be perpendicular to the plane of the disk also.= =A0This=20 "gravitomagnetic field" would change with time, due to either the RF electri= c and=20 magnetic fields applied, or to the spinning of the disk, or both. =A0Indeed,= in=20 order to either create ordinary gravity or shield ordinary gravity, you must= =20 have a changing "gravitomagnetic field" in order to create that ordinary=20 gravity field (per the "Maxwellized Equations"). =A0Fact is, according to th= e=20 "Maxwellized Equations", that the ordinary gravity field created by a changi= ng (in=20 strength), but always vertically oriented, gravitomagnetic field, would have= to=20 be HORIZONTAL, not vertical. =A0In fact, the field lines of the generated=20 ordinary gravity field are both horizontal and circular in nature. =A0As an=20= analogy,=20 since the two types of gravity fields (i.e. ordinary gravity fields and=20 "gravitomagnetic" fields) interact with each other exactly like electric and= magnetic=20 fields interact with each other, then consider the following. =A0Any degreed= =20 electrical engineer will tell you that a collapsing vertical magnetic field=20= will=20 induce a circular horizontal electric field. =A0This is the principle by whi= ch=20 electrical generators work. =A0Similarly, if a permanent magnet is thrust=20 vertically through a horizontal circular coil of wire, then an electrical vo= ltage is=20 induced in the coil, due to the circular electric field which is produced by= =20 the moving magnet. So, both NASA and Podkletnov were measuring for a change in gravity in THE=20 WRONG DIRECTION!! =A0They should have looked for any changes in gravity in t= he=20 HORIZONTAL direction. =A0Thus, the hanging weight in those experiments must=20= have=20 been pulled slightly either to the left or right (but not enough that they c= ould=20 visually see it). =A0 The reason that Podkletnov got any results at all in the VERTICAL direction=20 was simply due to the residual bending of the fields from the perfect=20 horizontal, due to the finite size of the disk producing the fields. =A0Then= , there would=20 have been a small but measurable vertical component to the generated gravity= =20 field. =A0 I somehow suspect that Li and others knew about this huge mistake, but did=20 the experiment anyway just like Podkletnov had done it (except with no rotat= ion,=20 oddly enough). =A0After all, they were commissioned to reproduce the same=20 effects as Podkletnov had observed. =A0So why embarass Podkletnov when they=20= could=20 instead confirm and validate him? =A0 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial"=20 www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om --part1_182.1d4f6a26.2c309b5f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://= www.antigravitypapers.com/id53.htm

"NASA's involvement with antigravity can best be seen by following the link=20= below:
Link t= o NASA antigravity experiment information

The two scientists who did m= ost of the work for NASA (both theoretical and experimental) were Ning Li an= d Douglas Torr. =A0I have read and understood several of the scholarly paper= s they published in various physics journals, and I must say I was very impr= essed. =A0I rank these two people in the category of "brilliant and accompli= shed thinkers." =A0

Li and Torr had already done= a certain amount of theoretical work in the area of antigravity when the wo= rld got the news that someone in Finland named Podkletnov had created a devi= ce which would shield gravity, and thus would cause objects to weigh less wh= en they were suspended above the device. =A0His device consisted of a rotati= ng superconductor disk which was magnetically suspended. =A0So apparently NA= SA commissioned Li and others to try to replicate the experiment of Podkletn= ov, and this is what the online paper found at the above link is all about.=20= =A0

However, what the Physica C=20= paper by Li, and others, discussed was an experiment using a NON-rotating su= perconductor disk. =A0The overall results of the experiment were negative (o= r at least not anywhere near the magnitude of the effect Podkletnov had achi= eved). =A0They stated in the paper that they would do later research using a= rotating superconductor disk and would publish the results. =A0As far as I=20= am aware, the rotating disk experiment was either never done, or there were=20= never any publications which resulted from it. =A0The last published papers=20= by Ning Li, as far as I can tell, were done in the 1997 time frame. =A0If I=20= am wrong about this, please let me know. =A0

After looking at the writeup= s about the NASA experiment and the Podkletnov experiment, I could see that=20= both of the experiments were severely BLUNDERED! =A0Yes, you heard that righ= t. =A0I'm sure both parties will be rather embarassed when you tell them the= following, and see what their reaction is. =A0Using the "Maxwellized" equat= ions of gravity, and knowing the fact that the vortical motion (or spin vect= or) of the lattice ions in the disk must be aligned in a direction perpendic= ular to the plane of the disk, then the field lines of the "gravitomagnetic=20= field" must be perpendicular to the plane of the disk also. =A0This "gravito= magnetic field" would change with time, due to either the RF electric and ma= gnetic fields applied, or to the spinning of the disk, or both. =A0Indeed, i= n order to either create ordinary gravity or shield ordinary gravity, you mu= st have a changing "gravitomagnetic field" in order to create that ordinary=20= gravity field (per the "Maxwellized Equations"). =A0Fact is, according to th= e "Maxwellized Equations", that the ordinary gravity field created by= a changing (in strength), but always vertically oriented, gravitomagnetic f= ield, would have to be HORIZONTAL, not vertical. =A0In fact, the fiel= d lines of the generated ordinary gravity field are both horizontal and circ= ular in nature. =A0As an analogy, since the two types of gravity fields (i.e= . ordinary gravity fields and "gravitomagnetic" fields) interact with each o= ther exactly like electric and magnetic fields interact with each other, the= n consider the following. =A0Any degreed electrical engineer will tell you t= hat a collapsing vertical magnetic field will induce a circular horizontal e= lectric field. =A0This is the principle by which electrical generators work.= =A0Similarly, if a permanent magnet is thrust vertically through a horizont= al circular coil of wire, then an electrical voltage is induced in the coil,= due to the circular electric field which is produced by the moving magnet.<= /FONT>

So, both NASA and Podkletnov= were measuring for a change in gravity in THE WRONG DIRECTION!! =A0They sho= uld have looked for any changes in gravity in the HORIZONTAL direction. =A0T= hus, the hanging weight in those experiments must have been pulled slightly=20= either to the left or right (but not enough that they could visually see it)= . =A0

The reason that Podkletnov g= ot any results at all in the VERTICAL direction was simply due to the residu= al bending of the fields from the perfect horizontal, due to the finite size= of the disk producing the fields. =A0Then, there would have been a small bu= t measurable vertical component to the generated gravity field. =A0

I somehow suspect that Li an= d others knew about this huge mistake, but did the experiment anyway just li= ke Podkletnov had done it (except with no rotation, oddly enough). =A0After=20= all, they were commissioned to reproduce the same effects as Podkletnov had=20= observed. =A0So why embarass Podkletnov when they could instead confirm and=20= validate him? =A0

But why didn't NA= SA go ahead and do the rotating version of the experiment? =A0Maybe NASA and= crew know alot more about antigravity than they want us to know.... =A0

Why do you think they have d= rastically cut spending (their new motto is "smaller, cheaper, better") on s= pace programs which use expensive chemical rocket technology? =A0Perhaps the= y know that inexpensive and efficient propulsion methods such as antigravity= are at the doorstep, and so any more spending on conventional rockets would= be a waste of money. =A0
Hmmmm.......   By=20= Richard Crandall"




Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron= , Email: tom rhfweb.com
President Thomas D. Clark, tom rhfweb.com, www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\= newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.c= om\sh
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.c= om

 --part1_182.1d4f6a26.2c309b5f_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Jun 29 17:20:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA15010; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:19:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:19:24 -0700 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.98.194 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:19:31 -0700 Subject: Test message - ignore 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: <"rQMvC2.0.Qg3.B8u_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50995 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Test message -- Sun eve. Ignore. - Gene From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 01:06:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA27450; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:05:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:05:34 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:04:52 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: HAARP story Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <"zs0xL1.0.qi6.Dz-_-" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50996 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This website contends that we can bounce HAARP signals off of the moon and toast a spot on earth, Mount it on a ship, and toast any spot you want. The bounce I agree with, but producing an energy release equivalent to a small nuclear bomb? This pegs the BS meter. http://www.yfiles.com/HAARP-Moon.htm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Jun 30 05:51:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA09678; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:05 -0700 From: "explorecraft" To: Subject: Isometric? Propulsion by electromagnetic force Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:47:48 +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 V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <182.1d4f6a26.2c309b5f aol.com> Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - lester.switchfusion.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - eskimo.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [0 0] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - explorecraft.com Resent-Message-ID: <"j1ZHR3.0.8N2.z730_" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/50997 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: 1. I am wondering if this is something demonstrated anywhere: a propulsion by electromagnetic power generating a force from within the power emitting unit. Perhaps this is a better description: I realize various entities have used directed laser beams and other e-m power schemes to create a propulsive force on various substances and forms, but what I am asking about is Horace's idea of generating an e-m force in order to achieve a force, as in a propulsion system which would not require reaction mass. Although I have seen on the net a number of concepts for achieving this, I have not seen anywhere an _actual_demonstration_ of such a force. My experiments in the 'Lifters' regime demonstrated high ion wind, which could be useful somewhere, but not what I want. Visiting http://www.antigravitypapers.com/, I see that the author there is on the same track as myself, but he hasn't seemed to have bothered creating a demo unit. Cook's idea seems to have merit, but I detest moving parts. I have enough problems with bearing failures and control linkages as it is. 2. Another question someone here might know of: there are a couple of Free-Energy prizes, but I don't see any interest in an "antigravity" or other "isometric propulsion" systems prize. Is there such a creature? Who would invest in such a thing? I can't envision "Wall Street" pumping dollars into such an endeavour. The situation seems like such a blind-spot: from the day we are born we struggle against gravity, but so few seem genuinely interested in finding a 'cure for the symptoms of gravity'. 3. So what do you do if you succeed in creating such a device? Advertise, and your inbox will fill with the devout from every fringe element of UFO's, Elvis' last sighting, the answer to your spiritual needs, and how the cure for whatever ails you can be found in a magic amulet. Your chances of selling it for cash are somewhere in the twilight zone. I get the impression that if anyone invents such a thing, their first investors/visitors will either arrive wearing white coats and carrying medications or wearing badly-fitted black suits with lumps under the armpits, as it appears few people are interested in that type of propulsion.