From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 02:28:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id CAA18330; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:25:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:25:49 -0700 Message-ID: <007001c387f6$eeca8460$0300a8c0@ggrf30j> Reply-To: "Nick Palmer" From: "Nick Palmer" To: Subject: Clarke's 1998 address Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:25:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52035 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jed, I was just helping to bump up the downloads figure by about five papers when I noticed this in Arthur's 1998 presentation 2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power <> Did they ever sell any and did they ever work outside of NTT? Nick Palmer From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 06:57:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA09769; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:53:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:53:12 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7ADC2C.4040409@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:52:44 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: LENR-CANR quarter-mill push! References: <01d101c387a5$aad8e2c0$8837fea9@cpq> <001601c387bf$51335dd0$704245cf@infiniteenergy> In-Reply-To: <001601c387bf$51335dd0$704245cf@infiniteenergy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52036 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: >Listen up, gather 'round, I want you to know, I have had a >revelation from on high: if you DON'T do it, the Lord may just have to call >me home! > Most Vorts know that Jed uses voice recognition software. The image of him speaking these words into the computer caused me to laugh out loud. Right hand over his heart, left hand pointing toward heaven . . . :-) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 08:19:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA03892; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:15:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:15:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20031001151533.20007.qmail@web11702.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:15:33 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: Hafnium weapons? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52037 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: which would make it perfect for a bio-bomb, wouldnt it? --- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Eugene F. Mallove's message of Mon, 29 > Sep 2003 22:33:18 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > > >Note well, from New Scientist article: "The hafnium > explosive could be > >extremely powerful. One gram of fully charged > hafnium isomer could store > >more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT. Miniature > missiles could be made with > > Actually a lot more. The correct figure is nearer to > 290 kg. of TNT. > > >warheads that are far more powerful than existing > conventional weapons, > >giving massively enhanced firepower to the armed > forces using them." > > Firepower that would be difficult to realise as an > explosive, considering that it all comes out as a > burst of gamma rays, which are largely going to go > right through most adjacent material. > > > [snip] > > Regards, > > R. van Spaandonk > > When you are counting the dead, remember who voted > for the man that made it all possible. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 08:32:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA15675; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:29:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:29:04 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001111723.01ca8900@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:28:55 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Clarke's 1998 address Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <_fdkBD.A.r0D._Kve_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52038 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer writes: > Hi Jed, > > I was just helping to bump up the downloads figure by about five > papers . . . Thank you brother Nick. And hallelujah to 'ya. > Did they ever sell any and did they ever work outside of NTT? I do not think they ever sold any. The experiment never worked well inside of NTT. The principal author, E. Yamaguchi, worked with F&P in France for many years trying to replicate, but he failed. He has since left NTT. I have met him at conferences. He seems to be back at work on the approach. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YamaguchiEcoldfusion.pdf . . . which has only the abstract and a hyperlink to: http://jjap.ipap.jp/journal/pdf/JJAP-29-4A/L666.pdf - Rev. Jed of the Church of Frank Close's Three Miracles From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 09:03:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA07548; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:59:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:59:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7AF9AB.8070600@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:58:35 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clarke's 1998 address References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001111723.01ca8900@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001111723.01ca8900@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52039 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Nick Palmer writes: > > > Hi Jed, > > > > I was just helping to bump up the downloads figure by about five > > papers . . . > > Thank you brother Nick. And hallelujah to 'ya. Sir Clarke may also be helping spread the word as he addressed the 2nd Annual Conference on Space Elevators on 9/13/03: http://www.isr.us/spaceelevatorconference/ http://www.martianspiders.com/Astronotes.htm "It's not cold. It's not fusion. It may be tepid fission or something," Clarke said. "Don't laugh…but there's something going on there. A number of reputable groups have succeeded in generating small amounts of energy that, apparently, are not easy to account for. So I think there's something there." I am still looking for the complete text on his keynote address if any Vorts have seen it. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 10:15:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA27294; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:10:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:10:15 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: LENR-CANR quarter-mill push! Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:32:17 -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 In-Reply-To: <001601c387bf$51335dd0$704245cf@infiniteenergy> Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52040 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hey Folks. Here's a rare "behind the scenes" shot at ICCF10 of Tammy and Jim Rothwell observing the latest cold fusion experiment, performed by a rather fetching young lass by the name of Jessica. Moments later, police were called in to quell the riot. http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/rothwell1.jpg K. Jed Rothwell writes: >The Evangelical Approach >I make a TV appearance dolled up with deep rings under my eyes, tears >streaming down my face, voice palpitating with emotion: "Folks, if we don't >make a quarter of million downloads the first year, in just nine more days, >the Lord is going to call me home! It's my only chance folks . . . please, >Save me!" From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 10:32:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA09495; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:28:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:28:59 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Puharich Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:51:07 -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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52041 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi. That percentage figure has been discussed here before, it's due to the fact that the water->gas reaction is ~120% efficient and the gas->water recombination is only ~80% efficient. Make of this what you will... I was shown an early prototype of the puharich device, it was nothing more complex than am automobile spark plug driven by a function generator, could have been a Tek FG504 or equivalent. Very small currents were used, and I think a microscope helped to "tune" the device. This work was done by Puharich at the lab of an old friend of mine, perhaps the one Mark was referring to??? If you want to try to reproduce the effect, that's what he used. I never tried this exact thing, so I have no idea whether it is workable. With all due respect to Mark, it looks like an unworkable scheme. But a well written patent, to be sure. K. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgoldes@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Puharich Jones, The package is en-route. I even located the Congressional testimony I referred to that explains the 120% figure for apparent efficiency concering electrolysis, when electric input is all that is measured. We included those two pages. Mark >From: "Jones Beene" >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >To: >Subject: Re: Puharich >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:53:29 -0700 > >Mark, > > > Jones, > > > > These may be different papers. I'm leaving and do not have time to >check. > > Do forward an address. > > >Jones Beene >22 Sycamore Ave. >Larkspur, CA 94939 > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 11:24:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA18226; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:20:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:20:12 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <16f.247aae2a.2cac748e@aol.com> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:18:54 EDT Subject: Re: photon energy oscillation To: xsw@bellsouth.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16f.247aae2a.2cac748e_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52042 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_16f.247aae2a.2cac748e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/03 12:49:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, xsw@bellsouth.net writes: > Why does energy transform? A good illustration is photo-emission, but we > cannot truly understand that unless we understand the mechanism, the process, > of exactly how an electron, as it lowers an orbital, emits a photon. Good question. The electric field is given as volts = L di/dt The gravitational field is given as field = (G/ccr) (dp/dt) The nuclear spin orbit field is given as spin orbit = R ds/st What changes is different dp/dt, di/dt, and ds/dt The constants of the motion are different L, (G/ccr), and R. the formulation of the equations are the same. During the quantum transition the constants of the motion must converge to allow energy to be quickly exchanged between the fields. I has described this convergence with my theorem. As to why induced field exist. Given the original field propagates at light speed the induced field is required to conserve momentum during the interval where the original field cannot. Frank Znidarsic --part1_16f.247aae2a.2cac748e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/1/03 12:49:29 PM Eastern Dayligh= t Time, xsw@bellsouth.net writes:


Why does energy transform? = ; A good illustration is photo-emission, but we cannot truly understand t= hat unless we understand the mechanism, the process, of ex= actly how an electron, as it lowers an orbital, emits a photon.

Good question.  The electric field is given as

volts =3D L di/dt

The gravitational field is given as

field =3D (G/ccr) (dp/dt)

The nuclear spin orbit field is given as

spin orbit =3D R ds/st

What changes is different dp/dt,  di/dt, and ds/dt

The constants of the motion are different

L,  (G/ccr), and R.

the formulation of the equations are the same.

During the quantum transition the constants of the motion must converge to a= llow energy to be quickly exchanged between the fields.

I has described this convergence with my theorem.

As to why induced field exist.  Given the original field propagates at=20= light speed the induced field is required to conserve momentum during the in= terval where the original field cannot.

Frank Znidarsic --part1_16f.247aae2a.2cac748e_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 12:26:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA22943; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:17:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:17:15 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.70.24.54] X-Originating-Email: [mgoldes@msn.com] From: "Mark Goldes" To: knagel@gis.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Puharich Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:16:39 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2003 19:16:40.0231 (UTC) FILETIME=[8AB3DB70:01C38850] Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52043 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Keith, Interesting. The later device looked a lot like a very large spark plug. Tests indicated Puharich had achieved substantial results. The electronics at that point were from earlier patents of his and are referenced in the subject Patent. I believe he built a total of about a half-dozen prototypes. Mark >From: "Keith Nagel" >Reply-To: >To: >Subject: RE: Puharich >Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:51:07 -0400 > >Hi. > >That percentage figure has been discussed here before, >it's due to the fact that the water->gas reaction >is ~120% efficient and the gas->water recombination >is only ~80% efficient. Make of this what you will... > >I was shown an early prototype of the puharich device, >it was nothing more complex than am automobile spark >plug driven by a function generator, could have >been a Tek FG504 or equivalent. Very small currents >were used, and I think a microscope helped to "tune" >the device. This work was done by Puharich at the >lab of an old friend of mine, perhaps the one >Mark was referring to??? If you want to try >to reproduce the effect, that's what he used. >I never tried this exact thing, so I have no idea whether it >is workable. With all due respect to Mark, it looks >like an unworkable scheme. But a well written >patent, to be sure. > >K. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgoldes@msn.com] >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:12 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Puharich > > >Jones, > >The package is en-route. I even located the Congressional testimony I >referred to that explains the 120% figure for apparent efficiency concering >electrolysis, when electric input is all that is measured. We included >those two pages. > >Mark > > > >From: "Jones Beene" > >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > >To: > >Subject: Re: Puharich > >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:53:29 -0700 > > > >Mark, > > > > > Jones, > > > > > > These may be different papers. I'm leaving and do not have time to > >check. > > > Do forward an address. > > > > > >Jones Beene > >22 Sycamore Ave. > >Larkspur, CA 94939 > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage >today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es > > _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 13:05:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA29189; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:01:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:01:16 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Puharich Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:23:17 -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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <5nfSS.A.2HH.LKze_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52044 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Mark. What sort of tests were performed??? Did your organization do any testing? If there is any resonance effect, I suspect it's due to the electrode design and not the electrolyte. A quick look at INPADOC shows that the patent had expired around sept '95 due to failure to pay maintenance fees. K. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgoldes@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 3:17 PM To: knagel@gis.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Puharich Hi Keith, Interesting. The later device looked a lot like a very large spark plug. Tests indicated Puharich had achieved substantial results. The electronics at that point were from earlier patents of his and are referenced in the subject Patent. I believe he built a total of about a half-dozen prototypes. Mark >From: "Keith Nagel" >Reply-To: >To: >Subject: RE: Puharich >Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:51:07 -0400 > >Hi. > >That percentage figure has been discussed here before, >it's due to the fact that the water->gas reaction >is ~120% efficient and the gas->water recombination >is only ~80% efficient. Make of this what you will... > >I was shown an early prototype of the puharich device, >it was nothing more complex than am automobile spark >plug driven by a function generator, could have >been a Tek FG504 or equivalent. Very small currents >were used, and I think a microscope helped to "tune" >the device. This work was done by Puharich at the >lab of an old friend of mine, perhaps the one >Mark was referring to??? If you want to try >to reproduce the effect, that's what he used. >I never tried this exact thing, so I have no idea whether it >is workable. With all due respect to Mark, it looks >like an unworkable scheme. But a well written >patent, to be sure. > >K. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgoldes@msn.com] >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:12 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Puharich > > >Jones, > >The package is en-route. I even located the Congressional testimony I >referred to that explains the 120% figure for apparent efficiency concering >electrolysis, when electric input is all that is measured. We included >those two pages. > >Mark > > > >From: "Jones Beene" > >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > >To: > >Subject: Re: Puharich > >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:53:29 -0700 > > > >Mark, > > > > > Jones, > > > > > > These may be different papers. I'm leaving and do not have time to > >check. > > > Do forward an address. > > > > > >Jones Beene > >22 Sycamore Ave. > >Larkspur, CA 94939 > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage >today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es > > _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 13:29:38 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA13732; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:20:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:20:42 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.70.24.54] X-Originating-Email: [mgoldes@msn.com] From: "Mark Goldes" To: knagel@gis.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Puharich Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:19:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2003 20:19:49.0913 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D877090:01C38859] Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52045 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Keith, We could not raise the funds to do any work whatsoever on the Puharich invention. Our plan was to start with the lab that had done the tests, only to discover they had gone out of business. That lab had been outstanding in hydrogen work for many years. Earlier, they verified the unexpectedly very high hydrogen yield from a Magnesium seawater generator patented by Francisco Pacheco. They were unusually open minded. We had known and worked with Pacheco. Mark >From: "Keith Nagel" >Reply-To: >To: >Subject: RE: Puharich >Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:23:17 -0400 > >Hello Mark. > >What sort of tests were performed??? >Did your organization do any testing? > >If there is any resonance effect, I suspect >it's due to the electrode design and not >the electrolyte. > >A quick look at INPADOC shows that the patent >had expired around sept '95 due to failure >to pay maintenance fees. > >K. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgoldes@msn.com] >Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 3:17 PM >To: knagel@gis.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: RE: Puharich > > > >Hi Keith, > >Interesting. The later device looked a lot like a very large spark plug. >Tests indicated Puharich had achieved substantial results. The electronics >at that point were from earlier patents of his and are referenced in the >subject Patent. I believe he built a total of about a half-dozen >prototypes. > >Mark > > >From: "Keith Nagel" > >Reply-To: > >To: > >Subject: RE: Puharich > >Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:51:07 -0400 > > > >Hi. > > > >That percentage figure has been discussed here before, > >it's due to the fact that the water->gas reaction > >is ~120% efficient and the gas->water recombination > >is only ~80% efficient. Make of this what you will... > > > >I was shown an early prototype of the puharich device, > >it was nothing more complex than am automobile spark > >plug driven by a function generator, could have > >been a Tek FG504 or equivalent. Very small currents > >were used, and I think a microscope helped to "tune" > >the device. This work was done by Puharich at the > >lab of an old friend of mine, perhaps the one > >Mark was referring to??? If you want to try > >to reproduce the effect, that's what he used. > >I never tried this exact thing, so I have no idea whether it > >is workable. With all due respect to Mark, it looks > >like an unworkable scheme. But a well written > >patent, to be sure. > > > >K. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgoldes@msn.com] > >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:12 PM > >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > >Subject: Re: Puharich > > > > > >Jones, > > > >The package is en-route. I even located the Congressional testimony I > >referred to that explains the 120% figure for apparent efficiency >concering > >electrolysis, when electric input is all that is measured. We included > >those two pages. > > > >Mark > > > > > > >From: "Jones Beene" > > >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > >To: > > >Subject: Re: Puharich > > >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:53:29 -0700 > > > > > >Mark, > > > > > > > Jones, > > > > > > > > These may be different papers. I'm leaving and do not have time to > > >check. > > > > Do forward an address. > > > > > > > > >Jones Beene > > >22 Sycamore Ave. > > >Larkspur, CA 94939 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage > >today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time >offer-- >sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > _________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 14:26:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA05907; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:22:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:22:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:20:42 +1000 From: Robin van Spaandonk Subject: Re: Hafnium weapons? In-reply-to: <20031001151533.20007.qmail@web11702.mail.yahoo.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <85hmnv8qapge8bi91bjao2ee829s0qpotm@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: <20031001151533.20007.qmail@web11702.mail.yahoo.com> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52046 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In reply to alexander hollins's message of Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:15:33 -0700: Hi, >which would make it perfect for a bio-bomb, wouldnt >it? [snip] It's not hard to come up with new ways of killing people. It takes more talent to come up with new ways of keeping them alive. 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 Oct 1 14:41:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA23240; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:38:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:38:38 -0700 Message-ID: <20031001213830.74501.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: Hafnium weapons? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <85hmnv8qapge8bi91bjao2ee829s0qpotm@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52047 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: but what if the best way to keep some people alive is to kill others? --- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to alexander hollins's message of Wed, 01 > Oct 2003 08:15:33 -0700: > Hi, > > >which would make it perfect for a bio-bomb, wouldnt > >it? > [snip] > It's not hard to come up with new ways of killing > people. It takes more talent to come up with new > ways of keeping them alive. > > > Regards, > > R. van Spaandonk > > When you are counting the dead, remember who voted > for the man that made it all possible. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 15:09:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA15591; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:07:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:07:11 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <1c2.f9accb5.2caca9dd@aol.com> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:06:21 EDT Subject: Question for Jed..Where is the USA now. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1c2.f9accb5.2caca9dd_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52048 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_1c2.f9accb5.2caca9dd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Many societies reached their peak and then faded. Rome reached its peak a long time ago. Great Briton was at its greatest in the 19 Century. In the US manufacturing is now only 40% of the economy. Manufacturing industries and good paying jobs are headed for the boarders at an alarming rate. Did the US reach its peak in the spring of 2000? DOT comms and the new economy have faded. Computer programming knowledge work is headed for India. Steel executives commented the US is headed towards being a third world country. Is this true? Is the same true of Europe? I would like to know what Jed sees in his crystal ball. Frank Znidarsic --part1_1c2.f9accb5.2caca9dd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Many societies reached their peak and then faded. = ; Rome reached its peak a long time ago.  Great Briton was at its great= est in the 19 Century.  In the US manufacturing is now only 40% of the=20= economy.  Manufacturing industries and good paying jobs are headed for=20= the boarders at an alarming rate.  Did the US reach its peak in the spr= ing of 2000?  DOT comms and the new economy have faded.  Computer=20= programming knowledge work is headed for India.  Steel executives comme= nted the US is headed towards being a third world country.  Is this tru= e?  Is the same true of Europe?  I would like to know what Jed see= s in his crystal ball.

Frank Znidarsic --part1_1c2.f9accb5.2caca9dd_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 15:12:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA17669; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:09:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:09:46 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001175835.01ca7b30@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:08:41 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: New ICCF-10 papers available Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52049 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Brothers and Sisters! A bounty of new ICCF-10 papers are available: http://lenr-canr.org/iccf10/iccf10.htm#Proceedings Included are some important ones by Steve Jones et al., featuring snide comments in the introductory paragraphs. Important but snide. Verily, today's downloads were 1,741. But we have only eight more days!!! Tomorrow I hope to upload: Higashiyama, Y., et al. Replication of MHI transmutation experiment by D2 gas permeation through Pd complex. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org. It begins: "Unusual nuclear transmutation reactions have been reported by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). In their experiment, D2 gas permeates through a Pd complexes, which consists of a thin Pd layer, alternating CaO and Pd layers and bulk Pd.1 When they used sample Pd complexes with additional Cs on the surface, Pr emerged on the surface while Cs decreased after the sample was subjected to D2 gas permeation at 343 K and 1 atm for about one week. The elemental analysis was performed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). This phenomenon was reproduced qualitatively in the present replication experiment. We performed D-permeation experiments similar to the MHIs experiment1 three times, and we confirmed the production of Pr. Pd complex samples were provided to us by MHI. The surface was electrolytically cleaned to remove hydrocarbons before depositing Cs. D2 gas was permeated through the Pd complexes at 343 K and 1 atm for about 5 days. Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) was performed to analyze the existence of the elements (Cs and Pr) and the mass distribution. The results showed the existence of Pr. And we also confirmed the existence of Pr by using fast Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) in FNS of Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI). As a result, we confirmed that the nuclear transmutation reaction, from 133Cs to 141Pr, has occurred. . . ." The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) is supposedly one of the biggest, most prestigious nuclear physics labs in Japan. This is like a confirmation at Los Alamos. Wow! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 15:39:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA06247; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:35:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:35:16 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001181048.01ca89b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:35:04 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Great Briton and Japan are their peak now Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52050 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Znidarsic writes: "Many societies reached their peak and then faded. Rome reached its peak a long time ago. Great Britain was at its greatest in the 19 Century. . . ." In my opinion this is an oversimplified view of history. I think Great Britain is at its peak now, at this moment. The population is the highest it has ever been. The island produces so much food, it exports it to Europe. The people are wealthier, in better health, and better educated on average than ever before. They are not saddled with an empire. They never had any right to control the political destinies of people in India and Asia in the first place. Perhaps Great Britain's political influence and military power has waned. So has Japan's, but most people would prefer to live in quiet, peaceful, prosperous Japan today than Japan at the peak of its military might in 1941. In the modern world, military power and great empires generally bring nothing but misery to their possessors. "In the US manufacturing is now only 40% of the economy." Soon it will be 5%, like agriculture, and then 0%. Robots will to all the manufacturing jobs. That is a good thing. "Manufacturing industries and good paying jobs are headed for the boarders at an alarming rate. . . ." Yes, and it would be better if such jobs were done by robots instead. No doubt they will be soon. Even Chinese peasants cannot compete with microcomputers. It is not right to make people do work that a machine can do better. That is worse than slavery. As Norbert Wiener said, this is not a human use of human beings. "Did the US reach its peak in the spring of 2000? . . . I would like to know what Jed sees in his crystal ball." I see free will. People can choose to make the future bountiful and pleasant for everyone. They can reduce population, cure AIDS, heal the damage to the ecosystem, and eliminate dire poverty everywhere. These tasks would be enormously challenging, but I am sure we have the tools and resources we need to accomplish them. Or, if we choose, we can make a living hell out of the whole planet, slaughter all the remaining baboons in 20 years, and condemn another 2 billion people to unspeakable misery. We get to decide. It is up to us. No one can say how we will choose. Nothing in history is predestined. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 19:46:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA03946; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:42:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:42:57 -0700 Message-ID: <004501c3888e$c9604910$4a56ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030925113331.00baa598@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: About Jed and BLP Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:41:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <5_D7mB.A.W9.wC5e_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52051 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > Mike Carrell writes: > > > I agree again. Mills' work will be slam-dunk proven when he can make copies > > of a useful machine. He is currently working to couple the heat output of a > > reactor to a Stirling engine. > > I think this may be a mistake. It would be a great idea if he could pull it > off in the month, but such projects tend to drag on for months, without > success. It would be better to use resources helping other people reproduce > calorimetric experiments. Calorimetry will not convince everyone. It may > not convince as many as a Stirling engine would. But it will convince > enough people to accomplish his purposes, and it is probably cheaper, and > easier to replicate. So as a business strategy it may be less risky. Mills has shown a timeline with a year devoted to applications work. If people are not 'convinced' by the water bath caloriometry experiment and a recently published, very elegant gas discharge experiment, they will not be convinced at all. A useful engine doing real work will be a breakthrough. It must be done sooner or later. Mills' board is pushing him in that direction. > > > Not only that, but calorimetry with macroscopic amounts of gas can be > complicated. It sometimes produces unexpected or counterintuitive results, > such as a rapid buildup of heat. This happens with a gas flow or with a > pressurized container. Gas pressure, the type of gas, the inside wall of > the cell, conduction and so on play complicated roles. Mizuno spent months > working on this problem. I don't mean that gas calorimetry is impossible, > but it can be tricky, so I think liquid is a better choice for the working > fluid. I am pleased to see this replication depends upon liquid temperatures. In the experiment, there is a continuous metered flow of gas through the cell. Mills does this to maintain constant operating conditions. The heat released is conducted to the ambient water, which is continuously stirred. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 21:03:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA03760; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:00:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:00:51 -0700 From: Yakov Reply-To: rockcast@earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Great Briton and Japan are their peak now Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:03:04 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001181048.01ca89b0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001181048.01ca89b0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310020003.04397.rockcast@earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52052 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I would not count the workers out yet. Robots still have a long way to go until they rival man in work and ingenuity capacity. Take carrying a water heater up the basement stairs with no railings and delicate wood on the stair treads. Just imagine a little about a Laurel and Hardy Robot trying and failing miserably to carry the faded white good up the stairs to waiting appliance oblivion. Besides that, most industry is privately owned and run now. Even socialist countries treat the citizen as a cost commodity instead of an asset. The worker is a necessary evil in all the world's societies now, to be used and discarded. Look what happened to the purchasing power of people's pensions in Russia over the last generation, or to the value of national health insurance in population inundated India. Just who is going to buy these robots, employ and maintain them, and then turn around and pay money to a great crowd of non workers with whom they have no business relationship and to whom they legally owe nothing. Tax the businesses and they would emigrate back to China. China would like to have them as the taxes from them would finance an even larger 'great wall of iron' to march out from there and enslave us all. I for one prefer to wear my British shoes and drive our American car. .....and drink my Stolichnaya vodka. Yakov From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 21:50:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA04673; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:48:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:48:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20031002044732.26924.qmail@web41509.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:47:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Harvey Norris Subject: Re: Puharich To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <01d101c387a5$aad8e2c0$8837fea9@cpq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52053 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --- Jones Beene wrote: > Mark, > > > Jones, > > > > These may be different papers. I'm leaving and do > not have time to check. > > Do forward an address. > > > Jones Beene > 22 Sycamore Ave. > Larkspur, CA 94939 Dont have the time right now to reply concerning specifics however one of Puharich's statements in the patent essentially involves placing the water cell "inside" a tank circuit. This sounds like a good idea, and I can cite certain references: however the net result is the same as a step down transformer. The voltage that developes across the plates is non linear. God bless the cult of nines, ect but I didnt see any redeeming qualities when this was tried from a AC Alternator. In fact the unballasted version seems to give better results. The truth is the truth. So much for mythology, even though Puharich appeared to be a modern day Tesla. Sincerely HDN ===== Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 22:04:11 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA13387; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:02:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:02:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20031002050132.76849.qmail@web41501.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:01:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Harvey Norris Subject: Re: A C-note on resonance To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <016901c38781$b0fce300$8837fea9@cpq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52054 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --- Jones Beene wrote: > Hi John, > > > Actually, with A3 being defined as 440Hz and the > frequency of successive > > semitones being defined as separated by the 12th > root of 2, there is no > > discussion required as to the correct frequency of > any of the notes of > > the scale. I have experimented extensively with alternator resonances derived at 480 hz. A plexiglass capacity coupled with high induction coil will whine. Transformers will whine. Even a axial water capacity will whine with a muffled sound. The water will pucker to show an enhanced water tension at the surface. I imagine this has to do with harmonics going into the sound spectrum, but I am no expert on the matter, only an observer. The actual frequency of sound at that frequency is a very low note, so the high pitched noises must be harmonics. Sincerely HDN ===== Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 22:17:50 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA22602; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:15:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:15:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20031002051458.54623.qmail@web41510.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:14:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Harvey Norris Subject: Puharich Records from Teslafy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <20031002050132.76849.qmail@web41501.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52055 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: a point of great confusion among water [ excuse the redundant URL's folks< these are only inacccesible URL records from the past, but the words can do the job also HDN] researchers. The Puharich literature, (patent 4,394,230) for instance points out certain magical frequencies as "tedrahedral water resonances" where the following is noted on pg 16, " The wave form now automatically shifts to a form found to be the prime characteristic necessary for optimum efficiency in the electrolysis of water... the fundamental carrier frequency, 3980 hz, and a harmonic modulation of the carrier is as follows: 1st order modulation = 7980 hz 2nd order modulation = 15,920 hz 3rd order modulation = 31,840 hz 4th order modulation = 63,690 hz But later in the patent,(pg 18) he notes the following; The energy output of component I is an alternating current looking into a highly nonlinear load, ie., the water solution. This alternating current generator (component I) is so designed that at peak load it is in resonance,,, and the vector diagrams show that the capacitive reactance, and the inductive reactance are almost exactly 180 degrees out of phase, so that the net power output is reactive, and the dissipative power is very small. It is the component or vessel itself of the elctrolysisor that has an inherent "capacitive reactance", which for the normal electrolysisor should not be a dominating factor in the conductions that can occur, however the moment we isolate the charge movement by a dielectric barrier, it then becomes a "water capacitor" that can be paired to an equal inductive reactance at the imposed frequency for series resonance. In this case then we can make a water vessel that is in resonance. It is THE FREQUENCY INPUT that determines what values of L that will have to be paired for C of the water capacitor. At 480 hz resonance from an alternator, such a water vessel can be paired with a large induction coil for resonance. Typically these high induction coils use plexiglass capacities for their resonance, where after several thoundands of volts, they emit a high pitched whining noise. Transformers themselves have been noted to emit these loud whines at 480 hz. The frequency of that sound is obviously a higher harmonic of the 480 hz frequency input. When we replace those plates with a near equivalent water capacity, that vessel also has a highly muffled high pitched whine,showing a very remarkable increase in surface water tension: and such a water vessel can be further interacted with another high induction coil resonance, from another phase of the alternator, so that now the electric field of that resonance is orthogonally surrounded by the magnetic field of another "off phased" resonance, so that both of these fields are made to coincide better in their rise and fall times. Such a "flux capacitor" is shown at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/FC/Dsc00233.jpg However this device does not imply that 480 hz is the resonant frequency of water itself! Water is only the part of the construction that is being used as the dielectric to establish the capacity that is needed for the resonance itself! The water capacity essentially could resonate at ANY frequency, provided we can procur the matching inductances necessary for that operation. Now in Puharich's operation then he has specified this also in the above statement concerning the operation as a tank circuit. Specifically in three phase, it can be shown that a WYE short on a set of delta series resonances results in such a said 3 phase tank circuit. See the drawing at 3 phase DELTA TO WYE RESONANCES http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/IRC/3DWR.jpg An actual case example of such a WYE short of resonances shows 2 ma stator line inputs becoming 30.7 ma in the tanks, and 44.4 ma on the shared tank lines in WYE http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/Outer%20DSR/1118WYE.jpg Thus essentially in a certain respect, a further resonance containing the water capacity can be placed on lines of interphasal tanks in this manner, and the inside resonances, are then current limited by the outside conductions of those delta series resonances. The point of the matter here is that the characteristic actions of the water cell are determined by the qualities of impedance of the cell itself and it may not necessarily be a quality of the water itself! In the following statement by Puharich on this matter, this becomes easy to misinterpret; from column 7 of patent specifications; Thus there exists a pure open circuit reversible threshold for water electrolysis in which the water molecules are capacitor charging and discharging at their charactereistic low frequency RC time constant of 0.0002 seconds. It is noted that pure water has a very high dielectric constant which makes such an effect possible. The potential confusion that seems possible from such a statement is the fact that it may be the capacitive reactance itself of the model in his embodiment that establishes that "characteristic low frequency RC time constant, and THAT MIGHT NOT BE A UNIVERSAL PROPERTY OF THE WATER ITSELF, rather it seems more sensible to conclude that it is instead a characteristic of that capacitive reactance being employed. Typically for test tube size samples of water that "somewhat" high frequency would need to be employed in order for the convenience of being able to supply the "cancelling inductive reactance" of a REASONABLE size, where that in itself may be a solid state inductive component of the power supply itself in Puharich's concept. The concept applied to other frequencies, such as the 480 hz model, means that the inductors being employed are a very "unreasonable size." I dont however discount the fact that perhaps there are certain magical frequencies that exist, such as this 32,000 hz range, and that prospects for eventually making a test tube water flux capacitor near those frequencies should be obtainable with test tube size water cells, and the employment of the solid state 20 khz Neon Sign Transformers. To make this advance however it becomes necessary to find the Correct resonant parameters for such a resonance. The problems involved there are the fact that the "book value" calculated resonances may not necessarily be the correct ones, as this was the same phenomenon that occured in the tuning of the high induction coils at 480 hz from the alternator sourcings. Sincerely HDN ===== Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 03:54:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id DAA14102; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:52:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:52:43 -0700 Message-ID: <006801c388d3$368dde50$0300a8c0@ggrf30j> Reply-To: "Nick Palmer" From: "Nick Palmer" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001111723.01ca8900@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Semi OFF TOPIC Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:43:02 +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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <4J7AUD.A.JcD.6NAf_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52056 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: << Rev. Jed of the Church of Frank Close's Three Miracles>> Praise be Nick P.S. I've got a nasty back ache at the moment, any chance of being HEEEEEEEEEEEALED? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 07:00:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA17280; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:58:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:58:35 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031002095251.00b03608@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:58:34 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Semi OFF TOPIC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52057 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer writes: > << Rev. Jed of the Church of Frank Close's Three Miracles>> > > Praise be > > Nick > > P.S. I've got a nasty back ache at the moment, any chance of being > HEEEEEEEEEEEALED? I am afraid not. Dr. Frank Close is nothing but a pain in the neck himself. He and Robert Park are the same person; Park is Close's pen name, and vice versa. Sometimes I fear they are both figments of my imagination. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 08:44:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA03017; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:40:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:40:25 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c388fb$64c50c30$367accd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031001181048.01ca89b0@pop.mindspring.com> <200310020003.04397.rockcast@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Great Briton and Japan are their peak now Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:12:26 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <2DD2-D.A.ku.obEf_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52058 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This discussion is really about the nature of wealth, and has quite profound implications for the past, present and future. We all need food and shelter, the rest are goodies. The population explosion of the last two centuries, coupled with the industrial revolution, has upset a traditional balance which endured for thousands of years. That balance was a 'natural' one, governed by disease, weather and war. There were always rich and poor. In that era by the time people reached puberty they had the knowledge necessary to take their place in their societies. Life was short and many did not live past their 30s. Yet these civilizations accomplished significant things. Human population was a billion or less and Nature could compensate for all our sins. Understanding disease and public sanitation drastically reduced infant mortality without changing the ancient social customs that placed a premium on high birthrates (male dominance and the need for children to support one's old age). A population explosion resulted, which could be sustained by mechanical energy sources and improved agriculture. With the rise of early mass production, workers of limited education could do factory tasks instead, with higher attached value than farming tasks. As machinery reduced the need for human labor on farms, so mechanization reduced the labor to make a 'goodie' such as a car. Increasing value then went to the specialists who could design and build the machines. Qualifying as such a specialist required increasingly advanced education while the workers became elements of an industrial machine instead of artisans. In pre-industrial societies that could support specialist artisans, commerce tended to be local, with the village baker and shoemaker, and the products costly in terms of the time and effort a farmer would expend in exchange for a pair of boots. Today, most people go to the store and shop for price, happy to pay a buck less for widget A [from China] rather than B [from the US]; yet he wants to be paid like an artisan for his labor. The finger of greed points everywhere. Decades ago the fabric mills left New England for the US Southeast, where labor was cheaper, then to Japan, then to China. Reduction of labor cost is the driver, whether by moving to a country where the wage expectations are lower or by introduction of ever more sophisticated machines. The consumers benefit, but fewer workers are needed on the mechanization route. In the very early days of robot technology, opposition came not from the displaced workers, but from middle management. The first jobs for industrial robots were hot and dangerous that few workers really wanted. They knew that someone would have to install and maintain industrial robots, and 'they' [the unions] wanted a piece of that action. Using robot technology can mean rethinking everything about the manufacturing process, and that scared middle management no end, for they would have to think. It happens that Japanese culture had much less bias against automata than European culture, which contributed to rapid development of human-machine factories that could turn out VCRs at the rate of two or three a minute. Japan also is an island with few natural resources except intelligence and discipline. With a small population they made a decision to manufacture for the world and eagerly adopted the statistical quality controls brought by Edwards Deming after WW2. This enabled them to produce high quality goods inexpensively, with minimum labor investment. Those methods are now being copied everywhere, including China. The labor investment per car in the best US factories is now as low as any place in the world. There can be disadvantages to moving manufacture overseas which I won't elaborate. Some companies once moved manufacturing operations overseas and then returned them to the US into automated factories. It all depends on specifics. Office work once seemed immune, but satellite information transfer means that headwork can be done anywhere on the planet. There are large pools of educated talent in Ireland and India. All this creates a divide between those unwilling or unable to gain the skill to contribute this global culture. A partial truth is simply that this high tech culture requires fewer people to run it than to farm, and mechanized farms require fewer people than with horse and plow. Yet, the existing population could not be supported by traditional methods, and would long ago have been stunted by famine. Wealth is not created by taking in each other's laundry, which is the end product of a service economy. Nor is it really created by ownership of concentrated natural resources such as oil wells or diamond mines. In a way, ownership of a concentrated resource such as a semiconductor wafer fab [investment > $1 billion] or indispensable software [Microsoft] is not too different than owning a diamond empire [DuBeers]. The money flows to a few and trickles to the farmers. Wealth is created by manufacture of goods that improve the lives of people. That truth may be discovered too late by an intellectual elite that disdain work and manipulate symbols such as 'money'; I do no devalue 'money', for it is an essential ingredient in commerce. When it is mistaken for a commodity, then great misfortune can follow as in the recent burst bubble. All this is a matter of a world in flux. To put it in perspective, I live in New Jersey. I could take the position that I should not give my money to Kentucky for a car [I own two Toyotas]. We should have our own New Jersey Automobile Company and erect stiff tariffs against cheaper foreign competition. Ultimately, it's another case of Us and Them. In the long run the marketplace will equalize things. In the meantime, we might consider a class action suit against the estate of the Wright Brothers for reparations and crimes against humanity for inventing the airplane, with Boeing being a co-defendant with deeper pockets. After all, we wouldn't have this problem without the cargo versions of the 747 and 767, even if the they bring fresh fruit from South America during the winter. Tesla left no heirs, otherwise we could add his estate to the suit for inventing radio which ultimately gives CNN and tech support from India. But then Sir Arthur C Clarke proposed the communications satellite, and he is wealthy, so.... Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 11:21:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA12340; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:15:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:15:44 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031002141304.01ca8bc8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:15:35 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Uploaded Higashiyama paper Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52059 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Total downloads on Wednesday were 2,039. Grand totals are now 243,805. We have seven more days and we need 6,195 more. It looks good, but traffic falls on weekends, so it may be close. I upload the paper I discussed yesterday, by Higashiyama of Osaka University. (Apropos of nothing, that means Mr. Eastern Mountain of Big Hill University. Japanese names are prosaic.) This is one of the most honest papers I have read. It describes many embarrassing problems they experienced, such as running out of nitrogen gas. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 11:50:35 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA05774; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:45:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:45:41 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031002144253.01cb4820@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:45:02 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Uploaded Higashiyama paper Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52061 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: > I upload the paper I discussed yesterday, by Higashiyama of Osaka I start sound Japanese, talk pidgin, maybe like television Indian, Kimosabe. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 11:55:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA15706; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3F7C6FFB.CEF09863@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:35:39 -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: The Wright Stuff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52060 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: October 02, 2003 Vortex, Vol. 301 of Science (Sept. 26, 2003) has a web access item which is right up Jed Rothwell's alley. The Library of Congress, in celebrating the Wright Brothers' 100th year of their first flight (December 17th), established a new web site which contains 10,000 items of memorabilia and some 300 photographs that the brothers (mostly) took. <> -ak- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 12:33:15 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA07820; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:27:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:27:42 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7C7C69.8766627A@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:28:41 -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: Patents Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52062 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: October 02, 2003 Vortex, An article appeared in the NYT in the Monday (Sept. 29, 2003) Business Today section (pg. C10). An economist, now an asst. Prof. at MIT Sloan School of Management, in her doctorate thesis research, writes in effect that patent laws may not be the best way to protect ideas and gain economic success, but by closely guarding ideas as trade secrets. She gives some examples. One was the Swiss expertise in making quality watches which were difficult to reverse engineer their secret material technology which would have been revealed by the patent system. A second example is one of a French patent holder of making margarine. The Dutch took the idea, kept their own improvements on it secret, and successfully sold the product widely. That Dutch company is now Unilever. The original patent holder died a pauper. Perhaps other examples are: Farnsworth, Tesla, Wright Brothers(?), Coca Cola. I am sure there are many others, known and unknown. So an inventor may have some basis for their "disease". -ak- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 12:35:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA10660; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:31:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:31:13 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7C7D42.FE88E1A@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:18 -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-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Uploaded Higashiyama paper References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031002144253.01cb4820@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52063 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: October 02, 2003 Aah yes, too muchi Japanes satellite TV and too muchi Japanese reading. Hai? -ak- Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > > I upload the paper I discussed yesterday, by Higashiyama of Osaka > > I start sound Japanese, talk pidgin, maybe like television Indian, Kimosabe. > > - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 13:45:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA26023; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:41:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:41:43 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031002161117.00ba8fe8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:41:12 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Great Britain and Japan are their peak now Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52064 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell writes: > Office work once seemed immune, but satellite information transfer means > that headwork can be done anywhere on the planet. Sorry to quibble, but it is fiber optics, not satellite (satcom). Unless you mean "satellite office." Also, headwork for the U.S. cannot be done anywhere on the planet, but only in countries where people speak English fluently. > There are large pools of > educated talent in Ireland and India. And they speak perfect English. The educated talent pool in Japan or China does not speak English, so they cannot take our office jobs. Many programmers from Taiwan do speak English. (An interesting footnote: at ICCF10 Srinivasan and I were chatting about this. He told me that women who work in Indian back offices for US firms speak American English at the office in Indian English at home.) > Wealth is not created by taking in each other's laundry, which is the end > product of a service economy. I wonder about that. It seems strange, but I suspect one can prosper with a mainly non-material economy. It is a matter of efficiency and specialization. If I can do your laundry much more efficiently and cheaper than you can, it makes sense for me to take in your laundry, and for you to do some other service for me. In a surprisingly high number of situations, services can be substituted for products. Many objects we purchase and things that we do are actually just a form of information exchange. For example: banking, travel (local and long distance) and take-out restaurants can largely be replaced with information. A restaurant or grocery store deli is selling you expertise in cooking: a recipe, and the skill to execute it. In the distant future, when cooking is done by robots, you will be able to download the recipe. The biggest, most gritty, big-iron down-to-earth industry in the past was war. War was a quintessential contest of production and material goods: gigantic steel battleships and huge armies. But war in its essence is a contest of information. In the next 50 years, small robotic weapons will be developed, such as birdlike airplanes powered by CF that can fly thousands of miles autonomously, send pictures back to headquarters via a satellite link, and possibly carry out assassinations. If the British had possessed a few dozen such weapons on September 1, 1939, they could have killed Hitler and all of his henchmen within hours, ended WWII before it began. If the U.S. possessed them today, bin Laden and Hussein would be dead, and invasions costing billions of dollars per day would not be necessary. Also, by the way, if such weapons become so cheap they are ubiquitous, and in private hands (legally or not), VIPs such as presidents, prime ministers, and movie stars will cease to exist. Such people will be in such peril of assassination, and under such constant intrusive surveillance, they will have to change the nature of their jobs. They will act like unimportant small-town mayors, or junior state senators. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 15:01:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA29058; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:57:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:57:48 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031002165215.01cb4820@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:56:01 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Patents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52065 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Akira Kawasaki writes: > An article appeared in the NYT in the Monday (Sept. 29, 2003) Business > Today section (pg. C10). An economist, now an asst. Prof. at MIT Sloan > School of Management, in her doctorate thesis research, writes in effect > that patent laws may not be the best way to protect ideas and gain > economic success, but by closely guarding ideas as trade secrets. That is an interesting hypothesis. I think it depends upon the nature of the industry. Fleischmann and others have told me that secrets in electrochemical industries are protected by the complexity of the process, not by patents. Software patents are rare and probably not defensible. second > example is one of a French patent holder of making margarine. The Dutch > took the idea, kept their own improvements on it secret, and > successfully sold the product widely. That Dutch company is now > Unilever. The original patent holder died a pauper. That would not happen today. Reverse engineering is much easier than it used to be, and many more details about products such as food must be revealed to the public because of safety concerns. > Perhaps other examples are: Farnsworth, Tesla, Wright Brothers(?), Coca > Cola. I am sure there are many others, known and unknown. So an inventor > may have some basis for their "disease". The Coca Cola "secret recipe" is hardly a secret. It calls for denatured cocaine essence. To most people (including me), Coca-Cola is indistinguishable from competing drinks such as Pepsi-Cola. The Wrights kept no secrets. They could not kept any after the public became interested in their machine. Anyone skilled engineer looking at it could see how it worked. Within months dozens of superior airplanes were manufactured. Sikorsky, in Russia, may never even have seen another airplane before he made his first successful models. Within a few years he made enclosed airplanes capable of carrying a dozen people thousands of miles. I do not think Farnsworth kept any secrets, but his work was suppressed by a corporation -- ITT, I think it was. Any discovery relating to anomalous energy, such as cold fusion or the Mills or Papp effects (assuming they are real), must be of a fundamental nature. I do not think it would be possible to keep such a thing secret. Once its existence becomes known, every industrial corporation on earth will frantically reverse engineer it. Furthermore, regulatory agencies and private agencies such as Underwriters Laboratory require manufacturers to reveal every component, every specification, and every aspect of manufacturing, to insure safety. You are free to build a Papp engine in secret, but you could not sell one in any store in the U.S., Japan or Europe, because no store will sell goods that are not certified by Underwriters Lab. No fire inspector or building code in the first world would allow a homeowner to install or operate such a machine. It is out of the question, and anyone who thinks he is going to make a fortune selling secret o-u generators knows nothing about real world business practicalities and laws. Actually, I think any discovery of this nature will be so fundamental it will not be patentable. It will be a "force of nature." The implementation may be patentable. This to say, the designs of the first machines making use of the energy source may be patented. However, I expect these machines will be obsolete within months, so the patents will be useless. The first several semiconductor designs and semiconductor manufacturing machines became obsolete within months, with generation following generation. They were obsolete before they could be marketed. I think patents, secrecy, and conventional textbook business strategies have no role in cold fusion. It calls for a radically different business strategy, or no strategy at all -- perhaps it can only be given away, like Linux. . . . This is getting off topic, but I have heard several lunatic fringe inventors complain that modern society will not leave them alone. They have the romantic illusion that in the past people were allowed to develop anything they wanted. Anyone who thinks that building codes and rigorous, conformist laws governing buildings, vehicles, ships and the like are a symptom of modern authoritarian society knows nothing about industrial history. I happen to know more about this than I wish I did, because I own some buildings constructed circa 1800 in Pennsylvania. The people who restore such buildings are experts on early American building practices, materials, standards and laws. Not only were there rigorous, restrictive building standards back then, the punishment for not meeting them was much more severe than it is today. They locked contractors in the stocks, or tarred and feathered them and ran them out of town. Try doing that to a contractor today! In other words, libertarianism is a modern invention. Letting parents raise their children as they like without intervention from society is a unprecedented modern notion. In colonial New England or Pennsylvania, a parent who tried that would have had the children snatched from his control. Even in the 1950s courts would break up families and send the children to foster homes for reasons we would consider trivial today, such as oddball habits or a mother who appeared to be slightly retarded. In 1942, a Federal economist named John Bovingdon was fired in disgrace, and his picture printed in newspapers and magazines all over the country, because someone found a photograph of him dancing in an amateur modern dance production in 1936. Life magazine wrote: "Discovered in the new Office of Economic Warfare by red-eyed Martin Dies, Bovingdon was denounced by the Texas Congressman as a man whose 'record and career as a ballet dancer is well known.'" Libertarianism is the product of 200 years of democracy. It did not exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. For the most part, the Bill of Rights was a dead letter. It was ignored by the courts and police. When the Mormons tried to start a new religion, they were killed and driven out of the states. Even petty nonconformity was savagely attacked in ways that would be unthinkable today. In New England, around 1840 when it customary for men to shave, a man who wore a beard was repeatedly beat up by angry mobs and held in jail without charges for months. I saw a photo of his gravestone which describes all of this. In the 1960s, when long hair became a political symbol, hippies were occasionally attacked or ridiculed, but the treatment was much gentler than it would have been 50 or 100 years earlier. See: I. Glasser, "Visions of Liberty," (Arcade, 1991) - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 15:25:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA16595; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:21:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:21:17 -0700 Message-ID: <20031002222112.27565.qmail@web11707.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:21:12 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: RE: Patents To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031002165215.01cb4820@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52066 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Coca Cola "secret recipe" is hardly a secret. It calls for denatured cocaine essence not really, and not anymore. they used to filter the final product through the leaves of the cocaine plant. teh acid would dissolve some into it. it doesnt contain any anymore. and i can tell teh diff with ease. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 15:57:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA13515; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:54:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:54:29 -0700 Message-ID: <410-220031042225451578@mindspring.com> X-Priority: 3 Reply-To: jedrothwell@mindspring.com X-Mailer: EarthLink MailBox 2004.0.129.0 (Windows) From: "Jed Rothwell" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Patents Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:54:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-ELNK-Trace: 25e7688170aa9857b054f8d56408d260416dc04816f3191c0349c23f4cc6c8fd51baf663d6f9cf6510ec827ca34601a1350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52067 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: alexander hollins writes: > The Coca Cola "secret recipe" is hardly a secret. It > calls for > denatured > cocaine essence > > > not really, and not anymore. they used to filter the > final product through the leaves of the cocaine plant. Countless books and Internet sites claim the Coca Cola still includes denatured cocaine essence. Coca Cola is one of the few companies authorized to use some of the 3,000 tons of leaves legally exported from Peru. See, for example: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1004/a01.html?397 - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 16:18:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA31370; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:15:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:15:36 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7CB1D7.26FBA9D2@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:16:39 -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: re: patents Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52068 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: October 02, 2003 I think it was Sarnoff's RCA (Radio Corporation of America) which was intent in developing television. And it was not so much suppression of Farnsworth but beating him in the long cost of litigation of his patents. Recently a book came out about Farnsworth. I am no longer a soda guzzler but there are flavour differences between the cola brands. Witness the failure and disappearance of 'New Coke' and bringing back the old Coke flavour as the 'Classic Coke'. And other cola brands have yet to replicate the exact flavour of Coca Cola. Pepsi's not bad. I believe the Wrights had patents which did not serve them well. -ak- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 16:39:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA13898; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:36:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:36:45 -0700 Message-ID: <15665705.1065137801011.JavaMail.root@statler.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:36:40 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: Randy Souther Reply-To: Randy Souther To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Press Trust of India Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52069 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Press Trust of India, 10/1/03: A top Indian nuclear physicist has said that India should revive work on cold fusion because the phenomenon appears to be real with potential applications. "It is evident from the papers presented that cold fusion which was rejected by mainstream scientists 14 years ago is going to bounce back as a fascinating new area of nuclear science," M Srinivasan, formerly associate director of physics group at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) who participated at the global cold fusion conference that ended here recently told PTI. Srinivasan said, India which stopped funding cold fusion research in 1992, should not lag behind in the area. Etc. ---------------------------------- Randy Souther From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 2 21:37:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA29826; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:34:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:34:38 -0700 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.98.221 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:33:55 -0700 Subject: FW: Gravity-Powered, Fuel-Less Flight may Transform the Aviation Industry From: "Eugene F. Mallove" To: "vortex l eskimo.com" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id VAA29777 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52070 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Begin forwarded message: > From: "Hunt Aviation, Corp." > > Gravity-Powered, Fuel-Less Flight may Transform the Aviation Industry > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: > > HUNT AVIATION, CORP INTRODUCES TO THE AVIATION AND DEFENSE INDUSTRIES > A NEW GRAVITY POWERED AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY THAT ACCOMPLISHES SUSTAINED > FUEL-LESS FLIGHT (PATENTS PENDING): > > PASS CHRISTIAN, MS (Oct. 2, 2003) - Hunt Aviation, Corp. is > introducing its new aircraft technology to the aviation and defense > industries during two of the nation’s largest aviation conferences: > The National Business Aviation Association’s Conference in Orlando, FL > on the 7-9 of October and Aviation Week’s A&D Programs & Productivity > Conference in Arlington, Texas on the 28-30 of October. > > A description of Hunt Aviation’s technology that is based on patents > filed by inventor, Robert D. Hunt, was first published in the August > issue of InFlight Magazine. “The interest in our new aircraft is > already taking an international perspective. Major players in > aviation from around the world are coming over to meet with us and we > fully expect our negotiations to continue to gain momentum as this > incredible invention becomes more widely known”, stated Gene Cox, > President of Hunt Aviation Corp. “We are setting up a consortium of > aviation manufacturers and suppliers that want to help us develop this > exciting new technology in exchange for licensing rights to the use of > the technology.” > > Hunt’s invention creates a power cycle out of two forces of gravity; > (1) buoyancy – a force of gravity that creates motion in the upward > direction that is caused by the greater gravitational pull of the > earth on a more dense lifting fluid than on a less dense body of mass > that is being lifted by the lifting fluid, known as the Archimedes > Principal; and, (2) gravity acceleration – the increase in downward > velocity associated with a falling body of mass. Buoyancy to lift the > “Gravity-Plane”, as Hunt Aviation refers to its new hybrid aircraft, > to high altitude is created by gas bags filled with helium within two > large rigid pontoon shaped lifting bodies to create lighter-than-air > lift. > > How it works: (1) Lighter-Than-Air (Aerostatic) Lift – inert helium > gas fills gas-bags enclosed within a rigid lightweight aircraft to > gain altitude; and, (2) Loss of Lift – air from the surrounding > atmosphere is compressed into the aircraft to cause the loss of > aerostatic lift; and, (3) Gliding – the aircraft glides long distances > using high aspect ratio glider type of wings; and, (4) Wind Turbines – > create and store energy during the downward glide and the stored > energy is later used to again lose lift in a cycle. The aircraft does > not require fuel, which is aviation’s main cost, making it safe with > no fuel to burn or explode. The aircraft, having no emissions or > noise, is extremely environmentally friendly. “Hunt’s invention is > the first practical use of gravity to provide a motive force by > forming a continuous cycle out of two forces of gravity with the > result being, for the first time ever, self-sustained fuel-less > flight,” Gene Cox stated, “and this is a tremendous! > and historic accomplishment.” > > Additional Information: > > A description of the technology and graphics may be downloaded from > the Corporate News Link. > See Animation of the Flight of Hunt Aviation’s new Gravity Powered, > Fuel-Less Flight Aircraft (the animation should be loaded into the > site by this weekend). Also, see the WLOX-TV television interview in > Biloxi, MS with Inventor Robert Hunt under the heading “News” at our > Website: > > www.fuellessflight.com > > To access the technology section of the website, the User Name is > “flight” and the Password is “gravity”. > > Contact: > Gene Cox, the President of Hunt Aviation, Corp. > 1-228-452-0808 > > Additional information is available online: > http://www.corporatenews.net/cgi-bin/pc200v3.php?pccl=24492 > > From: Hunt Aviation, Corp. > Web Site: fuellessflight.com > Reply: mailto:gene@fuellessflight.com > Telephone:1-228-452-0808 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Please use Reply button for address updates or other changes. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Service Provided by www.corporatenews.com > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 03:56:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id DAA26011; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:53:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:53:52 -0700 Message-ID: <001901c3899c$9c8e97c0$3390cbc1@pc> From: "Noel Whitney" To: References: <3F7C7C69.8766627A@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Patents Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:53:41 +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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52071 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Patent protection on Mature technologies is a waste of time . If your pocket is not as deep as a large organisation you hav not a chance against them in court. Far better to have extensive "Know - how" and this is what you have in a unique position. In Ireland Royalties from patents are "tax free" so this is where the interest is . ----- Original Message ----- From: Akira Kawasaki To: Vortex Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 8:28 PM Subject: Patents > October 02, 2003 > > Vortex, > > An article appeared in the NYT in the Monday (Sept. 29, 2003) Business > Today section (pg. C10). An economist, now an asst. Prof. at MIT Sloan > School of Management, in her doctorate thesis research, writes in effect > that patent laws may not be the best way to protect ideas and gain > economic success, but by closely guarding ideas as trade secrets. She > gives some examples. One was the Swiss expertise in making quality > watches which were difficult to reverse engineer their secret material > technology which would have been revealed by the patent system. A second > example is one of a French patent holder of making margarine. The Dutch > took the idea, kept their own improvements on it secret, and > successfully sold the product widely. That Dutch company is now > Unilever. The original patent holder died a pauper. > Perhaps other examples are: Farnsworth, Tesla, Wright Brothers(?), Coca > Cola. I am sure there are many others, known and unknown. So an inventor > may have some basis for their "disease". > > -ak- > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 06:30:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA25389; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:28:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:28:20 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <7b.1a250a4a.2caed347@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:27:35 EDT Subject: In responce to Terry Blanton and Ning Li's paper To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7b.1a250a4a.2caed347_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: <2TZReC.A.hMG.zlXf_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52072 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_7b.1a250a4a.2caed347_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Terry for sending me Ning Li's paper. As I read this paper I get the sense of a snow job. I get this upon reading many professional papers. example "The canonical momentum for the j-th particle computed from the Lagrangian is related to its velocity by" then lots of math. Lots of equations and key words that are not explained or developed. For example; what is the "London" and the "Dewitt effect" . Statements don't make sence to me. Fro example "since lattice ions possesses magnetic moments but the Cooper pair's inertial frame" by gravitomagnetic field." Perhaps it is me. What I get the sense that she is trying to do is to line up the spins of the nucleons. A spinning mass does generate a gravitomagnetic field. I don't see any gravitational terms in her paper. In my work I developed the equations that would determine the magnitude of the gravitomagnetic field produced by a spinning proton. ref the chapter on natural symmetries http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html per my work and accepted theory The electromagnetic field = Uo (dCharge / dt) the gravitomagnetic field = (G/cc) (dMass / dt) The spin of the photon can be calculated from the quantum condition. It gives the angular momentum around a closed loop. MVr = (1/2)h (bar) Using this spin the gravitomagentic field produced is very small. Nowhere in Ning's paper do I see the gravitational constant G. You need this constant to calculate the gravitomagnetic field. Ning say something about the spin being transferred to the nucleus. I'm not sure about this but is not the spin given by the quantum condition? Perhaps if the nucleons could spin up to a very high speed Ning's idea could work. I'll have to read the paper again to get an understanding. The quantum conditon does state Nh. What is n she says not. Ning's process subjects a superconductor to a high magnetic field. I see why NASA did this and where they went wrong. ................... My work is quite different. I suggest rotating superconductor while applying a radio frequency field. Potletknov did this. I studied the path of the quantum transition. I found that the electron in transition travels at a velocity of one million meters per second. This transitional velocity may be induced in superconductor by vibration. The vibrational frequency depends on the size of the superconductor. The dimensional frequency is one megahertz-meter. The whole superconder is in the transitional state. During a quantum transition the constants of the motion converge. For example, during beta decay the gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic fields interact. The neutron is converted to a proton, an electromagnetic photon is given off, a Beta is given off, and a neutrino is emitted. The fields of the various particles directly interact during transition. Knowing the path of the transition will enable me to induce the transitional state in a macroscopic quantum object (a Bose condensate). Going along this path I get spin a superconductor and apply a strong radio frequency field. I hope I'm on track. I hope I have not taken Ning Li's work the wrong way. Frank Znidarsic --part1_7b.1a250a4a.2caed347_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you Terry for sending me Ning Li's paper. =20= As I read this paper I get the sense of a snow job.  I get this upon re= ading many professional papers. example "The canonical momentum for the j-th= particle computed from the Lagrangian is related to its velocity by" =20= then lots of math.   Lots of equations and key words that are not=20= explained or developed.  For example; what is the "London" and the "Dew= itt effect" .  Statements don't make sence to me.  Fro example "si= nce lattice ions possesses magnetic moments but the Cooper pair's inertial f= rame" by gravitomagnetic field."  Perhaps it is me.

What I get the sense that she is trying to do is to line up the spins of the= nucleons.  A spinning mass does generate a gravitomagnetic field. = ; I don't see any gravitational terms in her paper.  In my work I devel= oped the equations that would determine the magnitude of the gravitomagnetic= field produced by a spinning proton.

ref the chapter on natural symmetries
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html
per my work and accepted theory

The electromagnetic field =3D Uo (dCharge / dt)

the gravitomagnetic field =3D (G/cc) (dMass / dt)

The spin of the photon can be calculated from the quantum condition.  I= t gives the angular momentum around
a closed loop.

MVr =3D (1/2)h (bar)

Using this spin the gravitomagentic field produced is very small.

Nowhere in Ning's paper do I see the gravitational constant G.  You nee= d this constant to calculate the gravitomagnetic field.  Ning say somet= hing about the spin being transferred to the nucleus.  I'm not sure abo= ut this but is not the spin given by the quantum condition?  Perhaps if= the nucleons could spin up to a very high speed Ning's idea could work.&nbs= p; I'll have to read the paper again to get an understanding. The quantum co= nditon does state Nh.  What is n  she says not.  Ning's proce= ss subjects a superconductor to a high magnetic field. I see why NASA did th= is and where they went wrong.

...................

My work is quite different.  I suggest rotating superconductor while ap= plying a radio frequency field.  Potletknov did this.  I studied t= he path of the quantum transition.  I found that the electron in transi= tion travels at a velocity of one million meters per second.  This tran= sitional velocity may be induced in superconductor by vibration.  The v= ibrational frequency depends on the size of the superconductor.  The di= mensional frequency is one megahertz-meter.  The whole superconder is i= n the transitional state.  During a quantum transition the constants of= the motion converge.  For example, during beta decay the gravitational= , strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic fields interact.  T= he neutron is converted to a proton, an electromagnetic photon is given off,=   a Beta is given off, and a neutrino is emitted.  The fields of t= he various particles directly interact during transition.  Knowing the=20= path of the transition will enable me to induce the transitional state in a=20= macroscopic quantum object (a Bose condensate).  Going along this path=20= I get spin a superconductor and apply a strong radio frequency field.


I hope I'm on track.  I hope I have not taken Ning Li's work the wrong=20= way.

Frank Znidarsic --part1_7b.1a250a4a.2caed347_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 07:40:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA12254; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:38:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:38:19 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7D89C4.8030901@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:37:56 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: In responce to Terry Blanton and Ning Li's paper References: <7b.1a250a4a.2caed347@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <7b.1a250a4a.2caed347@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52073 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > I hope I'm on track. I hope I have not taken Ning Li's work the wrong > way. Nope, that's pretty much the way I saw it. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 07:45:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA16866; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:43:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:43:33 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c389bc$3016bf80$c059ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <3F7CB1D7.26FBA9D2@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:16:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52074 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Farnsworth has a statue in one of the lower halls of Congress, appropriately honoring him has the inventor of electronically scanned television. He was on the air with TV in the Philadelphia region in the '30s. What he accomplished starting from magazines in a farmhouse attic is surely one of the most dazzling feats of invention. Great honor is due him, as to the local businessmen who supported him in his early days. His patents were challenged by RCA, in what may or may not have been a fair fight. Such challenges are normal for any really important patents. A patent is basically a license to sue, and manufacturers will try to avoid paying royalties by evading or invalidating the patent. Farnsworth won, but WW2 intervened. By the time the war was over and RCA began production of commercial television, Farnsworth's patents had expired and he did not reap the royalties he earned. Farnsworth's system had one fatal flaw, which may have prevented him from realizing much lhad the war not intervened. His camera tube, the Image Dissector, was extremely insensitive to light. Studio lighting would bake actors in front of the camera. Across the Delaware River in Camden, Vladimir Zworykin was developing his Iconoscope, which was far more sensitive. The target could store charge, which was dumped by the scanning beam. Studio lighting and sunlight were more reasonable. Later camera developments by RCA reduced the studio lighting requirements to comfortable levels. Image Dissectors have some advantages and I believe some are still made for specialized uses. Farnsworth died an embittered man, but it wasn't all Sarnoff's fault. Sarnoff was the moving force of RCA, that essentiually created the broadcast industry and compatable color television. After that the company began to lose its way and was purchased by GE in the '80s. Of that once world-class company, only NBC remains in GE hands. Thompson of France owns the RCA and GE trademarks in consumer electronics, and Bertelsman AG owns RCA brand name in music (along with a bunch of other labels). Sob. (I worked 38 years for RCA) Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 08:22:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA11161; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:19:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:19:03 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:18:10 EDT Subject: part II in responce to Terry Blanton and Li's paper To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e4.3ea70b34.2caeed32_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52075 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_e4.3ea70b34.2caeed32_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ning Li's paper part II. It appears that Ning Li is attempting to line up the spins of the nucleons and then spin them up. If they could be made to spin fast enough this would work. How is she going to do this? On page 79 (after a lot of stuff) she finally get to root of it and presents Bohr's quantum condition. The condition gives the spin of a nucleon. That a good place to start not to finish. angular momentum = h(bar) velocity x radius x mass = h(bar) She states; "One sees that the dependence of the rotational velocity on the radius for lattice ions in superconductors is radically different from normal mass rotation." I don't understand this. Is not angular momentum conserved? Going on she does a lot of stuff that makes no sense to me and concludes. "The momenta acquired by a lattice ion from the magnetic field, given by Kowitt, is on the order of 10exp45 larger than its zero point value of h(bar)" That's what she is trying to do, spin up the nucleons. What is a lattice ion? She states that most of the lattice ions mass is in the nucleus. I conclude that she is spinning up the nucleus. She is trying to spin a nucleons by applying an external magnetic field. Superconductors expel magnetic fields. She implies that this expulsion is due to a counter magnetic field produced by the Cooper pairs. The Cooper pairs must spin faster to keep the external magnetic field out of a superconductor. She says (I believe she says) that Cooper pairs must have a spin of one and cannot spin up. The excess angular momentum is transferred to the nucleus. I don't understand this logical contradiction. Why does the magnetic permeability of a superconductor drop to zero? Do the Cooper pairs change in some way in reaction to an external magnetic field? I don't know. I thought circulating currents in a superconductor opposed the external magnetic field. What is the angular momenta associated with these circulating currents? Is it transferred to the nuclues. I don't know. No where does she mention circulating currents. If all of the orbital electron spin was transferred to the nucleus the nuclear spin would not approach 10exp45. In her model the nuclear spin must come in reaction to the external magnetic field. I wish I could add more. Frank Znidarsic --part1_e4.3ea70b34.2caeed32_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ning Li's paper part II.  


It appears that Ning Li is attempting to line up the spins of the nucleons and then spin them up.  If they could be made to spin fast enough this=20= would work.


How is she going to do this?  On page 79 (after a lot of stuff) she fin= ally get to root of it and presents
Bohr's quantum condition.  The condition gives the spin of a nucleon. T= hat a good place to start not to finish.

angular momentum =3D h(bar)

velocity x radius x mass =3D h(bar)

She states;

"One sees that the dependence of the rotational velocity on the radius for l= attice ions in superconductors is
radically different from normal mass rotation."

I don't understand this.  Is not angular momentum conserved?  Goin= g on she does
a lot of stuff that makes no sense to me and concludes.


"The momenta acquired by a lattice ion from the magnetic field, given by Kow= itt,
is on the order of 10exp45 larger than its zero point value of h(bar)"


That's what she is trying to do, spin up the nucleons.  What is a latti= ce ion?  She states that
most of the lattice ions mass is in the nucleus.  I conclude that she i= s spinning up the
nucleus.


She is trying to spin a nucleons by applying an external magnetic field.&nbs= p; Superconductors
expel magnetic fields.  She implies that this expulsion is due to a cou= nter magnetic
field produced by the Cooper pairs.  The Cooper pairs must spin faster=20= to keep
the external magnetic field out of a superconductor.  She says (I belie= ve she says) that
Cooper pairs must have a spin of one and cannot spin up.
The excess angular momentum is transferred to the nucleus.  I don't understand this logical contradiction.   Why does the magnetic per= meability
of a superconductor drop to zero?  Do the Cooper pairs change in some w= ay
in reaction to an external magnetic field?   I don't know.  I= thought circulating currents
in a superconductor opposed the external magnetic field.  What is the a= ngular momenta
associated with these circulating currents?  Is it transferred to the n= uclues.  I don't know.
No where does she mention circulating currents.


If all of the orbital electron spin was transferred to the nucleus the nucle= ar spin would
not approach 10exp45. 

In her model the nuclear spin must come in reaction to the external magnetic= field.  

I wish I could add more.

Frank Znidarsic
 --part1_e4.3ea70b34.2caeed32_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 08:23:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA12248; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:20:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:20:25 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.70.24.54] X-Originating-Email: [mgoldes@msn.com] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:02:42 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2003 15:02:42.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[6520E7C0:01C389BF] Resent-Message-ID: <9ijSgB.A.Q_C.4OZf_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52076 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: My first job out of college was as an Executive Trainee at AMPEX. RCA reverse engineered and produced our Model 2000, which was the first tape recorder to take the studios and networks by storm. The only thing different was the label. Bing Crosby's money was behind AMPEX. We sued and won. RCA paid AMPEX the retail value ($3,000) of every machine that had two pieces of metal put together in the factory, as well as all that had been sold. They never made a tape recorder that resembled an AMPEX machine again. We were told it was only the second time RCA had lost a patent lawsuit. >From: "Mike Carrell" >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >To: >Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth >Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:16:08 -0400 > >Farnsworth has a statue in one of the lower halls of Congress, >appropriately >honoring him has the inventor of electronically scanned television. He was >on the air with TV in the Philadelphia region in the '30s. What he >accomplished starting from magazines in a farmhouse attic is surely one of >the most dazzling feats of invention. Great honor is due him, as to the >local businessmen who supported him in his early days. > >His patents were challenged by RCA, in what may or may not have been a fair >fight. Such challenges are normal for any really important patents. A >patent >is basically a license to sue, and manufacturers will try to avoid paying >royalties by evading or invalidating the patent. Farnsworth won, but WW2 >intervened. By the time the war was over and RCA began production of >commercial television, Farnsworth's patents had expired and he did not reap >the royalties he earned. > >Farnsworth's system had one fatal flaw, which may have prevented him from >realizing much lhad the war not intervened. His camera tube, the Image >Dissector, was extremely insensitive to light. Studio lighting would bake >actors in front of the camera. > >Across the Delaware River in Camden, Vladimir Zworykin was developing his >Iconoscope, which was far more sensitive. The target could store charge, >which was dumped by the scanning beam. Studio lighting and sunlight were >more reasonable. Later camera developments by RCA reduced the studio >lighting requirements to comfortable levels. > >Image Dissectors have some advantages and I believe some are still made for >specialized uses. > >Farnsworth died an embittered man, but it wasn't all Sarnoff's fault. >Sarnoff was the moving force of RCA, that essentiually created the >broadcast >industry and compatable color television. After that the company began to >lose its way and was purchased by GE in the '80s. Of that once world-class >company, only NBC remains in GE hands. Thompson of France owns the RCA and >GE trademarks in consumer electronics, and Bertelsman AG owns RCA brand >name >in music (along with a bunch of other labels). > >Sob. (I worked 38 years for RCA) > >Mike Carrell > > _________________________________________________________________ Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 08:25:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA14107; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:22:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:22:18 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003100736.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:21:46 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: re: patents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52077 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: > I think it was Sarnoff's RCA (Radio Corporation of America) which was > intent in developing television. And it was not so much suppression of > Farnsworth but beating him in the long cost of litigation of his > patents. Ah, yes. You are talking about another Farnsworth controversy. ITT suppressed his work on the fusor at the end of his life. The last fusor was made in 1969, at BYU, shortly before Farnsworth died in 1971. By most accounts, he died a broken man when he realized that ITT meant to bury the development -- which it did. He cashed in his life insurance and exhausted his own funds trying to develop the fusor. See: http://www.slcc.edu/schools/hum_sci/physics/whatis/biography/farnsworth.html This is one of the few documented cases in which we know the establishment really did stamp out a new energy invention. There have been many other allegations, and many fringe inventors claim they are being suppressed. > I believe the Wrights had patents which did not serve them well. I think they received only one patent while Wilbur was alive, in 1906. Orville got more later, as I recall. The patent served them well in one sense, and it was a fatal disaster in another. After 1908 the patent was challenged in many court cases. The Wrights won every case, and they got a considerable amount of money in the settlements I think, but Wilbur drove himself so hard pursuing the court cases, he was exhausted and weakened. His friends thought that contributed to his death from typhoid fever in 1912, at age 45. Many historians believe that if the Wright brothers had delayed their 1908 demonstration by another year, others would have gotten credit for the airplane, and they would be forgotten men. Only aviation enthusiasts like me would remember them, the way we remember Sikorski and Sopwith (who made superb contributions). That should be a lesson to people like Mills. If he really has something, he must pull out the stops and demonstrate it effectively. Based on his recent papers and what Mike Carrell has told us, I believe his devices could be used in a demonstration that could convince the world as effectively as the Wright 1908 flights did. He does not need a practical device. It is all a matter of presenting it correctly, explaining it, and opening it up to the world enough to leave no doubts. Whether he will use the demo properly remains to be seen. It would cost him nothing, and it would be easy to do, but I fear he will not do it. He may squander the opportunity, just as Patterson did. He has squandered every other opportunity so far, as far as I can tell. Even if Mills or some other researcher develops a practical device, he could still blow it. Papp apparently did that -- he literally blew it, exploding his own device in a fit of paranoia. A researcher with a practical device might withhold it in paranoid secrecy, or make crazy-sounding boasts that create doubts in people's minds, or demonstrate the machine in a way that seems calculated to be unconvincing, such as mixing in uncontrolled noise with the signal, the way Correa has done. Patterson was a textbook case of inventor's disease. People who doubt there is such a syndrome would have seen it in the purest form if they could have accompanies me to California. I watched a yin-yang battle between sanity and lunacy play out. Apparently, Patterson (or his son-in-law the late Jim Reding) selected low-grade, crude instruments on purpose, to make the signal-to-noise ratio low. He told Cravens to make the display look home-made, and crude, and that is what Cravens did. It would have been far more convincing with a few thousand dollars worth of proper flow meters, power meters, a computer logger, and so on. When George Miley and I saw it, we turned to one another and said, "why did they use such lousy instruments?!?" Years later I learned the truth. I still find it incredible that anyone would deliberately shoot himself in the foot this way, and throw away the chance of a lifetime. ABC and major corporations were begging to see the demo, even though it was a piece of garbage. In the end, they turned down ABC and most of the corporations, in a fit of self-destructive lunacy. It is amazing they let me see the gadget. It almost did not happen. They tried to stop me from writing notes or recording the data, and then they tried to throw me out of the room after ten minutes. They would not answer technical questions, or let me measure the water temperature with my own instruments. This was after inviting me to spend $800 on an airplane ticket to come and see it! I blew up, yelled and carried on, and said I would take the next plane home and tell everyone on that Internet that they had reneged and made me waste the airfare and two days of my time. They backed down and let me make proper observations, so I could write about the gadget. I called Chris Tinsley from the hotel a few hours after this happened. I was still spouting and fuming. He said he never heard me so angry, and he knew I seldom bear a grudge for more than ten minutes. The epilogue was hilarious and outrageous. I wrote a report, and Reding soon circulated it and bragged about it! The report that he tried to stop me from writing! Corporations and individual inventors have often destroyed good products with bad marketing. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 09:03:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA09936; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:58:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:58:53 -0700 Message-ID: <003501c389c5$48306680$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <3F7CB1D7.26FBA9D2@ix.netcom.com> <000001c389bc$3016bf80$c059ccd1@asus> Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:44:48 -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 IAA09871 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52078 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell wote, > Farnsworth died an embittered man, but it wasn't all Sarnoff's fault. > Sarnoff was the moving force of RCA, that essentiually created the broadcast > industry and compatable color television. After that the company began to > lose its way and was purchased by GE in the '80s. Of that once world-class > company, only NBC remains in GE hands. Thompson of France owns the RCA and > GE trademarks in consumer electronics, and Bertelsman AG owns RCA brand name > in music (along with a bunch of other labels). > > Sob. (I worked 38 years for RCA) An even more bitter disappointment, esp. for those in the alternative-energy fields was with the Fusor, which used techniques from both the CRT and the multitpactor. In the early days of controlled fusion experiments, one of the problems was to keep the heated fuel from the reactor walls and Farnsworth correctly believed that he could build an electrostatic confinement system in which the "walls" were ions being created by a version of the multipactor. He called this concept a virtual electrode, and the system as a whole the Fusor, which was later improved on by his colleague Hilsch. There was even one reported incidence of self-sustaining "breakeven" with the Fusor, but no one is sure because of the secrecy involved. All this fusion work had taken place at the Farnsworth Television lab, which was purchased by ITT in 1949 with plans on becoming the next RCA. Unfortunately, in 1961 Harold Geneen took control of ITT and decided that it was not going to be a telephone/electronics company any more. Thereafter they were in insurance, Sheraton Hotels, Wonderbread and Avis Rent-a-Car. The Fusor became an orphan. I believe that Ken Shoulders told me that he had actually worked for Farnsworth before the move from San Francisco to Philly, or maybe that he had just toured the lab as that was some time ago - but at any rate I remember seeing an ageing and embittered Farnsworth many years ago on "What's my Line." One of the panelists, maybe it was Dorothy, asked "Dr. X" if he had invented some kind of a machine that might be painful when used. Farnsworth answered, "Yes. Sometimes it's most painful." (Referring to TV, not the Fusor) Indeed. Most of the audience failed to realize just how painful it was for him.... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 09:03:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA10456; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:59:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:59:25 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" Subject: (OT) CDC biohazard guidelines Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:21:26 -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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52079 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All. The CDC, in conjunction with Tom Ridge and the Dept. of Homeland Security, has taken steps to address what is perhaps the most likely terrorist threat involving biological agents; "Fecal Accident Response Recommendations for Pool Staff" http://www.cdc.gov/healthyswimming/fecalacc.htm Select members of the FBI have been recruited to a new elite branch of law enforcement, now known as the Fecal Accident Response Team or perhaps better known by it's acronym, F.A.R.T. FART team members will descend en-masse on the site of the ass-ault, isolating and containing the infectious agent ( be it the milder "compact stool" or the deadly dispersed form of the agent, known colloquially as "diarrhea" ). Fortunately, the terrorist attacker can be easily identified by characteristic "skid marks" on the swimming trunks, so arrests for this heinous crime should be immediate. Bear in mind, that the current Patriot Act defines the use of biological weapons (Cryptosporidium) against a mass population as a terrorist act, punishable by death, and John Ashcroft has been pushing the states to strictly enforce sentencing guidelines. I for one demand to see some 4 year olds on the lethal injection gurney, John, and pronto! We've got a war to win! Does it surprise anyone that the recent David Kay report on WMD's finds great stockpiles of fecal material in Iraq??? AND NOTHING ELSE? You connect the dots, people! The Whitehouse rumourmill is buzzing over the claim that France is full of it, prompting Washington insiders to call for a new invasion force by midwinter at the latest. To be fair, the US has the worlds largest stockpile of heavily compacted stool, which we use for defensive purposes ONLY, like for when those pesky State Dept. and CIA agents get out of line.... K. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 09:06:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA14307; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:03:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:03:29 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003120041.00ba9128@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:03:28 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Today's totals on LENR-CANR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52080 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Brothers and Sisters! Today's totals: 1,946 downloads Grand total: 245,751 Remaining: 4,249 in 6 more days. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 10:41:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24360; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:39:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:39:16 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7DB42C.6070508@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:38:52 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth References: <3F7CB1D7.26FBA9D2@ix.netcom.com> <000001c389bc$3016bf80$c059ccd1@asus> In-Reply-To: <000001c389bc$3016bf80$c059ccd1@asus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52081 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote: >Thompson of France owns the RCA and >GE trademarks in consumer electronics, > Don't they call themselves 'Thales' now? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 11:28:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA30445; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:24:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:24:36 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7DBEC9.4070008@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:24:09 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: part II in responce to Terry Blanton and Li's paper References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52082 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > "One sees that the dependence of the rotational velocity on the radius > for lattice ions in superconductors is > radically different from normal mass rotation." > > I don't understand this. Is not angular momentum conserved? Going on > she does > a lot of stuff that makes no sense to me and concludes. Maybe that it's because the ion radii are reduced due to the pairing of valence electrons? The ballerina pulls in her arm and speeds up? > "The momenta acquired by a lattice ion from the magnetic field, given > by Kowitt, > is on the order of 10exp45 larger than its zero point value of h(bar)" > > > That's what she is trying to do, spin up the nucleons. What is a > lattice ion? She states that > most of the lattice ions mass is in the nucleus. I conclude that she > is spinning up the > nucleus. Well, when the electrons pair in a superconductor, the molecules in the lattice assume a positive charge. > She is trying to spin a nucleons by applying an external magnetic > field. Superconductors > expel magnetic fields. She implies that this expulsion is due to a > counter magnetic > field produced by the Cooper pairs. The Cooper pairs must spin faster > to keep > the external magnetic field out of a superconductor. She says (I > believe she says) that > Cooper pairs must have a spin of one and cannot spin up. > The excess angular momentum is transferred to the nucleus. I don't > understand this logical contradiction. Why does the magnetic > permeability > of a superconductor drop to zero? Do the Cooper pairs change in some way > in reaction to an external magnetic field? I don't know. I thought > circulating currents > in a superconductor opposed the external magnetic field. What is the > angular momenta > associated with these circulating currents? Is it transferred to the > nuclues. I don't know. > No where does she mention circulating currents. > > > If all of the orbital electron spin was transferred to the nucleus the > nuclear spin would > not approach 10exp45. > > In her model the nuclear spin must come in reaction to the external > magnetic field. This has puzzled me also. She seems to confuse nuclear spin with rotation at times. Some field penetration does occur, it is not zero. The overall point of Li's paper seems to be that she aligns the axis of rotation of the lattice ions and increases the rate of rotation creating gravity. She told my associate that she believes she can control the intensity and direction of the gravity field. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 11:36:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA07697; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:34:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:34:03 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7DC156.72A56F94@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:35:02 -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, 3 Oct 03] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52083 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortex, Notice that Parks ignored the ICCF-10 event when held virtually in his backyard? He usually carps on the event wherever it is held. -ak- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: WHAT'S NEW Friday, 3 Oct 03 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:05:48 -0400 From: "What's New" Reply-To: opa@aps.org To: "What's New" WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 3 Oct 03 Washington, DC 1. LEAKS: IN WASHINGTON EVERYTHING LEAKS; BUT WHEN IS IT A CRIME? In the aftermath of hurricane Isabel, even Washington basements started leaking. Last year's leak of a classified Pentagon report, The Nuclear Posture Review, described a plan to develop a new class of nuclear weapons (WN 15 Mar 02). It led to a heated public debate, which is good. Leaking it to the public was not a crime. However, last week's leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent was a crime, as it should be. It violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. An investigation is now underway to find the source of the leak. Maybe NASA can help. New software to pinpoint leaks will be installed in mission control, if NASA ever bothers to finish its orbiting turkey (ISS). Maybe the program would run on White House computers. 2. LAWS: THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT NEED AN OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT. Secrecy News, the superb news letter written by Steven Aftergood for the Federation of American Scientists, points out that both NBC News and the Washington Post incorrectly reported that this latest leak also violated a law against disclosure of classified information. There is no such law. Secrecy News quotes Daniel Ellsberg as saying the stories "made it sound as if we already had an Official Secrets Act in this country." It was Ellsberg, you recall, who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. Conscientious government employees willing to risk their careers by leaking classified documents may be the only check on government excesses carried out behind the screen of national security. Legislation prohibiting public disclosure of classified information was vetoed by President Clinton on 4 Nov 00, but there will be many more attempts to pass such a law. 3. NEW NIH: PHYSICISTS WILL BE WELCOME IN THE TRANSFORMED AGENCY. On Tuesday, Elias Zerhouni revealed his plan to transform the way NIH funds efforts conquer disease. The sweeping changes are a recognition of the profound revolution taking place in medical science. Until about the middle of the 20th Century, advances in medicine most often resulted from serendipitous observations by brilliant loners: vaccination, aspirin, penicillin, come to mind. Today, advances rely on the enormous research strides into how the body works. In the new NIH, according to Zerhouni, the emphasis will be on interdisciplinary teams in which the physicians, geneticists, and biologists normally funded by NIH, will be joined by physicists, materials scientists and engineers. Previous crosscutting initiatives at NIH failed when competing institute directors resisted, and the new unity will be difficult to sustain without the 15 percent increases of recent years. Zerhouni's predecessor, Harold Varmus, urged increased funding for fields such as physics, with little success, but the new plan gives these fields a stake in increasing NIH funding. 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: aki@ix.netcom.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-whatsnew-27231J@lists.apsmsgs.org To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 12:34:52 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA15772; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:30:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:30:16 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <1d8.11df26d0.2caf281e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:29:34 EDT Subject: Ning Li's paper I'm adding this to my CD To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1d8.11df26d0.2caf281e_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52084 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_1d8.11df26d0.2caf281e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

NASA'S CONCLUSIONS

Nasa has completed its gravitational experiments. They applied a magnetic field to a high temperature superconductor and searched for a gravitational anomaly. No anomaly was found. NASA did not rotate or apply a radio frequency field to the superconductor. They did not follow Podkletnov's suggestions. The author has obtained a copy of Ning Li's unpublished paper, "Gravitomagnetic fields arising from the lattice ion rotations of superconductors." Ning's method does not require rotation or the application of a radio frequency field. Li may have led NASA down the wrong path. Just as a spinning charge generates an electromagnetic field, a rotating mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. The gravitational field is 1039 weaker than the electromagentic field. To get an idea of how weak the gravitomagnetic field is, envision the mass of the earth rotating. The gravitomagnetic field produced by the rotation of the entire mass of the earth is just barely detectable using the most sensitive satellite experiments. No mechanical machine on earth could ever spin fast enough to generate a useable gravitomagnetic field. Ning Li suggested that nucleons could be spun up by a factor of 1045. This author does not appreciate her mechanism for adding spin to the nucleus. As with the electron each level of spin is accompanied by a higher level of energy. It would be impossible to maintain energy levels that are a factor of 1045 above the ground state. The energy would be released long before this level of spin was obtained through the emission of a photon or the decay of the state. Lot Brantly asked me,"Why purpose does the radio frequency field serve." If he or I had known the answer NASA may have followed a different path and mankind would have gravitomagnetic propulsion. Lot's question proved to be a vital clue. I now know that the nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational motion constants converge in a Bose condensate that is stimulated at a dimensional frequency of one --part1_1d8.11df26d0.2caf281e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <h4> NASA'S CONCLUSIONS </H4>

Nasa has completed its gravitational experiments.  They applied a m= agnetic
field to a high temperature superconductor and searched for a gravitational=20= anomaly.
No anomaly was found.  NASA did not rotate or apply a radio frequency f= ield to
the superconductor.  They did not follow Podkletnov's suggestions. = ; The author has obtained a copy
of Ning Li's unpublished paper,  "Gravitomagnetic fields arising from t= he lattice ion rotations of
superconductors."  Ning's method does not require rotation or the appli= cation of a radio frequency field.
Li may have led NASA down the wrong path.  Just as a spinning charge ge= nerates an
electromagnetic field, a rotating mass generates a gravitomagnetic field.&nb= sp; The gravitational
field is 10<sup>39</sup> weaker than the electromagentic field.&= nbsp; To get an idea of how
weak the gravitomagnetic field is, envision the mass of the earth rotating.&= nbsp; The gravitomagnetic
field produced by the rotation of the entire mass of the earth is just barel= y detectable using
the most sensitive satellite experiments.  No mechanical machine on ear= th could ever spin
fast enough to generate a useable gravitomagnetic field.  Ning Li sugge= sted that nucleons
could be spun up by a factor of 10<sub>45</sub>.  This auth= or does not appreciate her mechanism
for adding spin to the nucleus.  As with the electron each level of spi= n is accompanied by a higher
level of energy.  It would be impossible to maintain energy levels that= are a factor of 10<sub>45</sub>
above the ground state.  The energy would be released long before this=20= level of spin was obtained
through the emission of a photon or the decay of the state.
Lot Brantly asked me,"Why purpose does the radio frequency field serve."&nbs= p; If he or I had known
the answer NASA may have followed a different path and mankind would have gr= avitomagnetic propulsion.
Lot's question proved to be a vital clue.  I now know that the nuclear,= electromagnetic, and gravitational
motion constants converge in a Bose condensate that is stimulated at a dimen= sional frequency of one --part1_1d8.11df26d0.2caf281e_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 12:44:38 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA25244; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:41:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:41:09 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003144526.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:41:13 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Park (not Parks!), and other skeptics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52085 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: > Notice that Parks ignored the ICCF-10 event when held virtually in his > backyard? PARK, not Parks. Why do people here often make that mistake? It is singular, and so is he. Also, ICCF-10 was in Boston and he is in Maryland. Not quite his backyard. > He usually carps on the event wherever it is held. Actually, I have not hear that he has commented on cold fusion lately. Is there a searchable archive of his columns? Not that I really want to know. It seems to me most skeptics have been quiet lately. I do not know why. Some hypotheses: * The skeptics grew tired of the discussion, declared victory, and withdrew. * The skeptics died. Morrison did. This is Planck's other constant at work. * People read a quarter of a million CF papers, and began putting the skeptics on notice. I have heard of this happening. Park has always made a point of refusing to look at printed papers about cold fusion. He will not touch them, literally. When I tried to give him one by McKubre, he let it drop on the floor rather than touch it. He also refused papers from McKubre himself, in person. I think he saw this as what a politician would call "plausible deniability." He can honestly say, "I have not seen any positive results." Also, in the past he could say it would be too much trouble to go to library and find these papers. That made some kind of perverse sense when CF information was only available on printed documents, but with LENR-CANR this excuse has become surreal. Yet many skeptics continue to say it is not worth the trouble and they will not look at the papers. I think even their own supporters are beginning to realize how strange this is. Yesterday, a skeptic took a new tack. He told me that he thought a paper by Storms, "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect" is meaningless, "iffy," or difficult to understand. I told him 1,500 people have downloaded that paper and he is the first to complain it is difficult, so the problem is on his end. I know of only one skeptic, Shanahan, Shanahan, who has actually read any papers and tried to address the technical issues in them. Recently, he outdid himself. He claimed that in the Szpak co-deposition experiments with the IR camera, the flashes of heat are caused by "recombination bubbles." This was based on the PowerPoint file: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf Note the diagram in slide 3. The cathode is attached to a Mylar film, which is the only thing between the cathode and the IR camera. There is no liquid and thus there can be no recombination between the back of the cathode and the camera. Perhaps Shanahan believes recombination on the other side is so intense it penetrates through the metal. It should also be noted that there is no measurable recombination in this cell, and bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen go up, not sideways. I did not point out these problems to Shanahan. It is a waste of time communicating with him. I describe them here only to illustrate the depths to which the remaining skeptical opposition has fallen. You can find his message in the advanced Google search. Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion Author: Shanahan Title: Cmts. on Storms ICCF10 Paper - Letts Effect Quote (last lines): "(I might note in passing that the Szpak, et al, paper posted on the same website shows more photos of what I call 'burning bubbles', and which would be the basic cause of apparent excess heat of the "PF" nature.)" - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 13:49:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA19117; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:45:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: <003601c389ef$19df00a0$c059ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:42:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52087 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mark wrote: > My first job out of college was as an Executive Trainee at AMPEX. RCA > reverse engineered and produced our Model 2000, which was the first tape > recorder to take the studios and networks by storm. The only thing > different was the label. > > Bing Crosby's money was behind AMPEX. We sued and won. RCA paid AMPEX the > retail value ($3,000) of every machine that had two pieces of metal put > together in the factory, as well as all that had been sold. They never made > a tape recorder that resembled an AMPEX machine again. > > We were told it was only the second time RCA had lost a patent lawsuit. There is a bit more to this story, concerning TV tape recording technology. In those years I worked in electroacoustics, but the lab on the top floor of the building was an Advanced Technology Lab where work on magnetic recording was going on. ATL's approach to TV recording was a multi-track, frequency division multiplex. They had continuing problems with tape skew, which would slightly change the phase relationships of the signals in the different tracks, resulting in artifacts when the signals were combined. Ampex surprised RCA and others with the transverse scan system. Tape 2" wide, curved a quarter turn around a spinning wheel with four tiny heads, each laying down a track containing a quarter of the picture. The heads switched during the horizontal blanking interval. There was a frantic search through RCA engineering notebooks for prior art. There was a sketch of the idea, but it was not followed up. Ampex was not able to develop a satisfactory method of putting color information into their system, but RCA did. Ultimately, there was a cross-licensing agreement and RCA manufactured TV tape recorders for the broadcast industry for years. Ultimately, helical scan recorders dominated, including the humble VCR which can now be purchased for under $50. I have lunch weekly with the man who developed the technology for putting color and stereo hi-fi sound on a VCR. The royalties from those patents brought $40 million to RCA. RCA applied that technology and others to some very sophisticated recording systems. For a number of years, I was part of that group which for decades was a national resource; it still exists in Camden, under a different corporate ownership and using more modern technology. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 13:49:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA18857; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:45:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:45:07 -0700 Message-ID: <003501c389ef$198dfa70$c059ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003100736.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: patents Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:41:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52086 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: . That should be a lesson to people like Mills. If he > really has something, he must pull out the stops and demonstrate it > effectively. Based on his recent papers and what Mike Carrell has told us, > I believe his devices could be used in a demonstration that could convince > the world as effectively as the Wright 1908 flights did. He does not need a > practical device. It is all a matter of presenting it correctly, explaining > it, and opening it up to the world enough to leave no doubts. Whether he > will use the demo properly remains to be seen. It would cost him nothing, > and it would be easy to do, but I fear he will not do it. He may squander > the opportunity, just as Patterson did. He has squandered every other > opportunity so far, as far as I can tell. Jed and I continue to disagree about deployment of CF and BLP technology. His view has its merits, and I think mine has. Jed sees entrepreneurial spirit and the market place as immense forces, and I agree. My caveat is that there must exist a foundation of technology or that thrust will collapse, and it has not existed. Many here were vicarious witnessed to Jed's adventure with the Patterson demonstration. Miley went on public TV and said he had made a Patterson cell in his own lab with Patterson's help. A buyout offer from Motorola was spurned. Then, suddenly, the beads didn't work anymore. There are reports that Patterson has a new approach. This is stark evidence that CF is not ready for prime time, nor does the progress reported at ICCF-10 say otherwise. High school students can produce the effect, graduate students use CF as thesis material. A quarter million downloads from LENR-CANR assures the cause is not lost. But there is still no desktop gadget. Mills' waterbath calorimetry demonstration is as simple and good, if not better, than most CF demonstrations. In a couple of hours, the water in a fishtank gets a couple degrees warmer. Astounding science, but no big deal as a demo: it is still an "effect". It's not likely to go away, as related effects have been seen by others, and may even be involved in the Papp engine. At present, the effects are seen under conditions of continuous gas flow at about 1/1000 atmospheric pressure. Work is needed to create an apparatus in which people can see a bridge to commercial applications. I believe he is working to couple his gas phase reactor to a Stirling engine of significant power output -- not a palm top Stirling demonstrator. People got off the ground before the Wrights. They demonstrated *controlled* flight. Jed has previously commented that even after the Wrights were 'real' and the patent issued, experimenters did not really understand the essence of the machine and kept on doing their own failed 'things'. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 14:01:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA30477; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:55:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:55:46 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <8f.32bb696e.2caf3c25@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:55:01 EDT Subject: added to CD after reading Ning Li's paper revised To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8f.32bb696e.2caf3c25_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52088 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_8f.32bb696e.2caf3c25_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

NASA'S CONCLUSIONS

Nasa has completed its gravitational experiments. NASA applied a magnetic field to a high temperature superconductor and searched for a gravitational anomaly. No anomaly was found. NASA did not rotate or apply a radio frequency field to the superconductor. NASA did not follow Podkletnov's suggestions. The author has obtained a copy of Ning Li's unpublished paper, "Gravitomagnetic fields arising from the lattice ion rotations of superconductors." Ning's method does not require rotation or the application of a radio frequency field. Li may have led NASA down the wrong path. Just as a spinning charge generates an electromagnetic field, a rotating mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. The gravitational field is 1039 weaker than the electromagentic field. To get an idea of how weak the gravitomagnetic field is, envision the mass of the earth rotating. The gravitomagnetic field produced by the rotation of the entire mass of the earth is just barely detectable using the most sensitive satellite experiments. No mechanical machine on earth could ever spin fast enough to generate a useable gravitomagnetic field. Ning Li suggested that nucleons could be spun up by a factor of 1045. This author does not appreciate her mechanism for adding spin to the nucleus. As with the electron each level of spin is accompanied by a higher level of energy. It would be impossible to maintain energy levels that are a factor of 1045 above the ground state. The energy would be released long before this level of spin was obtained through the the decay of the state and the emission of a photon. Gravity is normally a very weak force. There is one instance, however, when all of the fields, including gravity, strongly interact. That instance is during the quantum transition. Lot Brantly asked Znidarsic, "What purpose does the radio frequency field serve." If Brantly or Znidarsic had known the answer NASA may have followed a different path and mankind would have gravitomagnetic propulsion. Lot's question proved to be a vital clue. Znidarsic now knows that the quantum transition is occurs at a dimensional frequency of one megahertz-meter. This understanding will be applied in later chapters to show howto build a gravitomagnetic propulsion system. --part1_8f.32bb696e.2caf3c25_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <h3> NASA'S CONCLUSIONS </H3>

Nasa has completed its gravitational experiments.  NASA applied a m= agnetic
field to a high temperature superconductor and searched for a gravitational=20= anomaly.
No anomaly was found.  NASA did not rotate or apply a radio frequency f= ield to
the superconductor.  NASA did not follow Podkletnov's suggestions. = ; The author has obtained a copy
of Ning Li's unpublished paper, <i> "Gravitomagnetic fields arising fr= om the lattice ion rotations of
superconductors." </i> Ning's method does not require rotation or the=20= application of a radio frequency field.
Li may have led NASA down the wrong path.  Just as a spinning charge ge= nerates an
electromagnetic field, a rotating mass generates a gravitomagnetic field.&nb= sp; The gravitational
field is 10<sup>39</sup> weaker than the electromagentic field.&= nbsp; To get an idea of how
weak the gravitomagnetic field is, envision the mass of the earth rotating.&= nbsp; The gravitomagnetic
field produced by the rotation of the entire mass of the earth is just barel= y detectable using
the most sensitive satellite experiments.  No mechanical machine on ear= th could ever spin
fast enough to generate a useable gravitomagnetic field.  Ning Li sugge= sted that nucleons
could be spun up by a factor of 10<sup>45</sup>.  This auth= or does not appreciate her mechanism
for adding spin to the nucleus.  As with the electron each level of spi= n is accompanied by a higher
level of energy.  It would be impossible to maintain energy levels that= are a factor of 10<sup>45</sup>
above the ground state.  The energy would be released long before this=20= level of spin was obtained
through the the decay of the state and the emission of a photon.  Gravi= ty is normally a very weak force.
There is one instance, however, when all of the fields, including gravity, s= trongly interact.  That instance
is during the quantum transition. Lot Brantly asked Znidarsic, "What purpose= does the radio frequency field serve."  If Brantly
or Znidarsic had known the answer NASA may have followed a different path an= d mankind would have gravitomagnetic propulsion.
Lot's question proved to be a vital clue.  Znidarsic now knows that the= quantum transition is occurs at
a dimensional frequency of one megahertz-meter.  This understanding wil= l be applied in later chapters
to show howto build a gravitomagnetic propulsion system.
 --part1_8f.32bb696e.2caf3c25_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 14:15:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA11069; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:10:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:10:41 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.70.24.54] X-Originating-Email: [mgoldes@msn.com] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:09:51 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2003 21:09:51.0989 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFBB6250:01C389F2] Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52089 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike, Nice to learn about that. RCA certainly did have problems with tape skew. I remember a photo of that RCA lab with huge reels running at high speed. They spilled a room full of tape when a break occurred. The picture was a classic! Glad to know they ultimately made a contribution to the video recorder. I had moved on by that time. Mark >From: "Mike Carrell" >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >To: >Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth >Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:42:08 -0400 > >Mark wrote: > > > My first job out of college was as an Executive Trainee at AMPEX. RCA > > reverse engineered and produced our Model 2000, which was the first tape > > recorder to take the studios and networks by storm. The only thing > > different was the label. > > > > Bing Crosby's money was behind AMPEX. We sued and won. RCA paid AMPEX >the > > retail value ($3,000) of every machine that had two pieces of metal put > > together in the factory, as well as all that had been sold. They never >made > > a tape recorder that resembled an AMPEX machine again. > > > > We were told it was only the second time RCA had lost a patent lawsuit. > >There is a bit more to this story, concerning TV tape recording technology. >In those years I worked in electroacoustics, but the lab on the top floor >of >the building was an Advanced Technology Lab where work on magnetic >recording >was going on. ATL's approach to TV recording was a multi-track, frequency >division multiplex. They had continuing problems with tape skew, which >would >slightly change the phase relationships of the signals in the different >tracks, resulting in artifacts when the signals were combined. > >Ampex surprised RCA and others with the transverse scan system. Tape 2" >wide, curved a quarter turn around a spinning wheel with four tiny heads, >each laying down a track containing a quarter of the picture. The heads >switched during the horizontal blanking interval. There was a frantic >search >through RCA engineering notebooks for prior art. There was a sketch of the >idea, but it was not followed up. Ampex was not able to develop a >satisfactory method of putting color information into their system, but RCA >did. Ultimately, there was a cross-licensing agreement and RCA manufactured >TV tape recorders for the broadcast industry for years. Ultimately, helical >scan recorders dominated, including the humble VCR which can now be >purchased for under $50. I have lunch weekly with the man who developed >the >technology for putting color and stereo hi-fi sound on a VCR. The royalties >from those patents brought $40 million to RCA. > >RCA applied that technology and others to some very sophisticated recording >systems. For a number of years, I was part of that group which for decades >was a national resource; it still exists in Camden, under a different >corporate ownership and using more modern technology. > >Mike Carrell > > _________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 14:23:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA17922; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:18:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:18:30 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003135408.055ccc08@mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek@mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:54:48 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: Park (not Parks!), and other skeptics In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003144526.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52091 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Got Helium ?? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 14:25:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA27335; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3F7DE67C.575E0E06@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:13:32 -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-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Park (not Parks!), and other skeptics References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003144526.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52090 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: October 03, 2003 I said virtually. Compared to my west coast, I consider Boston close enough to Maryland to be considered a "backyard". APS has archived all of Park's columns and can be accessed from their web site going back to 1989. I believe LENR-CANR is having its desired effects among the believers, the curious, and the skeptics. And I believe it is gaining stature among serious researchers. -ak- Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Notice that Parks ignored the ICCF-10 event when held virtually in his > > backyard? > > PARK, not Parks. Why do people here often make that mistake? It is > singular, and so is he. Also, ICCF-10 was in Boston and he is in Maryland. > Not quite his backyard. > > > He usually carps on the event wherever it is held. > > Actually, I have not hear that he has commented on cold fusion lately. Is > there a searchable archive of his columns? Not that I really want to know. > > It seems to me most skeptics have been quiet lately. I do not know why. > Some hypotheses: > > * The skeptics grew tired of the discussion, declared victory, and withdrew. > > * The skeptics died. Morrison did. This is Planck's other constant at work. > > * People read a quarter of a million CF papers, and began putting the > skeptics on notice. I have heard of this happening. > > Park has always made a point of refusing to look at printed papers about > cold fusion. He will not touch them, literally. When I tried to give him > one by McKubre, he let it drop on the floor rather than touch it. He also > refused papers from McKubre himself, in person. I think he saw this as what > a politician would call "plausible deniability." He can honestly say, "I > have not seen any positive results." Also, in the past he could say it > would be too much trouble to go to library and find these papers. That made > some kind of perverse sense when CF information was only available on > printed documents, but with LENR-CANR this excuse has become surreal. Yet > many skeptics continue to say it is not worth the trouble and they will not > look at the papers. I think even their own supporters are beginning to > realize how strange this is. > > Yesterday, a skeptic took a new tack. He told me that he thought a paper by > Storms, "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect" is meaningless, > "iffy," or difficult to understand. I told him 1,500 people have downloaded > that paper and he is the first to complain it is difficult, so the problem > is on his end. > > I know of only one skeptic, Shanahan, Shanahan, who has actually read any > papers and tried to address the technical issues in them. Recently, he > outdid himself. He claimed that in the Szpak co-deposition experiments with > the IR camera, the flashes of heat are caused by "recombination bubbles." > This was based on the PowerPoint file: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf > > Note the diagram in slide 3. The cathode is attached to a Mylar film, which > is the only thing between the cathode and the IR camera. There is no liquid > and thus there can be no recombination between the back of the cathode and > the camera. Perhaps Shanahan believes recombination on the other side is so > intense it penetrates through the metal. > > It should also be noted that there is no measurable recombination in this > cell, and bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen go up, not sideways. > > I did not point out these problems to Shanahan. It is a waste of time > communicating with him. I describe them here only to illustrate the depths > to which the remaining skeptical opposition has fallen. You can find his > message in the advanced Google search. > > Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion > Author: Shanahan > Title: Cmts. on Storms ICCF10 Paper - Letts Effect > > Quote (last lines): > > "(I might note in passing that the Szpak, et al, paper posted on the same > website shows more photos of what I call 'burning bubbles', and which would > be the basic cause of apparent excess heat of the "PF" nature.)" > > - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 15:22:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA05383; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007301c389f9$b8d366b0$c059ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: Subject: Re: patents: Farnsworth Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:58:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 Resent-Message-ID: <9oQgGC.A.6TB.rGff_@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52092 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mark Goldes wrote: > Mike, > > Nice to learn about that. RCA certainly did have problems with tape skew. > I remember a photo of that RCA lab with huge reels running at high speed. > They spilled a room full of tape when a break occurred. The picture was a > classic! > > Glad to know they ultimately made a contribution to the video recorder. I > had moved on by that time. > > Mark What I remember of the TV machine was a big Ampex copy. You may have seen a picture of the Tradex recorder. RCA had a large facility "Missile and Surface Radar" in Moorestown, then a country town about ten miles from Camden. They were managing a research facility on Kwajelein Island, downrange from Vandenberg AFB. The problem was detection of incoming ICBM warheads and decoys. ATL built a multichannel recorder with tape running at 60 MPH. It took a mile of tape to get up to speed and another mile to stop. The recorder recorded raw output from the radars during re-entry in real time for later signal analysis. The designer was Ray Warren, the same lunch companion who put color and hi-fi sound into VCRs. The Tradex machines worked well for years. The Moorestown facility is now owned by Lockheed Martin, about five miles from my house. It is the source of the Aegis radar systems used by the US and friendly navies. Aegis is a phased-array, electronically steered radar system with hemispheric coverage, able to acquire and track multiple targets simultaneously. When operational, it controls the ship, which bristles with weaponry to defend a fleet. It is the closest thing to a Star Wars battle cruiser seen in the 20th century. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 16:12:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA20573; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:07:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:07:39 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003165625.00ba9128@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:01:03 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: patents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52093 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote > > and it would be easy to do, but I fear he will not do it. He may squander > > the opportunity, just as Patterson did. He has squandered every other > > opportunity so far, as far as I can tell. > > Jed and I continue to disagree about deployment of CF and BLP technology. > His view has its merits, and I think mine has. Jed sees entrepreneurial > spirit and the market place as immense forces, and I agree. Not just market forces, but also the power of academic research. If Mills would present his research correctly, hundreds of academic researchers will be motivated to follow up on it, and rapid progress will be made. Of course this would be inviting competition. Others may make important discoveries ahead of him. That is what Patterson told me he wanted to avoid. He, Reding and Cravens told me they were "delighted" to work in obscurity, and they wanted as few people as possible to be aware of their work. That is why they did not want me to report on it. Patterson did avoid exposure, but the cost was high. He failed to make progress himself, and eventually lost any prospect of success. I think Patterson and Mills both need other scientists to work on their devices, just as the Wright brothers needed other engineers in 1908. They could never have made airplanes practical by themselves. Actually, they were out of ideas. They had made little progress after 1905, and by 1910 they were far behind the state of the art. > My caveat is > that there must exist a foundation of technology or that thrust will > collapse, and it has not existed. Without the participation of other scientists and engineers the foundation will never be built. The Wright brothers could not have built a practical airplane. The people at Bell Labs laboring by themselves in isolation could never have developed practical transistors. Also, it is impossible to predict which other scientists and engineers will make vital contributions. You cannot organize a "research cartel" and handpick the people who will assist you. History has shown repeatedly that you cannot know who they will be. Key contributions nearly always come from unexpected places, and from people no one has heard of. > Many here were vicarious witnessed to Jed's adventure with the Patterson > demonstration. Miley went on public TV and said he had made a Patterson cell > in his own lab with Patterson's help. This was much later, by the way. > spurned. Then, suddenly, the beads didn't work anymore. I have heard many versions of the story. The one repeated most often is that Patterson ran out of beats fabricated in the 1960s, and was unable to make more of them. I think he repeated that at ICCF-10. > There are reports > that Patterson has a new approach. Yes. I hope they submit a paper for the ICCF-10 proceedings. They are coating porous fossils with palladium and pumping hot deuterium gas the mixture. The gas heats up even more. Patterson says he is not pursuing the patent for this because he is too old. He only wants to see it succeed. > This is stark evidence that CF is not > ready for prime time, nor does the progress reported at ICCF-10 say > otherwise. Exactly right. That is why it is essential to open the field up to an academic research free-for-all. If commercial product prototypes were on the verge of practicality, it would make sense to keep the research confidential, the way Patterson wanted to do. > High school students can produce the effect, graduate students > use CF as thesis material. A quarter million downloads from LENR-CANR > assures the cause is not lost. But there is still no desktop gadget. And there never will be, unless thousands of researchers get into the act. Those are exceptionally smart high school students, by the way. > Mills' waterbath calorimetry demonstration is as simple and good, if not > better, than most CF demonstrations. In a couple of hours, the water in a > fishtank gets a couple degrees warmer. Astounding science, but no big deal > as a demo it is still an "effect". It would instantly convince thousands of people if it were presented correctly, with just a little attention to pedagogy and public relations. If I were in charge of this demo, and I could do anything I want with it, in six months I could convince an audience of a million people that the device is real, it is anomalous, and it is vitally important. (Assuming it really works, that is. I would have to confirm that in a way that will convince anyone, which is not difficult.) The way Mills is doing things now, I fear that he will convince no one. In the past when I said this sort of thing, "I could convince a million people," readers have no reason to believe I was right. Most cold fusion scientists were sick and tired of hearing me. They saw no need for exposure. They considered me a blowhard and a damn nuisance. Many still do. Now, however, I have convinced roughly 100,000 people to read a quarter million papers on cold fusion in one year. I used the simplest, most direct means available, at the lowest direct cost: $240. (The simple and cheap methods are usually the most effective.) No one, not even I, thought there would be this much latent public interest -- this much hunger for information, and enthusiasm. I am more confident than ever that Mills' demo strategy is wrong, and it will likely end in failure, just as Patterson's did. He is not reaching the audience! He is not educating the public. If he were, he would be on the cover of Time magazine by now. > Work is needed to create an > apparatus in which people can see a bridge to commercial applications. Work is needed to convince thousands of people the device works. That is one and only essential task left to Mills. If he does that, commercial applications will follow automatically. If he does not, the device will be lost in obscurity, like the Papp machine and so many others. > I > believe he is working to couple his gas phase reactor to a Stirling engine > of significant power output -- not a palm top Stirling demonstrator. If he is concentrating on such narrow technical problems instead of grappling with the essential problem of educating the public, he is throwing away the biggest opportunity in the history of commerce. From 1905 to 1908 the Wrights spent most of their time tweaking their design and improving their engine. This was a colossal waste of their time, and a "tragic mistake," in the words of one historian (Combs). There were a half-million engineers in the world more qualified to do this than the Wrights. By 1912 that is how many engineers were tweaking the design and improving the engines. They made more progress every month than the Wrights made from 1900 to 1908. No matter how brilliant Mills may be, his mind cannot compete with the massed intellect of 100,000 researchers. > Jed has previously commented that even after the Wrights were 'real' > and the patent issued, experimenters did not really understand the essence > of the machine and kept on doing their own failed 'things'. Because they failed to educate the public until 1908. They were too busy improving the engines. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 19:51:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA17508; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:48:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:48:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7DE372.3070009@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:00:34 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Park (not Parks!), and other skeptics References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003144526.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031003144526.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <8UfedD.A.XRE.CUjf_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52094 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Akira Kawasaki wrote: > > > Notice that Parks ignored the ICCF-10 event when held virtually in his > > backyard? > > PARK, not Parks. Why do people here often make that mistake? It is > singular, and so is he. Also, ICCF-10 was in Boston and he is in > Maryland. Not quite his backyard. I think that, predominately, 'Park' is the Asian (Korean) name while 'Parks' is more common here. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 20:16:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA01503; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:13:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:13:44 -0700 Message-ID: <3F7E3461.6050600@cox.net> Disposition-Notification-To: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:45:53 -0700 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Organization: ISUS User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; 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: FW: Gravity-Powered, Fuel-Less Flight may Transform the Aviation Industry References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000807010103070300010408" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52095 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --------------000807010103070300010408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My immediate impression is that the energy needed to compress the helium is more than that gained from the descent, however, if you take into account the 3 oF temperature lapse rate with altitude, you might have a slight energy gain. In that case, you have effectively a heat engine to supply the energy, transferring heat from low altitude to high altitude, but it doesn't seem as if it would be very much power. Any thoughts? Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona Eugene F. Mallove wrote: > > > >>From: "Hunt Aviation, Corp." >> >> > > > >>Gravity-Powered, Fuel-Less Flight may Transform the Aviation Industry >> >>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: >> >> >> >> >> >>How it works: (1) Lighter-Than-Air (Aerostatic) Lift - inert helium >>gas fills gas-bags enclosed within a rigid lightweight aircraft to >>gain altitude; and, (2) Loss of Lift - air from the surrounding >>atmosphere is compressed into the aircraft to cause the loss of >>aerostatic lift; and, (3) Gliding - the aircraft glides long distances >>using high aspect ratio glider type of wings; and, (4) Wind Turbines - >>create and store energy during the downward glide and the stored >>energy is later used to again lose lift in a cycle. The aircraft does >>not require fuel, which is aviation's main cost, making it safe with >>no fuel to burn or explode. The aircraft, having no emissions or >>noise, is extremely environmentally friendly. "Hunt's invention is >>the first practical use of gravity to provide a motive force by >>forming a continuous cycle out of two forces of gravity with the >>result being, for the first time ever, self-sustained fuel-less >>flight," Gene Cox stated, "and this is a tremendous! >> and historic accomplishment." >> >> >> --------------000807010103070300010408 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My immediate impression is that the energy needed to compress the helium is more than that gained
from the descent, however, if you take into account the 3 oF temperature lapse rate with altitude,
you might have a slight energy gain.  In that case, you have effectively a heat engine to supply the energy,
transferring heat from low altitude to high altitude, but
it doesn't seem as if it would be very much power.  Any thoughts?

Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona



Eugene F. Mallove wrote:

  
From: "Hunt Aviation, Corp."<gene@fuellessflight.com>
    

  
Gravity-Powered, Fuel-Less Flight may Transform the Aviation Industry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:





How it works:  (1) Lighter-Than-Air (Aerostatic) Lift – inert helium
gas fills gas-bags enclosed within a rigid lightweight aircraft to
gain altitude; and, (2) Loss of Lift – air from the surrounding
atmosphere is compressed into the aircraft to cause the loss of
aerostatic lift; and, (3) Gliding – the aircraft glides long distances
using high aspect ratio glider type of wings; and, (4) Wind Turbines –
create and store energy during the downward glide and the stored
energy is later used to again lose lift in a cycle.  The aircraft does
not require fuel, which is aviation’s main cost, making it safe with
no fuel to burn or explode.  The aircraft, having no emissions or
noise, is extremely environmentally friendly.  “Hunt’s invention is
the first practical use of gravity to provide a motive force by
forming a continuous cycle out of two forces of gravity with the
result being, for the first time ever, self-sustained fuel-less
flight,” Gene Cox stated, “and this is a tremendous!
 and historic accomplishment.”

--------------000807010103070300010408-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 3 21:21:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA08123; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:13:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:13:09 -0700 From: Yakov Reply-To: rockcast@earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Subject: Re: FW: Gravity-Powered, Fuel-Less Flight may Transform the Aviation Industry Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:15:23 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <3F7E3461.6050600@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <3F7E3461.6050600@cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310040015.27717.rockcast@earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <60l9lD.A.w-B.Ujkf_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52096 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Use one of those new organic type photovolataic panel designs on your blimp. With a blimp you will have a LOT of space to place these. You do not even have to put them on top of your machine is you make the top panel material transparent.....as long as the sun can reach your panels. This would help in case the panels need some kind of service during bad weather on a flight. Yakov On Friday 03 October 2003 22:45, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: > My immediate impression is that the energy needed to compress the helium > is more than that gained > from the descent, however, if you take into account the 3 oF temperature > lapse rate with altitude, > you might have a slight energy gain. In that case, you have effectively > a heat engine to supply the energy, > transferring heat from low altitude to high altitude, but > it doesn't seem as if it would be very much power. Any thoughts? > > Hoyt Stearns > Scottsdale, Arizona > > Eugene F. Mallove wrote: > >>From: "Hunt Aviation, Corp." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Gravity-Powered, Fuel-Less Flight may Transform the Aviation Industry > >> > >>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>How it works: (1) Lighter-Than-Air (Aerostatic) Lift - inert helium > >>gas fills gas-bags enclosed within a rigid lightweight aircraft to > >>gain altitude; and, (2) Loss of Lift - air from the surrounding > >>atmosphere is compressed into the aircraft to cause the loss of > >>aerostatic lift; and, (3) Gliding - the aircraft glides long distances > >>using high aspect ratio glider type of wings; and, (4) Wind Turbines - > >>create and store energy during the downward glide and the stored > >>energy is later used to again lose lift in a cycle. The aircraft does > >>not require fuel, which is aviation's main cost, making it safe with > >>no fuel to burn or explode. The aircraft, having no emissions or > >>noise, is extremely environmentally friendly. "Hunt's invention is > >>the first practical use of gravity to provide a motive force by > >>forming a continuous cycle out of two forces of gravity with the > >>result being, for the first time ever, self-sustained fuel-less > >>flight," Gene Cox stated, "and this is a tremendous! > >> and historic accomplishment." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 4 10:57:38 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA18709; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:53:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:53:23 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.20031004185235.00681e14@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: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:52:35 +0000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Grimer Subject: Super abundant vacancies Resent-Message-ID: <32406B.A.NkE.Skwf_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52097 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There is a rather nice photo of the coalescence of high pF cavitation bubbles at, http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/ 97ClassProj/exper/bailey/www/fig5.jpg As you can see, the surface has the appearance of a fractured Aero chocolate bar. No doubt in the U.S.A. this comestible is called something different (Snickers used to be called Marathon in England until the Mars company decided to change it to the US version - not an improvement I'm afraid. In the UK Snickers sounds too much like the English word for panties). In response to an earlier post of mine (kindly forwarded to Vortex by Jones) Terry Blanton commented. "I think this has been postulated and tested. I seem to recall that I asked this question several years ago and was told that someone had actually whacked loaded palladium with no results. Any vorts remember?" In response Ed Storms confessed he had hit it with a hammer. Now I know to a man with at hammer every problem looks like a nail but I was hoping that someone would come up with an research relating to the effect of triaxial tension and the resulting internal cavitation rather than a whack with a hammer. "Whacking" will result in closing cavities rather than opening them. Many years ago I read an interesting research paper that investigated the single cavity resulting from the ultimate full scale coalescence of individual micro-cavities into one large cavity. Unfortunately, neither I, nor my colleague, Nigel Clayton can remember where we saw this. Though the Web is a great resource I fear it will be many a year before such research papers are made freely available by scientific magazines. If any Vorts or lurkers happen to know of this article. a reference to it will be much appreciated. Frank Grimer From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 4 19:16:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA30780; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 19:11:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 19:11:57 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <19c.1acc5860.2cb0d7c2@aol.com> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:11:14 EDT Subject: check this new technology To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_19c.1acc5860.2cb0d7c2_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10709 Resent-Message-ID: <5ELidB.A.xgH.t33f_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52098 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_19c.1acc5860.2cb0d7c2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It not cold fusion but its great progress Briefs - The Industrial Physicist Frank Znidarsic --part1_19c.1acc5860.2cb0d7c2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It not cold fusion but its great progress

Briefs - The= Industrial Physicist

Frank Znidarsic --part1_19c.1acc5860.2cb0d7c2_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 4 23:05:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA16164; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 23:02:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 23:02:47 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [66.217.177.45] X-Originating-Email: [patrick_dowland@hotmail.com] From: "Patrick Dowland" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Park (not Parks!), and other skeptics Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 02:02:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2003 06:02:13.0995 (UTC) FILETIME=[391073B0:01C38B06] Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52099 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rothwell wrote: >Yesterday, a skeptic took a new tack. He told me that he thought a paper by >Storms, "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect" is meaningless, >"iffy," or difficult to understand. I told him 1,500 people have downloaded >that paper and he is the first to complain it is difficult, so the problem >is on his end. But how would you know? You're always saying how people complain to _you_ that they can't understand the stuff on the Correa website. So maybe when people can't understand the stuff on _your_ website, they send their complaints to the Correas? Patrick _________________________________________________________________ Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 5 11:45:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA23295; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:41:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:41:28 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031005134804.01c0f6b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 14:41:01 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Park (not Parks!), and other skeptics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52100 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Patrick Dowland writes: > >Storms, "How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect" is meaningless, > >"iffy," or difficult to understand. I told him 1,500 people have downloaded > >that paper and he is the first to complain it is difficult, so the problem > >is on his end. > > But how would you know? You're always saying how people complain to _you_ > that > they can't understand the stuff on the Correa website. So maybe when people > can't > understand the stuff on _your_ website, they send their complaints to the > Correas? That's a good point. I do not get much direct feedback, so it is possible 1,500 copies were downloaded even though people do not understand. However, I doubt it, for the following reasons: I do get some feedback, especially when there is something wrong, and no one has complained about this paper. (I appreciate feedback! Please let me know if you find an error.) Papers that I and others I know find difficult, especially ones about theory, are not popular. People have downloaded 100 or 200 of them, and I suppose most of these copies were taken when someone downloaded every paper in the site. Someone does that once or twice a week, I think. Generally speaking, most people I know do not bother to download papers they find incomprehensible, meaningless, or just "iffy." They select papers worth reading, and they recommend them to others. I have no idea how many people frequent the Correa website, or how many papers have been downloaded from it. I do not see a "hit counter" or a graph of downloads or visitors there. If thousands of copies of their papers have been downloaded, I suppose that might mean the problem is on my side. Perhaps I do not understand Correa, but others do. Or, it could mean Correa attracts a different kind of audience than LENR-CANR.org does. The most popular papers at LENR-CANR are those that are clear, well-written and quantitative -- the sort of thing experimentalists like. But many other successful academic web sites and journals in the world feature turgid, obscure, complicated, speculative papers about a variety of subjects, such as physics, linguistics or literature. They often feature idiosyncratic jargon and the authors's own neologisms, and lots of words such as "paradigm" which means little, and "Dialectic materialism" which means nothing, as far as I can tell. In general, the papers that I myself like usually turn out to be the most popular at LENR-CANR.org. This is not because I recommend them in the Features page; very few people read that page. Also, many papers I have not recommended are popular. (I agree they are good, but I see no reason to promote them, since they do well without my help.) I suppose a web site or journal attracts like-minded people. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 6 00:41:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA25436; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:39:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:39:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.20031004185235.00681e14@pop.freeserve.net> References: <2.2.32.20031004185235.00681e14@pop.freeserve.net> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 02:39:33 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: high resolution microscope Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52101 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have had a long term interest in Royal Rife's microscope. I recently corresponded with Dr. Nenah Sylver of http://www.nenahsylver.com who sent me this URL http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/intro2.html . It can produce color pictures with an increase in size of 10,000 times. does anybody have an application for it? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 6 09:24:10 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA04352; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:20:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:20:32 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031006121506.01cb9fe8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:20:25 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: LENR-CANR is over the top! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52102 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It was a busy weekend at LENR-CANR, with 1,793 downloads on Saturday, and 1,211 on Sunday. (The Sunday numbers just came in.) That puts us officially over the top! Grand total: 250,388. A quarter mill with three days to spare. (I say "officially" because there are some discrepancies in the Urchin data. The other tallies all show higher numbers. 250,388 is the most conservative estimate.) Okay everyone, you can stop downloading papers all day long. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 6 10:02:15 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA01608; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:56:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:56:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3F819EA0.1050405@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:56:00 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: LENR-CANR is over the top! References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031006121506.01cb9fe8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031006121506.01cb9fe8@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52103 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > It was a busy weekend at LENR-CANR, with 1,793 downloads on Saturday, > and 1,211 on Sunday. (The Sunday numbers just came in.) That puts us > officially over the top! Grand total: 250,388. A quarter mill with > three days to spare. > > (I say "officially" because there are some discrepancies in the Urchin > data. The other tallies all show higher numbers. 250,388 is the most > conservative estimate.) > > Okay everyone, you can stop downloading papers all day long. I downloaded only one, the Higashiyama paper. However, I *did* spam all my new energy and UFO listservers Friday. Interesting that I got only one reject from a moderated list, the Megbuilders yahoo group. They have had 3 posts in two months but they rejected my ICCF10 post. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 6 13:54:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA24166; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:49:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:49:58 -0700 Message-ID: <004901c38c4a$849a9e60$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <2.2.32.20031004185235.00681e14@pop.freeserve.net> Subject: Re: Super abundant vacancies Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:43:36 -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 NAA24107 Resent-Message-ID: <6RUWMD.A.b5F.1Vdg_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52104 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Grimer wrote, > There is a rather nice photo of the coalescence > of high pF cavitation bubbles at, http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/exper/bailey/www/fig5.jpg The fact that under a microscope, many active CF sites, such as that memorable image on the cover of Rothwell's translation of Mizuno and those SEM photos documented by Ken Shoulders and others, have the unmistakable appearance of many small Swiss-cheese-like vacancies surrounding a tornado vortex-like helix (frozen in time), probably means that both "nucleation" "spin" and negative pressure (pF) play a huge role in CF, which is inadequately documented. Does anyone really think a tornado will happen without very low pressure? Ironically, all violent storms absolutely depend on extremely *low,* and NOT high pressure, to instigate. High winds may result, but without very low pressure as a precursor, then nada. As to how one might improve on this state of affairs.... AFAIK there have been few serious attempts in CF experimentation to augment or focus atomic spin with a *high* externally applied magnetic field. The Graneaus have tried a weak field and have some insight here. They believe that many CF reactions are indicative of non-thermal fusion because in the few experiments where an external field was tried, neutron production was quenched by the application of a weak axial field (100 gauss, which is about 200 times too weak IMO), implying both that collisions were dominated by electromagnetic rather than thermal forces and that an axial field apparently lessened (de-focused), rather than enhanced the D+D cross-section. By implication, a magnetic field applied correctly should boost the reaction. Unfortunately, this and other experiments which used only deuterium were probably doomed, as the magnetic moment of D is only 30% that of H and even less compared to tritium. In fact, tritium has the largest magnetic moment of any nucleus but H is not far behind. Magnetic dipoles, or magnetic moments result (on the atomic scale) from the movement of electrons. Each electron has a magnetic moment that originates from the motion around the nucleus. In a sense this electron motion can be considered to be a current loop around an axis of rotation, even if that is by analogy. The second source of electron magnetic moment is a quantum mechanical property called spin, which is different from rotation. In an atom the orbital magnetic moments of some electron pairs cancel each other. The same is true for the spin magnetic moments. The overall magnetic moment of the atom is thus the sum of all of the magnetic moments. Fortunately for the CF experimenter, hydrogen, has but one single electron which gives it the equivalent current density to produce an apparent field around the nucleus of about 12 T. as felt by the nucleus, which is quite amazing. A good neodymium super-magnet might produce a surface field of a tenth this amount. Magnetic moment is also a ratio. Another way of saying the above is that it arises from the ratio of charge to angular momentum; this ratio, in turn, depends upon the combination of protons and neutrons in a particular isotope. As it happens, the best of all isotopes in terms of magnetic moment is tritium, the radioactive isotope of hydrogen with three nucleons (a proton and two neutrons) and single electron. The second best is hydrogen... but deuterium is not even on the map. In terms of augmenting a special kind of cold fusion reaction, therefore, by focusing the EM interaction of the reactants, using a pure D in an experiment will probably not benefit from an external field. However an experiment where D and H appear in equal amounts in a matrix, if such is possible (it is difficult because H "tries" to displace D), then the focusing effect will be strong with an external magnetic field of around 2 T., which would probably increase the cross-section of the reaction a thousand-fold (based on the results of related Z-pinch reactions). If D+T or H+T, even in microgram amounts, were involved in equal amounts in a loaded metal matrix with a capacitor-pulsed electromagnet one might sadly discover the truth of the "dead graduate student" scenario or else the "dead garage experimenter"... I wouldn't want to be the one to try it...but from past posts, who was it? Hoyt Stearns?, well whoever it is, make sure you policy is up to date, especially if you can coordinate the magnet pulse with a "cup and cone" type tensile fracture. ...if Frank Grimer is right, we should be talking about "pull" instead of "push," and even sono-fusion is initiated in the *vacuum* phase of the bubble, not the collapse phase, as normally construed. Because many nuclear physicists have backgrounds in designing bombs, everyone seems to be hung up on the notion of pressure, but Frank, who comes from a mechanical engineering background is drawing attention to the cavities in metals. This will hopefully steer a few people to look at things differently - and at some point and ask themselves if there is a connection (pF not P&F), and if so, how do I augment it? Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 6 14:12:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA06420; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:07:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:07:44 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031006165543.01cc4c80@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:07:26 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Super abundant vacancies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52105 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: "The fact that under a microscope, many active CF sites, such as that memorable image on the cover of Rothwell's translation of Mizuno and those SEM photos documented by Ken Shoulders and others, have the unmistakable appearance of many small Swiss-cheese-like vacancies surrounding a tornado vortex-like helix (frozen in time), probably means that both "nucleation" "spin" and negative pressure (pF) play a huge role in CF, which is inadequately documented." Roger Stringham has taken similar SEM photos. In fact, I am looking at one right now, in his ICCF-10 submission. It has loads of photos and figures: 14 to be exact, and 34 pages. I would upload it now, but the figure captions appear to be mixed up. Anyway, you will see it soon, after he gets back to me about the captions. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 6 14:50:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA02007; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:41:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:41:26 -0700 Message-ID: <002001c38c52$8161c0e0$0300a8c0@nixlaptop> From: "Nick Palmer" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031006121506.01cb9fe8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: LENR-CANR is over the top! Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:40:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52106 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hallelujah!! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 7 07:54:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA04909; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 07:41:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 07:41:34 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031007104026.01cb8da8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:41:24 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Stringham paper uploaded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52107 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The paper I mentioned yesterday is uploaded. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRcavitation.pdf - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 8 10:17:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24892; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:11:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:11:07 -0700 Message-ID: <003301c38db9$ba85c160$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Langmuir's torch Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:32:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01C38D7F.0C7282A0" 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52108 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C38D7F.0C7282A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Which is hotter - a.) burning hydrogen in oxygen or b) burning hydrogen = in hydrogen? If you answered b) then you may be thinking about the hydrino OR are = already aware of an energy "anomaly" discovered almost 90 years ago, but = is it overunity? Ironically, Nobel chemist Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) was in the habit = of giving cautionary talks on "pathological science", saying "There are = cases where there is no dishonesty involved, but where people are = tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human = beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective = effects, wishful thinking, or threshold interactions. These are examples = of pathological science." Apparently, he failed to issue a reciprocal = warning for pathological obedience to instituionalized orthodoxy, and = indeed he may have deliberately overlooked one of the first = well-recorded instances of overunity - and in his own work! What should = it be called, "pathological tunnel vision" or "pathological neo-cecity" = (for those who appreciate 'le mot juste') ? The old anomaly in question involves the thermal dissociation of = hydrogen in an electric arc, and it was discovered by none other than = Irving Langmuir himself. He noticed that dissociation of H2 in an = electric arc led to a much higher dissociation rate than one might = expect on the basis of known thermodynamics. He invented a cutting torch = based on this discovery, which is seldom used today because of another = consideration (hydrogen embrittlement of steel). Here is a picture of = the torch. http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html Despite the risk of promoting even more of the dreaded pathological = science (at the expense of old Irv), there is a good case to be made for = OU in this device. The "textbook" binding energy of the hydrogen molecule is 4.52 eV. If = one compares the ratio of the dissociated molecules to that of = nondissociated molecules in Langmuir's torch, it turns out that the = effective binding energy works out to only a little over 1 eV for a = substantial population of the molecules involved. Of course, the = distribution is Maxwellian and we are only looking at that population on = Boltzman's tail, but so what? The population of temporarily free protons = is large (as much as a third, depending on assumptions) and the = dissociation energy-deficit is so substantial that a "gateway" may exist = for OU may here.=20 Unfortunately, most of Langmuir's old articles like: "The Dissociation = of Hydrogen Into Atoms," Journal of American Chemical Society 37, 417 = (1915) are not available online. Apologists for this kind of energy = deficit effect often use the term "borrowed" to explain it, but that = explanation involves time-reversal which is only slightly more palatable = to orthodoxy than is overunity. There is a lot of questionable information online about OU hydrogen = plasmas like Professor Chernetskii's device (Hal Puthoff apparently = visited Chernetskii in 1991 to witness the device maybe working, maybe = not) and we all know about the Correa's "abnormal glow" but this is not = intended to be a defense of that - only to offer a *non-hydrino* = explanation, if any of these hydrogen plasma things ever turns out to be = rock-solid proof of OU. The Langmuir torch suggests that the dissociation of the hydrogen = molecule occurs with an "outside" or free-energy input of about 3.4 eV = for a substantial percentage of the hydrogen molecules involved. This is = a mass/energy level that keeps popping up over and over in reported = free-energy anomalies, and it is related to a very real QM phenomenon - = the energy of "virtual pairs".=20 However, we know that even for the surprisingly long-lived virtual-pair = molecule: positronium (Ps), the prospect of capturing positron = free-energy from the vacuum seems pretty hopeless. Although this is true = for the molecule itself, Heisenberg's door may be cracked open just far = enough to admit, not the positron itself but its "wake". i.e. its 6.8 = eV binding energy. This binding energy is but a tiny fraction of the = positron or electron mass/energy of ~ .5 MeV, if they were to actually = annihilate in our 3-space, but still it isn't too shabby, double what = one gets from hydrogen/oxygen combustion.=20 If it can be captured, it is a consequence of positronium being = disrupted by proximity to a bare proton before fading into someone = else's 3-space. But why 3.4 eV and not 6.8 eV? Well, the best explanation for this that I can give at the moment is = that we must assume that in every atom, there is a "medium" that keeps = the electrons from collapse into the nucleus, and it is a gluon-like = transfer medium. If so, in positronium it is probably a lepton pair with = a mass/energy of 3.4 eV each which can either annihilate into a 6.8 eV = photon, or preferentially be captured by any free proton, as a necessary = predecessor event to molecular recombination. For more information (than anyone would ever need) on the effects of = virtual positronium, check out the pubs of G.F. Gribakin http://www.am.qub.ac.uk/users/g.gribakin/GGpubl.html Jones ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C38D7F.0C7282A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Which is hotter - a.) burning hydrogen in oxygen or b) burning = hydrogen in=20 hydrogen?
 
If you answered b) then you may be thinking about the hydrino OR = are=20 already aware of an energy "anomaly" discovered almost 90=20 years ago, but is it overunity?
 
Ironically, Nobel chemist Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) was in = the habit=20 of giving cautionary talks on "pathological science", saying "There are = cases=20 where there is no dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into = false=20 results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to = themselves=20 in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking, = or=20 threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological=20 science." Apparently, he failed to issue a reciprocal warning for=20 pathological obedience to instituionalized orthodoxy, and indeed he may = have=20 deliberately overlooked one of the first well-recorded instances of = overunity -=20 and in his own work! What should it be called, "pathological tunnel = vision"=20 or "pathological neo-cecity" (for those who appreciate 'le mot juste') = ?
 
The old anomaly in question involves the thermal=20 dissociation of hydrogen in an electric arc, and it was = discovered by=20 none other than Irving Langmuir himself. He noticed that = dissociation of H2=20 in an electric arc led to a much higher dissociation rate than one = might=20 expect on the basis of known thermodynamics. He invented a cutting = torch=20 based on this discovery, which is seldom used today because of another=20 consideration (hydrogen embrittlement of steel). Here is a picture of = the=20 torch.
http://www.= lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html
 
Despite the risk of promoting even more of the dreaded = pathological=20 science (at the expense of old Irv), there is a good case to be made for = OU in=20 this device.
 
The "textbook" binding energy of the hydrogen molecule is 4.52 eV. = If one=20 compares the ratio of the dissociated molecules to that of = nondissociated=20 molecules in Langmuir's torch, it turns out that the effective binding=20 energy works out to only a little over 1 eV for a substantial=20 population of the molecules involved. Of course, the distribution is = Maxwellian=20 and we are only looking at that population on Boltzman's tail, but so = what? The=20 population of temporarily free protons is large (as much as a third, = depending=20 on assumptions) and the dissociation energy-deficit is so substantial = that a=20 "gateway" may exist for OU may here.
 
Unfortunately, most of Langmuir's old articles like: "The Dissociation of Hydrogen Into Atoms," Journal of American = Chemical=20 Society 37, 417 (1915) are not available online. Apologists for this = kind of=20 energy deficit effect often use the term "borrowed" to = explain it, but=20 that explanation involves time-reversal=20 which is only=20 slightly more palatable to orthodoxy = than is=20 overunity.
 
There is a lot of questionable = information online=20 about OU hydrogen plasmas like Professor Chernetskii's device (Hal = Puthoff=20 apparently visited Chernetskii in 1991 to witness the device maybe = working,=20 maybe not) and we all know about the  Correa's "abnormal glow" but = this is=20 not intended to be a defense of that - only to offer a *non-hydrino*=20 explanation, if any of these hydrogen plasma things ever turns out to be = rock-solid proof of OU.
 
The Langmuir torch suggests that the dissociation of = the hydrogen=20 molecule occurs with an "outside" or free-energy input of about 3.4 = eV for=20 a substantial percentage of the hydrogen molecules involved. This = is a=20 mass/energy level that keeps popping up over and over in reported = free-energy=20 anomalies, and it is related to a very real QM phenomenon - the energy = of=20 "virtual pairs". 
 
However, we know that even for the surprisingly = long-lived=20 virtual-pair molecule: positronium (Ps), the prospect of capturing = positron=20 free-energy from the vacuum seems pretty hopeless. Although this is = true=20 for the molecule itself, Heisenberg's door may be cracked open just far = enough=20 to admit, not the positron itself but  its "wake". i.e. its = 6.8 eV=20 binding energy. This binding energy is but a tiny fraction of the = positron or=20 electron mass/energy of ~ .5 MeV, if they were to actually annihilate in = our=20 3-space, but still it isn't too shabby, double what one gets from=20 hydrogen/oxygen combustion.

If it can be captured, it is a consequence of positronium being = disrupted by=20 proximity to a bare proton before fading into someone else's 3-space. = But why=20 3.4 eV and not 6.8 eV?

Well, the best explanation for this that I can give at the = moment is=20 that we must assume that in every atom, there is a "medium" = that keeps=20 the electrons from collapse into the nucleus, and it is a gluon-like = transfer=20 medium. If so, in positronium it is probably a lepton pair = with a=20 mass/energy of 3.4 eV each which can either annihilate into a 6.8 eV = photon, or=20 preferentially be captured by any free proton, as a necessary = predecessor event=20 to molecular recombination.

For more information (than anyone would ever need) on the effects of = virtual=20 positronium, check out the pubs of G.F. Gribakin
http://www.= am.qub.ac.uk/users/g.gribakin/GGpubl.html

Jones

 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C38D7F.0C7282A0-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 8 10:33:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA10287; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:28:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:28:41 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.70.24.54] X-Originating-Email: [mgoldes@msn.com] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Langmuir's torch Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:27:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2003 17:27:49.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[7EC91DE0:01C38DC1] Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52109 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jones, Hal Puthoff did a paper some years ago suggesting it is Zero Point Energy that keeps the electron from falling into the nucleus. Very interesting post! Mark >From: "Jones Beene" >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >To: "vortex" >Subject: Langmuir's torch >Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:32:10 -0700 > >Which is hotter - a.) burning hydrogen in oxygen or b) burning hydrogen in >hydrogen? > >If you answered b) then you may be thinking about the hydrino OR are >already aware of an energy "anomaly" discovered almost 90 years ago, but is >it overunity? > >Ironically, Nobel chemist Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) was in the habit of >giving cautionary talks on "pathological science", saying "There are cases >where there is no dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into >false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to >themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful >thinking, or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological >science." Apparently, he failed to issue a reciprocal warning for >pathological obedience to instituionalized orthodoxy, and indeed he may >have deliberately overlooked one of the first well-recorded instances of >overunity - and in his own work! What should it be called, "pathological >tunnel vision" or "pathological neo-cecity" (for those who appreciate 'le >mot juste') ? > >The old anomaly in question involves the thermal dissociation of hydrogen >in an electric arc, and it was discovered by none other than Irving >Langmuir himself. He noticed that dissociation of H2 in an electric arc led >to a much higher dissociation rate than one might expect on the basis of >known thermodynamics. He invented a cutting torch based on this discovery, >which is seldom used today because of another consideration (hydrogen >embrittlement of steel). Here is a picture of the torch. >http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html > >Despite the risk of promoting even more of the dreaded pathological science >(at the expense of old Irv), there is a good case to be made for OU in this >device. > >The "textbook" binding energy of the hydrogen molecule is 4.52 eV. If one >compares the ratio of the dissociated molecules to that of nondissociated >molecules in Langmuir's torch, it turns out that the effective binding >energy works out to only a little over 1 eV for a substantial population of >the molecules involved. Of course, the distribution is Maxwellian and we >are only looking at that population on Boltzman's tail, but so what? The >population of temporarily free protons is large (as much as a third, >depending on assumptions) and the dissociation energy-deficit is so >substantial that a "gateway" may exist for OU may here. > >Unfortunately, most of Langmuir's old articles like: "The Dissociation of >Hydrogen Into Atoms," Journal of American Chemical Society 37, 417 (1915) >are not available online. Apologists for this kind of energy deficit effect >often use the term "borrowed" to explain it, but that explanation involves >time-reversal which is only slightly more palatable to orthodoxy than is >overunity. > >There is a lot of questionable information online about OU hydrogen plasmas >like Professor Chernetskii's device (Hal Puthoff apparently visited >Chernetskii in 1991 to witness the device maybe working, maybe not) and we >all know about the Correa's "abnormal glow" but this is not intended to be >a defense of that - only to offer a *non-hydrino* explanation, if any of >these hydrogen plasma things ever turns out to be rock-solid proof of OU. > >The Langmuir torch suggests that the dissociation of the hydrogen molecule >occurs with an "outside" or free-energy input of about 3.4 eV for a >substantial percentage of the hydrogen molecules involved. This is a >mass/energy level that keeps popping up over and over in reported >free-energy anomalies, and it is related to a very real QM phenomenon - the >energy of "virtual pairs". > >However, we know that even for the surprisingly long-lived virtual-pair >molecule: positronium (Ps), the prospect of capturing positron free-energy >from the vacuum seems pretty hopeless. Although this is true for the >molecule itself, Heisenberg's door may be cracked open just far enough to >admit, not the positron itself but its "wake". i.e. its 6.8 eV binding >energy. This binding energy is but a tiny fraction of the positron or >electron mass/energy of ~ .5 MeV, if they were to actually annihilate in >our 3-space, but still it isn't too shabby, double what one gets from >hydrogen/oxygen combustion. >If it can be captured, it is a consequence of positronium being disrupted >by proximity to a bare proton before fading into someone else's 3-space. >But why 3.4 eV and not 6.8 eV? > >Well, the best explanation for this that I can give at the moment is that >we must assume that in every atom, there is a "medium" that keeps the >electrons from collapse into the nucleus, and it is a gluon-like transfer >medium. If so, in positronium it is probably a lepton pair with a >mass/energy of 3.4 eV each which can either annihilate into a 6.8 eV >photon, or preferentially be captured by any free proton, as a necessary >predecessor event to molecular recombination. > >For more information (than anyone would ever need) on the effects of >virtual positronium, check out the pubs of G.F. Gribakin >http://www.am.qub.ac.uk/users/g.gribakin/GGpubl.html > >Jones > > > _________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 8 11:42:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA05656; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:38:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:38:45 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031008143420.01c9b2a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:38:37 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Uploaded papers by Violante et al. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52110 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I uploaded several papers, including two important ones by Violante and a bunch of other people: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVanalysisof.pdf And especially this one: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVsearchforn.pdf Let me know if you experience delays or difficulties downloading these papers. (Let me know if you have difficulty with any file, but I just had problems with some recently uploaded files. It could be a coincidence.) - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 8 17:44:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA29993; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:31:31 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex Subject: Re: Langmuir's torch, name for scoffer pathology In-Reply-To: <003301c38db9$ba85c160$8837fea9@cpq> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52111 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Jones Beene wrote: > What should > it be called, "pathological tunnel vision" or "pathological neo-cecity" > (for those who appreciate 'le mot juste') ? Heh. Turn the tables on irrational scoffers. Call it "pseudoscience." If we let our existing beliefs influence our judgement, or even let them warp our perceptions, yet at the same time we claim to be doing science... that's the very definition of Pseudoscience. Scoffers prefer that "pseudoscience" be associated with people who believe things that aren't true. As if it's not a serious error to DISbelieve things that ARE true. Here's a very interesting article from 1995 (for those who missed it in Infinite Energy in 2001) : The Plight of the Obscure Innovator http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 Wed Oct 8 18:05:15 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA16413; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:01:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:01:49 -0700 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <195.20c14ac0.2cb60d49@aol.com> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:00:57 EDT Subject: Re: Langmuir's torch To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1065661257" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52112 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------------------------------1065661257 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Illuminati has created a working cold fusion torch which they keep secret from the general public. I have been trying to figure out how they built it. Your article and the article below on brown's gas explains how a cold fusion plasma gas could be created from hydrogen and other gases, sonofusion, and transmuted nuclear waste material. Perhaps the cold fusion discussion's should focus on creating cold fusion in air or in a gas and not just in heavey water to create a cold fusion torch. "http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col~1.htm#AAII91Cold Part II: Modern Arcana , Chapter 9 ,Cold Fusion (1) Cold Fusion Transmutations ,(2) Nuclear Waste Remediation ,(3) References (1) Cold Fusion Transmutations ~ The Australian inventor Yull Brown developed a novel method of electrolyzing water to produce a compressed (up to 100 psi) stoichometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen ions (popularly known as "Brown's gas") that is burned in a 2:1 ration. Since the early 1980s, long before cold fusion was discovered, Yull Brown claimed to be able to transmute radioactive material into inert forms by fusing it in the flame produced by his form of hyfuel. His 1977 patent mentions that, "The invention also relates to atomic welding..." (US Patents #4,014,777; see also # 4,081,656). Yull Brown's first successful experiment with Co60 radionuclides reduced the activity by about 50% in 10 minutes. The process was replicated by the Baotou Nuclear Institute (China) in 1991. In a demonstration witnessed by US Congressman Berkeley Bedell, the radioactivity of Americium was quickly reduced by 2500% with Brown's Gas torch. The Geiger counter reading registered 16,000 curies/minute before, and less than 100 curies/minute afterwards. Congressman Bedell said: "It has been my good pleasure to witness experiments done by Prof. Yull Brown in which it appeared to me that he significantly reduced the radioactivity in several nuclear materials. Under the circumstances, I believe it is very important for our federal government to completely investigate Dr. Yull Brown's accomplishments in this area." If the US government is completely investigating Brown's Gas, it is doing so secretly. " Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1065661257 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Illuminati has created a working cold fusion torch which they keep=20= secret from the general public.  I have been trying to figure out how t= hey built it.  Your article and the article below on brown's gas explai= ns how a cold fusion plasma gas could be created from hydrogen and other gas= es, sonofusion, and transmuted nuclear waste material.  Perhaps th= e cold fusion discussion's should focus on creating cold fusion in air or in= a gas and not just in heavey water to create a cold fusion torch.
 
"http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col~1.htm#AAII91Cold
(1)    Cold Fusion Transmutations ~
 
The Australian inventor Yull Brown developed a novel method of electro= lyzing water to produce a compressed (up to 100 psi) stoichometric mixture o= f hydrogen and oxygen ions (popularly known as "Brown's gas") that is burned= in a 2:1 ration. Since the early 1980s, long before cold fusion was discove= red, Yull Brown claimed to be able to transmute radioactive material into in= ert forms by fusing it in the flame produced by his form of hyfuel. His 1977= patent mentions that, "The invention also relates to atomic welding.= .." (US Patents #4,014,777; see also # 4,081,656).

Yull Brown's first successful experiment with Co60 radionuclide= s reduced the activity by about 50% in 10 minutes. The process was replicate= d by the Baotou Nuclear Institute (China) in 1991.=20

In a demonstration witnessed by US Congressman Berkeley Bedell, the radioa= ctivity of Americium was quickly reduced by 2500% with Brown's Gas torch. Th= e Geiger counter reading registered 16,000 curies/minute before, and less th= an 100 curies/minute afterwards. Congressman Bedell said:=20

"It has been my good pleasure to witness experiments done by Prof. Yull Br= own in which it appeared to me that he significantly reduced the radioactivi= ty in several nuclear materials. Under the circumstances, I believe it is ve= ry important for our federal government to completely investigate Dr. Yull B= rown's accomplishments in this area."=20

If the US government is completely investigating Brown's Gas, it is doing=20= so secretly. "

 

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1065661257-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 8 19:42:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA08700; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 19:37:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 19:37:09 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c38e08$c30e9060$ea201f41@woh.rr.com> From: "Nicholas Reiter" To: "vortex-L" Subject: Gamma Rays and Rad Remediation Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:57:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52113 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gentlemen, A small write up with plots has been posted on Sam Faile's web page. This is a follow up report dealing with the shifting of gamma ray energy peaks from some samples that were involved in the experiments described in the fifth report on fungal modification of radioactivity. Enjoy: http://www.geocities.com/spfaile/Gamma.html Now, there was a recent exchange here about the Langmuir Torch, as well as some commentary about... ARGGGHH... Brown's Gas. Since part of my new research agenda for my "day job" has involved hydrogen, as you might imagine, I have been looking as well at electrolysis. I can only step so far here due to confidentiality. However I CAN say without a doubt that after much testing of my own, with Th, U, and 231 Am sources, I myself have concluded that there is no radioactive remediation effect. Well, there actually is. HOWEVER... sad truth is that the mechanism involved has nothing to do with an anomalous component of Brown's Gas, but is actually due to several factors: 1. The sources used in the past for testing were very small. 2. The sources are easily ablated with a hydrogen torch flame. NOT melted, mind you. But ablated. A reducing flame assists this, by preventing the formation of more durable oxides. 3. The reduction in radioactive CPM is a result of ablation and reduction of the mass of the radioisotope. 4. This was further evidenced by finding an increase in radioactive background, via deposition, on nearby mounting hardware. And probably my lungs too. gaack. Best, NR From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 9 08:08:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA10504; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:01:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:01:25 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031009105914.01cba098@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:01:10 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Happy Birthday LENR-CANR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52114 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: LENR-CANR celebrates its first year with an unusual birthday cake. Come and have a virtual slice: http://lenr-canr.org/index.html - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 9 10:23:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12381; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3F858CC2.1050601@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:28:50 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Happy Birthday LENR-CANR References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031009105914.01cba098@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031009105914.01cba098@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52115 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > LENR-CANR celebrates its first year with an unusual birthday cake. > Come and have a virtual slice: Nice candle . . . OU? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 9 10:45:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA01756; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:39:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:39:11 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031009104127.00b1f6c0@mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek@mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:42:02 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: Happy Birthday LENR-CANR In-Reply-To: <3F858CC2.1050601@rtpatlanta.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031009105914.01cba098@pop.mindspring.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20031009105914.01cba098@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52116 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Non-essential graphics on your website? Has Hell frozen over? Steve From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 9 14:10:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA14767; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:05:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:05:24 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031009142838.01cb9980@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:36:48 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Happy Birthday LENR-CANR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <_RF0pC.A.fmD.S2ch_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52117 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton comments: "Nice candle . . . OU?" Oh me? Oh no. That is recombination. The effluent gas is burning. Nothing special. Steve Krivit worries: "Non-essential graphics on your website? Has Hell frozen over?" That is a technical illustration. This is the first of our simplified, do-it-yourself replication recipes. We don't do frivolity. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 10 12:37:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA10109; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:28:38 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8708A6.4411F674@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:29:42 -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, 10 Oct 03] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52118 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, 10 Oct 03 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:54:06 -0400 From: "What's New" Reply-To: opa@aps.org To: "What's New" WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 10 Oct 03 Washington, DC 1. THE PRIZE: CHEMIST AND PHYSICIST SHARE MEDICINE NOBEL AWARD. Paul Lauterbur of the University of Illinois, a chemist, was awarded a long overdue Nobel prize for his seminal role in the development of MRI. In work done at Stony Brook, he introduced gradient coils into the magnetic field, making it possible to build up two-dimensional images. The prize was shared with a British physicist, Sir Peter Mansfield, who showed how signals could be mathematically analyzed for extremely fast imaging, effectively giving a three-dimensional view. The discovery of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance by Felix Bloch and Ed Purcell was recognized by the Nobel Prize in 1952. The word "nuclear" was later omitted to ease public concern, but then Paul Brodeur, of EMF/cancer notoriety, advised people to avoid MRI because the magnetic field might induce cancer (WN 25 Aug 89). Go figure. 2. RECALL MOVE: NOT THE ONE IN CALIFORNIA, THE ONE IN STOCKHOLM. The Washington Post carried a full page ad yesterday showing an upside down Nobel medal and huge print proclaiming, "This Year's Nobel Prize in Medicine: A Shameful Wrong That Must Be Righted." The ad says medical doctor Raymond Damadian made the breakthrough discovery. It didn't say who paid for the ad, but there was a phone number. It turned out to be that of the Fonar Corp. We complained. The next day the ad was in the NY Times, and Fonar was identified. We Googled Fonar; guess who the CEO is? Raymond Damadian. There's an important moral here somewhere. Science is open. We share our thoughts and our data, everything. We can't always recall the source of our ideas. Sometimes, even friends feel slighted. But the Nobel Prize is valuable to all of us. It's a chance to give the public a glimpse of what science can do. We honor the winners, but in truth we all contribute by stirring the intellectual stew from which new insights emerge. 3. MEANWHILE: MEDICAL DOCTORS SHARE A NOBEL PRIZE FOR CHEMISTRY. This year's Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to two medical doctors for explaining selective transport of molecules across cell membranes. Peter Agre of Johns Hopkins showed how water channels serve as water purifiers. Independently, Roderick MacKinnon of Rockefeller Univ. discovered how potassium ions pass through channels in the cell membrane that exclude other ions. We are truly entering an age in which traditional disciplinary boundaries separating scientists mean little (WN 3 Oct 03). 4. PHYSICS NOBEL: A WINNING STRATEGY SHOULD INCLUDE LONGEVITY. It might also be a good idea to work on superconductivity. Alexei Abrikosov 75, who is an American and Russian citizen, is at Argonne National Lab. He based his treatment of type-II superconductors on the theory of Vitaly Ginzburg, 87, from the Lebedev Institute in Moscow, who had long since given up hope of a Nobel. Anthony Leggett, both American and British, is a mere 65. He is at the University of Illinois, which did quite well this year. He explained superfluidity in helium-three, but his theory also found application in particle physics and cosmology. 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: aki@ix.netcom.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-whatsnew-27231J@lists.apsmsgs.org To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 10 17:51:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA04785; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:49:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:49:17 -0700 From: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:48:33 +0000 (UTC) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gamma Rays and Rad Remediation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52119 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Who is NR? On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:43:08 -0400 > From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu, vortex-L@eskimo.com > Subject: Gamma Rays and Rad Remediation > > Gentlemen, > > A small write up with plots has been posted on Sam Faile's web page. This > is a follow up report dealing with the shifting of gamma ray energy peaks > from some samples that were involved in the experiments described in the > fifth report on fungal modification of radioactivity. Enjoy: > > http://www.geocities.com/spfaile/Gamma.html > > Now, there was a recent exchange here about the Langmuir Torch, as well as > some commentary about... ARGGGHH... Brown's Gas. > > Since part of my new research agenda for my "day job" has involved > hydrogen, > as you might imagine, I have been looking as well at electrolysis. I can > only step so far here due to confidentiality. However I CAN say without a > doubt that after much testing of my own, with Th, U, and 231 Am sources, I > myself have concluded that there is no radioactive remediation effect. > Well, there actually is. HOWEVER... sad truth is that the mechanism > involved has nothing to do with an anomalous component of Brown's Gas, but > is actually due to several factors: > > 1. The sources used in the past for testing were very small. > 2. The sources are easily ablated with a hydrogen torch flame. NOT > melted, > mind you. But ablated. A reducing flame assists this, by preventing the > formation of more durable oxides. > 3. The reduction in radioactive CPM is a result of ablation and reduction > of the mass of the radioisotope. > 4. This was further evidenced by finding an increase in radioactive > background, via deposition, on nearby mounting hardware. And probably my > lungs too. gaack. > > Best, > > NR > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 10 17:55:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA06411; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:51:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:51:38 -0700 From: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:50:45 +0000 (UTC) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Langmuir's torch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <8QWPPB.A.DkB.ZQ1h_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52120 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tom, Send me your E mail address please. On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:12:06 -0400 > From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu, vortex-l@eskimo.com, > Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: Langmuir's torch > > The Illuminati has created a working cold fusion torch which they keep > secret from the general public. I have been trying to figure out how they > built it. Your article and the article below on brown's gas explains how > a cold fusion plasma gas could be created from hydrogen and other gases, > sonofusion, and transmuted nuclear waste material. Perhaps the cold > fusion discussion's should focus on creating cold fusion in air or in a > gas and not just in heavey water to create a cold fusion torch. > > "http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col~1.htm#AAII91Cold > > > Part II: Modern Arcana , Chapter 9 ,Cold Fusion > > [ http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col~1.htm#AAII91Cold ](1) Cold > Fusion Transmutations ,[ > http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col~1.htm#AAII92Nuke ](2) Nuclear > Waste Remediation ,[ > http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col~1.htm#AAII93Ref ](3) References > > (1) Cold Fusion Transmutations ~ > > The Australian inventor Yull Brown developed a novel method of > electrolyzing water to produce a compressed (up to 100 psi) stoichometric > mixture of hydrogen and oxygen ions (popularly known as "Brown's gas") > that is burned in a 2:1 ration. Since the early 1980s, long before cold > fusion was discovered, Yull Brown claimed to be able to transmute > radioactive material into inert forms by fusing it in the flame produced > by his form of hyfuel. His 1977 patent mentions that, "The invention also > relates to atomic welding..." (US Patents #4,014,777; see also # > 4,081,656). > > > Yull Brown's first successful experiment with Co60 radionuclides reduced > the activity by about 50% in 10 minutes. The process was replicated by the > Baotou Nuclear Institute (China) in 1991. > > In a demonstration witnessed by US Congressman Berkeley Bedell, the > radioactivity of Americium was quickly reduced by 2500% with Brown's Gas > torch. The Geiger counter reading registered 16,000 curies/minute before, > and less than 100 curies/minute afterwards. Congressman Bedell said: > > "It has been my good pleasure to witness experiments done by Prof. Yull > Brown in which it appeared to me that he significantly reduced the > radioactivity in several nuclear materials. Under the circumstances, I > believe it is very important for our federal government to completely > investigate Dr. Yull Brown's accomplishments in this area." > > If the US government is completely investigating Brown's Gas, it is doing > so secretly. " > > > > > Baron Von Volsung, [ http://www.rhfweb.com/baron ]www.rhfweb.com\baron, > Email: [ http://www.rhfweb.com/emailform.html > ]www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html > President Thomas D. Clark, > Email: [ http://www.rhfweb.com/emailform.html > ]www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: [ > http://www.rhfweb.com/personal ]www.rhfweb.com\personal > New Age Production's Inc., [ http://www.rhfweb.com/newage > ]www.rhfweb.com\newage > Star Haven Community Services, at [ http://www.rhfweb.com/sh > ]www.rhfweb.com\sh > Radiation Health Foundation Trust at [ http://www.rhfweb.com/ > ]www.rhfweb.com > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 10 21:37:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA16045; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:35:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:35:37 -0700 Message-ID: <3F87888D.2040300@ihug.co.nz> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:35:25 +1300 From: John Berry User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gamma Rays and Rad Remediation References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52121 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu wrote: > Who is NR? > Nick Reiter > >On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > > > >>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:43:08 -0400 >>From: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>To: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu, vortex-L@eskimo.com >>Subject: Gamma Rays and Rad Remediation >> >>Gentlemen, >> >>A small write up with plots has been posted on Sam Faile's web page. This >>is a follow up report dealing with the shifting of gamma ray energy peaks >>from some samples that were involved in the experiments described in the >>fifth report on fungal modification of radioactivity. Enjoy: >> >>http://www.geocities.com/spfaile/Gamma.html >> >>Now, there was a recent exchange here about the Langmuir Torch, as well as >>some commentary about... ARGGGHH... Brown's Gas. >> >>Since part of my new research agenda for my "day job" has involved >>hydrogen, >>as you might imagine, I have been looking as well at electrolysis. I can >>only step so far here due to confidentiality. However I CAN say without a >>doubt that after much testing of my own, with Th, U, and 231 Am sources, I >>myself have concluded that there is no radioactive remediation effect. >>Well, there actually is. HOWEVER... sad truth is that the mechanism >>involved has nothing to do with an anomalous component of Brown's Gas, but >>is actually due to several factors: >> >>1. The sources used in the past for testing were very small. >>2. The sources are easily ablated with a hydrogen torch flame. NOT >>melted, >>mind you. But ablated. A reducing flame assists this, by preventing the >>formation of more durable oxides. >>3. The reduction in radioactive CPM is a result of ablation and reduction >>of the mass of the radioisotope. >>4. This was further evidenced by finding an increase in radioactive >>background, via deposition, on nearby mounting hardware. And probably my >>lungs too. gaack. >> >>Best, >> >>NR >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 10 21:45:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA22656; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:44:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:44:25 -0700 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <143.19f5cf65.2cb8e47e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:43:42 EDT Subject: Re: Langmuir's torch To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu CC: Baronvolsung@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1065847422" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52122 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------------------------------1065847422 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is my email address, Baronvolsung@aol.com. I think I figured out how to build the cold fusion torch in part and how it works theoretically. According to my Chemistry book Chemistry A Conceptual Approach Second Edition by Charles E. Mortimer 1971, Wilhelm Wien studied positive rays in 1898, and determined the the e/m value for positive particles of rays produced by protons by observing thier deflection in a magnetic and electrostatic field. "The postive particles comprising postive rays differ depending on the gas present in the discharge tube unlike the electrons of the cathode rays which are identical no matter from what material they arise. When particles have the same size charge, the value of e/m increases with a decrease in the mass of the particle. Hence for the electron the value of e/me is large. All positive ions have much smaller e/m values than the electron, and the value of e/m obtained depends upon the gas present in the discharge tube. When hydrogen is used in the tube, the largest of all e/m values for positive ions is observed; it is assumed that positive ions from this source are the fundamental particles - protons. Pg 20, Chemistry A Conceptual Approach Second Edition by Charles E. Mortimer." Since two streams of hydrogen are focused and compressed together in the Langmuir's torch, it is possible that when the hydrogen is compressed to the proper pressure in multiple streams of hydrogen, the torch can get extra energy from the positive protons in the hydrogen and maximize the energy received since hydrogen has the highest positive proton energy of all the gases. If we replace the Langmuir's torch electrodes with palladium, and compress the multiple streams of hydrogen gas to high levels with sonic waves from a small ultrasonic chip near or in the electrodes, we may create a cold fusion reaction in the palladium electrodes. We need not use high temperatures or even high voltages in the electrodes to save energy, since the cold fusion reaction may be dependent on the pressure and hydrogen gas alone. If we hook up the cold fusion torch to heat a pot of water, then the water's steam can be used to generate electricity to power the torch, and to electrolyze the water to break it up into hydrogen to provide the torches hydrogen needs, and if the above system produced extra energy from the positive protons in hydrogen compressed to create a cold fusion reaction in the palladium then we may have overunity energy. Most of the over unity devices us positive electricity which may be the positive proton energy in hydrogen. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1065847422 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is my email address, Baronvolsung@aol.com.  I think I f= igured out how to build the cold fusion torch in part and how it works theor= etically.  According to my Chemistry book Chemistry A Conceptual A= pproach Second Edition by Charles E. Mortimer 1971, Wilhelm Wien studied pos= itive rays in 1898, and determined the the e/m value for positive particles=20= of rays produced by protons by observing thier deflection in a magnetic and=20= electrostatic field. 
 
"The postive particles comprising postive rays differ depending on the=20= gas present in the discharge tube unlike the electrons of the cathode rays w= hich are identical no matter from what material they arise.   When= particles have the same size charge, the value of e/m increases with a decr= ease in the mass of the particle.  Hence for the electron the value of=20= e/me is large.  All positive ions have much smaller e/m values than the= electron, and the value of e/m obtained depends upon the gas present in the= discharge tube.
 
When hydrogen is used in the tube, the largest of all e/m values for po= sitive ions is observed; it is assumed that positive ions from this source a= re the fundamental particles - protons. Pg 20, Chemistry A Conceptual Approa= ch Second Edition by Charles E. Mortimer."
 
Since two streams of hydrogen are focused and compressed together in th= e Langmuir's torch, it is possible that when the hydrogen is compressed to t= he proper pressure in multiple streams of hydrogen, the torch can get extra=20= energy from the positive protons in the hydrogen and maximize the energy rec= eived since hydrogen has the highest positive proton energy of all the gases= .
 
If we replace the Langmuir's torch electrodes with palladium, and compr= ess the multiple streams of hydrogen gas to high levels with sonic wave= s from a small ultrasonic chip near or in the electrodes, we may create a co= ld fusion reaction in the palladium electrodes.  We need not use high t= emperatures or even high voltages in the electrodes to save energy, since th= e cold fusion reaction may be dependent on the pressure and hydrogen gas alo= ne.   If we hook up the cold fusion torch to heat a pot of water,=20= then the water's steam can be used to generate electricity to power the torc= h, and to electrolyze the water to break it up into hydrogen to provide the=20= torches hydrogen needs, and if the above system produced extra energy from t= he positive protons in hydrogen compressed to create a cold fusion reaction=20= in the palladium then we may have overunity energy.  Most of the over u= nity devices us positive electricity which may be the positive proton energy= in hydrogen.

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1065847422-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 11 02:04:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id CAA17210; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:03:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:03:27 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:11:51 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gamma Rays and Rad Remediation Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52123 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:57 PM 10/8/3, Nicholas Reiter wrote: >Gentlemen, > >A small write up with plots has been posted on Sam Faile's web page. This >is a follow up report dealing with the shifting of gamma ray energy peaks >from some samples that were involved in the experiments described in the >fifth report on fungal modification of radioactivity. Enjoy: > >http://www.geocities.com/spfaile/Gamma.html Once again it looks like you need to compute error bars and/or apply a t-test to see if peaks have really shifted. The most "shifted" peaks are probably those in the sample with the smaller number of counts, and that shifting is simply due to count deviation. It looks like the samples might simply have differing amounts of thorium in them. It is also possible that small differences in spacing from the counter, or even possibly differing distributions of hot material in the counting vials affected the gross counts. Simply counting the samples again might shed some light on this. It might have been handy to count the control at the beginning and end of the counting, in order to be sure the device was not shifting counting efficiency as temperature or some other varibale changed. There is a nice discussion of counting issues in "Proceedures in Experimental Physics" by John Strong. Following is a brief summary. The mean error "epsilon" in an observed count of N is N^(1/2). The probable error is 0.67 epsilon. In order to have a probable error of less than 1 percent over 4300 particles must be counted. Background counts complicate the issue and substantially increase the number of counts required to achieve a desired mean error. If you have a background count mean error of epsilon_b, then the error of the sum or difference of background and live counts is: epsilon_net = (epsilon_b + epsilon)^(1/2) If you have a background count of N_b and live count of N then the relative probable error becomes: epsilon = (0.67 (N + N_b)^(1/2) )/ (N - N_b) If the source to be measured is twice background then it is necessary to count about 27,000 counts to achieve a probable error of 1 percent on the computed rate for the live count. Since you have a set of peaks in the vicinity of 300 counts, and a background of about 10, you have a probable counting error of about 4 percent, or about 12 counts. The count difference between two adjacent peaks could easily be off by 48 counts (difference), given each is two sigma away from their true mean in the count in question (in opposite directions). Much could be learned by simply repeating the counts, and also by increasing the count time for the low count samples, or counting them more times. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 11 09:11:15 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA18902; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:07:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:07:41 -0700 Message-ID: <003d01c39010$d46b8ac0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Some Finer Moments of Water Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:00:42 -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 JAA18852 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52124 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Warning: Long, winding (aka tortuous) road ahead ! Electrostatic interactions are normally highly attenuated in water. The attractive force between two oppositely charged ions in solution is inversely proportional to the dielectric constant. The dielectric constant of water (80.0) is over twice that of similar liquids like methanol (33.1) and over five times that of ammonia (15.5). That is one reason why the self-ionization of water on a small scale can happen in the first place (it is a proven reality) and why it doesn't normally result in excess heat from recombination, even when self-ionization is increased greatly by the addition of salt. If one can contrast that balanced situation in salt water with an imposed *change* in the dielectric constant, brought about by mechanical agitation and phase-change, then what is the result? Surprisingly, on the large scale, the results may be rather violent - a hurricane... not just a normal storm but a self-sustaining hurricane (4000 megatons TNT equivalent)fueled in part by natural "free-energy" and we are not talking "just" solar energy here but something more exotic.. or commonplace, if you happen to live in Florida. When the "unimaginable" is demonstrated (unimaginable to the science-establishment): that is, when OU is proven to be available from chemistry alone (no nuclear interaction, er...at least none that involves nuclear disintegration) then IMHO it will involve manipulating the molecular polarity of an agent-molecule in order to "pry" apart a target-molecule - which will then be poised to recombine with greater energy than was used to manipulate the agent. In fact, it may happen all the time in nature - even in our human metabolism, as we speak (if we assume all on vortex are human?). Let's leave the "ultimate" source for the free-energy which may result (ZPE, hydrino, LENR or otherwise) to the next generation of vortexians to figure out; but I will go out on a limb and predict that the process will be "rediscovered" in a lab somewhere within a few years, and that the target molecule will be water and that the agent molecule will be oxygen. The COP will not be too great at first but, hey, an ironclad COP of 1.1 will demolish several temple pillars, no? Peter J. W. Debye was a Dutch-American physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1936, and contributed greatly to our understanding of electrolyte solutions. He studied dipole moments of molecules and how the arrangement of atoms in molecules and the distances between them can modify or contain electrical interactions. He came to America (Cornell U.) before WWII in response to the German version of the "Patriot's Act," (and that should be a warning about our newer version.) The Professor was a major influence in combining Physics with Chemistry into an integrated body of knowledge, but there is a "back door" implication to his findings about dipole moments... a door which is not always locked. Molecular combinations are either polar or nonpolar. "Straight" linkages, like O-O or H-H are nonpolar, while angled linkages like H-O-H are polar. The product of molecular charge and the distance between two charges of equal magnitude with opposite sign is equal to the molecular dipole moment (D) or debye. Nonpolar molecules like O2 that take on an added charge, like O2- can then become situationally polar. If the molecule has high electron affinity, like O2, then it becomes rather "cheap" in terms of energy-expenditure, to convert it from nonpolar to situationally polar... and its situational polarity can be used somewhat as a pry-bar if and when molecular moments are changed.. The D - the debye - is a numerical value that characterizes the size of dipole moment. With a proton & electron 100 pm apart (1 angstrom), the dipole moment is 4.80 D: (1.60x10-29 C.m)(1 D/3.336x10-30 C.m) = 4.80 D ; and at 2 angstroms D is double that. The Debye-Hückel theory attempts to explain why the electrical potential fluctuations due to the ions in an electrolyte are much smaller than they should be. After all, in an acid electrolyte, if any "free" proton somehow got into close contact with an electron we should see an enormous 13.6 eV burst of energy (about 4 times more than normal combustion) and if even if two free protons get together to form H2 we are getting massive heat in the extreme UV spectrum. This ion-recombination does not happen because at each molecular location in an electrolyte solution, any small potential shift will give rise to an instantaneous charge density shift, opposing the fluctuation. This is somewhat analogous to the situation with an electro-magnet, where the magnetic field created by current flow opposes the electrical current that created it. The charge density affects the potential via Poisson's equation. This tends to explain why the hydrated proton (hydronium ion) gives up only ~ 0.73 eV on separation instead of 13.6 eV. For all practical purposes, the proton can be considered more than half as far below ground state when hydrated as when molecularly bound. There is really no such thing as a "free proton" in water except as a temporal abstraction, as within picoseconds, a split-off proton will "do something" radical (pun intended). Oxygen is highly electronegative, and in a water molecule the O gains partial negative charge by withdrawing electron density from the two hydrogen atoms to which it is covalently bonded, leaving them with partial positive charges (and possibly even a tiny level of reduced nuclear mass, if mass and charge have any interconnection at all). There is a gray area between purely chemical and purely nuclear reactions when hydrogen is involved because of the mass/charge interaction- and before anyone restates the textbook claim that there is no connection, remember we are only talking about 7-15 parts per thousand (3.4/512) which is a hundred times below what can be measured now.. The implications for this are very interesting when in phase-change, and especially when the O2 meets H2O in the process of phase-change. The effective dipole moment of water molecules in the liquid is estimated at 2.4 debye but in a mixed gas phase, everything becomes topsy-turvy and ions that were formerly segregated can begin to react differently. Lets return to the starting premise: that being that electrostatic interactions are highly attenuated in water, inversely proportional to the dielectric constant (80.0) which is high in the liquid phase, however, as best as I can tell, the dielectric constant of steam is less than 2. With water mist at 80 degrees F, it is probably somewhere in between, but at .5 bar it is probably gone for all practical purposes. Ergo, if a large amount of salt water gets vaporized in a storm (by solar energy), those formerly highly attenuated electrostatic interactions might tend to later loose stability and recombine rather violently, once the pressure gets low enough (20,000 feet for instance), or so it would appear.... Jones To understand the implication of the last paragraph (20,000 ft), I am attaching the relevant potion of a previous post based on NASA disclosures, about a speculative energy mechanism that may supply as much as 1/4 to 1/3 of the total energy dumped by an average hurricane over a period of 2 weeks. Make no mistake, it takes a lot of solar energy to "set the stage" for a hurricane, but the actual storm dumps so much energy so quickly than it could NOT possibly be stored in wind, water temp. etc. ERGO some kind of previously undescribed OU-mechanism is looking like an interesting premise.... Given that the upper atmosphere contains appreciable quantities of free electrons that are created by cosmic rays, solar ultraviolet, lightning, etc, which are quickly converted to negative (O2-) ions, which will then be poised to interact with water vapor, it seems possible that an exothermic water-splitting "chain reaction" can be set up naturally with massive physical repercussions at high altitude (reduced atmospheric pressure). This is especially true is the water vapor contains entrained salt ions. Solar energy is involved in part of the process: the upper atmosphere ionization, the wind agitation and the water temperature. But most of the resulting heat energy from H2/O2 splitting and recombination, which is the OU part, is derived from nanoscale pressure differential forces and QM (quantum mechanical) interaction, which are Casimir-like and probably operate at the Forster radius of 2-10 nanometers. By "chain reaction" it is meant that a reappearing "agent", not unlike a catalyst, is the physical modality that will enhance an ongoing natural separation process that occurs with (H)OH, then forming H2 and O2, as will be described below. It is a little counter-intuitive to imagine that one can create hydrogen most efficiently by using oxygen, which it "wants" to combine with, but mother nature has shown us that you can IF a "mixed-gas" output or immediate recombination is acceptable. Of course, some scientists believe they have violent weather figured out already, and the hurricane phenomenon does not require anything other than a few degrees of surplus ocean temperature. However, even they admit: "Last year, NASA researchers took the temperature of the eye of Hurricane Erin to determine how a hurricane's warm center fuels the strength of storms.... The researchers found that the warmest portion around a hurricane's eye is approximately *3.5 miles high* Interesting. How did the warmest part get 3.5 miles high? As one goes higher in elevation, air temperature normally decreases. Typically, air temperatures decrease about 3.6° F per 1,000 feet of elevation. At 20,000 feet we would expect that a sea level air/ocean temperature of 72 degrees to drop to zero. If instead, in a hurricane a large mass of air is raised to 100 degrees, what known mechanism can do that? Sure, there is a lot of convection and wind, but this pocket of gas is higher temperature than the ocean temperature. Even with very efficient kinetic transfer, it should be somewhat lower. And if you look at the temperature cross-section, the heat appears to be created at the higher level and convected downward, not the opposite. There are some rationalizations for this oddity from the NASA scientists, but to me they are not convincing. However, we know that water will "burn" (hyperoxidize): O2 + 2H2O + 2e- ----> H2O2 + 2OH- O2 + H2O + 2e- ----> HO2- + OH- These can be HIGH efficiency cathode reactions that can take place on a gas cathode (O2- )and they occur more efficiently in a partial vacuum. They are nominally endothermic reactions, but the story does not end there. Not only are the reaction products highly exothermic but the hydroxyl that is formed will donate its electron back to an O2 to continue the chain reaction, ad infinitum, if the parameters are optimized. As far back as 1985, Bockris showed that the net enthalpy change from recombination may be greater than the normal STP water dissociation energy. But even here Bockris did not take into account certain QM dissociation effects of the oxygen ion that could convert slight OU to significant OU. See: "On the Splitting of Water", International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 10 No. 30, pp.179-201. Again, this net enthalpy normally will occur only in a low energy plasma regime. Exactly what one might expect at twenty thousand feet with lots of turbulence (and possible cavitation) ! But to go further into OU than Bockris imagined, we must consider that the oxygen ion together with water's extreme polarity, creates a quasi-stable water-bound structure - one where the positively-charged ends of both water molecules bind fairly strongly, even in a cold plasma: H H O< O-O >O H H Up to this point there is no OU. But we can reasonably suspect that normal probability movements of the two protons in this structure will be such that QM molecular tunneling will be much more highly favored, statistically, than the in normal water dissociation equilibrium of 1 x 10^-7 moles per liter, due to the presence, at angstrom distances, of a bound aggressive oxidizer. The equilibrium percentage for free protons is low , for sure, but it is a nearly "instantaneous" transition (picosecond time scale) so that when any free protons are removed (in the form of H2 gas), they will immediately reform as part of the natural QM process. Therefore even thought the proportion is low at any given instant, the rate of formation can be high. As mentioned, a partial vacuum is required for nanoscale pressure differential forces and optimized QM interaction, which are Casimir-like and probably operate at the Forster radius of 1-2 nanaometers, which would correspond to the ion mean free path of the compound ion structure pictured above. The heat derived from H2/O2 sequential splitting and recombination (electrolytic chain reaction) may be part of a "natural" overunity engine that requires a partial vacuum but begins with warm salt water and high winds. That part requires solar energy input, but a previously undescibed OU process could be the secondary power engine in hurricanes. And some justification for using the name "vortex" in regard to the pursuit of "free energy." Or so it would seem from NASA's recent disclosures. More later... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 11 12:09:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA30828; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:07:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:07:45 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:23:57 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some Finer Moments of Water Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52125 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:00 AM 10/11/3, Jones Beene wrote: >Electrostatic interactions are normally highly attenuated in water. The >attractive force between two oppositely charged ions in solution is >inversely proportional to the dielectric constant. The dielectric constant >of water (80.0) is over twice that of similar liquids like methanol (33.1) >and over five times that of ammonia (15.5). The force between two charged bodies is proportional to the dielectric constant of the medium between them. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 12 16:00:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA12758; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:54:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:54:57 -0700 Message-ID: <3F89DBBB.7010002@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:54:51 -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: DIY Segway Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52127 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: http://www.tlb.org/scooter.html From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 00:21:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA22260; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:18:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:18:28 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c39151$9953f2a0$2709bf3f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Some Finer Moments of Water Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:16:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9407cfb1e2c9b8264506256140bdd2e4950350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:00 AM 10/11/3, Jones Beene wrote: >>Electrostatic interactions are normally highly attenuated in water. The >>attractive force between two oppositely charged ions in solution is >>inversely proportional to the dielectric constant. The dielectric constant >>of water (80.0) is over twice that of similar liquids like methanol (33.1) >>and over five times that of ammonia (15.5). Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:10:13, Horace Heffner wrote: > The force between two charged bodies is proportional to the dielectric > constant of the medium between them. The Electrostatic Force (Fes) between two charged bodies with charges (Q1 and Q2) separated at a distance (R) in a medium with dielectric constant (K): Fes = Q1*Q2/[4(pi)K*eo*R^2] Dr. Martin Chaplin's website has a very thorough coverage of the behavior of water: http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/index.html His treatment of the Auto-Ionization of water gives a strong clue as to the nature of "Free Energy" and/or "Over-Unity" effects in water: http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/ionis.html "Ionization of water" "Water molecules ionize endothermically due to electric field fluctuations caused by nearby dipole librations [191] resulting from thermal effects; a process that is facilitated by exciting the O-H stretch overtone vibration [393]. Ions may separate by means of the Grotthuss mechanism (see below) but normally recombine within a few femtoseconds. Rarely (about once every eleven hours per molecule at 25°C, or less than once a week at 0°C) the localized hydrogen bonding arrangement breaks before allowing the separated ions to return [191], and the pair of ions (H+, OH-) hydrate independently and continue their separate existencea for about 70 ms (this lifetime also dependent on the extent of hydrogen bonding, being shorter at lower temperatures). They tend to recombine when only separated by one or two water molecules. H2O H+ + OH- Kw = [H+][OH-] As hydrogen ions are produced already hydrated (i.e. as hydronium ions, H3O+; also called oxonium or hydroxonium ions) and do not have any free existence as naked protons, the above equations are better written as: 2 H2O H3O+ + OH- Kw = [H3O+][OH-]" IOW, the the heat provided by the environment at any temperature above the melting point of ice will give a Pseudo-ZPE, Free Energy/Over-Unity effect depending on the electrical (field gradient in an electrolyte) or mechanical treatment (agitation-aeration)of the water/electrolyte. Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 06:14:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA09413; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:11:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:11:50 -0700 Message-ID: <003801c39182$f73aaea0$2709bf3f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Some Finer Moments of Water Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:09:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da94033508d7f2b1a2088f2717b172a986922350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52129 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:00 AM 10/11/3, Jones Beene wrote: >>Electrostatic interactions are normally highly attenuated in water. The >>attractive force between two oppositely charged ions in solution is >>inversely proportional to the dielectric constant. The dielectric constant >>of water (80.0) is over twice that of similar liquids like methanol (33.1) >>and over five times that of ammonia (15.5). Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:10:13, Horace Heffner wrote: > The force between two charged bodies is proportional to the dielectric > constant of the medium between them. The Electrostatic Force (Fes) between two charged bodies with charges (Q1 and Q2) separated at a distance (R) in a medium with dielectric constant (K): Fes = Q1*Q2/[4(pi)K*eo*R^2] Dr. Martin Chaplin's website has a very thorough coverage of the behavior of water: http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/index.html His treatment of the Auto-Ionization of water gives a strong clue as to the nature of "Free Energy" and/or "Over-Unity" effects in water: http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/ionis.html "Ionization of water" "Water molecules ionize endothermically due to electric field fluctuations caused by nearby dipole librations [191] resulting from thermal effects; a process that is facilitated by exciting the O-H stretch overtone vibration [393]. Ions may separate by means of the Grotthuss mechanism (see below) but normally recombine within a few femtoseconds. Rarely (about once every eleven hours per molecule at 25°C, or less than once a week at 0°C) the localized hydrogen bonding arrangement breaks before allowing the separated ions to return [191], and the pair of ions (H+, OH-) hydrate independently and continue their separate existencea for about 70 ms (this lifetime also dependent on the extent of hydrogen bonding, being shorter at lower temperatures). They tend to recombine when only separated by one or two water molecules. H2O H+ + OH- Kw = [H+][OH-] As hydrogen ions are produced already hydrated (i.e. as hydronium ions, H3O+; also called oxonium or hydroxonium ions) and do not have any free existence as naked protons, the above equations are better written as: 2 H2O H3O+ + OH- Kw = [H3O+][OH-]" IOW, the heat provided by the environment at any temperature above the melting point of ice will give a Pseudo-ZPE, Free Energy/Over-Unity effect depending on the electrical (field gradient in an electrolyte) or mechanical treatment (agitation-aeration)of the water/electrolyte, in effect a Heat Pump. Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 08:39:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA04458; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013104510.01c0e9d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:55:46 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Public Library of Science opens Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52130 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Following the example set by LENR-CANR, leading researchers have established the Public Library of Science -- free, on line, top-ranked journals. The inaugural issue of the Biology journal is here: http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-issue According to the New York times, this issue has an interesting paper by Nicolelis about monkey and human brains wired to control machinery directly, by thought. However, I have had difficulty finding it . . . The site is not working well. My guess is that the journal and its index are overwhelmed by traffic. Ah, here it is: http://www.plosbiology.org/pips/plbi-01-02-S-carmena.pdf (synopsis) http://www.plosbiology.org/pips/plbi-01-02-carmena.pdf (full paper) - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 10:14:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA03894; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013123337.00ba9d40@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:37:08 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Comments on Public Library of Science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52131 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: People realize this may be a revolution in publishing and a partial overthrow of powerful, mainstream science institutions. See: http://www.pubmedcentral.com/articlerender.fcgi?artid=212706 http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,60797,00.html - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 10:43:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA14514; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013103213.059cce68@mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek@mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:33:08 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: Comments on Public Library of Science In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013123337.00ba9d40@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52132 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: thanks Jed...very appropriate PLoS LENR-CANR? At 12:37 PM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: >People realize this may be a revolution in publishing and a partial >overthrow of powerful, mainstream science institutions. See: > >http://www.pubmedcentral.com/articlerender.fcgi?artid=212706 > >http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,60797,00.html > >- Jed > Thanks, Steve From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 11:16:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA21861; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013102306.01c0e9d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:26:01 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: SIF awards Celani for CF talk 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 mx2.eskimo.com id KAA21744 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52133 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here is a message from the Japan Cold Fusion Society (JCF) newsletter: http://www.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/nuc/03/nuc03web/JCF/mlist/00106.html - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dear JCF members: Good news from Italy. Italian Physical Society awarded Dr. Francesco Celani, INFN Frascati, for his talk on CF research at the latest IPS meeting. This may be indication that CF(nuclear effects in condensed matter) studies are getting Citizenship in common academic societies. Dr. Celani is a foreign member of JCF (Japan CF-Research Society). A copy of letter from Dr. Celani is attached below. A. Takahashi, Osaka University --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Akito, As anticipated last week, I was WINNER of FIRST PRIZE at the "89th Congress of Italian Physical Society" because of "best presentation" in the framework of "General Physics" session. The argument of my talk was: "Review and critical analysis of results presented at ICCF10". I presented, and discussed in some details, papers from: Y. Iwamura (transmutations from Sr to Mo and Cs to Pr); A. Takahashi (replication of Iwamura experiment and theoretical models on Cold Fusion); Y. Arata (Pd nano-particles and 4He production); D. Letts (laser triggering of cold fusion effects), E. Del Giudice (experimental confirmation of "Preparata effects"). Moreover, just previously (the same day) I gave a talk about "Th-232 effect in electrolytic cell and some confirmations of Iwamura experiments" (same as my last paper at ICCF10). The number of people attended these talks were quite larger than the usual one (room "over-full"). The talk and discussion, in total, took over 3 hours, much more than 24 minutes (in total, included my own experiment) scheduled(!!!!). Several "decision makers" of Italian Physical Society and other VIPs attended all the talk and discussion. The "Italian Physical Society" (the most respected and largest Physical Society in Italy) is formed of over 2000 Researchers and was established over 100 Years ago. I would like to thank deeply You, Iwamura and Arata (apart Letts and Del Giudice) because you and they provided me with the very nice transparencies that I can use. Many thanks for Your kind collaboration. Please, share this message to other Japanese Scientists involved in Cold Fusion Research (JCF-Research Society and others, as You like). Soon my wife Misa will translate the text enclosed from Italian to Japanese. My best, Francesco CELANI ---------- Da: Barbara Alzani Data: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:38:30 +0200 A: francesco.celani@lnf.infn.it Oggetto: Migliori Comunicazioni Congresso SIF di Parma Caro Dottor Celani, anche a nome del Consiglio di Presidenza della Societa Italiana di Fisica, Le comunico che la Sua comunicazione dal titolo "Analisi critica dei risultati presentati alla "Decima Conferenza Internazionale sulla Fusione Fredda"." e stata giudicata dalla Commissione appositamente costituita la prima migliore presentazione nell'ambito della Sezione 6 "Fisica Generale, Didattica e Storia della Fisica" dell'89° Congresso Nazionale SIF di Parma. L'elenco dei vincitori si puo consultare sulla nostra pagina web (www.sif.it) e inoltre verra pubblicato nel prossimo numero del Nuovo Saggiatore. Il diploma Le verra consegnato nel corso della Cerimonia Inaugurale del Congresso Nazionale SIF del 2004 che si terra a Brescia. Con i piu cordiali saluti. Giuseppe-Franco Bassani Presidente SIF ********************************************* Barbara Alzani Segreteria SOCIETA' ITALIANA DI FISICA Via Saragozza 12 40123 BOLOGNA BO (Italia) Tel: ++39-051-331554 Fax: ++39-051-581340 e-mail: sif@sif.it web: http://www.sif.it ********************************************* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 11:51:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA29615; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:43:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:43:35 -0700 Message-ID: <003501c39197$7792bb60$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <003801c39182$f73aaea0$2709bf3f@computer> Subject: Re: Some Finer Moments of Water Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:37:02 -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 LAA29511 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52135 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber wrote: > Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:10:13, Horace Heffner wrote: > > The force between two charged bodies is proportional to the dielectric > > constant of the medium between them. > The Electrostatic Force (Fes) between two charged bodies with charges (Q1 and Q2) > separated at a distance (R) in a medium with dielectric constant (K): > Fes = Q1*Q2/[4(pi)K*eo*R^2] Yes, that certainly looks like inverse proportionality to me also, but Horace can be forgiven due to the semantics of the situation. "Proportionality" as I understand it, is the more general term that includes both situations, no? As to what meaning he intended to convey, that is another story....? Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 11:52:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA29061; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:43:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:43:07 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013113613.01c0b6b8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:38:10 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Did Celani message show up here? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <8-1hJB.A.kEH.1Ivi_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52134 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My connection to Vortex seems a little funny. Did the message I copied from the JCF Society about Celani show up here? Celani tells me he will send more details soon. I will relay everything he says to Vortex. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 12:01:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA08201; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:56:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:56:38 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013115946.05990e18@mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek@mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:59:52 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: Did Celani message show up here? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013113613.01c0b6b8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <-IKop.A.w_B.lVvi_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52136 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Si Senor At 11:38 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: >My connection to Vortex seems a little funny. Did the message I copied >from the JCF Society about Celani show up here? > >Celani tells me he will send more details soon. I will relay everything he >says to Vortex. > >- Jed > Thanks, Steve From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 12:59:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA26769; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:49:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:49:13 -0700 Message-id: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: Library of Science Brains Wired Up To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: "John Schnurer" References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013104510.01c0e9d8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013104510.01c0e9d8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52137 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: vortex-l@eskimo.com writes: Dear Vo., I have been involved in an HMI or Human Machine Interface called "Brain Actuated Control" or BAC since 1986. I personally designed and built the USAF system which permits the user to interface with machinery, computers, wheelchair guidance and the like using BAC. The method is not classified and one realization has been donated to Veteran's Administration or VA Hospital systems. The BAC system uses EEG or "Brain Waves" acquired and processed in real time with analog computation methods. I was able to live science fiction for over 10 years during the building and use of these methodologies. What a lot of fun! If you want to know more, please contact me off line. Thanks, JH >Following the example set by LENR-CANR, leading researchers have >established the Public Library of Science -- free, on line, top-ranked >journals. The inaugural issue of the Biology journal is here: > >http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-issue > >According to the New York times, this issue has an interesting paper by >Nicolelis about monkey and human brains wired to control machinery >directly, by thought. However, I have had difficulty finding it . . . The >site is not working well. My guess is that the journal and its index are >overwhelmed by traffic. > >Ah, here it is: > >http://www.plosbiology.org/pips/plbi-01-02-S-carmena.pdf (synopsis) > >http://www.plosbiology.org/pips/plbi-01-02-carmena.pdf (full paper) > >- Jed > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 13:18:50 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA01306; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013153911.00b03608@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:52:31 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: SIF awards Celani for CF talk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52138 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote to me (directly): > Even though the award was for the excellence of the > presentation, not the content itself, the fact that the content did not > block the award is significant progress. I think it can be interpreted as a vote of confidence for CF. Celani sees it that way. It is impossible to separate the content from the presentation, especially with such controversial content. This reminds me of long political battles such as the fight for women's voting rights in the U.K. and the U.S. Toward the end, when it became clear that the measures would pass, they found many johnny-come-lately friends. Someone (I don't recall who) remarked that she had been saying the same thing for decades, and the same people who were now praising her as sagacious and a master of presentation had years earlier complained she was stupid and incomprehensible. CF has always faired better in Italy than anywhere else in Europe or the U.S. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 13:20:50 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA19351; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:15:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:15:38 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031013132450.01c0ba18@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:25:21 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: REPEAT SIF awards Celani for CF talk 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 NAA19212 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52139 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I sent this before, but it did not come back to my computer . . . Here is a message from the Japan Cold Fusion Society (JCF) newsletter: http://www.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/nuc/03/nuc03web/JCF/mlist/00106.html - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dear JCF members: Good news from Italy. Italian Physical Society awarded Dr. Francesco Celani, INFN Frascati, for his talk on CF research at the latest IPS meeting. This may be indication that CF(nuclear effects in condensed matter) studies are getting Citizenship in common academic societies. Dr. Celani is a foreign member of JCF (Japan CF-Research Society). A copy of letter from Dr. Celani is attached below. A. Takahashi, Osaka University --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Akito, As anticipated last week, I was WINNER of FIRST PRIZE at the "89th Congress of Italian Physical Society" because of "best presentation" in the framework of "General Physics" session. The argument of my talk was: "Review and critical analysis of results presented at ICCF10". I presented, and discussed in some details, papers from: Y. Iwamura (transmutations from Sr to Mo and Cs to Pr); A. Takahashi (replication of Iwamura experiment and theoretical models on Cold Fusion); Y. Arata (Pd nano-particles and 4He production); D. Letts (laser triggering of cold fusion effects), E. Del Giudice (experimental confirmation of "Preparata effects"). Moreover, just previously (the same day) I gave a talk about "Th-232 effect in electrolytic cell and some confirmations of Iwamura experiments" (same as my last paper at ICCF10). The number of people attended these talks were quite larger than the usual one (room "over-full"). The talk and discussion, in total, took over 3 hours, much more than 24 minutes (in total, included my own experiment) scheduled(!!!!). Several "decision makers" of Italian Physical Society and other VIPs attended all the talk and discussion. The "Italian Physical Society" (the most respected and largest Physical Society in Italy) is formed of over 2000 Researchers and was established over 100 Years ago. I would like to thank deeply You, Iwamura and Arata (apart Letts and Del Giudice) because you and they provided me with the very nice transparencies that I can use. Many thanks for Your kind collaboration. Please, share this message to other Japanese Scientists involved in Cold Fusion Research (JCF-Research Society and others, as You like). Soon my wife Misa will translate the text enclosed from Italian to Japanese. My best, Francesco CELANI ---------- Da: Barbara Alzani Data: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:38:30 +0200 A: francesco.celani@lnf.infn.it Oggetto: Migliori Comunicazioni Congresso SIF di Parma Caro Dottor Celani, anche a nome del Consiglio di Presidenza della Societa Italiana di Fisica, Le comunico che la Sua comunicazione dal titolo "Analisi critica dei risultati presentati alla "Decima Conferenza Internazionale sulla Fusione Fredda"." e stata giudicata dalla Commissione appositamente costituita la prima migliore presentazione nell'ambito della Sezione 6 "Fisica Generale, Didattica e Storia della Fisica" dell'89° Congresso Nazionale SIF di Parma. L'elenco dei vincitori si puo consultare sulla nostra pagina web (www.sif.it) e inoltre verra pubblicato nel prossimo numero del Nuovo Saggiatore. Il diploma Le verra consegnato nel corso della Cerimonia Inaugurale del Congresso Nazionale SIF del 2004 che si terra a Brescia. Con i piu cordiali saluti. Giuseppe-Franco Bassani Presidente SIF ********************************************* Barbara Alzani Segreteria SOCIETA' ITALIANA DI FISICA Via Saragozza 12 40123 BOLOGNA BO (Italia) Tel: ++39-051-331554 Fax: ++39-051-581340 e-mail: sif@sif.it web: http://www.sif.it ********************************************* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 13 13:33:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA02059; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:29:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:29:35 -0700 From: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:28:43 +0000 (UTC) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Did Celani message show up here? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52140 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Jed, I have not had the free time to follow threads ....can you give me a quick up date on who Celani is, and possibly a reference[s]? Thanks, JH On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:48:43 -0400 > From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu, vortex-L@eskimo.com > Subject: Did Celani message show up here? > > My connection to Vortex seems a little funny. Did the message I copied > from > the JCF Society about Celani show up here? > > Celani tells me he will send more details soon. I will relay everything he > says to Vortex. > > - Jed > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 12 13:08:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA20305; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:04:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:03:23 EDT Subject: Cold Fusion & Light Resonant Batteries deduced from the Paul Brown Nuc. Battery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com CC: Baronvolsung@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1065989003" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52126 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------------------------------1065989003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cold Fusion & Light Resonant Batteries After looking at the Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery designs posted at www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm I realized that any other type of energy source other than nuclear that could excite ions into motion could be used as the ionic motion source in the Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery instead of nuclear material. In the Paul Brown nuclear battery, the ionizing radiation from strontium-90 is converted directly into electricity and not heat by using a Burke Battery Cell, the Beta Votalic Effect, and a LC tank circuit composed of an inductor and capacitor to transfer ionic energy into electrical energy in the circuit. The LC circuit is optimized to reduce capacitive and inductive energy losses leaving only ohmic (resistance losses) by making the LC Tank circuit oscillate at its own self-resonant frequency by looking at the spectrum scan of the tank and modifying the circuit frequency to be self resonant. The energy in the circuit in excess of the operational requirements is removed through a transformer to yield electrical energy to drive a load. Since the above resonant circuit battery design is already patented and proven to work at a high energy transfer efficiency from 25 to 50 percent since 1990, we only need to develop alternative energy sources such as perpetual cold fusion chain reactions or solar and gamma light reactions to perpetually energize the ions in the above circuit which transfers the energy directly into electrical energy usable in an electrical device. The cold fusion chain reactions that I have read about use either a chemical chain reaction in water or a hydrogen positive electrical protonic chain reaction in a gas or plasma caused by a low pressure ramjet or scramjet plasma gas vacuum and sonic waves. An efficient cold fusion reaction must optimize many electrostatic energy parameters to get an overunity perpetual electrostatic chain reaction such as the electrostatic polar parameters of oxygen molecules in water or air, the number of free hydrogen protons in contact with electrons, the mass/charge interaction in hydrogen, the phase changes in the chemical reactions in liquid and gas of oxygen and hydrogen, and vacuum or nanoscale low pressure differential forces and quantum mechanical interactions. A perpetual chain reaction in a hydrogen gas can be obtained in a high efficiency cathode reaction in a partial vacuum if the parameters are optimized according to the email sent by Subject:Some Finer Moments of Water Date:10/11/2003 12:17:13 PM Eastern Standard Time From:jonesb9@pacbell.net "However, we know that water will "burn" (hyperoxidize): O2 + 2H2O + 2e- ----> H2O2 + 2OH- O2 + H2O + 2e- ----> HO2- + OH- These can be HIGH efficiency cathode reactions that can take place on a gas cathode (O2- )and they occur more efficiently in a partial vacuum. They are nominally endothermic reactions, but the story does not end there. Not only are the reaction products highly exothermic but the hydroxyl that is formed will donate its electron back to an O2 to continue the chain reaction, ad infinitum, if the parameters are optimized.. " Sonoluminescence technologies (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRcavitation.pdf) can be used to optimize the highest energy density in fusion environments by optimizing the phase transitions, cavitations, micro accelerators, and nanoscale pressure differentials in plasma, liquid, and gas reaction bubbles. I believe we only need to optimize the sonic frequencies (.02 to 1.7 Mhz) and the high density, low energy and low pressure vacuum fusion environments to optimize pulses of photonic energy and hydrogen protonic energy coupled to irradiating acoustic fields oscillating from single stable cavitation bubbles occurring in a fusion reaction. The pressure environments can be modified and created by using highly efficient multiple ramjet, scramjet and vortex gas streams used in a gas torch and vortex ram or scram jet engine to create an optimized pressure and energy plasma gas stream which can be projected onto multiple electrodes coated with a metallic foil such as Palladium radiating with a sonic frequency in the electrodes to optimize a cold fusion gas chain reaction which has no associated long range radiation. Once the chain reaction cold fusion parameters have been optimized we can place the cold fusion ram jet vortex torch and electrodes in a tiny nanotech chip to be used as the power source for the above Paul Brown resonant battery. We should also be able to replenish the hydrogen gas needed by feeding the used hydrogen gas back into the hydrogen source after it has been reenergized by solar light or gamma radiation. We should also be able to improve the efficiency of solar cells by using a Paul Brown resonant battery above to collect all ranges of solar energy to excite ions and convert the energy directly into electricity. Most solar cells only collect a small range of solar energy and may not convert the solar energy directly into electricity. A Paul Brown solar battery and solar cell as postulated above should be many times more efficient than standard solar cells. I think it is important to note that there may be another type of radiation occurring in cold fusion hydrogen gas reactions that is not part of the standard radiation model. The standard radiation model postulates alpha, beta, and gamma radiation as stated below. "Alpha rays consist of particles made up of two protons and two neutrons that are ejected from the radioactive atom at speeds around 10,000 miles/sec, c arry a 2+ charge (from their two protons), and have a mass approximately 4 times that of the proton. Beta rays are streams of electrons (1-charge) that travel at approximately 80,000 miles/sec. Gamma radiation is essentially a highly energetic form of light. Chemistry A Conceptual Approach Second Edition Charles E. Mortimer 1971 Pg. 21" Hydrogen gas has one proton in it which may radiate a pure positive canal protonic electrical ray which is not alpha, beta or gamma radiation and which may be a cold fusion radiation used in cold fusion reactions. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1065989003 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cold Fusion & Light Resonant Batteries
 
After looking at the Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery= designs posted at w= ww.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm I realiz= ed that any other type of energy source other than nuclear that could excite= ions into motion could be used as the ionic motion source in the Paul Brown= Resonant Nuclear Battery instead of nuclear material.  In the Paul Bro= wn nuclear battery, the ionizing radiation from strontium-90 is convert= ed directly into electricity and not heat by using a Burke Battery Cell= , the Beta Votalic Effect, and a LC tank circuit composed of an inductor and= capacitor to transfer ionic energy into electrical energy in the circuit.&n= bsp; The LC circuit is optimized to reduce capacitive and inductive energy l= osses leaving only ohmic (resistance losses) by making the LC Tank circuit o= scillate at its own self-resonant frequency by looking at the=  spectrum scan of the tank and modifying the circuit frequency to be se= lf resonant.   The energy in the circuit in excess of the operatio= nal requirements is removed through a transformer to yield electrical energy=  to drive a load. 
Since the above resonant circuit battery design is alrea= dy patented and proven to work at a high energy transfer efficiency from 25=20= to 50 percent since 1990, we only need to develop alternative energy sources= such as perpetual cold fusion chain reactions or solar and gamma light reac= tions to perpetually energize the ions in the above circuit which transfers=20= the energy directly into electrical energy usable in an electrical device. <= /FONT>
 
The cold fusion chain reactions that I have read about u= se either a chemical chain reaction in water or a hydrogen positive ele= ctrical protonic chain reaction in a gas or plasma caused by a low pressure=20= ramjet or scramjet plasma gas vacuum and sonic waves.  An efficien= t cold fusion reaction must optimize many electrostatic energy parameters to= get an overunity perpetual electrostatic chain reaction such as the electro= static polar parameters of oxygen molecules in water or air, the number of f= ree hydrogen protons in contact with electrons, the mass/charge interaction=20= in hydrogen, the phase changes in the chemical reactions in liquid and gas o= f oxygen and hydrogen, and vacuum or nanoscale low pressure differential for= ces and quantum mechanical interactions.
 
A perpetual chain reaction in a hydrogen gas can be obta= ined in a high efficiency cathode reaction in a partial vacuum if the parame= ters are optimized according to the email sent by
 
Subject: Some Finer Moments of Water
Date: 10/11/2003 12:17:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: jonesb9@pacbell.net
 
"However, we know that water will "burn" (hyperoxidize):=

O2 + 2H2O + 2e-    ----> H2O2 + 2OH-
O2 + H2O + 2e-&= nbsp;   ---->  HO2- + OH-

These can be HIGH efficiency c= athode reactions that can take place on a gas cathode (O2- )and they occur m= ore efficiently in a partial vacuum. They are nominally endothermic reaction= s, but the story does not end there. Not only are the reaction products high= ly exothermic but the hydroxyl that is formed will donate its electron back=20= to an O2 to continue the chain reaction, ad infinitum, if the parameters are= optimized.. "
 
Sonoluminescence technologies (http://www.lenr-can= r.org/acrobat/StringhamRcavitation.pdf)
can be=20= used to optimize the highest energy density in fusion environments by o= ptimizing the phase transitions, cavitations, micro accelerators, and n= anoscale pressure differentials in plasma, liquid, and gas reaction bub= bles.  I believe we only need to optimize the sonic frequencies (.02 to= 1.7 Mhz) and the high density, low energy and low pressure vacuum fusion en= vironments to optimize pulses of photonic energy and hydrogen protonic=20= energy coupled to irradiating acoustic fields oscillating from single s= table cavitation bubbles occurring in a fusion reaction. 
 
The pressure environments can be modified and created by= using highly efficient multiple ramjet, scramjet and vortex gas stream= s used in a gas torch and vortex ram or scram jet engine to c= reate an optimized pressure and energy plasma gas stream which can be projec= ted onto multiple electrodes coated with a metallic foil such as Palladium&n= bsp;radiating with a sonic frequency in the electrodes to optimize a cold fu= sion gas chain reaction which has no associated long range radiation. &= nbsp; Once the chain reaction cold fusion parameters have been optimized we=20= can place the cold fusion ram jet vortex torch and electrodes in a tiny nano= tech chip to be used as the power source for the above Paul Brown reson= ant battery.  We should also be able to replenish the hydrogen gas need= ed by feeding the used hydrogen gas back into the hydrogen source after it h= as been reenergized by solar light or gamma radiation.
 
We should also be able to improve the efficiency of sola= r cells by using a Paul Brown resonant battery above to collect all ranges o= f solar energy to excite ions and convert the energy directly into electrici= ty. Most solar cells only collect a small range of solar energy and may not=20= convert the solar energy directly into electricity.  A Paul Brown solar= battery and solar cell as postulated above should be many times more effici= ent than standard solar cells.
 
I think it is important to note that there may be anothe= r type of radiation occurring in cold fusion hydrogen gas reactions that is=20= not part of the standard radiation model.   The standard radiation= model postulates alpha, beta, and gamma radiation as stated below. 
 
"Alpha rays consist of particles made up of two protons=20= and two neutrons that are ejected from the radioactive atom at speeds around= 10,000 miles/sec, carry a 2+ charge (from their two protons), and have a ma= ss approximately 4 times that of the proton.  Beta rays are streams of=20= electrons (1-charge) that travel at approximately 80,000 miles/sec.  Ga= mma radiation is essentially a highly energetic form of light. Chemistry A C= onceptual Approach Second Edition Charles E. Mortimer 1971 Pg. 21"
 
Hydrogen gas has one proton in it which may radiate a pu= re positive canal protonic electrical ray which is not alpha, beta= or gamma radiation and which may be a cold fusion radiation used in cold fu= sion reactions.
 
Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron<= /A>, Email: www.rhfwe= b.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,=
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform= .html, Personal Web Page: www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production= 's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\newage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh<= /FONT>
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1065989003-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 08:03:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA15970; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:00:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:00:27 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014105519.01cb98a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:00:19 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Did Celani message show up here? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52141 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Schnurer writes: > I have not had the free time to follow threads ....can you give me > a quick up date on who Celani is, and possibly a reference[s]? Go to http://lenr-canr.org/, select LIBRARY, and look at his papers. To find papers which he co-authored, starting at the main menu select "Library guide, downloadable indexes," and click on DetailOnly.htm. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 08:17:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA27507; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:14:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:14:02 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:13:37 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52142 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I am a little surprised there have not been comments here about the Violante paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVsearchforn.pdf This looks like the Holy Grail of cold fusion. It has everything, or a little of everything: transmutations, and light water nickel with x-rays, and excess heat. Table 1. Synopsis of thin film experiments, covers a lot of ground, with many columns of data and boolean fields. It starts off on a rather negative, or noncommittal note: "N.M. (not measured), NO, NO . . ." Toward the bottom it develops an almost orgasmic tone: "Low, YES, NO, NO, YES, YES . . . YES!!!" - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 09:46:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA06809; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:41:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:41:42 -0700 Message-ID: <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:14:32 -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 JAA06550 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52143 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell writes, > I am a little surprised there have not been comments here about the > Violante paper: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVsearchforn.pdf > > This looks like the Holy Grail of cold fusion. It has everything, or a > little of everything: transmutations, and light water nickel with x-rays, > and excess heat. Don't be too surprised. The implications are a bit controversial, if not unwelcome in some circles.... His findings, if accurate, suggest what nobody (particularly Ed) who is tied to CF experimentation and opposed to the hydrino explanation wants to hear. And frankly, those of us with an open mind regarding the hydrino, are tiring to reiterate. When you have transmutation that occurs with both D2O and H2O under similar conditions and when one of the major surprises is the high amount of the Cu65 isotope, then it is pretty clear that the hydrino explanation is the one that best fits everything... to shoehorn in D+D one has to pile on layer after layer of conjecture. ... especially since there is a natural Ni64 isotope (1%) and Ni64 apparently gives Cu65 on the absorption of a hydrino...how else could it happen? Getting Cu65 from Ni+D alone is next to impossible without a free neutron signature....nobody minds one level of conjecture but when one has to resort to building a second layer of conjecture on top of the first shaky foundation.... Once again, I am disappointed that Violante didn't do his homework and cite Mills... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 10:05:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24402; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:20 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014125101.00ba9eb0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:01:06 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52144 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > [Violante's] findings, if accurate, suggest what nobody (particularly > Ed) who is tied to CF experimentation and opposed to the hydrino > explanation wants to hear. I cannot speak for Ed, but I do not recall he has opposed to the hydrino explanation. Why should he? He is an experimentalist. If hydrino theory makes useful, testable predictions and helpful suggestions to guide experiments, I suppose he would delighted with it. I certainly would, but I am not a member of physics congregation. I think your choice of theories is about as important as whether you prefer Windows, Linux or the Mac. Results are all that matter. I am sure that Mizuno would not give two yen for the controversy, and he would use whatever theory works. Can Mills also explain the helium that appears to be commensurate with a DD reaction? > Once again, I am disappointed that Violante didn't do his homework > and cite Mills... I doubt he has heard of Mills. Mills has not published in the journals and proceedings a CF researcher is likely to see. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 12:18:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA20038; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:13:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:13:22 -0700 Message-ID: <000901c39286$44c8f740$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014125101.00ba9eb0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:06:23 -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 MAA19675 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52145 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, > > Once again, I am disappointed that Violante didn't do his homework > > and cite Mills... > I doubt he has heard of Mills. Mills has not published in the journals and > proceedings a CF researcher is likely to see. That's a pity because if you are correct, then Violante or any of the other CF researchers you refer to are likely to be sadly deficient in the necessary nuclear background... Il Nuovo Cimento is one of the premier journals in Italy for this kind of thing, I believe....furthermore, I hope you would not limit the avenues open to CF experimenters solely to "Infinite Energy".... I doubt if there are more than a couple of CF researchers who have published as extensively in "Fusion Technology" as has Mills, nor are there any at all who would not rather have that particular journal on his C.V...not to mention "Nature," the "Int J. of Hydrogen Energy" and "The European Journal for Physics D"... to name a few others. Too bad more CF researchers don't get out a little more and read these fine journals... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 12:30:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA30475; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:26:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:26:07 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014152325.01cb97b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:25:55 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52146 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > I doubt if there are more than a couple of CF researchers who have > published as extensively in "Fusion Technology" as has Mills, nor are > there any at all who would not rather have that particular journal on his > C.V...not to mention "Nature," the "Int J. of Hydrogen Energy" and > "The European Journal for Physics D"... to name a few others. I wasn't aware he has published so widely. I cannot understand his work, so I have not read any of his papers. Perhaps you should advise Violante to read his stuff. Can he explain the helium balance? - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 12:37:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA03075; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:33:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:33:09 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014152749.01cb9e08@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:32:53 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC First desktop MPP computer announced Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52147 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The other day I mentioned that I am surprised there are no massively parallel desktop computers yet. One was just announced: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60791,00.html This is an add on math processor. You can gang them up. If you buy six, for about $25,000, your computer will join the ranks of the world's top 500 supercomputers. This does not require a new operating system, so it will have no impact on Microsoft's fortunes, but I predict that eventually an MPP will call for a new operating system. I hope the Naturally Speaking programmers write extensions for this thing. I would buy two or three in heartbeat. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 12:58:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA19693; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:54:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:54:33 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c3928c$10d6dfa0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014152325.01cb97b0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:47:56 -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 MAA19604 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52148 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: From: Jed Rothwell > I wasn't aware he has published so widely. I cannot understand his work, so > I have not read any of his papers. Perhaps you should advise Violante to > read his stuff. > > Can he explain the helium balance? AFAIK Violante looked for tritium, x-rays (tritium decay), transmutation of Ni to Cu and Cu isotope shifts. But it has been a few days since I read it. And he made a good case for these. Maybe I missed what you are referring to. Did Violante find any He4 (or any helium that wasn't He3, the decay product of tritium) ? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 13:48:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA23415; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:42:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:42:46 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014162652.00ba9f38@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:41:55 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC Thermodynamic anomaly in the Atkins diet? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52149 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't buy the Atkins diet, but I do love to watch the establishment squirm. See: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/lowcarb.mystery.ap/index.html Funny quotes: A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded." Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." When I say I don't "buy" it, I do not mean I doubt the diet works. I expect it does. Any diet works. As I have said before, people are the most amazing omnivores in nature, and they can thrive on just about any diet. Anthropologists have known this for over a century. I wonder if these researchers kept careful track of calories lost to exercise and excreta? I doubt it. Those are the first places to look, before considering a thermodynamic anomaly. Some researchers in the CF game might suspect that the Atkins diet promotes transmutations within the body. That would be cool! Here is a recent bio-CF paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/VysotskiiVsuccessful.pdf - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 14:56:33 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA06037; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:51:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:51:37 -0700 Message-ID: <004a01c39298$ae198c20$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: LENR: Leaner is meaner slightly OFF_TOPIC Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:18:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0047_01C3925E.012B4560" 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52150 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_0047_01C3925E.012B4560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Our language evolves almost daily, and some on vortex may be = contributing to the process.=20 Most new words these days come from acronyms but most of those are = straight from the dumb-and dumber military / bureaucratic mentality - = and don't have much staying-power. However a few are surprisingly = imaginative (planned or unplanned) and one of my favorites is LENR. And = - believe it or not, LENR has already made it to dictionary.com's = acronym finder. Hooray! I'll let you know if it ever makes it to the = Sunday crossword puzzle. Why is LENR apropos ? Well, for one thing it is the eco-version of = "names that work" that Herb Caen was famous for collecting... you know, = like the Law Firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. It has a "trimmed-down" = connotation but not wimpy. When you purchase that new hot water heater = in a few years it may be one meaner LENR device.... But the really amazing thing to me is how many languages seems to be = slowly evolving towards a mutually understood vocabulary. When you hear = Russian spoken today there are many English words popping out (Anthony = Burgess in reverse). It may take a while but look at how much of our = present language comes from other cultures, and how much they copy back = in return. We don't need to learn Esperanto- it will evolve to us on its = own.... If you did the NY Times puzzle on Sun. then you may still amazed today, = as I am, about how much of our idiomatic versatility came from one = incredible man 400+ years ago. That man being.... no, not Wm Shakespeare = but one Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616). Jones ------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C3925E.012B4560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Our language evolves almost daily, and some on vortex may = be=20 contributing to the process.
 
Most new words these days come from acronyms but most of those = are=20 straight from the dumb-and dumber military / bureaucratic mentality - = and don't=20 have much staying-power. However a few are surprisingly imaginative = (planned or=20 unplanned) and one of my favorites is LENR. And - believe it or not, = LENR has=20 already made it to dictionary.com's acronym finder. Hooray! I'll let you = know if=20 it ever makes it to the Sunday crossword puzzle.
 
Why is LENR apropos ? Well, for one thing it is the eco-version of = "names=20 that work" that Herb Caen was famous for collecting... you know, like = the Law=20 Firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. It has a = "trimmed-down" connotation=20 but not wimpy. When you purchase that new hot water heater in = a few=20 years it may be one meaner LENR device....
 
But the really amazing thing to me is how many languages seems = to be=20 slowly evolving towards a mutually understood vocabulary. When you = hear=20 Russian spoken today there are many English words popping out = (Anthony=20 Burgess in reverse).  It may take a while but look at how much = of our=20 present language comes from other cultures, and how much they = copy back in=20 return. We don't need to learn Esperanto- it will evolve to us on its=20 own....
 
If you did the NY Times puzzle on Sun. then you may still amazed = today, as=20 I am, about how much of our idiomatic versatility came from one = incredible man=20 400+ years ago. That man being.... no, not Wm Shakespeare = but one=20 Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616).
 
Jones
------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C3925E.012B4560-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 15:16:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA24583; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:10:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:10:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:30:44 -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: No comments on Violante paper? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52151 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > Jed Rothwell writes, > > > I am a little surprised there have not been comments here about the > > Violante paper: > > > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVsearchforn.pdf > > > > This looks like the Holy Grail of cold fusion. It has everything, or a > > little of everything: transmutations, and light water nickel with x-rays, > > and excess heat. > > Don't be too surprised. The implications are a bit controversial, if not unwelcome in some circles.... > > His findings, if accurate, suggest what nobody (particularly Ed) who is tied to CF experimentation and opposed to the hydrino explanation wants to hear. And frankly, those of us with an open mind regarding the hydrino, are tiring to reiterate. Jones, I doubt you are referring to Ed Storms here, but in case you are let me make it very clear that I do not reject Mills' work. I know him, have read much of his work, and heard him lecture. I 'm most impressed and agree that he is on to something. However, the issue is the relationship of the hydrino to the LENR phenomenon. A number of people have speculated about forming a neutron-like particle, much like a hydrino, and its ability to overcome the Coulomb barrier. While such a particle would solve one problem, it does not solve them all. Clearly, the process is more complex than can be explained by assuming only the involvement of a hydrino or a similar neutron-like particle. Nevertheless, such a particle might play a role at some level. Also, a person does not have to understand or agree with Mills about how such a particle forms. The issue is, once formed how would such a particle explain the LENR process? Mills does not address this issue. Several people in the LENR field have explored this issue. We are not ignoring the issue as you suggest. > > > When you have transmutation that occurs with both D2O and H2O under similar conditions and when one of the major surprises is the high amount of the Cu65 isotope, then it is pretty clear that the hydrino explanation is the one that best fits everything... to shoehorn in D+D one has to pile on layer after layer of conjecture. > > ... especially since there is a natural Ni64 isotope (1%) and Ni64 apparently gives Cu65 on the absorption of a hydrino...how else could it happen? Getting Cu65 from Ni+D alone is next to impossible without a free neutron signature....nobody minds one level of conjecture but when one has to resort to building a second layer of conjecture on top of the first shaky foundation.... > > Once again, I am disappointed that Violante didn't do his homework and cite Mills... The only contribution Mills has made to LENR is to suggest a mechanism for the formation of a neutron-like particle. It would make no sense to cite his work if the proposed particle plays no role in the LENR process. Its role is still an open question. If some day such a particle is found to be important, I expect Mills will be cited as showing one way it can form. Ed > > > Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 15:28:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA07871; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:26:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:26:51 -0700 Message-ID: <20031014222640.63774.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:26:40 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC Thermodynamic anomaly in the Atkins diet? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014162652.00ba9f38@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <0XcXGD.A.l6B.pgHj_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52152 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: they supposedly kept track of exercise. but not excrement. which was the first thing i suggested to the friend that told me about this. if they say that you arent really burning the same amound of calories do to lack of digestion... PROVE IT. run excrement through analysis, a bomb if nothing else, and see how well digested it was. --- Jed Rothwell wrote: > I don't buy the Atkins diet, but I do love to watch > the establishment > squirm. See: > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/lowcarb.mystery.ap/index.html > > Funny quotes: > > > A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a > calorie are being > challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As > scientists, we need to be > open-minded." > > Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. > > "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls > of Pennsylvania State > University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. > No one has ever found > any miraculous metabolic effects." > > > When I say I don't "buy" it, I do not mean I doubt > the diet works. I expect > it does. Any diet works. As I have said before, > people are the most amazing > omnivores in nature, and they can thrive on just > about any diet. > Anthropologists have known this for over a century. > > I wonder if these researchers kept careful track of > calories lost to > exercise and excreta? I doubt it. Those are the > first places to look, > before considering a thermodynamic anomaly. Some > researchers in the CF game > might suspect that the Atkins diet promotes > transmutations within the body. > That would be cool! > > Here is a recent bio-CF paper: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/VysotskiiVsuccessful.pdf > > - Jed > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 15:41:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA19365; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:38:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:38:45 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014160538.00b035f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:21:52 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52153 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > Maybe I missed what you are referring to. Did Violante find any He4 > (or any helium that wasn't He3, the decay product of tritium) ? I did not mean with reference to Violante. I meant in general. I am just curious. The last I heard, years ago, Mills could not explain how CF produces helium commensurate with DD fusion. His theory cannot be right if it cannot explain that, although I suppose it might still be useful. As I have often mentioned, people still use Ptolemaic astronomy, and it works fine for various purposes, so it is still "right" in a sense. Some aspects of CF probably do not need to be explained by a theory, because they are probably experimental error, but I think the helium is well-established. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 16:52:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA17522; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:49:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:49:39 -0700 Message-ID: <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:42:59 -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 QAA17454 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Ed, > The only contribution Mills has made to LENR is to suggest a mechanism for the formation of a neutron-like particle. It would make no sense to cite his work if the proposed particle plays no role in the LENR process. Its role is still an open question. If some day such a particle is found to be important, I expect Mills will be cited as showing one way it can form. Well that "open question" seems to have been answered to a degree in this study by Violante, doesn't it? And what about Dash, Bush, Eagleton etc? They followed up on Mills' Nickel/light water work as has Violante and a number of Italian and Japanese investigators, whether or not they credit him. Mills does have all of the important WPO patents involving nickel and light water, several dozen in total, meaning at least that he was first to file (by many years). You can dogmatically say that it is still an open question, but if it is *open* then it is one hell of a coincidence, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I think Mills' theory has some big problems in the details, in fact I like his experimental work a lot better than his theory and wish that other experimenter in LENR would take up UV spectroscopy as a tool - but OTOH the flawed-theory does have enough validity to explain much (but not all) of what has turned up in CF so far...what complete and well-documented alternative theory would you present that exlains it better (other than QM tunneling), especially the transmutation of heavy metals without neutrons? Plus - In case you have forgotten... Mills contribution was a lot more than just theory. Three years before P&F, in 1986, Mills developed the core of the theory, that much is well documented. But by 1989, he already had firm experimental evidence using Nickel and light water, and also the original patent applications were already filed, that is why within months of the P&F announcement, R. Mills was able to snatch the headlines and catch the experts off-guard with this fairly well-developed light water cell, which proved to many that D+D was not necessary for LENR. Everyone either ignored this (and still do) or assumed this was a variation of the P&F work, or not really "nuclear" or whatever... but Mills didn't exactly jump on the P&F band-wagon - history may have to reconcile the true details... Yes, we know that P&F were first with the *announcement* and that their deuterium experimental work went back several years before 1989 too, but that is not dispositve of the issue. Therefore - let's just say that it may also be an "open question" as who should be credited with what. Maybe it was the Russian fracto-fusion comrades - aren't we totally guilty of cultural predilection to ignore their prior contribution? I think that your posture of "only a theoretical contribution" which is expressed here belies your open-mindedness on the issue. Again, let me say that Mills may not be right in the details, but if hydrogen does collapse far below ground state, as he claims, then he should be credited... and perhaps credited with a little more than lip-service, or "I just don't understand it"...I mean who really understands QM, yet we use it all the time and pretend to understand it around the fringes well enough to base such things as the Pentium microprocessor around it.... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 17:03:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA26370; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:00:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:00:50 -0700 Message-ID: <005e01c392af$4bcd6570$c057ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:56:47 -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 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52155 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones wrote: > Jed Rothwell writes, > > > I am a little surprised there have not been comments here about the > > Violante paper: > > > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVsearchforn.pdf > > > > This looks like the Holy Grail of cold fusion. It has everything, or a > > little of everything: transmutations, and light water nickel with x-rays, > > and excess heat. > > > Don't be too surprised. The implications are a bit controversial, if not unwelcome in some circles.... > > His findings, if accurate, suggest what nobody (particularly Ed) who is tied to CF experimentation and opposed to the hydrino explanation wants to hear. And frankly, those of us with an open mind regarding the hydrino, are tiring to reiterate. > > When you have transmutation that occurs with both D2O and H2O under similar conditions and when one of the major surprises is the high amount of the Cu65 isotope, then it is pretty clear that the hydrino explanation is the one that best fits everything... to shoehorn in D+D one has to pile on layer after layer of conjecture. > > ... especially since there is a natural Ni64 isotope (1%) and Ni64 apparently gives Cu65 on the absorption of a hydrino...how else could it happen? Getting Cu65 from Ni+D alone is next to impossible without a free neutron signature....nobody minds one level of conjecture but when one has to resort to building a second layer of conjecture on top of the first shaky foundation.... > > Once again, I am disappointed that Violante didn't do his homework and cite Mills... I as well as Jones participate in the Hydrino Study Group. Early in his work, Mills got excess heat and immediate turn-on in a cell using a Ni cathode and KCO3 as an electrolyte. His theoretical work at the time indicated that K+ would be a catalyst with H for the hydrino forming process, with release of excess heat, which he found. Since then, Mills has worked in the gas phase and identified a number of elements as catalysts for the BLP process. Li is not a catalyst, S is not a catalyst, but O++ is. It is not clear that the electrolytic cell would produce O++ [although a plasma electrolytic cell might]. There are many puzzles here, but it does not follow that hydrinos are produced. However, it is much too early to be dogmatic in this area. My opinion is that at some level of understanding the LENR and BLP phenomena will be seen as two aspects of a deeper understanding of physics. Mike Carrell > > Jones > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 17:26:23 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA19437; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:24:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:24:26 -0700 Message-ID: <008801c392b1$c0e67020$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014160538.00b035f8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:17:42 -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 RAA19357 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52156 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, > The last I heard, years ago, Mills could not explain how CF > produces helium commensurate with DD fusion. His theory cannot be right if > it cannot explain that, although I suppose it might still be useful. I don't know that any theory works or can ever work for everything in LENR because there could be several things going on here, just as many different things happen and overlap in QM. Maybe you are correct to a degree that his theory falls short with D+D > He4 ...BUT...there is much more to LENR than D+D > He4. For instance some of the He4 could be an induced alpha emission, which is totally different... and all of the heat could be produced from the hydrino/deuterino even if the He4 is commensurate with the heat.... the two could be unrelated and the He4 production could be endothermic, we just don't know (I don't believe that this is the case but it hasn't been disproven and just because He4 is present commensurate with heat doesn't mean anything in a complex system) The bottom line for most of us is, let the theory be damned if it doesn't help get a product to market quickly, and that is really what is so frustrating about Mills/BLP, isn't it? A cohesive theory that hasn't gotten anything to market yet.... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 17:37:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA27715; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:34:53 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:34:53 -0700 Message-ID: <009401c392b3$38cd8460$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <005e01c392af$4bcd6570$c057ccd1@asus> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:28:14 -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 RAA27619 Resent-Message-ID: <4Z1cLB.A.6wG.tYJj_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52157 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike, > There are many puzzles here, but it does not follow that hydrinos are > produced. However, it is much too early to be dogmatic in this area. My > opinion is that at some level of understanding the LENR and BLP phenomena > will be seen as two aspects of a deeper understanding of physics. You seem to have tempered your optimism of a few years back somewhat, and I suspect that is because of the holes that are cropping up in the theory, but ....as you seem to have an inside track with BLP management, do you have doubts that the the hydrino samples that Mills has sent out are not the real thing? Curious that none of those labs have really gone out on a limb with any kind of glowing announcements... or have they? Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 18:04:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA18302; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:02:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:02:37 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:25:02 -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) In-Reply-To: <009401c392b3$38cd8460$8837fea9@cpq> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52158 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I second this request. Having followed the saga of Mill's since the light water work, I found the most compelling results to be the chemical work. If he can produce samples of hydrino compounds, it would silence all skeptics with one blow. It was very interesting that the USPTO seemed willing to provide him a patent for the light water work, but choked on the chemical patent which would have serious industrial value. He could well argue that without this protection he can't disseminate samples for study, but after almost a decade of work we've yet to see any other actual product. The peanut gallery is getting a little impatient. Some light shed on this aspect of the story would be MOST appreciated. K. PS: Jones wonders about why CF scientists seem reluctant to include Mills. Having distanced himself from all CF work back at the beginning, I suspect the problem is more on Mills side than CF workers. Clearly it helped him to shed the baggage of CF at a time when it was most disparaged, but I suspect a future homecoming to be a bit icy... -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jonesb9@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 8:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mike, > There are many puzzles here, but it does not follow that hydrinos are > produced. However, it is much too early to be dogmatic in this area. My > opinion is that at some level of understanding the LENR and BLP phenomena > will be seen as two aspects of a deeper understanding of physics. You seem to have tempered your optimism of a few years back somewhat, and I suspect that is because of the holes that are cropping up in the theory, but ....as you seem to have an inside track with BLP management, do you have doubts that the the hydrino samples that Mills has sent out are not the real thing? Curious that none of those labs have really gone out on a limb with any kind of glowing announcements... or have they? Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 20:40:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA02463; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:37:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:58:52 -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: No comments on Violante paper? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52159 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > Hi Ed, > > > The only contribution Mills has made to LENR is to suggest a mechanism for the formation of a neutron-like particle. It would make no sense to cite his work if the proposed particle plays no role in the LENR process. Its role is still an open question. If some day such a particle is found to be important, I expect Mills will be cited as showing one way it can form. > > Well that "open question" seems to have been answered to a degree in this study by Violante, doesn't it? > > And what about Dash, Bush, Eagleton etc? They followed up on Mills' Nickel/light water work as has Violante and a number of Italian and Japanese investigators, whether or not they credit him. Mills does have all of the important WPO patents involving nickel and light water, several dozen in total, meaning at least that he was first to file (by many years). You can dogmatically say that it is still an open question, but if it is *open* then it is one hell of a coincidence, isn't it? We seem to be talking past each other. It is my understanding that Mills claimed that his excess energy resulted from hydrino formation catalyzed by potassium.. On the other hand. Bush claimed that his excess was from potassium being converted to calcium. Mills predicted that sodium would not work, yet Bush detected heat when sodium was used. Miley has also explored the transmutation reactions in some detail and claims to get excess energy when lithium is used with H2O. So, we have three possible heat producing reactions, the formation of hydrinos, transmutation possibility aided by hydrinos, or transmutation without hydrino formation. Mills can only take full credit for the first reaction, with some credit for the second. He can take no credit if the last reaction proves to be the one making the observed energy. > > > Don't get me wrong, I think Mills' theory has some big problems in the details, in fact I like his experimental work a lot better than his theory and wish that other experimenter in LENR would take up UV spectroscopy as a tool - but OTOH the flawed-theory does have enough validity to explain much (but not all) of what has turned up in CF so far...what complete and well-documented alternative theory would you present that exlains it better (other than QM tunneling), especially the transmutation of heavy metals without neutrons? You raise several questions here. Can transmutation take place without neutrons? Is the formation of hydrinos the only source of neutron-like particles? No clear answer has been proposed for either question. In any case, the Mills theory only addresses the formation of hydrinos, not how they can enter another nucleus. > > > Plus - In case you have forgotten... Mills contribution was a lot more than just theory. Three years before P&F, in 1986, Mills developed the core of the theory, that much is well documented. But by 1989, he already had firm experimental evidence using Nickel and light water, and also the original patent applications were already filed, that is why within months of the P&F announcement, R. Mills was able to snatch the headlines and catch the experts off-guard with this fairly well-developed light water cell, which proved to many that D+D was not necessary for LENR. He showed that heavy water was not necessary to make anomalous energy. He did not show that his excess energy had any relationship to LENR. However, he looked for tritium as evidence for a nuclear reaction and found too little to be important. > > > Everyone either ignored this (and still do) or assumed this was a variation of the P&F work, or not really "nuclear" or whatever... but Mills didn't exactly jump on the P&F band-wagon - history may have to reconcile the true details... Yes, we know that P&F were first with the *announcement* and that their deuterium experimental work went back several years before 1989 too, but that is not dispositve of the issue. Therefore - let's just say that it may also be an "open question" as who should be credited with what. Maybe it was the Russian fracto-fusion comrades - aren't we totally guilty of cultural predilection to ignore their prior contribution? I don't see anyone ignoring prior art that has some relationship to the phenomenon. Right now, we are just trying to discover what is going on in a LENR reaction. If it turns out that the Mills insight applies, he will be given credit. Right now it looks like it does not apply. However, that opinion can change as more information is obtained. > > > I think that your posture of "only a theoretical contribution" which is expressed here belies your open-mindedness on the issue. Does being "open-minded" mean that I have to agree with you? > Again, let me say that Mills may not be right in the details, but if hydrogen does collapse far below ground state, as he claims, then he should be credited... and perhaps credited with a little more than lip-service What does "credited" mean when we still do not know how his theory applies to LENR? It seems to me that you assume that his approach explains LENR and a failure to agree is evidence for lack of open-mindness? Is this true? Ed > , or "I just don't understand it"...I mean who really understands QM, yet we use it all the time and pretend to understand it around the fringes well enough to base such things as the Pentium microprocessor around it.... > > Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 21:17:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id VAA16438; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:14:55 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:14:55 -0700 Message-ID: <00c101c392d2$c59a0a20$c057ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <005e01c392af$4bcd6570$c057ccd1@asus> <009401c392b3$38cd8460$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:13:41 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52160 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones wrote: > Mike, > > > There are many puzzles here, but it does not follow that hydrinos are > > produced. However, it is much too early to be dogmatic in this area. My > > opinion is that at some level of understanding the LENR and BLP phenomena > > will be seen as two aspects of a deeper understanding of physics. > > You seem to have tempered your optimism of a few years back somewhat, and I suspect that is because of the holes that are cropping up in the theory, but ....as you seem to have an inside track with BLP management, do you have doubts that the hydrino samples that Mills has sent out are not the real thing? > > Curious that none of those labs have really gone out on a limb with any kind of glowing announcements... or have they? > > Jones My post on this thread was not well structured. I haven't changed my mind about Mills work, you have seen me defend it on HSG with attendant caveats. I don't touch the theory, just keep drawing attention to the experimental work. You have been seeing a strong coupling between hydrinos and CF. I'm just pointing out that in the case of the Violante paper, the experimental conditions are not those which Mills currently cites for hydrino production. At present, I don't think it profitable to force a coupling, to say that "CF is really BLP" or "BLP is really CF". Such will only further confuse the situation. I sit on a fence and say there is something about both that needs deeper understanding which is not even vaguely within reach at present. I have no 'inside track' with Mills. He responds to my emails, and on occasion has taken phone calls. He recognizes me as a sympathetic supporter but I am not a stockholder and he owes me nothing. I don't probe, but listen carefully to what he has to say. Relationships with partners are necessarily private. I have no reason to doubt that samples of hydrino compounds which he may have given to some labs are not authentic. When in his conference room once, he showed me vials of powders which were apparently the same as seen in some photographs. These are expensive to produce. I obviously cannot evaluate them, so they are just curiosities. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 14 22:51:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA05491; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:50:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:50:26 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:47:55 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some Finer Moments of Water Resent-Message-ID: <_wUd7.A.iVB.hAOj_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52161 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:16 AM 10/13/3, Frederick Sparber wrote: >Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:10:13, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> The force between two charged bodies is proportional to the dielectric >> constant of the medium between them. > >The Electrostatic Force (Fes) between two charged bodies with charges (Q1 >and Q2) >separated at a distance (R) in a medium with dielectric constant (K): > >Fes = Q1*Q2/[4(pi)K*eo*R^2] Yes, this is right, of course. Sorry! I simply had a momentary brain-fault. I confused the dielectric constant K with Coulomb's constant k=1/(4(pi)K*eo), i.e.: Fes = k*Q1*Q2/R^2 where the force is proportional to k. BTW, I was looking for a response to show up on escribe. None did. Escribe must have been down for a while. I didn't have time to read in my 200 spam emails until this afternoon, buried in which which I found the subject response. I see Jed lost some posts from escribe as well. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 00:36:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA23894; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:33:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:33:45 -0700 From: Dean Miller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC Thermodynamic anomaly in the Atkins diet? Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:34:20 -0500 Organization: Miller and Associates Message-ID: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014162652.00ba9f38@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014162652.00ba9f38@pop.mindspring.com> 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 AAA23831 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52162 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:41:55 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State >University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found >any miraculous metabolic effects." They're idiots! A calorie isn't just a calorie when diet is concerned. Sure, calories are used as indicators of quantities of energy. But the energy isn't direct, as it would be if the body simply burned the food. The body derives it's energy from two primary sources: carbohydrates and fats. Fat calories are converted to energy almost directly within each cell that's needing energy. Any excess energy from fat is simply discarded by the body. However, carbohydrate calories are converted to appropriate substances (essentially fats) through the use of insulin, and any excess substances *are stored in the body as fats.* Notice the difference -- fats that are ingested, especially saturated fats from animal sources, are used if needed with any excess discarded while carbs that are ingested are quickly used and any excess is stored. So ... fat calories don't become fat in the body while carbohydrate fats do become fat in the body. THIS HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS! -- Dean -- from (almost) Des Moines -- KB0ZDF From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 07:26:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA19472; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:23:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:23:41 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031015102304.01c0b928@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:23:35 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <2HfLtB.A.KwE.shVj_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [I sent this yesterday, but it did not come through. It is not important, but I would like to know Mills' take on helium.] Jones Beene writes: > Maybe I missed what you are referring to. Did Violante find any He4 > (or any helium that wasn't He3, the decay product of tritium) ? I did not mean with reference to Violante. I meant in general. I am just curious. The last I heard, years ago, Mills could not explain how CF produces helium commensurate with DD fusion. His theory cannot be right if it cannot explain that, although I suppose it might still be useful. As I have often mentioned, people still use Ptolemaic astronomy, and it works fine for various purposes, so it is still "right" in a sense. Some aspects of CF probably do not need to be explained by a theory, because they are probably experimental error, but I think the helium is well-established. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 07:31:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA24104; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:28:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:28:35 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:21:23 -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 HAA23995 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52164 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed, Thanks for your thoughtful response and clarification. As you and Mike state, it is possible that Mills is getting more credit than he is due by extending his theory into a gray area that he himself chooses to avoid - after all, if his theory turns out to be backwardly compatible to cover some or all CF phenomena, then fine, but let him first show conclusively to the world that the hydrino is a real beast - and then we should let the historians of science take it from there. As Mike has stated, Mills has the actual physical material in hand, so surely some prominent lab will run the conclusive tests, hopefully sooner rather than later (to parrot a little poli-lingo). Having said that, there is still a point to be made about minimum standards of ethics in science authorship. To wit: > > And what about Dash, Bush, Eagleton etc? They followed up on Mills' Nickel/light water work as has Violante and a number of Italian and Japanese investigators, whether or not they credit him. Mills does have all of the important WPO patents involving nickel and light water, several dozen in total, meaning at least that he was first to file (by many years). You can dogmatically say that it is still an open question, but if it is *open* then it is one hell of a coincidence, isn't it? > We seem to be talking past each other. It is my understanding that Mills claimed that his excess energy resulted from hydrino formation catalyzed by potassium.. On the other hand. Bush claimed that his excess was from potassium being converted to calcium. Mills predicted that sodium would not work, yet Bush detected heat when sodium was used. Miley has also explored the transmutation reactions in some detail and claims to get excess energy when lithium is used with H2O. So, we have three possible heat producing reactions, the formation of hydrinos, transmutation possibility aided by hydrinos, or transmutation without hydrino formation. Mills can only take full credit for the first reaction, with some credit for the second. He can take no credit if the last reaction proves to be the one making the observed energy. Ed, the problem with this is that you are making an unwarranted value judgement when you assume that the electrolyte, rather than the electrode composition (or the combination of the two), is determinative in the Mills' work but not in CF? Would fairness dictate that the researcher who extended P&F by using titanium/D could then claim that their experiment was totally independent of P&F and... ergo, they don't need to cite or credit the prior palladium work, despite the similarity? Actually Nickel is a double hydrino catalyst according to Mills and was in his patents from day-one (as is lithium, but NOT sodium). The implication is, if Bush detected heat using sodium on a Nickel cathode, he still should credit Mills for being the first to recognize the importance of the cathode substrate. If he then found even greater heat using K or Li then that would further reinforce the notion of a catalytic interfacial substrate combined with the electrolyte. The failure to not credit Mills at all is the only problem here, as there is no doubt that Mills was the first to recognize and document the anomaly with Nickel and light water. This is true even though Nickel has been used as a cathode material for 150 years - in fact you credit to P&F for the Pd/D anomaly when others used the combination long before them but overlooked the anomaly. > I don't see anyone ignoring prior art that has some relationship to the phenomenon. Right now, we are just trying to discover what is going on in a LENR reaction. If it turns out that the Mills insight applies, he will be given credit. Right now it looks like it does not apply. However, that opinion can change as more information is obtained. Ask yourself this. If you were able to discover a better CF cathode material than palladium for use with deuterium, would you feel comfortable publishing your results in a prominent journal without any attribution to P&F? I think it would be unfair to do so. That is all I am saying - apply the same fairness standard to Mills, or any other prior art by any other researcher, that P&F now receive - that is the accepted practice in scientific journalism, which after all, should be held to a higher standard, not lower, than a commercial document like a patent. This is because, for one thing, it allows the reader to go back to the prior art to see if there is anything that was missed by the present experimenter. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 07:40:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA00398; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:38:07 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:38:07 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031015103707.00baa158@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:38:02 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: CANCEL Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52165 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote: "I sent this yesterday, but it did not come through. It is not important, but I would like to know Mills' take on helium. . . ." Okay, my e-mail unplugged. Not only did the first one go through, but Jones responded. Thanks. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 08:53:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA18172; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:48:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:48:06 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031015112818.01c920e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:48:03 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: LENR: Leaner is meaner slightly OFF_TOPIC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52166 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: "But the really amazing thing to me is how many languages seems to be slowly evolving towards a mutually understood vocabulary. When you hear Russian spoken today there are many English words popping out (Anthony Burgess in reverse). . . ." The trend is dramatic in Japanese. See: http://iteslj.org/lists/Daulton-BasewordVocab2.html List of High-Frequency Baseword Vocabulary for Japanese EFL Students #2 Frank E. Daulton Abstract: A rigorous examination has revealed that 45.5 percent of the 3000, most-frequent word families in English have correspondences to common Japanese loanwords. This article presents a nearly exhaustive list of high-frequency English words that correspond to commonly-known Japanese loanwords. (2390 words) However, these words may drop out of the language in the coming centuries. In the 17th century many words entered Japanese from Dutch, but later fell out of use. Most were replaced by Chinese or Japanese coined pseudo-Chinese words. For example "syabon" (soap) was largely replaced by "sekken" except in the children's word "syabon-dama" (soap-bubble). Children's vocabulary often preserves obsolete and even ancient words. The Selection Rhyme "eenie-meenie-miney-moe" is said to be derived from an ancient Saxon numbering system. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 10:49:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA17049; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:43:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:43:52 -0700 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <20.1a857eb5.2cbee12f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:43:11 EDT Subject: Increasing hydrogen concetrations in water & reversability to create Cold Fusion To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: Baronvolsung@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1066239791" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: <6-9aoC.A.LKE.XdYj_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52167 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------------------------------1066239791 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been reading the chemistry of acids and bases to understand how to increase the acidity of water with chemicals to change the pH of water (ph=-1 log[H+]) to increase the number of hydrogen atoms in water so that when water disassociates (H20<=> OH- + H+=>H30) in electrolysis is creates more hydrogen atoms which can react to create a cold fusion reaction if the hydrogen nucleus is deformed by the proper amounts of heat and pressure added in the proper phases to excite the nonradioactive energies of the nucleus with low amounts of energy that can be obtained when water dissociates and reforms. We can add acids and bases to water to change the pH of water to make the reaction reversible just like the human body adds carbonic acid H2CO3 to raise the H+ and bicarbonate acid to lower the H+ . If we add the proper chemicals (acids and bases) in the proper phases to water we can make the water reversibility reaction ad infinitum to create a chain reaction and to get a net gain of energy from the reaction. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1066239791 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have been reading the chemistry of acids and bases to understand how=20= to increase the acidity of water with chemicals to change the pH of wat= er (ph=3D-1 log[H+]) to increase the number of hydrogen atoms in water so th= at when water disassociates (H20<=3D> OH- + H+=3D>H30) in= electrolysis is creates more hydrogen atoms which can react to create=20= a cold fusion reaction if the hydrogen nucleus is deformed by the proper amo= unts of heat and pressure added in the proper phases to excite the nonradioa= ctive energies of the nucleus with low amounts of energy that can be obtaine= d when water dissociates and reforms.  We can add acids and bases to wa= ter to change the pH of water to make the reaction reversible just like=  the human body adds carbonic acid H2CO3 to raise the H+ and bicarbonat= e acid to lower the H+ .  If we add the proper chemicals (acids and bas= es) in the proper phases to water we can make the water reversibility r= eaction ad infinitum to create a chain reaction and to get a net gain of ene= rgy from the reaction.
 

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1066239791-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 10:57:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA24625; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:53:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:53:23 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031015132254.01c97de8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:53:05 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52168 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Keith Nagel writes: > PS: Jones wonders about why CF scientists seem > reluctant to include Mills. Having distanced himself > from all CF work back at the beginning, I suspect > the problem is more on Mills side than CF workers. I really doubt this is an issue. As far as I know, most CF researchers have never heard of Mills. I do not recall a discussion of his work at an ICCF conference. Most of them are "painfully conventional" as Martin Fleischmann says, and they firmly believe textbook physics. They would instantly dismiss the notion that atoms can shrink below the ground state. I doubt many of them would bother to read past the abstract. The only comment about Mills I recall hearing was from Ikegami, who said the shrinking hydrogen theory is so preposterous it doesn't even qualify as amateur. You might think this makes the CF scientists as bad as their detractors in the mainstream. Perhaps in a sense it does. They do dismiss some theories and even some observations with contempt. But there is a huge difference between them and the pathological skeptics. CF scientists are mainly experimentalists, and in the end they remain faithful to the experimentalists' creed. They always believe the results, no matter how improbable those results seem. If Mills is ever widely replicated, the CF researchers will be among the first to take him seriously. CF researchers are throwbacks to the early 19th-century scientists who practiced before textbooks and theories were well established. Nowadays, most scientists still pay lip service to the idea that experiments are the supreme test and they overrule theory, but in practice most of them do not believe this anymore. They treat it like a romantic relic of the past, or as something you tell the public during an amateur night presentation at the Natural History Museum. They say it the way a prominent businessman might say that hard work, thrift, honesty and ambition are all you need to succeed in business, and connections or background do not matter. > Clearly it helped him to shed the baggage of CF at > a time when it was most disparaged, but I suspect > a future homecoming to be a bit icy... This is definitely not an issue. Most CF researchers snipe at one another and badmouth one another. They have no sense of solidarity or community. They have not noticed Mills' absence. They do not know or care about his present attitude toward them. They do not care about anyone's attitude. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 11:19:11 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA02140; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:12:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:12:34 -0700 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <1df.11a1ad9b.2cbee7b9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:11:05 EDT Subject: Re: Increasing hydrogen concetrations in water & reversability to create Cold... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: Baronvolsung@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1066241465" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52169 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------------------------------1066241465 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is a link below on cf and new models of nuclear chemistry that explains who cf works: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3775/alchemy3.html Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1066241465 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is a link below on cf and new models of nuclear chemistry tha= t explains who cf works:
 
 

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1066241465-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 11:26:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA08824; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:20:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:20:10 -0700 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <91.343df7e5.2cbee5e8@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:03:20 EDT Subject: Re: [Roundtable7] Superconductivity & cold fusion explained by new models of .. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1066241000" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52170 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: -------------------------------1066241000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I resent the email below without the text from the web page cited not enclosed since the other emails sent to vortex were not received or posted. The article below posted at the link below explains the new physics of the nucleus recorded in new physics papers since the 1980's which is not in many text books yet, and which is based on clusters of atoms and elements that have unique properties due to their nuclear structure that explain cold fusion and super conductivity as being based on nuclear processes and not chemical processes, where the nucleus may become weaker due to successive phases in heating in cold fusion reactions so that the nuclear bonds can easily be broken with small amounts of energy and do not emit any harmful or radioactive radiation. The article also explains that patents on superconductivity and cold fusion that explain the nuclear mechanism and not just the chemistry involved are kept secret by the military and the government so that they do not become public knowledge. I have posted only part of the article below. I found the article below since I was looking into hydrogen nuclear chemistry, since I noticed that hydrogen has only one proton unlike the rest of the elements and may emit radiation which is weak or nonradioactive when its nucleus is deformed by pressure or heat and this type of radiation is not part of the standard nuclear model of radiation. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3775/alchemy3.html Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1066241000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I resent the email below without the text from the web pag= e cited not enclosed since the other emails sent to vortex were not rec= eived or posted.

The article below posted at the link below explains t= he new physics of the nucleus recorded in new physics papers since the 1980'= s which is not in many text books yet, and which is based on clusters of ato= ms and elements that have unique properties due to their nuclear structure t= hat explain cold fusion and super conductivity as being based on nuclear pro= cesses and not chemical processes, where the nucleus may become weaker due t= o successive phases in heating in cold fusion reactions so that the nuclear&= nbsp;bonds can easily be broken with small amounts of energy and do not emit= any harmful or radioactive radiation.  The article also explains=20= that patents on superconductivity and cold fusion that explain the nuclear m= echanism and not just the chemistry involved are kept secret by the military= and the government so that they do not become public knowledge.  I hav= e posted only part of the article below.  I found the article below sin= ce I was looking into hydrogen nuclear chemistry, since I noticed that hydro= gen has only one proton unlike the rest of the elements and may emit radiati= on which is weak or nonradioactive when its nucleus is deformed by pressure=20= or heat and this type of radiation is not part of the standard nuclear=20= model of radiation.

http://www.geocities.com/At= hens/3775/alchemy3.html

 

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1066241000-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 12:36:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA29914; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:25:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:25:23 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8D929F.E6C3667A@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:48:07 -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: No comments on Violante paper? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52171 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > Ed, > > Thanks for your thoughtful response and clarification. > > As you and Mike state, it is possible that Mills is getting more credit than he is due by extending his theory into a gray area that he himself chooses to avoid - after all, if his theory turns out to be backwardly compatible to cover some or all CF phenomena, then fine, but let him first show conclusively to the world that the hydrino is a real beast - and then we should let the historians of science take it from there. As Mike has stated, Mills has the actual physical material in hand, so surely some prominent lab will run the conclusive tests, hopefully sooner rather than later (to parrot a little poli-lingo). > > Having said that, there is still a point to be made about minimum standards of ethics in science authorship. To wit: > > > > And what about Dash, Bush, Eagleton etc? They followed up on Mills' Nickel/light water work as has Violante and a number of Italian and Japanese investigators, whether or not they credit him. Mills does have all of the important WPO patents involving nickel and light water, several dozen in total, meaning at least that he was first to file (by many years). You can dogmatically say that it is still an open question, but if it is *open* then it is one hell of a coincidence, isn't it? > > > We seem to be talking past each other. It is my understanding that Mills claimed that his excess energy resulted from hydrino formation catalyzed by potassium.. On the other hand. Bush claimed that his excess was from potassium being converted to calcium. Mills predicted that sodium would not work, yet Bush detected heat when sodium was used. Miley has also explored the transmutation reactions in some detail and claims to get excess energy when lithium is used with H2O. So, we have three possible heat producing reactions, the formation of hydrinos, transmutation possibility aided by hydrinos, or transmutation without hydrino formation. Mills can only take full credit for the first reaction, with some credit for the second. He can take no credit if the last reaction proves to be the one making the observed energy. > > Ed, the problem with this is that you are making an unwarranted value judgement when you assume that the electrolyte, rather than the electrode composition (or the combination of the two), is determinative in the Mills' work but not in CF? Would fairness dictate that the researcher who extended P&F by using titanium/D could then claim that their experiment was totally independent of P&F and... ergo, they don't need to cite or credit the prior palladium work, despite the similarity? Well Jones, speaking for the field of CF, the phenomenon involves initiation of nuclear reactions within solid materials under conditions that should permit no nuclear interaction. Any nuclear reaction that falls within this condition can be called LENR, CANR, or CF. Mills' work does not fall within this condition. P-F used Pd, D2O and electrolysis, but later work shows that anomalous nuclear reactions can be created under many other conditions. P-F are given credit for showing people that such reactions were possible. The exact methods and materials used are irrelevant to giving this credit. If Mills can explain how hydrinos initiate a nuclear reaction and the conditions under which this initiation can occur, he should and would be given credit. But as an aside, many people in CF are aware of only a limited amount of literature and tend to give only their own work credit. By making the literature available on LENR-CANR, I hoped to change this attitude. This is also one reason I have written so many reviews of the subject. People need to see who is doing what and how the parts are related to the whole, something that most papers do not provide. I'm always amazed how completely these reviews are ignored by people working in the field. So, if people are uninterested in what their close colleagues are doing, it does not surprise me that they would ignore someone well outside of the field, like Mills. But then, there will always be people like you and I to remind them. > > > Actually Nickel is a double hydrino catalyst according to Mills and was in his patents from day-one (as is lithium, but NOT sodium). The implication is, if Bush detected heat using sodium on a Nickel cathode, he still should credit Mills for being the first to recognize the importance of the cathode substrate. If he then found even greater heat using K or Li then that would further reinforce the notion of a catalytic interfacial substrate combined with the electrolyte. The failure to not credit Mills at all is the only problem here, as there is no doubt that Mills was the first to recognize and document the anomaly with Nickel and light water. This is true even though Nickel has been used as a cathode material for 150 years - in fact you credit to P&F for the Pd/D anomaly when others used the combination long before them but overlooked the anomaly. The issue is not that nickel produces excess energy, but the source of this energy. Bush was looking for transmutation, not hydrinos. If he had been looking for and studying hydrinos, he would have credited Mills. This is rather like complaining that people who use electricity do not credit Faraday. > > > > I don't see anyone ignoring prior art that has some relationship to the phenomenon. Right now, we are just trying to discover what is going on in a LENR reaction. If it turns out that the Mills insight applies, he will be given credit. Right now it looks like it does not apply. However, that opinion can change as more information is obtained. > > Ask yourself this. If you were able to discover a better CF cathode material than palladium for use with deuterium, would you feel comfortable publishing your results in a prominent journal without any attribution to P&F? No, I would not feel comfortable ignoring P-F. > I think it would be unfair to do so. That is all I am saying - apply the same fairness standard to Mills, or any other prior art by any other researcher, that P&F now receive - that is the accepted practice in scientific journalism, which after all, should be held to a higher standard, not lower, than a commercial document like a patent. This is because, for one thing, it allows the reader to go back to the prior art to see if there is anything that was missed by the present experimenter. If I find that the better cathode works because hydrinos are formed, I would credit Mills. Otherwise I would not. Do you think this is unfair? Ed > > > Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 13:50:10 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA23173; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:44:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:44:03 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031015162259.01ca2228@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:43:10 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52172 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms wrote: > But as an aside, many people in CF are aware of only a limited amount > of literature and tend to give only their own work credit. That is what I was trying to say earlier, when I wrote: "As far as I know, most CF researchers have never heard of Mills" and, "Most CF researchers snipe at one another." Perhaps I should say "many snipe," but anyway, they often dismiss other people's contributions. Skeptics claim CF researchers are too open minded, and they blindly accept one-anothers's work. Those skeptics have not attended an ICCF conference. In my experience, CF researchers are apt to dismiss other people's research. Each considers himself an expert, and he does not grant anyone else that status. > By making the literature available on LENR-CANR, I hoped to change > this attitude. On the other hand, we have not included any papers by Mills on LENR-CANR.org, so we will not change any minds about this. Perhaps we should include some of his papers? Or a link to his site? Since I cannot understand his papers I cannot judge. Ed makes these editorial choices, in any case. However, Mills insists that his effect is not CF, and the CF researchers seem to agree his effect is not CF. When both sides say the work is off-topic, I guess that makes it off-topic. We try to keep LENR-CANR.org strictly focused on metal hydride CF. We have only rejected a handful of papers, mainly because they were off-topic. We may have to be more selective because we have used 133 MB and we have only 67 MB left, enough space for 60 to 120 average papers. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 14:20:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA16355; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:14:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:14:52 -0700 Message-ID: <00a701c39360$5dc2d920$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8D929F.E6C3667A@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:07:35 -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 OAA16293 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52173 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed, > If I find that the better cathode works because hydrinos are formed, I would credit Mills. Otherwise I would not. Do you think this is unfair? Yes, it is clearly unfair if your work builds on his well-documented *experiment.* Notice that I said "experiment" and not "theory." Every academic standard for citations that I have ever seen clearly states something like this, from the IOP : "Before peer review can begin, the submitter must clearly establish the state of the prior art to which this research claim contributes something new or different." Why should you feel the need to attempt this weird conjoining of Mills' successful experiment - he was the first to find the nickel/hydrogen heat anomaly - to his theory, which may or may not be accurate? You want to penalize the experiment with the theory, it seems, but they are two entirely different things. In case you forgot, P&F had some very lame attempts, quickly withdrawn, at a quasi-traditional high-pressure fusion theory that turned out to be totally bogus. Even if Mills is slightly-off or way-wrong in the theory, but nevertheless there is a rock solid LENR effect of excess heat involving Ni and light water, isn't the fact that Mills was first to find and document this excess heat with certain very specific cathodes and electrolytes, deserving of credit, despite the excess baggage ? Geeze, how hard can it be to do your google search and cite the guy? Mills found the excess heat in a situation, I might add, where P&F actually said that excess heat should not be found - in fact didn't they mistakenly attempt to use light water as a control? Pity, if they had known what Mills knew (that Pd is also a working cathode for light water excess heat, just as is Ni) then they would have used a non-catalytic metal such as copper, and would probably have gotten a much clearer OU result. In fact if you compare Pd/D2O with Pd/H2O, Mills supporters would say that both are active for excess heat, but the D2O will have a higher cross section for fusion at the final stage of shrinkage. You may not believe them, but that is not a real issue. I am not so sure about the claims either but the experiment was clearly done in 1989 and reported in "Fusion Technology", a leading journal. The fact that Dash, Bush etc. got excess heat using a different theory does NOT relieve them of the burden of finding out who did it first IF they want to go through peer review and get published in a "name" journal. Maybe they don't care, and why should they care, if as Jed says they are so insular that they don't even take the time to read "Fusion Technology" The two facets of anyone's work, the experiment and theory, are separable and should be evaluated as distinct items. One can be correct on either, in whole or in part, and even get "lucky" with finding a new phenomenon with an incorrect theory (which is, in effect what P&F did or came close to doing). At any rate, you are quite willing to accept P&F's experiment without any good theory from them (and maybe a bad one). If you were to find excess heat with nickel/hydrogen in your own version of an electrolytic experiment and wish to be thorough, then YES definitely you should credit Mills' experiment, not his theory, regardless of whether or not a hydrino is found - this is because he first documented the anomaly. Period. Later you can tell the peer review panel why you think you got it right and he got it wrong. To do otherwise is not up to acceptable academic standards, IMHO, and if most CF researchers are as insular as Jed claims, then it will not serve them well in the event that a commercial product does come out of all this... Mills' important patents may be "just" WPO and not USPTO, but if litigated somewhere like the Hague, who do you think will win, the early-filer with the wrong theory or the guy who says "I didn't know" ? Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 15:03:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA17373; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:58:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:58:06 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031015172334.01cbaaa8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:58:04 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52174 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > To do otherwise is not up to acceptable academic standards, IMHO, > and if most CF researchers are as insular as Jed claims, then it will not > serve them well in the event that a commercial product does come out > of all this... Not only are they insular, many of them do not speak English well. I think they would have trouble with Mills' papers. I know only one or two Japanese theoreticians who read any theory papers in English, and no experimentalists. Of course the experimentalists know way more about theory that I do, but it is still difficult for them to read papers in English, and they seldom stay around for the theory lectures at ICCF conferences. I do not know about Violante. His paper is in perfect English, but he had American co-authors. (Some of the Japanese papers are in excellent English too, because I rewrote them.) This is getting off topic, but the language gap in Japan, China and other non-European countries is more severe than most people admit. When Miles and Storms went to Japan to consult on the NHE project, they discovered that the engineers and scientists working on the project had read few important English papers about cold fusion. Mizuno confirmed this. He was upset about it! These engineers were not lazy or incompetent, but I expect they cannot read English fluently. I would have terrific difficulty reading 100 papers on cold fusion in Japanese. This has a larger detrimental effect on the Japanese economy than most Japanese economists acknowledge, in my opinion. The quality of public school English instruction in Japan is abysmal. It has been awful since around 1900, for complicated reasons. (From 1868 until 1900 it was superb.) A few experts think this language gap is prolonging Japan's decade-long economic recession. Pressure is now building to reform English education. > Mills' important patents may be "just" WPO and not USPTO, but if > litigated somewhere like the Hague, who do you think will win, the > early-filer with the wrong theory or the guy who says "I didn't know" ? Since they don't know, it can't be helped. But I doubt many CF researchers worry about patents, or think about them. I suppose all discoveries made about CF and Mills so far have been "a force of nature" rather than something that can be patented. I realize that the specific implementation of a force of nature can be patented, but I think the first implementations of CF or Mills devices will last no more than a few months. The first 5 or 10 revolutions in transistor technology came and went between 1952 and 1954. On the other hand, AT&T did receive a patent and they did cash in on it, so perhaps I am wrong. In other words, anything broad enough to cover the first 10 years of Mills or CF technology would have to be as broad as a chapter in a physics textbook, or a law of nature, which by definition you cannot patent. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 15:16:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA26940; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:12:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:12:33 -0700 Message-ID: <00d401c39368$6cf3ba60$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Nickel and the South Atlantic Anomaly Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:05:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C3932D.BEAFA7A0" 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52175 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_00D1_01C3932D.BEAFA7A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All of this talk about R. Mills and his 1989 discovery of an energy = anomaly with hydrogen and Nickel got me thinking about how to cook-up a = good old conspiracy theory, ala a recent re-run of the classic movie, = "Three Days of the Condor." First, did you realize that Nickel is a pretty rare element, with = earth's crust containing only about 11 ppm, which is 600 times less than = iron and about the same as thorium. It would probably be even rarer - = and way too expensive to use this beautiful metal in stainless steel - = if it were not for a curious fact. Nickel is common in meteorites, up to = 30% in some.... and fortunately for us (and Delorean) a pretty big one = fell over Sudbury, Ontario, Canada a while back. There are 17 large = mines in the vicinity of the Sudbury Basin which over the past 125 years = have provided a large part the world's nickel and platinum, with the = rest coming from other long-buried iron-nickel meteorite impact sites. The Falkland Islands lie under a region of Earth where an anomalous = magnetic field vertex exists, known as the SAA or South Atlantic = Anomaly. Here, ionization from the Van Allen radiation belts and from = the sun and elsewhere can penetrate considerably further into the = atmosphere, which among other things causes glitches in orbiting = satellites. In fact, for some time it has been common practice for NASA = and others, in order to prevent the loss of these satellites to power = them down as they cross over the SAA and the Falklands region.=20 This physical uniqueness of this zone was certainly known (at least at = high levels of gov'mt) back in 1982 when the British retook the islands = following a short-lived Argentine attempt at the repatriation of their = beloved (or so they said) "Malvinas" meaning "bad vines," a name with = the connotation of "nothing good will grow here".=20 The magnetic singularity of the SAA was never even hinted at as a = possible motive for the invasion, which a lot of the world considered a = big waste of time and money for a barren rock in the middle of nowhere; = except, that is, to convey the quaint holdover notion that lingers from = Colonialism - the notion that nobody can affront the English, by God - = or maybe also... well, what if some crude happened to be offshore, as = well?=20 But the uniqueness of the SAA geomagnetism may have been an unsaid = motive in the surprising kind of "good-cop bad-cop" cooperation of the = USA in the invasion, which has been renewed and refined recently in Iraq = - positioning the US and the Brits often as an international "tag team" = of heavy-weight sumo-bullies (better bully than wimp, right?). Scientists have in the past explained the SAA as a result of the = eccentric displacement of the center of the magnetic field from the = geographical center of the Earth. It is almost as if the south magnetic = pole has been drastically shifted. That much is true. What they haven't = really gotten into, at least in public, is what is the underlying cause = of the displacement. Does it hint at why such a lonely place might be = valuable for something other than sheep and penguins (and un poco de = olio) ?=20 The picture on this site might offer a clue, but only if the motivation = for securing the island has some kind of "beam weapon" significance : http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Iradbelt.html But more likely, if oil is not present in massive amounts, and = beam-weapons don't pan out, could it be that a large iron-nickel = meteorite is buried not far below the surface (which should indeed = provide the geomagnetic anomaly)?=20 I guess the average conspiracy theorist looks to oil first but what if a = truly gigantic crater, of unheard of proportions exists here? Could it = be the very crater that "hatched the moon"? Probably not, but it is = possible to back-time rotate the tectonic plates of Antarctica, = Argentina and South Africa way back to the way they were in eons past; = and if done so a gigantic circular crater is very evident. Associated = with this crater are the Campo del Cielo Craters in the Argentine and = adjoining countries. They constitute a group of nine, in two parallel = strips, and it is assumed that the asteroid (or planetoid, or pre moon) = the one which produced the monstrous crater must have been in orbit = round the world for quite a while edging closer and closer, landing = comparatively softly, and after several passes as a second impact group = and maybe a third were produced on continuing orbital circuits.=20 The crater lips of Samborombom Bay, the Gulf of St. George, and the = Terra del Fuego bay opposite the Falkland Islands all may have occurred = at the same time. The Falkland Islands themselves are probably the = remains of the hump (or pinta) left at the center of that particular = impact. Hmmm...very interesting... the hump of a crater that is = considerably larger than the gulf of Mexico... if it were nickel-iron in = composition, like the one at Sudbury and the many other large sites that = we mine for nickel today... well, how many dimes is that? About 500 trillion, according to my rough calculation, but anyways let's = just say, "quite a few" and leave it at that. I don't want to be dodging = old Joubert (Max von Sydow) and... well, to prove this is all just, = err... a big misunderstanding, would somebody please tell him to "keep = the change" - this whole episode is little more than the ravings of a = crazed old nut who really thinks the crater was caused by mini black = hole ;-) Jones ------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C3932D.BEAFA7A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All of this talk about R. Mills and his 1989 discovery of an energy = anomaly=20 with hydrogen and Nickel got me thinking about how to cook-up a good old = conspiracy theory, ala a recent re-run of the classic movie, "Three = Days of=20 the Condor."
 
First, did you realize that Nickel is a pretty rare = element, with=20 earth's crust containing only about 11 ppm, which is 600 times less = than=20 iron and about the same as thorium. It would probably be even rarer = - and=20 way too expensive to use this beautiful metal in stainless steel - if it = were=20 not for a curious fact. Nickel is common in meteorites, up to 30% in = some....=20 and fortunately for us (and Delorean) a pretty big one fell over = Sudbury,=20 Ontario, Canada a while back. There are 17 large mines in the = vicinity of=20 the Sudbury Basin which over the past 125 years have provided a large = part the=20 world's nickel and platinum, with the rest coming from other=20 long-buried iron-nickel meteorite impact sites.
 
The Falkland Islands lie under a region of Earth where an anomalous = magnetic field vertex exists, known as the SAA or South Atlantic = Anomaly. Here,=20 ionization from the Van Allen radiation belts and from the sun and = elsewhere can=20 penetrate considerably further into the atmosphere, which among other = things=20 causes glitches in orbiting satellites. In fact, for some time it = has been=20 common practice for NASA and others, in order to prevent the loss of = these=20 satellites to power them down as they cross over the = SAA and=20 the Falklands region.
 
This physical uniqueness of this zone was certainly known (at = least at=20 high levels of gov'mt) back in 1982 when the British retook the islands=20 following a short-lived Argentine attempt at the repatriation of = their=20 beloved (or so they said) "Malvinas" meaning "bad vines," a name with = the=20 connotation of "nothing good will grow here".
 
The magnetic singularity of the SAA was never even hinted at as a = possible=20 motive for the invasion, which a lot of the world considered a big waste = of time=20 and money for a barren rock in the middle of nowhere; except, that = is, to=20 convey the quaint holdover notion that lingers from Colonialism - the = notion=20 that nobody can affront the English, by God - or maybe also... = well,=20 what if some crude happened to be offshore, as well? 
 
But the uniqueness of the SAA geomagnetism may have been an unsaid = motive=20 in the surprising kind of "good-cop bad-cop" cooperation of = the USA in=20 the invasion, which has been renewed and refined recently in Iraq - = positioning=20 the US and the Brits often as an international "tag team" of = heavy-weight=20 sumo-bullies (better bully than wimp, right?).
 
Scientists have in the past explained the SAA as a result of the = eccentric=20 displacement of the center of the magnetic field from the geographical = center of=20 the Earth. It is almost as if the south magnetic pole has been = drastically=20 shifted. That much is true. What they haven't really gotten into, at = least in=20 public, is what is the underlying cause of the displacement. Does it = hint at why=20 such a lonely place might be valuable for something other than = sheep and=20 penguins (and un poco de olio) ?
 
The picture on this site might offer a clue, but only if = the=20 motivation for securing the island has some kind of "beam weapon"=20 significance :
http://www= -istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Iradbelt.html
 
But more likely, if oil is not present in massive amounts, and = beam-weapons=20 don't pan out, could it be that a large iron-nickel meteorite is = buried not=20 far below the surface (which should indeed provide the geomagnetic=20 anomaly)?
 
I guess the average conspiracy theorist looks to oil first but = what if=20 a truly gigantic crater, of unheard of proportions exists here? = Could it be=20 the very crater that "hatched the moon"? Probably not, but it is = possible to=20 back-time rotate the tectonic plates of Antarctica, Argentina and South = Africa=20 way back to the way they were in eons past; and if done so a = gigantic=20 circular crater is very evident. Associated with this crater are the = Campo del=20 Cielo Craters in the Argentine and adjoining countries. They constitute = a group=20 of nine, in two parallel strips, and it is assumed that the asteroid (or = planetoid, or pre moon) the one which produced the monstrous=20 crater must have been in orbit round the world for quite a while = edging=20 closer and closer, landing comparatively softly, and after several = passes as a=20 second impact group and maybe a third were produced on continuing = orbital=20 circuits.
 
The crater lips of Samborombom Bay, the Gulf of St. George, and the = Terra=20 del Fuego bay opposite the Falkland Islands all may have occurred at the = same=20 time. The Falkland Islands themselves are probably the remains of the = hump (or=20 pinta) left at the center of that particular impact. Hmmm...very = interesting...=20 the hump of a crater that is considerably larger than the gulf of = Mexico... if=20 it were nickel-iron in composition, like the one at Sudbury=20 and the many other large sites that we mine for nickel = today...=20 well, how many dimes is that?
 
About 500 trillion, according to my rough calculation, but anyways = let's=20 just say, "quite a few" and leave it at that. I don't want to be dodging = old=20 Joubert (Max von Sydow) and... well, to prove this is all = just,=20 err... a big misunderstanding, would somebody please tell him to = "keep the=20 change" - this whole episode is little more than the ravings of a = crazed=20 old nut who really thinks the crater was caused by mini = black=20 hole ;-)
 
Jones
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C3932D.BEAFA7A0-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 15 22:03:10 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA22518; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:00:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:00:16 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8E195C.5685EDE6@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:23:57 -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: No comments on Violante paper? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8D929F.E6C3667A@ix.netcom.com> <00a701c39360$5dc2d920$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52176 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > Ed, > > > If I find that the better cathode works because hydrinos are formed, I would credit Mills. Otherwise I would not. Do you think this is unfair? > > Yes, it is clearly unfair if your work builds on his well-documented *experiment.* Notice that I said "experiment" and not "theory." Every academic standard for citations that I have ever seen clearly states something like this, from the IOP : But suppose my work is not building on Mills work. Suppose I use nickel for reasons that have nothing to do with Mills. Suppose I look for transmutation products instead of hydrinos, as did Bush and others. Why would I credit Mills for this effort. Indeed, when Bush tested sodium, he did credit Mills and found an effect opposite to the Mills predictions. From then on, the Mills effect was considered to have no relationship to the P-F effect. > > > "Before peer review can begin, the submitter must clearly establish the state of the prior art to which this research claim contributes something new or different." Bush did this and then found that the Mills effect did not appear to apply to CF. Many people since then have supported this conclusion. It is possible that hydrinos are involved in LENR. If this is proven to be true, Mills will get a lot of credit. > > > Why should you feel the need to attempt this weird conjoining of Mills' successful experiment - he was the first to find the nickel/hydrogen heat anomaly - to his theory, which may or may not be accurate? You want to penalize the experiment with the theory, it seems, but they are two entirely different things. In case you forgot, P&F had some very lame attempts, quickly withdrawn, at a quasi-traditional high-pressure fusion theory that turned out to be totally bogus. I'm not relating theory to the experiment. Mills sees heat and gets credit for this. Bush and many other people see heat, but the heat is found to have a different cause. From that point on, the Mills heat is ignored in favor of the other cause. Mills explores his cause and CF people explore their cause, separately. If Mills had claimed that hydrinos produced transmutation and this was shown to be true, Mills would be given credit by the CF field. Actually, Mills will get all the credit anyone needs just by exploring the hydrino. Why would you want him to have additional credit from the CF community when everyone agrees that his work appears to have little relationship to CF and being related to CF is the kiss of death? > > > Even if Mills is slightly-off or way-wrong in the theory, but nevertheless there is a rock solid LENR effect This is not a LENR effect. He assumed hydrino formation was the source of heat and did not look for transmutation products, which are required for LENR. > of excess heat involving Ni and light water, isn't the fact that Mills was first to find and document this excess heat with certain very specific cathodes and electrolytes, deserving of credit, despite the excess baggage ? Geeze, how hard can it be to do your google search and cite the guy? OK, but I expect this would be an example of damning by faint praise. In fact, who else cares if Mills is cited in CF papers for seeing heat from Ni? Certainly not Mills. > > > Mills found the excess heat in a situation, I might add, where P&F actually said that excess heat should not be found - in fact didn't they mistakenly attempt to use light water as a control? Yes, but they included the use of light water as a source of heat in their patent. Light water was only used because skeptics insisted on controls. P-F expected to see heat from light water. Indeed, some of their light water cells seemed to make extra heat. Because this could be caused by calorimeter errors, it was not widely reported. > Pity, if they had known what Mills knew (that Pd is also a working cathode for light water excess heat, just as is Ni) then they would have used a non-catalytic metal such as copper, and would probably have gotten a much clearer OU result. In fact if you compare Pd/D2O with Pd/H2O, Mills supporters would say that both are active for excess heat, but the D2O will have a higher cross section for fusion at the final stage of shrinkage. If Mills showed or claimed that hydrinos led to a nuclear reactions and his predictions were correct, he would be widely cited. Unfortunately, this is not the case. > > > You may not believe them, but that is not a real issue. I am not so sure about the claims either but the experiment was clearly done in 1989 and reported in "Fusion Technology", a leading journal. The fact that Dash, Bush etc. got excess heat using a different theory does NOT relieve them of the burden of finding out who did it first IF they want to go through peer review and get published in a "name" journal. Maybe they don't care, and why should they care, if as Jed says they are so insular that they don't even take the time to read "Fusion Technology" Bush did acknowledge Mills when he tested sodium and several other elements not proposed by Mills. When the predictions failed to be borne out, Mills was then ignored, much to his relief. > > > The two facets of anyone's work, the experiment and theory, are separable and should be evaluated as distinct items. One can be correct on either, in whole or in part, and even get "lucky" with finding a new phenomenon with an incorrect theory (which is, in effect what P&F did or came close to doing). At any rate, you are quite willing to accept P&F's experiment without any good theory from them (and maybe a bad one). P-F claimed a nuclear reaction. Mills claimed hydrino formation. These are not theories in the normal sense because neither claim by its self shows how these reactions result. Mills has gone on to develop a theory while CF is still trying to develop one. > If you were to find excess heat with nickel/hydrogen in your own version of an electrolytic experiment and wish to be thorough, then YES definitely you should credit Mills' experiment, not his theory, regardless of whether or not a hydrino is found - this is because he first documented the anomaly. Period. Later you can tell the peer review panel why you think you got it right and he got it wrong. Perhaps for completeness this would be fair, but only if I were writing a history of the field. Normal papers are not history texts. > > > To do otherwise is not up to acceptable academic standards, IMHO, and if most CF researchers are as insular as Jed claims, then it will not serve them well in the event that a commercial product does come out of all this... Mills' important patents may be "just" WPO and not USPTO, but if litigated somewhere like the Hague, who do you think will win, the early-filer with the wrong theory or the guy who says "I didn't know" ? An interesting question, Jones, that I doubt will ever be answered. Ed > > > Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 16 15:07:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA07760; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:03:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:03:10 -0700 Message-ID: <004301c39430$491bb700$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8D929F.E6C3667A@ix.netcom.com> <00a701c39360$5dc2d920$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8E195C.5685EDE6@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:55:55 -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 PAA07693 Resent-Message-ID: <58UHGD.A.H5B.dWxj_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52177 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed. For whatever reason, you seem to be loosing your normally keen sense of logic and objectivity on this point. You state that Mills' work is not LENR but in the past you have acknowledged that it is not only relevant to LENR, it is the only available explanation for certain kinds of transmutations (either the Mills or Dufour explanation). You can't have it both ways. But I will keep this short, and use your own previously expressed sentiments - because I don't want to be cast in the position of defending a theory that I don't personally agree with in many details, by a scientist who has prematurely abandoned a promising field for reasons that are most definitely self-serving. I persist ONLY because some of Mills' ideas are elegant and point towards the correct theory, even if it is not yet there, as you have previously acknowledged. If you want to use the name of Dufour, instead of Mills, that is OK. It is the brilliance of the concept that is relevant to me, not the man behind it. Plus, a few things need to be clarified, on the off-chance that you will or have actually performed some similar experiment and find excess heat and transmutation in Nickel/light water, and also desire to get that experiment published in a major journal. I was partially wrong about the first experimental evidence for light water excess heat. > > > If I find that the better cathode works because hydrinos are formed, I would credit Mills. Otherwise I would not. Do you think this is unfair? > > Yes, it is clearly unfair if your work builds on his well-documented *experiment.* Notice that I said "experiment" and not "theory." Every academic standard for citations that I have ever seen clearly states something like this, from the IOP : > But suppose my work is not building on Mills work. Suppose I use nickel for reasons that have nothing to do with Mills. This is a clear example of what I mean when I say that you are taking this too personally and becoming illogical. The underlying reason for your using nickel/light water is unimportant. If you reproduce an experiment similar in nature to that Mills performed (actually it was Shaubach and Gernert first, using Mills ideas) and was documented in a respected journal and patent - even if you are operating on a totally different premise - and if you fail to disclose that Shaubach/ Gernert/ Mills did it first, then there is a good chance that one of the peer group referees (probably all, as they are all chosen because they are widely read) will have heard of Mills' work, and find that your failure to disclose Mills' work as prior art, is fatal to your submission. This is especially true of you, personally, because in the past you have written explanations like this recent one in the "Student's Guide": "Many people have observed that if the electron associated with hydrogen or deuterium could get sufficiently close to the nucleus, a virtual neutron or a dineutron would result. In this way, the electron might provide enough shielding for the proton or deuteron to enter a nucleus. Presumably, the electron would not have to actually create a real neutron, a process that requires energy and a neutrino. Mills[226] provides a theoretical basis for allowing the electron to closely approach the nucleus, with the formation of the so-called hydrino. Dufour [227] has made a similar suggestion. Both people have provided evidence for the shrunken hydrogen concept." Furthermore you state correctly: "All theories based on real neutrons must explain how the NAE releases the neutrons or causes their creation, and why so few neutrons escape from the active region, even though this region is too small to offer much absorption." Now we return to the Violante work where he finds Cu65. Fortunately, he is also looking for beta decay and finds nothing in excess of a few tens of keV. If a neutron were involved, or one or more deuterons, then there should be a beta decay of around a MeV which is not found and cannot be hidden, so we know that there is no acceptable one-step route to this isotope except by a proton absorption, but that is impossible due to coulomb interaction - unless what you have said above is true- that is, the proton is *shielded* by an electron that is well-below ground state. What could be more clear. Of course Mills' work is firmly within the boundaries of LENR but *only in the final stages of shrinkage,* after the hydrogen or deuterium has already given up most of its excess energy. You note that Mills doesn't find transmutation, but you know very well that this comment is disingenuous because Mills has never looked for transmutation, and you know why as well: because he wants his work to be evaluated independently of CF. That is a pity for him, but fortunately a few others have looked for nickel or palladium light water transmutation and found it, such as those mentioned in previous post and you probably saw this at ICCF-7: D.W. Mo, Q.S. Cai, L.M. Wang, S.Z. Wang, "The Evidence of Nuclear Transmutation Phenomenon in Pd-H System Using NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis)," ICCF-7, Vancouver, pp.259-263. When you say "Bush and many other people see heat, but the heat is found to have a different cause." How do you know what the cause is? Answer: you don't, all you know is they have a different theory to explain it. Long before Bush found excess heat using sodium electrolyte on nickel, Shaubach of Thermacore found it with both sodium and potassium, but massive heat with potassium compared to sodium, indicating the primary importance of the cathode - and the secondary but meaningful importance of the electrolyte - in an experiment stretching over a year, and guess what - he credited Mills lavishly, and its very easy to see why. The electrolyte does not necessarily have to be the critical issue for this reaction (it may help) but the crux of the Shaubach experiment is simple: 1) a nickel cathode 2) a titanium anode 3) light water electrolysis Shaubach showed this first. Look at Thermacore patent 5,273,635 filed in mid 1992. The big concern is the electrodes, not the electrolytes but they can help enormously in a secondary role. Surprisingly the anode is also very important: the anode electrodes are constructed of titanium or platinum coated titanium, while the cathode electrodes are constructed of nickel, sintered nickel, or polished sintered nickel. Again this is not just an experiment - it is a US patent by an ultra-high technology company. It's present commercial status, after Thermacore got gobbled up in an acquisition and the two inventors retired - is not clear. Probably signed over to the Dept of Energy under Bush, Sr for "other consideration" ;-) BTW, how do you know what actually "causes" the heat in your own work, where you find He4 commensurate with this heat? Answer: you don't, all you know is you have a different theory to explain it. All of the heat in you own experiment could easily come from *deuterium shrinkage* and the final end product, the He4 could be a result of some of the shrunken deuterons combining endothermically because they have already given up a huge equivalent mass in the form of charge-density in order to shrink that far (n>120). There is clearly no 23 MeV signature as there should be, and, believe me Ed, before you resort to "Chubb phonons" let me say that any serious scientist with a nuclear physics background who takes that phonon/disappearing-deuterium crap seriously is likely to loose tenure or job - it is too lame to even mention if you want to get published in a name journal. If Mills' hydrino is out in left field, then Chubb's phonons are at the bottom of the oceans on Titan... so please, IMHO if you want to both abandon Mills and get your (secret ) nickel/light water experiment published in a name journal, stick with Shaubach and Dufour and improve upon patent number 5,273,635, or at least find some Cu65 in the cathode... and most of all, forget Chubb's rabbit-trick-phonon. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 16 19:08:04 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA08299; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:02:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:02:44 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8F413E.57A1BB88@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:28:22 -0600 From: Edmund Storms X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8D929F.E6C3667A@ix.netcom.com> <00a701c39360$5dc2d920$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8E195C.5685EDE6@ix.netcom.com> <004301c39430$491bb700$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4CD89380382AF5554B9C6A83" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52178 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --------------4CD89380382AF5554B9C6A83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jones Beene wrote: > Ed. > > For whatever reason, you seem to be loosing your normally keen sense of logic and objectivity on this point. You state that Mills' work is not LENR but in the past you have acknowledged that it is not only relevant to LENR, it is the only available explanation for certain kinds of transmutations (either the Mills or Dufour explanation). You can't have it both ways. Once again Jones, we seem not to be communicating. I have not "acknowledged that it is not only relevant to LENR, it is the only available explanation for certain kinds of transmutations (either the Mills or Dufour explanation). " I HAVE said that hydrinos are one possible explanation for one aspect of the LENR process. However, this application of hydrinos to LENR has not been demonstrated. Until it is demonstrated, the explanation is only hypothetical. In other words, I'm only open minded about the possibility that the Mills work can be related to LENR. I'm not proposing that it is related. > > > But I will keep this short, and use your own previously expressed sentiments - because I don't want to be cast in the position of defending a theory that I don't personally agree with in many details, by a scientist who has prematurely abandoned a promising field for reasons that are most definitely self-serving. Now, that is a judgment that is totally unwarranted and a bit insulting. As I have clearly stated, I'm open-minded about the possibility that the hydrino may play a role in LENR. However, it is only one of many explanations, most of which fail in many important ways. > > > I persist ONLY because some of Mills' ideas are elegant and point towards the correct theory, even if it is not yet there, as you have previously acknowledged. If you want to use the name of Dufour, instead of Mills, that is OK. It is the brilliance of the concept that is relevant to me, not the man behind it. > > Plus, a few things need to be clarified, on the off-chance that you will or have actually performed some similar experiment and find excess heat and transmutation in Nickel/light water, and also desire to get that experiment published in a major journal. I was partially wrong about the first experimental evidence for light water excess heat. > > > > > If I find that the better cathode works because hydrinos are formed, I would credit Mills. Otherwise I would not. Do you think this is unfair? > > > > Yes, it is clearly unfair if your work builds on his well-documented *experiment.* Notice that I said "experiment" and not "theory." Every academic standard for citations that I have ever seen clearly states something like this, from the IOP : > > > But suppose my work is not building on Mills work. Suppose I use nickel for reasons that have nothing to do with Mills. > > This is a clear example of what I mean when I say that you are taking this too personally and becoming illogical. The underlying reason for your using nickel/light water is unimportant. If you reproduce an experiment similar in nature to that Mills performed (actually it was Shaubach and Gernert first, using Mills ideas) and was documented in a respected journal and patent - even if you are operating on a totally different premise - and if you fail to disclose that Shaubach/ Gernert/ Mills did it first, then there is a good chance that one of the peer group referees (probably all, as they are all chosen because they are widely read) will have heard of Mills' work, and find that your failure to disclose Mills' work as prior art, is fatal to your submission. > > This is especially true of you, personally, because in the past you have written explanations like this recent one in the "Student's Guide": > "Many people have observed that if the electron associated with hydrogen or deuterium could get sufficiently close to the nucleus, a virtual neutron or a dineutron would result. In this way, the electron might provide enough shielding for the proton or deuteron to enter a nucleus. Presumably, the electron would not have to actually create a real neutron, a process that requires energy and a neutrino. Mills[226] provides a theoretical basis for allowing the electron to closely approach the nucleus, with the formation of the so-called hydrino. Dufour [227] has made a similar suggestion. Both people have provided evidence for the shrunken hydrogen concept." > > Furthermore you state correctly: > > "All theories based on real neutrons must explain how the NAE releases the neutrons or causes their creation, and why so few neutrons escape from the active region, even though this region is too small to offer much absorption." > > Now we return to the Violante work where he finds Cu65. Fortunately, he is also looking for beta decay and finds nothing in excess of a few tens of keV. If a neutron were involved, or one or more deuterons, then there should be a beta decay of around a MeV which is not found and cannot be hidden, so we know that there is no acceptable one-step route to this isotope except by a proton absorption, but that is impossible due to coulomb interaction - unless what you have said above is true- that is, the proton is *shielded* by an electron that is well-below ground state. At least six separate processes have been proposed to explain how the Coulomb barrier is overcome without involving hydrino formation. These are particle-wave conversion, formation of a coherent electron structure, abnormal tunneling, formation of deuteron clusters, involvement of phonons, and presence of stabilized neutron clusters. None of these "theories" have more or less experimental support than does the role of hydrinos. Until experimental support is forthcoming, it is unwise to focus too strongly on any of these "theories". As you note below, some people, yourself included, have strong feelings about which "theories" have any reality. As a result, it is impossible to debate individual theories. Only their existence can be acknowledged. > > > What could be more clear. Of course Mills' work is firmly within the boundaries of LENR but *only in the final stages of shrinkage,* after the hydrogen or deuterium has already given up most of its excess energy. You note that Mills doesn't find transmutation, but you know very well that this comment is disingenuous because Mills has never looked for transmutation, and you know why as well: because he wants his work to be evaluated independently of CF. So far, the experimental work is not consistent with hydrinos being involved. You may be correct in believing that future studies will change this situation. Until then, Mills is one of many explanations who will be acknowledged, as I have done, but not given credit for something that is not yet proven. > > > That is a pity for him, but fortunately a few others have looked for nickel or palladium light water transmutation and found it, such as those mentioned in previous post and you probably saw this at ICCF-7: D.W. Mo, Q.S. Cai, L.M. Wang, S.Z. Wang, "The Evidence of Nuclear Transmutation Phenomenon in Pd-H System Using NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis)," ICCF-7, Vancouver, pp.259-263. > > When you say "Bush and many other people see heat, but the heat is found to have a different cause." How do you know what the cause is? Answer: you don't, all you know is they have a different theory to explain it. Bush and others have detected evidence for transmutation products, as you note. This is not theory but experimental fact. Of course, people assume that all of the observed heat is caused by formation of the transmutation products. I admit that some of the heat could be caused by hydrino formation. However, until more data are available, this also is only an assumption. > > > Long before Bush found excess heat using sodium electrolyte on nickel, Shaubach of Thermacore found it with both sodium and potassium, but massive heat with potassium compared to sodium, indicating the primary importance of the cathode - and the secondary but meaningful importance of the electrolyte - in an experiment stretching over a year, and guess what - he credited Mills lavishly, and its very easy to see why. The electrolyte does not necessarily have to be the critical issue for this reaction (it may help) but the crux of the Shaubach experiment is simple: > 1) a nickel cathode > 2) a titanium anode > 3) light water electrolysis > > Shaubach showed this first. Look at Thermacore patent 5,273,635 filed in mid 1992. The big concern is the electrodes, not the electrolytes but they can help enormously in a secondary role. Surprisingly the anode is also very important: the anode electrodes are constructed of titanium or platinum coated titanium, while the cathode electrodes are constructed of nickel, sintered nickel, or polished sintered nickel. Again this is not just an experiment - it is a US patent by an ultra-high technology company. It's present commercial status, after Thermacore got gobbled up in an acquisition and the two inventors retired - is not clear. Probably signed over to the Dept of Energy under Bush, Sr for "other consideration" ;-) > > BTW, how do you know what actually "causes" the heat in your own work, where you find He4 commensurate with this heat? Answer: you don't, all you know is you have a different theory to explain it. All of the heat in you own experiment could easily come from *deuterium shrinkage* and the final end product, the He4 could be a result of some of the shrunken deuterons combining endothermically because they have already given up a huge equivalent mass in the form of charge-density in order to shrink that far (n>120). What you say is true. However, my assumption is no less an assumption than yours. However, Miles, McKubre and others show that when He and heat were both measured, energy release is consistent with a fusion reaction, not hydrino formation. I admit it is still an open question whether hydrinos play a role in initiating the fusion reaction. > > > There is clearly no 23 MeV signature as there should be, and, believe me Ed, before you resort to "Chubb phonons" let me say that any serious scientist with a nuclear physics background who takes that phonon/disappearing-deuterium crap seriously is likely to loose tenure or job - it is too lame to even mention if you want to get published in a name journal. If Mills' hydrino is out in left field, then Chubb's phonons are at the bottom of the oceans on Titan... so please, IMHO if you want to both abandon Mills and get your (secret ) nickel/light water experiment published in a name journal, stick with Shaubach and Dufour and improve upon patent number 5,273,635, or at least find some Cu65 in the cathode... and most of all, forget Chubb's rabbit-trick-phonon. Thanks for the advice, Jones. Fortunately, I'm studying the Pd-D2O system. Ed > > > Jones --------------4CD89380382AF5554B9C6A83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

Jones Beene wrote:

Ed.

For whatever reason, you seem to be loosing your normally keen sense of logic and objectivity on this point. You state that Mills' work is not LENR but in the past you have acknowledged that it is not only relevant to LENR, it is the only available explanation for certain kinds of transmutations (either the Mills or Dufour explanation). You can't have it both ways.

Once again Jones, we seem not to be communicating.  I have not "acknowledged that it is not only relevant to LENR, it is the only available explanation for certain kinds of transmutations (either the Mills or Dufour explanation). "  I HAVE said that hydrinos are one possible explanation for one aspect of the LENR process.  However, this application of hydrinos to LENR has not been demonstrated.  Until it is demonstrated, the explanation is only hypothetical.  In other words, I'm only open minded about the possibility that the Mills work can be related to LENR.  I'm not proposing that it is related.
 

But I will keep this short, and use your own previously expressed sentiments - because I don't want to be cast in the position of defending a theory that I don't personally agree with in many details, by a scientist who has prematurely abandoned a promising field for reasons that are most definitely self-serving.

Now, that is a judgment that is totally unwarranted and a bit insulting.  As I have clearly stated, I'm open-minded about the possibility that the hydrino may play a role in LENR.  However, it is only one of many explanations, most of which fail in many important ways.
 

I persist ONLY because some of Mills' ideas are elegant and point towards the correct theory, even if it is not yet there, as you have previously acknowledged. If you want to use the name of Dufour, instead of Mills, that is OK. It is the brilliance of the concept that is relevant to me, not the man behind it.

Plus, a few things need to be clarified, on the off-chance that you will or have actually performed some similar experiment and find excess heat and transmutation in Nickel/light water, and also desire to get that experiment published in a major journal. I was partially wrong about the first experimental evidence for light water excess heat.

> > > If I find that the better cathode works because hydrinos are formed, I would credit Mills.  Otherwise I would not.  Do you think this is unfair?

> > Yes, it is clearly unfair if your work builds on his well-documented *experiment.* Notice that I said "experiment" and not "theory."  Every academic standard for citations that I have ever seen clearly states something like this, from the IOP :

> But suppose my work is not building on Mills work.  Suppose I use nickel for reasons that have nothing to do with Mills.

This is a clear example of what I mean when I say that you are taking this too personally and becoming illogical. The underlying reason for your using nickel/light water is unimportant. If you reproduce an experiment similar in nature to that Mills performed (actually it was Shaubach and Gernert first, using Mills ideas) and was documented in a respected journal and patent - even if you are operating on a totally different premise - and if you fail to disclose that Shaubach/ Gernert/ Mills did it first, then there is a good chance that one of the peer group referees (probably all, as they are all chosen because they are widely read) will have heard of Mills' work, and find that your failure to disclose Mills' work as prior art, is fatal to your submission.

This is especially true of you, personally, because in the past you have written explanations like this recent one in the "Student's Guide":
"Many people have observed that if the electron associated with hydrogen or deuterium could get sufficiently close to the nucleus, a virtual neutron or a dineutron would result. In this way, the electron might provide enough shielding for the proton or deuteron to enter a nucleus. Presumably, the electron would not have to actually create a real neutron, a process that requires energy and a neutrino. Mills[226] provides a theoretical basis for allowing the electron to closely approach the nucleus, with the formation of the so-called hydrino. Dufour [227] has made a similar suggestion. Both people have provided evidence for the shrunken hydrogen concept."

Furthermore you state correctly:

"All theories based on real neutrons must explain how the NAE releases the neutrons or causes their creation, and why so few neutrons escape from the active region, even though this region is too small to offer much absorption."

Now we return to the Violante work where he finds Cu65.  Fortunately, he is also looking for beta decay and finds nothing in excess of a few tens of keV. If a neutron were involved, or one or more deuterons, then there should be a beta decay of around a MeV which is not found and cannot be hidden, so we know that there is no acceptable one-step route to this isotope except by a proton absorption, but that is impossible due to coulomb interaction - unless what you have said above is true- that is, the proton is *shielded* by an electron that is well-below ground state.

At least six separate processes have been proposed to explain how the Coulomb  barrier is overcome without involving hydrino formation.  These are particle-wave conversion, formation of a coherent electron structure, abnormal tunneling, formation of deuteron clusters, involvement of phonons, and presence of stabilized neutron clusters.  None of these "theories" have more or less experimental support than does the role of hydrinos.  Until experimental support is forthcoming, it is unwise to focus too strongly on any of these "theories".  As you note below, some people, yourself included, have strong feelings about which "theories" have any reality.  As a result, it is impossible to debate individual theories. Only their existence can be acknowledged.
 

What could be more clear. Of course Mills' work is firmly within the boundaries of LENR but *only in the final stages of shrinkage,* after the hydrogen or deuterium has already given up most of its excess energy. You note that Mills doesn't find transmutation, but you know very well that this comment is disingenuous because Mills has never looked for transmutation, and you know why as well: because he wants his work to be evaluated independently of CF.

So far, the experimental work is not consistent with hydrinos being involved.  You may be correct in believing that future studies will change this situation.  Until then, Mills is one of many explanations who will be acknowledged, as I have done, but not given credit for something that is not yet proven.
 

That is a pity for him, but fortunately a few others have looked for nickel or palladium light water transmutation and found it, such as those mentioned in previous post and you probably saw this at ICCF-7: D.W. Mo, Q.S. Cai, L.M. Wang, S.Z. Wang, "The Evidence of Nuclear Transmutation Phenomenon in Pd-H System Using NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis)," ICCF-7, Vancouver, pp.259-263.

When you say "Bush and many other people see heat, but the heat is found to have a different cause." How do you know what the cause is? Answer: you don't, all you know is they have a different theory to explain it.

Bush and others have detected evidence for transmutation products, as you note.  This is not theory but experimental fact.  Of course, people assume that all of the observed heat is caused by formation of the transmutation products.  I admit that some of the heat could be caused by hydrino formation.  However, until more data are available, this also is only an assumption.
 

Long before Bush found excess heat using sodium electrolyte on nickel, Shaubach of Thermacore found it with both sodium and potassium, but massive heat with potassium compared to sodium, indicating the primary importance of the cathode - and the secondary but meaningful importance of the electrolyte - in an experiment stretching over a year, and guess what - he credited Mills lavishly, and its very easy to see why. The electrolyte does not necessarily have to be the critical issue for this reaction (it may help) but the crux of the Shaubach experiment is simple:
1) a nickel cathode
2) a titanium anode
3) light water electrolysis

Shaubach showed this first. Look at Thermacore patent 5,273,635 filed in mid 1992. The big concern is the electrodes, not the electrolytes but they can help enormously in a secondary role. Surprisingly the anode is also very important: the anode electrodes are constructed of titanium or platinum coated titanium, while the cathode electrodes are constructed of nickel, sintered nickel,  or polished sintered nickel. Again this is not just an experiment  - it is a US patent by an ultra-high technology company. It's present commercial status, after Thermacore got gobbled up in an acquisition and the two inventors retired - is not clear. Probably signed over to the Dept of Energy under Bush, Sr for "other consideration" ;-)

BTW, how do you know what actually "causes" the heat in your own work, where you find He4 commensurate with this heat? Answer: you don't, all you know is you have a different theory to explain it.   All of the heat in you own experiment could easily come from *deuterium shrinkage* and the final end product, the He4 could be a result of some of the shrunken deuterons combining endothermically because they have already given up a huge equivalent mass in the form of charge-density in order to shrink that far (n>120).

What you say is true.  However, my assumption is no less an assumption than yours.  However, Miles, McKubre and others show that when He and heat were both measured, energy release is consistent with a fusion reaction, not hydrino formation.  I admit it is still an open question whether hydrinos play a role in initiating the fusion reaction.
 

There is clearly no 23 MeV signature as there should be, and, believe me Ed, before you resort to "Chubb phonons" let me say that any serious scientist with a nuclear physics background who takes that phonon/disappearing-deuterium crap seriously is likely to loose tenure or job - it is too lame to even mention if you want to get published in a name journal. If Mills' hydrino is out in left field, then Chubb's phonons are at the bottom of the oceans on Titan... so please, IMHO if you want to both abandon Mills and get your (secret <grin>) nickel/light water experiment published in a name journal, stick with Shaubach and Dufour and improve upon patent number 5,273,635, or at least find some Cu65 in the cathode... and most of all, forget Chubb's rabbit-trick-phonon.

Thanks for the advice, Jones.  Fortunately, I'm studying the Pd-D2O system.

Ed

 

Jones

--------------4CD89380382AF5554B9C6A83-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 16 19:18:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA28804; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:16:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:16:49 -0700 Message-ID: <004201c39454$998c7a70$7d7accd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8D929F.E6C3667A@ix.netcom.com> <00a701c39360$5dc2d920$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8E195C.5685EDE6@ix.netcom.com> <004301c39430$491bb700$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:15:34 -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 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52179 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones wrote to Ed Storms about deutrinos as participants in CF reactions and had many interesting things to say. What he did not say is that while a deutrino is shrunken in size, and the electrons shield the proton, it is not obvious that the 'sizes' achieved by aqueous BLP reactions is much below D(1/4) in a first stage. Further reductions are possible by interactions between hydrinos to deutrinos, but these become increasingly improbable. Liquid is, of course, much more dense that the sub-Torr pressures Mills uses for gas phase research. It is also consistent with Mills' theory that the energy yield per atom increases steeply each further contraction. Still, while an interesting and provocative hypotheses, it is not clear that deutrinos sufficiently small to effect nuclear reactions have ever been produced by Mills or anyone else. Jones does highlight an interesting thread of investigation, but there is precious little to base conclusions on. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 16 19:23:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA03274; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:21:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:21:30 -0700 Message-ID: <000a01c39454$5d858120$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031014110327.01cbce20@pop.mindspring.com> <003501c3926e$425db080$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8C67CA.D84E78C1@ix.netcom.com> <007e01c392ac$e6c97b20$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8CB48D.AB9FC667@ix.netcom.com> <002301c39327$a00b2b40$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8D929F.E6C3667A@ix.netcom.com> <00a701c39360$5dc2d920$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8E195C.5685EDE6@ix.netcom.com> <004301c39430$491bb700$8837fea9@cpq> <3F8F413E.57A1BB88@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:14:13 -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 TAA03057 Resent-Message-ID: <0mZLbD.A.8y.pI1j_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52180 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ed, There appears to be a miscommunication on my part... > Now, that is a judgment that is totally unwarranted and a bit insulting. My reference was to Mills, not to you... Please forgive my not making that reference clearer. I have nothing but the highest regards for you experimental work, attention to detail, and you ability to get a grasp on all of the issues. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 07:45:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA03208; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:41:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:41:39 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017103748.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:41:37 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <-is0g.A.By.j-_j_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52181 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I think Jones has a good point. As far as I know, Mills was the first to report heat from Ni + H2O, and he deserves credit for that. Violante should have footnoted Mills. I wish that more people would investigate Ni + H2O. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 07:47:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA04685; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:43:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:43:49 -0700 Message-ID: <410-2200310517144349703@mindspring.com> X-Priority: 3 Reply-To: jedrothwell@mindspring.com X-Mailer: EarthLink MailBox 2004.0.129.0 (Windows) From: "Jed Rothwell" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: No comments on Violante paper? Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:43:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-ELNK-Trace: 25e7688170aa9857b054f8d56408d260416dc04816f3191cd38cd8c5695d0bf23cd2c005fc4c9051a2d4e88014a4647c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52182 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I think Jones has a good point. As far as I know, Mills was the first to report heat from Ni + H2O, and he deserves credit for that. Violante should have footnoted Mills. I wish that more people would investigate Ni + H2O. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 08:41:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA23877; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:36:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:36:47 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017112319.01c0f330@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:36:41 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Oil crisis 30th anniversary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52183 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Today is the 30th anniversary of the first large post-WWII oil crisis, which was engineered by OPEC. Here are some interesting newspaper articles about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38771-2003Oct16.html Quotes: . . . One of the less obvious but lasting lessons is that markets work, even in circumstances as dramatic as these were. Supply and demand adjusted. The United States and other industrial countries have since become much more efficient in the use of oil. Today -- SUVs notwithstanding -- the United States uses only half as much oil per unit of GDP as it did in the 1970s. New, non-OPEC sources of oil, led by Alaska and the North Sea, came on stream quickly. And the world switched from oil to other energy sources. . . . In November 1973, a few weeks after the embargo went into effect, President Nixon announced Project Independence to make the United States self-reliant in energy. Thirty years of rhetoric later, we are no closer to that goal -- indeed, we're farther away. At the time of the embargo, the United States was importing a third of its oil; today it's almost 60 percent. We will continue to hear much about energy independence, but the real challenge is how to manage our dependence through diversification, efficiency, technological advances and the stability of relations with a wide range of suppliers. These two paragraphs contradict one another, in my opinion. If "markets work," why is the U.S. now importing 60% instead of 30%? I think the Iraq wars have been about oil, but even if they were not, there is no chance the U.S. would be embroiled in the Middle East were it not for oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/opinion/17AJAM.html (Requires registration) The Poisoned Well Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University Quotes: . . . In the "Thousand and One Nights," the recurring theme is of the beggar becoming king and the king a beggar. So it was when OPEC imposed its embargo. It was an attempt to turn the stuff of fantasy into reality, to make the largest transfer of wealth in the annals of nations. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was among those who realized this. "Never before in history," he wrote in his memoirs, "has a group of such relatively weak nations been able to impose with so little protest such a dramatic change in the way of life of the overwhelming majority of the rest of mankind." . . . The wealth worked its way into these societies with astounding velocity. A world that had been whole, where people had little but shared more, was bulldozed. The social balance was ruptured. . . . From the distance of three decades, we can see oil's curse -- and its ambiguous gift. It wasn't just Iran that was undone by sudden wealth. On the shores of the Mediterranean, Algeria succumbed to barbarous slaughter . . . In Iraq, the ruin had a different story line: here oil was tethered to state terrorism, and a displaced peasant thug from the town of Tikrit, fired up by the dreams of money and oil, set out to wreck his country and to plunge the world into endless discord. We are still in the grip of that historical moment. That wayward son of Arabia, Osama bin Laden, is a child of the oil revolution. He came of age amid the new wealth; it was petromoney that he took to the impoverished mountainous land of Afghanistan. And it was petromoney that brought about the demographic explosion that has swamped and unsettled Arabia. Thirty years ago, less than 7 million people lived in Saudi Arabia; today the estimate is about 17 million. For every member of the lucky generation that came into its own in the years of plenty, there are several more younger claimants now choking on failure and disappointment. . . . Men and women are not given the gift of foresight. If they were, would the crowds that thrilled to what October 1973 represented have been so triumphant, knowing the heartbreak and ruin that lay in store for them, and for us all? - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 09:59:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA16490; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:55:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:55:39 -0700 Message-ID: <013901c394ce$152ab4c0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Transmutation Cu-65 and Ag-110 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:45:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0134_01C39493.64EF17C0" 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52184 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_0134_01C39493.64EF17C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The subject of *transmutation* in CF electrodes is extremely = interesting. I believe that Mizuno and others have stated that NOT looking for = transmutation sooner was the biggest single error in the early history = of CF research. Perhaps Jed remembers the exact quote (as I suspect it = is his translation).=20 If P&F had been able to show transmutation and weird isotopic shifts = from day one, I doubt seriously that CF would still be labeled (by a few = irresponsible journalists) as "pathological" - in fact, the field might = by now have taken over a big portion of the hot fusion budget, and we = might already have CF hot water heaters in our homes: that is, had we = possessed this data earlier. Physicists can slough-off other kinds of = data like calorimetry but they are *extremely* impressed with solid = transmutation data: it is their bread-and-butter. About 6 months ago there was a thread on vortex about Wolf's = transmutation findings - and a number of others besides Wolf have found = Ag-110 silver in CF cathodes. His work fits in nicely with this work by = Violante. BTW, I am ignoring convention in these postings by = occasionally placing the isotope number after instead of before the = element for ease of reading. The likely "active" material for cold fusion reactions, at least where = Ag-110 is found can be pinpointed specifically as Palladium-110, a = stable isotope that is 11.7 % of natural and is unique in many respects, = not the least of which is its large mass increase over the next lower-Z = stable element in the periodic table, which is 102 Rhodium.=20 Although Pd-110 is stable in normal circumstances, let us suppose that = the occasional presence of a proton or deuteron, accelerated by EM = forces into the k-shell, is then able to disrupt the coulomb charge = balance and stimulate the overloaded Pd-110 nucleus to beta decay to = Ag-110 - which is exactly an isotope that Wolf found. This k-shell = interaction would logically have a higher cross-section, more like a = zillion-fold higher probability than actual QM tunneling into the = nucleus. And we can be pretty sure that Wolf did find Ag-110. The situation with Violante and Nickel could be a little different in = the nuclear mechanics, (or maybe not, but the really coincidental fact = about these two cathode materials goes beyond both of them being found = together in Column 10 of the Periodic Table (along with platinum). There is another even more important factoid that may point to why they = are active for excess heat in LENR reactions, and that is that they are = *abnormally heavy* isotopes, comparatively, and that must therefore = translate into a lot of internal stress, even though they are = technically stable. The most common isotope of nickel is Ni-58, which is over two thirds of = all nickel but Ni-64 which is the most likely predecessor isotope in the = Violante study is over 10% heavier. That is truly extraordinary. This jump in Palladium is impressive but that is being measured over the = next lower element - the Nickel percentage is over other nickel. But = this jump in nuclear mass of 110 Pd is still extreme among heavier = hydrogen-absorbing elements. And guess what, one of the few similarly = large increases (actually larger percentage-wise) is found in = Titanium-50 (over 45-Scandium). Doesn't this line of inquiry seem to be pointing to something special? In case you haven't guessed, let me spell it out. Among heavier = hydrogen-absorbing isotopes, those with an abnormally high nuclear mass = relative to neighboring elements seem to all have been implicated in = LENR reactions as electrode materials! Palladium Titanium Nickel - the = three musketeers of CF. Coincidental? Mention was made last November of the Cold Fusion patent by Arie de Geus = and his contention that the properties of certain catalytic *light* = isotopes like lithium and boron, those which carry an abnormal excess of = neutrons, [as defined in his book and in the patent] function as = "nucleonic catalysts" in the presence of protons or deuterons. This is a = new concept - as catalysts typically only function through electrons in = the outer shell of atoms. But he apparently failed to go far enough. IF he is correct...AND IF hydrogen "shrinkage below ground state" is = also instrumental in creating a higher probability i.e. a higher = "cross-section" for either D+D fusion, or deuterium tunneling into Pd, = and especially even this speculative new kind of accelerated decay = brought on by proximity of a hydrogen nucleus inside the Pd, Ti, Ni = k-shell... then it behooves us mightily to look for other metal isotopes = in this category (high relative mass) and then test them for a CF = electrolysis effect (testing especially for transmutation). The big problem with finding a material better than Pd is that Ti-50 is = unfortunately only 5% of natural titanium, and Ni-65 is only 1% of = natural. If either isotope were a higher percentage, or if experimenters = had ready access to an enriched form of either isotope, especially 50Ti, = then CF research would possibly be focusing on titanium rather then = palladium... I wish someone would try to find an enriched source. But there is another prospect for the ideal CF cathode that I have never = seen mentioned as a candidate matrix : Cadmium, specifically 116 Cd. = Unlike Ti and Ni, this isotope might possibly, just possibly, be = available now in enough quantity to use in a CF cell - but probably only = to a researcher who had access to one of the national labs. Isotopes of = Cadmium are such excellent neutron absorbers, that I suspect that = someone, somewhere...ORNL or LLNL must have gone to the effort to = fractionalize cadmium into its various isotopes for that purpose. Even = as we speak, a usable supply of cadmium-110 is probably "gathering dust" = on someone's lab shelf, it the truth be known. Finally, let me add that should anyone want to aggressively check out De = Geus' claims, he says that numerous laboratory runs have been made (more = than 1,000 hours), during which fractional hydrogen and excess energy = were being produced.... The technology has supposedly even been = certified by a respected (?) laboratory: Applied Technical Services = Inc., 1280 Field Parkway, Marietta, Ga., 30066, USA. The report number = is M14343 and is dated March 01, 2001". I sent a letter to them months = ago and got no response. Maybe the report was "too hot to handle" and = caused one of those "friction fires"... you know, the kind that are = usually started when the mortgage rubs against the insurance policy... Jones ------=_NextPart_000_0134_01C39493.64EF17C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The subject of *transmutation* in CF electrodes is extremely=20 interesting.
 
I believe that Mizuno and others have stated that NOT looking for=20 transmutation sooner was the biggest single error in the early history = of CF=20 research. Perhaps Jed remembers the exact quote (as I suspect it is his=20 translation).
 
If P&F had been able to show transmutation and weird = isotopic=20 shifts from day one, I doubt seriously that CF would still be = labeled (by a=20 few irresponsible journalists) as "pathological" - in fact, the=20 field might by now have taken over a big portion of the hot fusion = budget,=20 and we might already have CF hot water heaters in our homes: that = is, had=20 we possessed this data earlier. Physicists can slough-off other kinds of = data=20 like calorimetry but they are *extremely* impressed with solid = transmutation=20 data: it is their bread-and-butter.
 
About 6 months ago there was a thread on vortex about Wolf's = transmutation=20 findings - and a number of others besides Wolf have found Ag-110 = silver in=20 CF cathodes. His work fits in nicely with this work by Violante. BTW, I = am=20 ignoring convention in these postings by occasionally placing the = isotope number=20 after instead of before the element for ease of reading.
 
The likely "active" material for cold fusion reactions, at = least where=20 Ag-110 is found can be pinpointed specifically as Palladium-110, a = stable=20 isotope that is 11.7 % of natural and is unique in many respects, not = the least=20 of which is its large mass increase over the next lower-Z stable element = in the=20 periodic table, which is 102 Rhodium.
 
Although Pd-110 is stable in normal circumstances, let us = suppose that=20 the occasional presence of a proton or deuteron, accelerated by EM = forces=20 into the k-shell, is then able to disrupt the coulomb charge = balance and=20 stimulate the overloaded Pd-110 nucleus to beta decay to Ag-110 - which = is=20 exactly an isotope that Wolf found. This k-shell interaction would = logically=20 have a higher cross-section, more like a zillion-fold higher=20 probability than actual QM tunneling into the nucleus. And we can be = pretty sure=20 that Wolf did find Ag-110.
 
The situation with Violante and Nickel could be a little=20 different in the nuclear mechanics, (or maybe not, but the really = coincidental=20 fact about these two cathode materials goes beyond both of them being = found=20 together in Column 10 of the Periodic Table (along with platinum).
 
There is another even more important factoid that may point to why = they are=20 active for excess heat in LENR reactions, and that is that they are = *abnormally=20 heavy* isotopes, comparatively, and that must therefore translate = into a=20 lot of internal stress, even though they are technically stable.
 
The most common isotope of nickel is Ni-58, which is over two = thirds of all=20 nickel but Ni-64 which is the most likely predecessor isotope in the = Violante=20 study is over 10% heavier. That is truly extraordinary.
 
This jump in Palladium is impressive but that is being measured = over the=20 next lower element - the Nickel percentage is over other nickel. But = this jump=20 in nuclear mass of 110 Pd is still extreme among heavier = hydrogen-absorbing=20 elements. And guess what, one of the few similarly large increases=20 (actually larger percentage-wise) is found in Titanium-50 (over=20 45-Scandium).
 
Doesn't this line of inquiry seem to be pointing to something=20 special?
 
In case you haven't guessed, let me spell it out. Among heavier=20 hydrogen-absorbing isotopes, those with an abnormally high nuclear mass = relative=20 to neighboring elements seem to all have been implicated in LENR = reactions as=20 electrode materials! Palladium Titanium Nickel  - the three = musketeers of=20 CF.
 
Coincidental?
 
Mention was made last November of the Cold Fusion patent = by Arie=20 de Geus and his contention that the properties of certain catalytic = *light*=20 isotopes like lithium and boron, those which carry an abnormal = excess of=20  neutrons, [as defined in his book and in the patent]  = function as=20 "nucleonic catalysts" in the presence of protons or deuterons. This is a = new=20 concept - as catalysts typically only function through electrons in the = outer=20 shell of atoms. But he apparently failed to go far enough.
 
IF he is correct...AND IF hydrogen "shrinkage below = ground state"=20 is also  instrumental in creating a higher probability i.e. a = higher=20 "cross-section"  for either D+D fusion, or deuterium tunneling into = Pd, and=20 especially even this speculative new kind of accelerated decay = brought=20 on by proximity of a hydrogen nucleus inside the Pd, Ti, Ni=20   k-shell... then it behooves us mightily to look for other = metal=20 isotopes in this category (high relative mass) and then test them = for a CF=20 electrolysis effect (testing especially for transmutation).
 
The big problem with finding a material better than Pd is = that Ti-50=20 is unfortunately only 5% of natural titanium, and Ni-65 is only 1% of = natural.=20 If either isotope were a higher percentage, or if = experimenters had=20 ready access to an enriched form of either isotope, especially 50Ti, = then CF=20 research would possibly be focusing on titanium rather then palladium... = I wish=20 someone would try to find an enriched source.
 
But there is another prospect for the ideal CF cathode that I have = never=20 seen mentioned as a candidate matrix : Cadmium, specifically 116 Cd. = Unlike Ti=20 and Ni, this isotope might possibly, just possibly, be available now in = enough=20 quantity to use in a CF cell - but probably only to a researcher who had = access=20 to one of the national labs.  Isotopes of Cadmium are = such=20 excellent neutron absorbers, that I suspect that someone, = somewhere...ORNL or=20 LLNL must have gone to the effort to fractionalize cadmium into its = various=20 isotopes for that purpose. Even as we speak, a usable supply = of=20 cadmium-110 is probably "gathering dust" on someone's lab shelf, it the = truth be=20 known.
 
Finally, let me add that should anyone want to aggressively check = out De=20 Geus' claims, he says that numerous laboratory runs have been made = (more=20 than 1,000 hours), during which fractional hydrogen and excess  = energy were=20 being produced.... The technology has supposedly even been certified by = a=20 respected (?) laboratory:  Applied Technical Services Inc., 1280 = Field=20 Parkway, Marietta, Ga., 30066, USA. The report number is M14343 and is = dated=20 March 01, 2001". I sent a letter to them months ago and got no response. = Maybe=20 the report was "too hot to handle" and caused one of those "friction = fires"...=20 you know, the kind that are usually started when the mortgage rubs = against the=20 insurance policy...
 
Jones
------=_NextPart_000_0134_01C39493.64EF17C0-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 10:13:38 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA25804; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:03:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:03:52 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: Oil policy simulator Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:26:15 -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: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017112319.01c0f330@pop.mindspring.com> X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52185 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For those inclined to backseat driving, here's a nifty simulator for oil policy. http://broadcast.forio.com/pro/oil/index.htm I haven't checked the underlying code, so I leave to you the job of determining its merit. K. -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:JedRothwell@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 11:37 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Oil crisis 30th anniversary Today is the 30th anniversary of the first large post-WWII oil crisis, which was engineered by OPEC. Here are some interesting newspaper articles about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38771-2003Oct16.html Quotes: . . . One of the less obvious but lasting lessons is that markets work, even in circumstances as dramatic as these were. Supply and demand adjusted. The United States and other industrial countries have since become much more efficient in the use of oil. Today -- SUVs notwithstanding -- the United States uses only half as much oil per unit of GDP as it did in the 1970s. New, non-OPEC sources of oil, led by Alaska and the North Sea, came on stream quickly. And the world switched from oil to other energy sources. . . . In November 1973, a few weeks after the embargo went into effect, President Nixon announced Project Independence to make the United States self-reliant in energy. Thirty years of rhetoric later, we are no closer to that goal -- indeed, we're farther away. At the time of the embargo, the United States was importing a third of its oil; today it's almost 60 percent. We will continue to hear much about energy independence, but the real challenge is how to manage our dependence through diversification, efficiency, technological advances and the stability of relations with a wide range of suppliers. These two paragraphs contradict one another, in my opinion. If "markets work," why is the U.S. now importing 60% instead of 30%? I think the Iraq wars have been about oil, but even if they were not, there is no chance the U.S. would be embroiled in the Middle East were it not for oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/opinion/17AJAM.html (Requires registration) The Poisoned Well Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University Quotes: . . . In the "Thousand and One Nights," the recurring theme is of the beggar becoming king and the king a beggar. So it was when OPEC imposed its embargo. It was an attempt to turn the stuff of fantasy into reality, to make the largest transfer of wealth in the annals of nations. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was among those who realized this. "Never before in history," he wrote in his memoirs, "has a group of such relatively weak nations been able to impose with so little protest such a dramatic change in the way of life of the overwhelming majority of the rest of mankind." . . . The wealth worked its way into these societies with astounding velocity. A world that had been whole, where people had little but shared more, was bulldozed. The social balance was ruptured. . . . From the distance of three decades, we can see oil's curse -- and its ambiguous gift. It wasn't just Iran that was undone by sudden wealth. On the shores of the Mediterranean, Algeria succumbed to barbarous slaughter . . . In Iraq, the ruin had a different story line: here oil was tethered to state terrorism, and a displaced peasant thug from the town of Tikrit, fired up by the dreams of money and oil, set out to wreck his country and to plunge the world into endless discord. We are still in the grip of that historical moment. That wayward son of Arabia, Osama bin Laden, is a child of the oil revolution. He came of age amid the new wealth; it was petromoney that he took to the impoverished mountainous land of Afghanistan. And it was petromoney that brought about the demographic explosion that has swamped and unsettled Arabia. Thirty years ago, less than 7 million people lived in Saudi Arabia; today the estimate is about 17 million. For every member of the lucky generation that came into its own in the years of plenty, there are several more younger claimants now choking on failure and disappointment. . . . Men and women are not given the gift of foresight. If they were, would the crowds that thrilled to what October 1973 represented have been so triumphant, knowing the heartbreak and ruin that lay in store for them, and for us all? - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 11:11:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA19252; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:06:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:06:16 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017134318.00b036e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:06:10 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: Transmutation Cu-65 and Ag-110 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52186 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene is looking for single-isotope samples of material. If he keeps looking, the FBI may soon be looking for him, in this jolly Brave New World of Homeland Security. (The government is apparently confused about what constitutes a nuclear WMD R&D program.) He writes: ". . . If either isotope were a higher percentage, or if experimenters had ready access to an enriched form of either isotope, especially 50Ti, then CF research would possibly be focusing on titanium rather then palladium... I wish someone would try to find an enriched source." A company in Japan called Tanago Overseas - TASC used to supply single-isotope samples. I have a 1999 price list from Mizuno's lab. Unfortunately they list only Ti 46 through 49, not 50. Ti49 costs $2,600 per gram, I think. (It might be 2,600 yen, or $20, but I doubt it, because there is a decimal point and dash.) I just did a Google search in Japanese. The company does not seem to be in business any more, or the name changed. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 11:59:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA30441; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:54:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:54:24 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017144732.01cba270@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:54:23 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: It's official: cold fusion is "unpatentable" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52187 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I went to: http://www.osti.gov, and looked up "cold fusion." There are a few references to it. Here is an interesting quote from a 1997 document: Compact portable electric power sources http://www.osti.gov/dublincore/gpo/servlets/purl/663584-lVYo1E/webviewable/663584.pdf 3.9.7 Patterson Power Cell It is still uncertain whether the claims made by Clean Energy Technologies, Inc., (TM) are true that the Patterson cell (named for the inventor, J. A. Patterson), produces a heat output of 450-1300 W with an input of only 0.1-1.5 W. The Patterson cell is filled with microscopic plastic beads coated with a thin layer of palladium'sandwiched between two layers of nickel. The cell is filled with ordinary water. Hydrogen atoms released by electrolysis are soaked up by the palladium and/or nickel. It is inside the metal that some kind of energy releasing mechanism is claimed to take p1ace. The device is patented (unlike cold fusion, which is unpatentable) but is far from being understood or accepted by the scientific community. Therefore, it is unlikely that Patterson cells will be commercially available in the next 5 years. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 12:21:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA20077; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:18:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:18:09 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c394e4$035592e0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017112319.01c0f330@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Oil crisis 30th anniversary Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:22:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <1iZ-dD.A.a5E.wBEk_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52188 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > I think the Iraq > wars have been about oil, but even if they were not, there is no chance the > U.S. would be embroiled in the Middle East were it not for oil. > >> - Jed > There is no oil in Kosovo, but my son is stationed there with his national guard unit. Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 12:25:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA23427; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:22:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:22:20 -0700 Message-ID: <015901c394e2$e252c1e0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017134318.00b036e0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Transmutation Cu-65 and Ag-110 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:14:24 -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 MAA23354 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52189 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell writes, > If he keeps looking, the FBI may soon be looking for him, in this jolly Brave New World of Homeland Security. (The government is apparently confused about what constitutes a nuclear WMD R&D program.) Oops. Hope they haven't turned old Joubert loose yet. Are you saying that the FBI is interested in any small purchase of an isotope, or just an isotope which is on someone's list of prohibited items, like uranium? > A company in Japan called Tanago Overseas - TASC used to supply > single-isotope samples. I have a 1999 price list from Mizuno's lab. > Unfortunately they list only Ti 46 through 49, not 50. Ti49 costs $2,600 > per gram, I think. (It might be 2,600 yen, or $20, but I doubt it, because > there is a decimal point and dash.) $2600 sounds more like what on would expect to pay per gram, but remember this would only be necessary for very small experimental amounts in order to prove or disprove the premise that there is a direct relationship between relative nuclear "excess mass" and resultant transmutation during electrolysis using certain isotopes in columns 10,11, or 12 of the periodic table. If that proposition were proven, then the nuts-and-bolts work of trying to find the lowest-priced option would then begin. Let's say for the sake of argument that the premise of a direct relationship were correct, and that most of the excess energy in Pd/D electrodes is indeed due to some activity related to Pd-110. Even then, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it would pay to enrich the metal for use in mass production CF water heaters, for instance. When you figure the change in price which increased demand would bring by itself, even without enrichment, then almost certainly it would rule out Pd anyway for a mass consumerism item. But what a positive finding would do, is to give the researcher a huge shortcut in finding the cheapest overall alternative metal and degree of enrichment. For instance, there is almost as much titanium in the earth's crust as aluminum (but not much demand yet outside of aerospace) and/or... if Cd-116 performed as well or better than Pd-110 then that would be important because Cd is a relatively cheap by-product in refining other ores like copper. Plus, you wouldn't need anything like the pure isotope, because even now, if one can see an effect with a 1% isotope, in the case of Nickel perhaps, then raising that to 25% might be all that is needed for a huge jump in heat output - and many isotopes can be enriched significantly with simple chemical processing, in those situations where absolute purity is not required. If this premise panned out (and by no means should anyone get their hopes up, as the results of Wolf, Volante etc. may be just coincidental) then looking ahead, it would be easy to imagine an enriched cadmium, titanium or nickel electrode in a commercial electrolysis cell, in a mass production home heating unit that was priced competitively with the equivalent BTU heat pump, for instance, and a lot cheaper to operate. But if anything would bedevil the present oil-dominated world command structure, it is just such a prospect, so... as Jed advises, it is probably unwise for anyone to attempt to purchase these isotopes unless they go though a university, for instance. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 12:43:35 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA06078; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:38:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:38:51 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017153209.01cb9e78@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:38:45 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Transmutation Cu-65 and Ag-110 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52190 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > > If he keeps looking, the FBI may soon be looking for him . . . > > Oops. Hope they haven't turned old Joubert loose yet. Are you saying that the FBI is interested in any small purchase of an isotope, or just an isotope which is on someone's list of prohibited items, like uranium? I was just kidding! I doubt they have time for that. > When you figure the change in price which increased demand would > bring by itself, even without enrichment, then almost certainly it would > rule out Pd anyway for a mass consumerism item. I think Pd is ruled out no matter what, for the reasons I explained in an IE article. There is not enough of it no matter how efficient you make the reactors, unless a very thin thin film would suffice. > For instance, there is almost as much titanium in the earth's crust as > aluminum (but not much demand yet outside of aerospace) That is because the cost of extraction is still high. I read that new extraction techniques have recently been developed that may lower the cost. 180 years ago aluminum cost more than silver because it was so difficult to extract. Napoleon owned an aluminum serving spoon, as I recall. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 12:44:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA07428; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:40:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:40:25 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" Subject: Sodium vs Potassium : Mills and Bush Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:02:20 -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: <2oKeED.A.-zB.oWEk_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52191 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ahem. Rather than flap my gums over the hydrino, I thought I'd use this opportunity to bring up the rather intriguing issue of K vs Na as a catalysis for our "mystery heat". Noninski provides details (fusion technology vol21 Mar 1992) that purport to show a difference between Na and K, this is generally what was cited as evidence of the hydrino hypothesis of Mills at that time. Input power is shown in figure 3, although no voltage or current measurements are provided. >From this, its clear that equimolar solutions of K and Na have different resistances, and a very different discharge regime is being established with electrolysis in the Na cell. It is also not mentioned whether constant voltage or current is provided to the cells, I presume constant voltage based on the weird power consumption of the Na solution. It looks like what you would get if you had the voltage just a hair over the point where electrolysis occurs. The K cell has a very uniform power consumption, like what you would get if you were well past the point of initiation of electrolysis. >From figures 3 and 2 (temp of cell) he presumably arrives at figure 4, showing heating coefficient of the cells. Very impressive results here, but given that the discharge regime is totally different is it fair to compare the two???? I thought not at the time, and I find on rereading that I'm less convinced now. Turning to Bush (fusion technology, vol22 sept1992) we see a counter claim, that the Na cell produces MORE excess power than the K cell. Sadly, experimental details are lacking in this paper, if there is more elsewhere I'd appreciate a heads up ( otherwise it's back to the filing cabinets ). The issue of discharge regime and resistivity are unaddressed. Considering the importance of this experiment, you'd think it would be addressed in a more complete manner. Has Ed Storms taken a pass at this??? Also, the question of Ni/H20 priority has come up. I note in WO9010935 that a specific claim of production of excess heat in this system is made, priority date being march 13 1989. I'm pretty sure this precedes Mill's, for what it's worth. I have a lot of respect for Randy Mills, but I wonder if the hydrino hypothesis will in the end prevent him from capitalizing on some remarkable experimental observations. K. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 12:57:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA22649; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:54:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:54:46 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017153923.01cc3ff0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:54:43 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Oil crisis 30th anniversary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52192 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jeff Fink writes: > I think the Iraq > > wars have been about oil, but even if they were not, there is no chance > the > > U.S. would be embroiled in the Middle East were it not for oil. > > > There is no oil in Kosovo, but my son is stationed there with his > National Guard unit. Kosovo is not in the Middle East, and I did not mean that all of the wars of the last 20 years have been fought over oil. Only the ones with Iraq. One could argue that the fighting in Kosovo was distantly related to the unrest in the Islam, which has been partly triggered by the oil boom, but I gather the Moslems in the Balkans were peaceful victims of war, not the instigators. The point of the second article was that mineral wealth, by itself, without democracy and education, usually brings more poverty and misery than long-term wealth. Cold fusion would be a gift to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, although they would not see it that way! Not at first, anyway. A century from now perhaps they will see that it liberated them, the way the boll weevil liberated the US south from the cotton growing economy. The town of Enterprise, Alabama erected a statue giving thanks to the insect. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 13:32:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA28058; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:28:03 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:28:03 -0700 Message-ID: <018201c394ec$26f3a400$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: , "Vortex" References: Subject: Re: Sodium vs Potassium : Mills and Bush Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:20:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id NAA27862 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52193 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Keith , > Noninski provides details (fusion technology vol21 Mar 1992) > that purport to show a difference between Na and K, Not exactly the name I would want to give to the fellow who I had hired to find something, but nevertheless, did he give the details of his electrodes? > Also, the question of Ni/H20 priority has come > up. I note in WO9010935 that a specific claim > of production of excess heat in this system > is made, priority date being march 13 1989. > I'm pretty sure this precedes Mill's, for > what it's worth. Not only Mills, but it is 10 days before P&F, is it not? Can you please post the abstract on that one... > I have a lot of respect for Randy Mills, but > I wonder if the hydrino hypothesis will in > the end prevent him from capitalizing on some > remarkable experimental observations. Yes, but it may not be the hypothesis itself, so much as his apparent unremitting ambition to win a big prize someday.... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 13:59:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA08816; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:55:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:55:00 -0700 Message-ID: <001a01c394f0$d14fddc0$4379ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017153923.01cc3ff0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Oil crisis 30th anniversary Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:54:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52194 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > > The point of the second article was that mineral wealth, by itself, without > democracy and education, usually brings more poverty and misery than > long-term wealth. Cold fusion would be a gift to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, > although they would not see it that way! Not at first, anyway. A century > from now perhaps they will see that it liberated them, the way the boll > weevil liberated the US south from the cotton growing economy. The town of > Enterprise, Alabama erected a statue giving thanks to the insect. > Mineral wealth is a primary example. Where there is a concentrated resource with wide demand that can be developed (or exploited) by a few, then the temptation is for the local thugs to take it over for their own pleasure, trading that wealth for the symbols of power and riches in the world. It is not invested in developing the country or the welfare of the population. The energy resources of the Mideast are a focus, and with the development of LENR or BLP that could change over years. It will be slow in the best of cases, for a period of product development and device adaptation will take place. Russian oil sources are being developed quietly with cooperation from US and other oil technology companies. The US did not go to war in Iraq for oil. It would have been a lot cheaper to lift the sanctions and buy Iraq oil at market value and then subsidize US consumer prices. People who complain about Halliburton and other mega-companies getting contracts for Iraq development are overlooking the need to act within days or weeks. A competitive bidding process would have strung out for months with untold consequences. There are a handful of companies with the resources and organization to deal with problems on a national scale. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 14:19:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA18808; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" , "Jones Beene" Subject: RE: Sodium vs Potassium : Mills and Bush Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:30:10 -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: <018201c394ec$26f3a400$8837fea9@cpq> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52195 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jones. Yes, some details are given. 99.9+% Ni foil is used for the cathode, Pt for the anode. The arrangement in the dewar ensures poor current distribution, as the anode is clumped to one side and the cathode is spiraled and driven from a point at the top. Fresh Ni is used for each experiment, and he anodizes it for about 1hr before running the actual experiment. Here's the abstract, it's P&F. I didn't mention that in my last post. March 13th is the first date listed, as you will see. METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR POWER GENERATION Patent number: WO9010935 Publication date: 1990-09-20 Inventor: PONS STANLEY (US); FLEISCHMANN MARTIN (GB); WALLING CHEVES T (US); SIMONS JOHN P (US) Applicant: UNIV UTAH (US) Classification: - international: G21B1/00 - european: G21B1/00F Application number: WO1990US01328 19900312 Priority number(s): US19890323513 19890313; US19890326693 19890321; US19890335233 19890410; US19890338879 19890414; US19890339646 19890418; US19890346079 19890502; US19890352478 19890516 Also published as: EP0463089 (A1) EP0463089 (B1) RU2115178 (C1) Abstract of WO9010935 The present invention involves an appararus and method for generating energy, neutrons, tritium or heat as a specific form of energy. The apparatus comprises a material such as a metal having a lattice structure capable of accumulating isotopic hydrogen atoms and means for accumulating isotopic hydrogen atoms in the metal to a chemical potential sufficient to induce the generation of the specified items. The sufficient chemical potential is, for example, enough to induce generation of an amount of heat greater than a joule-heat equivalent used in accumulating the isotopic hydrogen atoms in the lattice structure to the desired chemical potential. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jonesb9@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 4:21 PM To: knagel@gis.net; Vortex Subject: Re: Sodium vs Potassium : Mills and Bush Keith , > Noninski provides details (fusion technology vol21 Mar 1992) > that purport to show a difference between Na and K, Not exactly the name I would want to give to the fellow who I had hired to find something, but nevertheless, did he give the details of his electrodes? > Also, the question of Ni/H20 priority has come > up. I note in WO9010935 that a specific claim > of production of excess heat in this system > is made, priority date being march 13 1989. > I'm pretty sure this precedes Mill's, for > what it's worth. Not only Mills, but it is 10 days before P&F, is it not? Can you please post the abstract on that one... > I have a lot of respect for Randy Mills, but > I wonder if the hydrino hypothesis will in > the end prevent him from capitalizing on some > remarkable experimental observations. Yes, but it may not be the hypothesis itself, so much as his apparent unremitting ambition to win a big prize someday.... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 14:32:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA29703; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:27:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:27:59 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017170034.01cb9e78@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:27:07 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Oil crisis 30th anniversary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52196 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell writes: > The US did not go to war in Iraq for oil. It would have been a lot cheaper > to lift the sanctions and buy Iraq oil at market value and then subsidize US > consumer prices. Do you really think the U.S. would be involved at all if Iraq did not have oil? We are not fighting dictators in Africa or Burma. The first Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11 terrorism. The U.S. would have taken no action to reverse the invasion of Kuwait, if Kuwait had no oil. > People who complain about Halliburton and other mega-companies getting > contracts for Iraq development are overlooking the need to act within days > or weeks. A competitive bidding process would have strung out for months > with untold consequences. This is getting off topic and political, but I disagree completely. The back pages of the business section tell a different story. Iraqi companies are offering to make repairs at one-tenth the cost of U.S. firms, much more quickly, but they are being turned down. Local power company engineers complain they are not being allowed to install replacement equipment, including some that was sitting in warehouses before the war -- Iraqi property. Only U.S. companies are allowed to install this equipment, and they charge hundreds of times more than the local technicians would. U.S. companies not connected with the administration, along with European and Japanese companies, have complained that they could do the job cheaper and faster than the "non-competitive bids," but they have been frozen out. The New York Times reported that a U.S. company surveyed a concrete manufacturing facility and estimated it would take $50 million and a year or more to fix it. The U.S. general in charge conferred with the plant managers, gave them $90 thousand in assistance, and the plant is now back in operation. From this and other reports I suspect the reconstruction is shaping up as the largest U.S. Government financial scandal since the Civil War. > There are a handful of companies with the > resources and organization to deal with problems on a national scale. The problems are not on a national scale. They are on a local scale. One factory at time needs to be revived. Only the electric power and water systems needs national coordination. Other nation-wide systems such as the roads and the food distribution systems are working remarkably well. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 15:32:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA16668; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:28:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:28:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3F906D64.78670503@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:29:56 -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, 17 Oct 03] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52197 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, 17 Oct 03 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:41:30 -0400 From: "What's New" Reply-To: opa@aps.org To: "What's New" WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 17 Oct 03 Washington, DC 1. SPACE RACE: SHENZHOU-5 VERSUS MERCURY-5. On Wednesday, China successfully launched the Shenzhou-5 space capsule into orbit with taikonaut Yang Liwei on board and returned him safely to Earth after 14 orbits. The first American to reach orbit, John Glenn, circled Earth a mere three times in the Mercury-5 capsule - 3 years before Yang was born. And this is only the beginning; China hopes eventually to construct a permanent base on the moon. Americans should welcome China's new direction. Sending humans into space offers no military, economic, or scientific advantage; rather it's a symbolic demonstration that China has arrived as an economic power and can now afford to waste vast sums of money. Perhaps the U.S. could help by offering China complete plans for the space shuttle. This would serve the cause of world peace by diverting China's resources from more dangerous adventures. 2. SPACE SCIENCE: ATTACK OF THE GIANT TOMATOES. According to a Chinese news agency, Yang Liwei carried a bag of vegetable seeds into space. There have been stories coming out of China for several weeks that exposure of seeds to space radiation produces huge tomatoes and other vegetables. When it was pointed out to the news agency that most mutations are harmful, WN was assured that in China the radiation effect is always positive, leading to bigger and better vegetables that will revolutionize agriculture. 3. PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE: THAT ANSWERS THE FIRST QUESTION. It's a grand experiment: a free online scientific journal supported entirely by fees paid by the authors(WN 27 Jun 03). Page charges to defray some of the cost of publishing a peer- reviewed journal are nothing new, but the Public Library of Science, a non-profit located in San Francisco, charges a flat fee of $1,500 for each article. That's still pretty modest compared to research costs, but can such a journal compete for readers with the established journals? The first open-access journal, PloS Biology, was launched Sunday night. In under eight hours, PloS servers were completely overwhelmed. Clearly, it's publishing made for a democracy. If the idea really takes off, it will have a huge effect on the entire organization of science. One reason for high interest in the first issue of PloS-Biology is a startling article about thought-controlled robots. 4. THOUGHT CONTROLLED ROBOTS: I THINK, THEREFORE THE ROBOT IS. Duke University researchers report in PLoS-Biology that brain activity of rhesus monkeys, picked up with probes inserted into the brain, has been used to carry out complex reaching and grasping motions of a robot arm. It should now be possible to build a wi-fi remote version. It's then only a matter of time until the courts must confront the issue of responsibility for crimes committed by robots. 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: aki@ix.netcom.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-whatsnew-27231J@lists.apsmsgs.org To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 18:52:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA23553; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:44:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:44:37 -0700 Message-ID: <3F909AD8.6070701@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:43:52 -0400 From: Terry Blanton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Is Rothwell really RL Park? was WHAT'S NEW Friday, 17 Oct 03 References: <3F906D64.78670503@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <3F906D64.78670503@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52198 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: >3. PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE: THAT ANSWERS THE FIRST QUESTION. >It's a grand experiment: a free online scientific journal >supported entirely by fees paid by the authors(WN 27 Jun 03). >Page charges to defray some of the cost of publishing a peer- >reviewed journal are nothing new, but the Public Library of >Science, a non-profit located in San Francisco, charges a flat >fee of $1,500 for each article. That's still pretty modest >compared to research costs, but can such a journal compete for >readers with the established journals? The first open-access >journal, PloS Biology, was launched Sunday night. In under eight >hours, PloS servers were completely overwhelmed. Clearly, it's >publishing made for a democracy. If the idea really takes off, >it will have a huge effect on the entire organization of science. >One reason for high interest in the first issue of PloS-Biology >is a startling article about thought-controlled robots. > >4. THOUGHT CONTROLLED ROBOTS: I THINK, THEREFORE THE ROBOT IS. >Duke University researchers report in PLoS-Biology that brain >activity of rhesus monkeys, picked up with probes inserted into >the brain, has been used to carry out complex reaching and >grasping motions of a robot arm. It should now be possible to >build a wi-fi remote version. It's then only a matter of time >until the courts must confront the issue of responsibility for >crimes committed by robots. > Is it more than a coincidence that Jed posted on both these topics on Vortex? Or, is he really RL Park? Or, is Jed RL Park's alter ego. A guy who really wants to post on CF in a positive manner under a pseudonym? Or, is this a case MPD - "The Three Faces of RL Park"? It's more likely that RIP, I mean, RLP has his minions spying on Vortex, eh? Regards, Charles Fort From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 17 23:23:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA32422; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:16:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:16:12 -0700 Message-ID: <004501c39536$c371e5e0$1311b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: LENR-CANR & Sodium/Potassium Ratio in Seawater Etc. Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:14:46 -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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940d21fcf20562f2e41d183319d75d9c660350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <8aFOB.A.U6H.rqNk_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52199 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Where Does the Calcium for Marine-Life & Coral come from if the "missing Potassium" is due to marine life requirements? Was Kervran on track with Biological LENR-CANR?? http://www.levity.com/alchemy/kervran.html "In an article in La Revue Generale des Sciences Paris, of July 1960, Louis Kervran, then Director of Conferences at the University of Paris, described experiments proving the existence of the transmutation of some elements by biological means. Further details were given by him in a book Transmutation Biologiques (Maloine, Paris 1962). These experiments involved measuring the weight of Potassium and Calcium in dry seeds and in germinated seeds, these seeds during germination being isolated from contact with Potassium or Calcium in their environment, say through the water or air. Thus any measured increase in the weight of these elements could only be explained by some transmutation occurring in the living plant." http://www.webelements.com/ (Geology Data) Sodium: ppb by weight ppb by atoms Universe 20000 1,000 Sun 40000 2,000 Meteorite (carbonaceous) 5600000 4,800,000 Crustal rocks 23000000 21,000,000 Sea water 11050000 2,970,000 Stream 8000 350 Human 1400000 380,000 Potassium: ppb by weight ppb by atoms Universe 3000 100 Sun 4000 100 Meteorite (carbonaceous) 710000 370,000 Crustal rocks 15000000 7,800,000 Sea water 416000 65,800 Stream 2300 59 Human 2000000 320,000 Calcium: Universe 70000 2,000 Sun 70000 2,000 Meteorite (carbonaceous) 11000000 5,200,000 Crustal rocks 50000000 26,000,000 Sea water 4220 650 Stream 1500 38 Human 14000000 2,200,000 Magnesium: Universe 600000 30,000 Sun 700000 30,000 Meteorite (carbonaceous) 120000000 100,000,000 Crustal rocks 29000000 25,000,000 Sea water 1326000 337,000 Stream 4100 170 Human 270000 70,000 Chlorine: ppb by weight ppb by atoms Universe 1000 40 Sun 8000 300 Meteorite (carbonaceous) 380000 160,000 Crustal rocks 170000 100,000 Sea water 19870000 3,470,000 Stream 8000 230 Human 1200000 210,000 Sulfur: Universe 500000 20,000 Sun 400000 10,000 Meteorite (carbonaceous) 41000000 22,000,000 Crustal rocks 420000 270,000 Sea water 928000 179,000 Stream 4000 130 Human 2000000 390,000 Carbon: Universe 5000000 500,000 Sun 3000000 300,000 Meteorite (carbonaceous) 15000000 18,000,000 Crustal rocks 1800000 3,100,000 Sea water 28000 14,400 Stream 1200 100 Human 230000000 120,000,000 Sodium/Potassium Ratio Data on the Dead Sea and The Great Salt Lake is consistent with the Crustal and Stream Abundance. Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 00:22:57 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA10281; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:15:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:15:35 -0700 Message-ID: <009001c3953f$121d6360$1311b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: LENR-CANR & Sodium/Potassium Ratio in Seawater Etc. Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:13:44 -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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da94010fc1dac5681919d58cb2744681af01c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52200 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I propose a heretofore undetected reaction involving the elusive neutrinos (ca. 1.0e10/cm^2*sec^-1) and protons, sodium, potassium, chlorine, and so on: 1, (Neutrino - Proton) + Sodium-23 ---> Magnesium-24 + (Neutrino + Energy) 2, (Neutrino - Proton) + Potassium-39 ---> Calcium-40 + (Neutrino + Energy) 3, (Neutrino - Proton) + Chlorine-35 ---> Argon-36 + (Neutrino + Energy). No? Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 01:47:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id BAA23045; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:45:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:45:38 -0700 Message-ID: <006001c39554$2091bf80$0300a8c0@nixlaptop> From: "Nick Palmer" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017153209.01cb9e78@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Transmutation Cu-65 and Ag-110 Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:44:59 +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 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52201 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Whilst I realisie that ordinary chemical methods cannot separate or enrich proportions of isotopes, this company claims to be able to precisely control the parameters of nano crystal formation in titanium dioxide.. One wonders if this technique could be adopted to enrich samples to get the Jones Beene's "required" smmaple of titanium-50? http://www.altairinc.com/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 05:49:17 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA08925; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jack@mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3F911FA3.2257C32D@centurytel.net> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:10:27 +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: Oil crisis 30th anniversary References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017112319.01c0f330@pop.mindspring.com> <000c01c394e4$035592e0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52202 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: revtec wrote: > There is no oil in Kosovo, but my son is stationed there with his national > guard unit. > > Jeff Fink Hi All, Kosovo has some other things. See http://www.avonhistory.org/hist/brambo.htm Jack Smith From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 06:57:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA27166; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 06:55:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 06:55:01 -0700 Message-ID: <003801c3957e$7a872140$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <009001c3953f$121d6360$1311b83f@computer> Subject: Re: LENR-CANR & Sodium/Potassium Ratio in Seawater Etc. Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 06:47:35 -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 GAA26960 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52203 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber writes, > I propose a heretofore undetected reaction involving the elusive neutrinos (ca. > 1.0e10/cm^2*sec^-1) and protons, sodium, potassium, chlorine, and so on: > > 1, (Neutrino - Proton) + Sodium-23 ---> Magnesium-24 + (Neutrino + Energy) > > 2, (Neutrino - Proton) + Potassium-39 ---> Calcium-40 + (Neutrino + Energy) > > 3, (Neutrino - Proton) + Chlorine-35 ---> Argon-36 + (Neutrino + Energy). Yes, it looks we should add one more possible mechanism to the list of possible mechanisms is CF. That would be - not just the neutrino, becasue it is everywhere- therefore, if it is involved in the reactions above, which must take place over geologic time frames - millions of years, then how relevant is that to CF. For the neutrino to be involved in CF where the times frames are typically several hundred hours, then there must be a either a coherence mechanism or a focusing mechanism or something like that....but since the CF cell is simple, then it would pretty much have to be related to the electrical current, no? Lets see, if electrical current alone provides the necessary coherence mechanism to speed up reactions from millions of years to hundreds of hours, then what are the wider implications. One implication to test that hypothesis would be to look around power lines. Are nuclear trasnmutations seen under power lines? Well, believe it or not, there is one fellow in Kansas who has made a lifetime commitment to find out this one fact, and here is his website: http://old.jccc.net/~rhammack/ Guess you could say that there's not many other distractions going on in Kansas... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 07:41:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA26334; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:38:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:38:50 -0700 Message-ID: <003901c39584$983a86e0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031017153209.01cb9e78@pop.mindspring.com> <006001c39554$2091bf80$0300a8c0@nixlaptop> Subject: Re: Transmutation Cu-65 and Ag-110 Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:32:01 -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 HAA26114 Resent-Message-ID: <61-aVB.A.SbG.6BVk_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52204 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer writes, > Whilst I realize that ordinary chemical methods cannot separate or enrich > proportions of isotopes, Au contraire, Nick. Many ordinary chemical reactions have a rate of reaction that is "time denominated" (slow) and because of this they can separate and enrich certain isotopes very cheaply, inasmuch as isotopes also vary individually in how quickly they participate in the reactions involved. Even when done in stages, this method can't be used to achieve great purity, however. This process could be important for the future commercial success of CF, however, because if a cheaper metal like nickel has an active CF isotope, then that points to a commercially viable electrode, so long as great purity is not needed. Pure nickel costs over $5 per pound in large amounts but nickel-iron in the ratio that is found in nature (from the meteor site, roughly 20-30 % Ni) costs only a little more than $1/lb in large quantities to the stainless steel folks. Almost 3/4 of the consumption of mined Ni goes into stainless steel and that is huge in tonnage. For the sake of argument, let's say that Ni-64 is active but that it exists as only 1% of natural nickel. Let's say that if it is brought up to 25% it is more active than Pd, but at what cost? I am just now trying to find a little more info on chemical isotope enrichment for nickel, so I don't know about the cost of that step, but here is an interesting economic variable to consider relating to the feedstock. Unlike enrichment in uranium, where the full cost of the feedstock goes to the final product, in nickel your dross will always be as valuable as the feedstock (because of the high demand for stainless steel). Therefore if it takes 200 pounds of input to give 1 pound of 25% Nickel then that remaining 199 pounds of byproduct isn't wasted at all - far from it, it just goes off to the stainless plant at the original cost, and consequently the isotope only bears the cost of enrichment, which is probably small compared to the full cost of the feedstock, if all of it had to be carried by the isotope. With uranium, in contrast, the full 200 pound would be costed to the end product, plus the end product must bear the cost long term storage or disposal of the 199 pounds of dross. Bottom line, I think in thousand-ton quantities, an efficient manufacturer could produce electrodes with a 25% enrichment of Ni-64 for a few dollars an ounce, but all of this is obviously speculative. I mention it only to encourage anyone who thinks that CF has no commercial future, even for hot water heaters, to reconsider that assessment and continue on with research in order to fill in the blanks. Jones BTW before anyone dredges up an old post where I was arguing that CF had no conceivable economic future because of the high price of palladium (back then it was $700/oz) then let me state clearly that "I recant" (unless Pd turns out to be the only active metal in all of nature that produces the CF excess heat) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 11:12:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA02549; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:08:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:08:24 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: LENR-CANR & Sodium/Potassium Ratio in Seawater Etc. Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:30:40 -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: <009001c3953f$121d6360$1311b83f@computer> Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52205 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Fred. I'm not sure what to make of your previous data. Maybe you can find some supporting evidence of K-Ca or Na-Mg transmutation in ratios of these elements in nature? The seawater ratios tend to support mills, as there is 50% more Ca than Mg for equivalent quantities of K and Na. The Kevran work was what started me on these researches, so forget about Mills, P&F. etc... Johnny come lately's, all of 'em (grin). On the (hitherto) unrelated subject, how much energy do those 10^10 neutrinos represent? Given that you had a 100% efficient conversion system... BTW, if you can devise a machine that works on that principal, how long before the MIBs come and explain how accurate spotting of underwater nuclear subs would present some -cough- problems -cough- for the intelligence community???? K. -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:fjsparber@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 2:14 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: LENR-CANR & Sodium/Potassium Ratio in Seawater Etc. I propose a heretofore undetected reaction involving the elusive neutrinos (ca. 1.0e10/cm^2*sec^-1) and protons, sodium, potassium, chlorine, and so on: 1, (Neutrino - Proton) + Sodium-23 ---> Magnesium-24 + (Neutrino + Energy) 2, (Neutrino - Proton) + Potassium-39 ---> Calcium-40 + (Neutrino + Energy) 3, (Neutrino - Proton) + Chlorine-35 ---> Argon-36 + (Neutrino + Energy). No? Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 13:08:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA19186; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:02:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:02:59 -0700 From: rgajra@vsnl.com Message-ID: <005701c395b2$c0c8ac80$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> To: References: Subject: a 'soil battery' Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:32:26 +0530 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52206 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi all I joined this group a month or so back when I had joined the Phoenix-Quest group. Am no expert on vortex issues but I like to read about what all are thinking in this field. Anyway, I came across a latest local newswire agency report here (am from Bombay in India) about a man developing a new kind of battery. I thought I should share it with you all. Its given below. I look forward to your thoughts/views on this. Rajesh Here goes: http://in.news.yahoo.com/031018/139/28mhr.html Saturday October 18, 4:56 PM Mumbai man turns up with a new type of battery Mumbai, Oct.18 (ANI): Dhiren Thaker, a junior manager in the information technology department at Jindal Iron and Steel Company, has conceptualized and developed an alternative method of generating electricity. Would you believe it, he has achieved this feat simply with the use of soil. He has named his experiment as "Soil Battery." Starting his research in 1987, Thaker has successfully managed to run a digital clock, an analog clock, a transistor, light emission diodes, calculators and video games. He says that these gadgets have been running on the soil battery for the last three years without any problem, and adds that the electrical power remains constant with no change in current or voltage fluctuations. These batteries need be watered only once a year. What strikes the imagination is not the mere running of these gadgets, but the scientific and futuristic implications of this research for rural, medical and military applications. Incidentally Dhiren has also experimented with other alternate electrical resources, such as trees and plants (bananas, leaves etc), but he ruled them out as it not being eco-friendly. "It is a simple arrangement of two electrodes- anode (copper plate) and cathode (zinc plate) placed in an electrolyte (moist soil). Electrolysis takes place wherein negative ions generated by the cathode flow to the anode and the positive ions flow to the cathode. The electrolyte makes the energy flow possible," Dhiren says. "Soil in itself constitutes of different types of elements, the most crucial of which are iron, potassium and magnesium. Hence, it is with this such arrangement that a process of electrolysis takes place," he adds. Soil containing urea generates current up to more than 13mA. A single cell of the developed 'Soil Battery' created has been tested to generate 0.85 V to 1.24 V and up to 10mA current. Such several cells can be arranged and connected in parallel and series to generate required electrical energy for various purposes and applications. "I hope the media and the concerned scientific and governmental authorities will hear my call for support. I will be able to start my research in a bigger scale. This is my project, which is meant for rural India, where electricity is such a scarce and expensive commodity," Thaker said. (ANI) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 14:04:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA31030; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:57:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:57:44 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: a 'soil battery' Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:20:11 -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: <005701c395b2$c0c8ac80$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52207 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Rajesh. Sounds like you might be impressed by the lemon battery as well. Zn -.763V Cu +.337V add electrolyte, and stir.... K. -----Original Message----- From: rgajra@vsnl.com [mailto:rgajra@vsnl.com] Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 4:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: a 'soil battery' Hi all I joined this group a month or so back when I had joined the Phoenix-Quest group. Am no expert on vortex issues but I like to read about what all are thinking in this field. Anyway, I came across a latest local newswire agency report here (am from Bombay in India) about a man developing a new kind of battery. I thought I should share it with you all. Its given below. I look forward to your thoughts/views on this. Rajesh Here goes: http://in.news.yahoo.com/031018/139/28mhr.html Saturday October 18, 4:56 PM Mumbai man turns up with a new type of battery Mumbai, Oct.18 (ANI): Dhiren Thaker, a junior manager in the information technology department at Jindal Iron and Steel Company, has conceptualized and developed an alternative method of generating electricity. Would you believe it, he has achieved this feat simply with the use of soil. He has named his experiment as "Soil Battery." Starting his research in 1987, Thaker has successfully managed to run a digital clock, an analog clock, a transistor, light emission diodes, calculators and video games. He says that these gadgets have been running on the soil battery for the last three years without any problem, and adds that the electrical power remains constant with no change in current or voltage fluctuations. These batteries need be watered only once a year. What strikes the imagination is not the mere running of these gadgets, but the scientific and futuristic implications of this research for rural, medical and military applications. Incidentally Dhiren has also experimented with other alternate electrical resources, such as trees and plants (bananas, leaves etc), but he ruled them out as it not being eco-friendly. "It is a simple arrangement of two electrodes- anode (copper plate) and cathode (zinc plate) placed in an electrolyte (moist soil). Electrolysis takes place wherein negative ions generated by the cathode flow to the anode and the positive ions flow to the cathode. The electrolyte makes the energy flow possible," Dhiren says. "Soil in itself constitutes of different types of elements, the most crucial of which are iron, potassium and magnesium. Hence, it is with this such arrangement that a process of electrolysis takes place," he adds. Soil containing urea generates current up to more than 13mA. A single cell of the developed 'Soil Battery' created has been tested to generate 0.85 V to 1.24 V and up to 10mA current. Such several cells can be arranged and connected in parallel and series to generate required electrical energy for various purposes and applications. "I hope the media and the concerned scientific and governmental authorities will hear my call for support. I will be able to start my research in a bigger scale. This is my project, which is meant for rural India, where electricity is such a scarce and expensive commodity," Thaker said. (ANI) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 18:22:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA02714; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:19:41 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:19:41 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <1a2.1ba06a87.2cc34087@aol.com> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:19:03 EDT Subject: High voltage parts for ball lightning experiments To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1a2.1ba06a87.2cc34087_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10709 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52208 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_1a2.1ba06a87.2cc34087_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Catalogue Frank Z --part1_1a2.1ba06a87.2cc34087_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Catalogue

Frank Z --part1_1a2.1ba06a87.2cc34087_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 23:42:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA05010; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:36:57 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:36:57 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:45:41 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: High voltage parts for ball lightning experiments Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52209 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 9:19 PM 10/18/3, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > Catalogue > >Frank Z > >FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> HREF="http://www.flatdb.com/cgi-bin/ecjcjdxb.pl">Catalogue
>
>Frank Z Frank, You might want to take a look at your original message in this thread on escribe. Escribe deleted everything that is in HTML. I notice URLs posted without the excess HTML garbage seem to come out OK. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 18 23:52:10 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA14548; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:50:12 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:50:12 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:58:56 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52210 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:32 AM 10/19/3, rgajra@vsnl.com wrote: > ...I came across a latest local newswire agency report here (am from >Bombay in India) about a >man developing a new kind of battery. I thought I should share it with you >all. Its given below. I >look forward to your thoughts/views on this. > >Rajesh The consumable in the proposed battery is not the soil but rather the zinc anode. If the proposed battery worked with electrodes that were not consumed then it might be a useful invention. As is, there is nothing remarkable about the fact that current is produced. This kind of "battery" is has been in commonplace use for many decades in the form of cathodic protection in which a (sacrificial) zinc electrode is buried and electrically connected to a piping network in order to protect copper or other metalic pipes from corrosion. The pipe is thus made a cathode of the resulting battery and thus material is deposited on it instead of desolving from it in the form of corrosion. Seawater might make a more useful and yet cheap electrolyte. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 19 10:57:17 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA12879; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:52:37 -0700 (PDT) From: rgajra@vsnl.com Message-ID: <003a01c39669$6f0f1de0$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> To: Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:20:07 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52211 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Keith Sounds like I am such a newbie in this field (i am a finance professional) that the news was a 'lemon' to experts! Anyways, it was still worthwhile to find out for myself! Rajesh From: "Keith Nagel" To: Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:50 AM Subject: RE: a 'soil battery' Hi Rajesh. Sounds like you might be impressed by the lemon battery as well. Zn -.763V Cu +.337V add electrolyte, and stir.... K. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 19 11:39:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA09241; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:35:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:35:30 -0700 From: rgajra@vsnl.com Message-ID: <002701c39665$8a68e7a0$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> To: References: Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:52:11 +0530 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: <19rRrD.A.zPC.wltk_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52212 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks, Horace, for providing info in detail on this issue. A few questions: 1. If this kind of battery has been in commonplace use then are such batteries cheaper, easily available and/or eco-friendly compared to the big-corporate-made batteries in your country? 2. Can a non-techie like me make one myself at home if I have the necessary ingredients? What will the necessary ingredients? What level of understanding of physics and/or electricity do I need to have to do it myself? I am really interested to know so that I can begin to make a beginning in switching to a better and friendlier kind of battery. Regards Rajesh From: "Horace Heffner" To: Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 12:28 PM Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' At 1:32 AM 10/19/3, rgajra@vsnl.com wrote: > ...I came across a latest local newswire agency report here (am from >Bombay in India) about a >man developing a new kind of battery. I thought I should share it with you >all. Its given below. I >look forward to your thoughts/views on this. > >Rajesh The consumable in the proposed battery is not the soil but rather the zinc anode. If the proposed battery worked with electrodes that were not consumed then it might be a useful invention. As is, there is nothing remarkable about the fact that current is produced. This kind of "battery" is has been in commonplace use for many decades in the form of cathodic protection in which a (sacrificial) zinc electrode is buried and electrically connected to a piping network in order to protect copper or other metalic pipes from corrosion. The pipe is thus made a cathode of the resulting battery and thus material is deposited on it instead of desolving from it in the form of corrosion. Seawater might make a more useful and yet cheap electrolyte. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 19 20:20:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA23973; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:18:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:18:31 -0700 Message-ID: <001e01c396b8$bd7d4c00$9957ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <002701c39665$8a68e7a0$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:17:45 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52213 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rajesh wrote: > Thanks, Horace, for providing info in detail on this issue. > > A few questions: > 1. If this kind of battery has been in commonplace use then are such batteries cheaper, easily > available and/or eco-friendly compared to the big-corporate-made batteries in your country? You and the author you quote (not Horace) misunderstand the nature of electrical batteries. Any two dissimilar metals placed in contact with a common body -- a lemon, moist earth, sweaty left and right hands of one person, sale water -- which conduct electricity -- will have an electric voltage between them , and if connected, a current will flow. If continued long enough, one of the metal plates will be eaten away. The electric energy comes from the metal pieces, not the soil, or the seawater, etc. Similar batteries are know from ancient times, some 200 years BC. Commercial "carbon" flashlight batteries use the same principle, a zinc shell and a carbon rod. The zinc is consumed. Putting metal plates in the soil is no more eco-friendly than the commercial batteries of similar type. The ecology is impacted by mining and refining the zinc and copper used. Batteries of the popular "alkaline" type produce much more energy than the type you describe, and they do contain a corrosive chemical which will burn skin but is not considered a general ecological hazard, any more than household lye is. Rechargeable batteries of the 'nickel cadmium' type contain cadmium, a toxic metal, and must be disposed of properly. > > 2. Can a non-techie like me make one myself at home if I have the necessary ingredients? What will > the necessary ingredients? What level of understanding of physics and/or electricity do I need to > have to do it myself? You can make a primitive battery of the type you describe by sticking steel and copper into a lemon or a potato or the earth. It is an experiment done in elementary school science classes. You will not get useful energy out of it. To get useful energy you will have to walk the road others have trod and you will reinvent the commercial batteries. > > I am really interested to know so that I can begin to make a beginning in switching to a better and > friendlier kind of battery. You intentions are fine, but you will not find the product useful. Regards, Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 19 22:27:38 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id WAA28353; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:24:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:24:05 -0700 From: rgajra@vsnl.com Message-ID: <001401c396ca$52d29b00$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> To: References: <002701c39665$8a68e7a0$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> <001e01c396b8$bd7d4c00$9957ccd1@asus> Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:53:41 +0530 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52214 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Thanks so much for the explanation. I deeply appreciate it. Now that the issue is clear to me I will pass on what you and Horace explained here to the news wire agency where that newsreport appeared. That way their reporters would be better-informed in the future before writing articles on this issue. What was particularly enlightening to me was the fact that these alternative approaches are not necessarily eco-friendly. Thanks again. Rajesh From: "Mike Carrell" To: Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 8:47 AM Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' Rajesh wrote: > Thanks, Horace, for providing info in detail on this issue. > > A few questions: > 1. If this kind of battery has been in commonplace use then are such batteries cheaper, easily > available and/or eco-friendly compared to the big-corporate-made batteries in your country? You and the author you quote (not Horace) misunderstand the nature of electrical batteries. Any two dissimilar metals placed in contact with a common body -- a lemon, moist earth, sweaty left and right hands of one person, sale water -- which conduct electricity -- will have an electric voltage between them , and if connected, a current will flow. If continued long enough, one of the metal plates will be eaten away. The electric energy comes from the metal pieces, not the soil, or the seawater, etc. Similar batteries are know from ancient times, some 200 years BC. Commercial "carbon" flashlight batteries use the same principle, a zinc shell and a carbon rod. The zinc is consumed. Putting metal plates in the soil is no more eco-friendly than the commercial batteries of similar type. The ecology is impacted by mining and refining the zinc and copper used. Batteries of the popular "alkaline" type produce much more energy than the type you describe, and they do contain a corrosive chemical which will burn skin but is not considered a general ecological hazard, any more than household lye is. Rechargeable batteries of the 'nickel cadmium' type contain cadmium, a toxic metal, and must be disposed of properly. > > 2. Can a non-techie like me make one myself at home if I have the necessary ingredients? What will > the necessary ingredients? What level of understanding of physics and/or electricity do I need to > have to do it myself? You can make a primitive battery of the type you describe by sticking steel and copper into a lemon or a potato or the earth. It is an experiment done in elementary school science classes. You will not get useful energy out of it. To get useful energy you will have to walk the road others have trod and you will reinvent the commercial batteries. > > I am really interested to know so that I can begin to make a beginning in switching to a better and > friendlier kind of battery. You intentions are fine, but you will not find the product useful. Regards, Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 19 23:32:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA04426; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:27:19 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:27:19 -0700 From: Erikbaard@aol.com Message-ID: <4f.35b1cd2c.2cc4da1f@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:26:39 EDT Subject: telegraph: "Scientists make electricity from tap water " To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4f.35b1cd2c.2cc4da1f_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10689 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52215 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_4f.35b1cd2c.2cc4da1f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scientists make electricity from tap water By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Filed: 20/10/2003) Scientists have discovered a new way of generating electricity using water, the first innovatory method for 200 years.A team of Canadian researchers has found that an electrical current can be produced between the ends of a microscopic channel when a fluid flows through it.The technique offers a potential source of clean, non-polluting electric power with a variety of possible uses, ranging from powering small electronic devices such as calculators or mobile phones to vast stations that can contribute to the national grid.The method, which harnesses the "electrokinetic" properties of liquids such as ordinary tap water when they are pumped through microscopic channels, is described today in the Institute of Physics publication Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering. more here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/20/welec20.xml& sSheet=/news/2003/10/20/ixworld.html --part1_4f.35b1cd2c.2cc4da1f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scientists make electrici= ty from tap water
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 20/10/2003)
Scientists have discovered a new way of generating electricity using water,=20= the first innovatory method for 200 years.A team of Canadian researchers has= found that an electrical current can be produced between the ends of a micr= oscopic channel when a fluid flows through it.The technique offers a potenti= al source of clean, non-polluting electric power with a variety of possible=20= uses, ranging from powering small electronic devices such as calculators or=20= mobile phones to vast stations that can contribute to the national grid.The=20= method, which harnesses the "electrokinetic" properties of liquids such as o= rdinary tap water when they are pumped through microscopic channels, is desc= ribed today in the Institute of Physics publication Journal of Micromechanic= s and Microengineering.

more here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2003/10/20/welec20.xm= l&sSheet=3D/news/2003/10/20/ixworld.html











 --part1_4f.35b1cd2c.2cc4da1f_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 02:32:10 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id CAA09180; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000201c396e6$af083120$832be6cf@VALUEDD6A54265> From: "Alan Schaefer" To: References: <200308260413.VAA16679@mx1.eskimo.com> Subject: Re: vortex-digest Digest V103 #282 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:38:30 -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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Resent-Message-ID: <_L4vGD.A.VPC.Go6k_@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52216 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: How do I get to the archives? Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:13 PM Subject: vortex-digest Digest V103 #282 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 06:33:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA01673; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:29:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:29:51 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:51:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52217 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:52 PM 10/19/3, rgajra@vsnl.com wrote: >Thanks, Horace, for providing info in detail on this issue. > >A few questions: >1. If this kind of battery has been in commonplace use then are such >batteries cheaper, easily >available and/or eco-friendly compared to the big-corporate-made batteries >in your country? The use or choice of sacrificial zinc anodes vs ordinary batteries vs AC powered DC power supplies for cathodic protection of underground pipes and other metalic underground systems is an engineering matter requiring consideration of investment cost, operation cost, soil conditions, and environmental considerations. Sometimes the cheapest thing to do is bury a large hunk of zinc. It makes for a cheap battery in this application in the sense that the electrolyte and anode are provided for free. There is an environmental cost though, in that zinc compounds are released into the soil. Further, in an energy production application, it is important to consider the energy cost associated with obtaining the zinc in the first place, and manufacturing it to size and transporting it. An ordinary chemical battery stores energy in chemical form and releases it upon demand. It therefore necessarily involves a chemical reaction and produces a chemical waste. It strikes me as a noble objective to build an eco-friendly battery, or even just a low cost battery. However, there is serious doubt as to the value of funding amateur research in this area. It is a noble amateur pursuit, but, speaking as an amateur physicist, I can say that funding of research by uncredentialed amateurs like myself is probably an unwise use of funds, and in any case should not be considered an "investment." The amateur pretty much has the burden to produce the prototype from his own efforts and resources. Even having produced a useful prototype, an amateur has not necessarily produced something of finanacial value to an investor. That takes a lot more effort, including business planning and intellectual property protection. > >2. Can a non-techie like me make one myself at home if I have the >necessary ingredients? What will >the necessary ingredients? What level of understanding of physics and/or >electricity do I need to >have to do it myself? To do serious amateur work you will need to know a considerable amount of chemistry, especially electro-chemistry and physical chemistry. Used books on the subject can often be obtained (in the USA anyway) at less than 1/10 the original cost. Taking some college courses, if they are available to you, is not a bad idea. You may find it interesting that many advances in the field of batteries have been made by people without formal training. I seem to recall a Popular Science magazine article a couple decades ago about the "second wizard of Menlo Park" where the Menlo Park referred to in this case was in California. It was an article about various advancements in battery technology made by a man who was not formally trained in the field. He had given himself a first class training though. > >I am really interested to know so that I can begin to make a beginning in >switching to a better and >friendlier kind of battery. > >Regards >Rajesh A noble cause, but pursuit of this cause will undoubtedly take a considerable dedication and a special ability to sustain an effort in the face of continual failure. You may find it interesting that many in this news list are dedicated to finding the ultimate battery, i.e. the ultimate energy source - one that works on means that far exceed the energy capacity of purely chemical devices. Some think this is a quixotic quest, but it truely over the years seems to be coming to fruition. The effort to experiment in the field of low energy nuclear reactions (cold fusion) is really not much different than that required to improve on battery technology, and in fact is probably a more environmentally friendly pursuit. You will undoubtedly hear higly varying esitmates of the probability of ultimate success, however. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 09:59:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA32369; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:50:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:50:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20031020165011.33512.qmail@web11701.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:50:11 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <002701c39665$8a68e7a0$5968a8c0@etcnetwork> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <4tKzwB.A.Q5H.MJBl_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52218 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: its NOT a friendlier battery. youd be putting zink oxides into the soil... not a good thing. --- rgajra@vsnl.com wrote: > Thanks, Horace, for providing info in detail on this > issue. > > A few questions: > 1. If this kind of battery has been in commonplace > use then are such batteries cheaper, easily > available and/or eco-friendly compared to the > big-corporate-made batteries in your country? > > 2. Can a non-techie like me make one myself at home > if I have the necessary ingredients? What will > the necessary ingredients? What level of > understanding of physics and/or electricity do I > need to > have to do it myself? > > I am really interested to know so that I can begin > to make a beginning in switching to a better and > friendlier kind of battery. > > Regards > Rajesh > > > From: "Horace Heffner" > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 12:28 PM > Subject: Re: a 'soil battery' > > > At 1:32 AM 10/19/3, rgajra@vsnl.com wrote: > > ...I came across a latest local newswire agency > report here (am from > >Bombay in India) about a > >man developing a new kind of battery. I thought I > should share it with you > >all. Its given below. I > >look forward to your thoughts/views on this. > > > >Rajesh > > > The consumable in the proposed battery is not the > soil but rather the zinc > anode. If the proposed battery worked with > electrodes that were not > consumed then it might be a useful invention. As > is, there is nothing > remarkable about the fact that current is produced. > This kind of "battery" > is has been in commonplace use for many decades in > the form of cathodic > protection in which a (sacrificial) zinc electrode > is buried and > electrically connected to a piping network in order > to protect copper or > other metalic pipes from corrosion. The pipe is thus > made a cathode of the > resulting battery and thus material is deposited on > it instead of desolving > from it in the form of corrosion. > > Seawater might make a more useful and yet cheap > electrolyte. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 11:26:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA01416; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:20:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:20:06 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:18:02 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id LAA01337 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52219 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: See below. Very cool. (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:30:25 -0700 Subject: Entry to Guestbook You have a new entry in your guestbook: ------------------------------------------------------ I just found this article, and I’m passing this around, as it should be included wherever free energy is discussed. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/10/19/230816-cp.html Chris Houghton Chris Houghton nj USA - Monday, October 20, 2003 at 10:30:23 (PDT) ------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 11:46:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA16895; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:41:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:41:45 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031020143755.01cba8d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:41:19 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Tacky sci-fi takes CF for granted Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52220 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Perhaps this means nothing, or perhaps it is a straw in the wind. Yesterday I saw part of a third-rate, made-for-TV movie on the sci-fi channel, called "Riverworld" I think it was. It was produced in 2003. One of the many subplots involved an alien teaching humans how to build machinery. The alien tells them that palladium hydride, "a very rare material," is a virtually limitless source of energy. An American from the year 2007 scoffs at the idea, but the alien says, "we run our civilization on cold fusion from palladium hydride." (I think it was hydride, not deuteride.) Then they go and steal a large lump of the stuff from a barbarian king who is actually the Emperor Nero, reincarnated. Don't ask. Anyway, the point is, on some level in the popular culture the notion that CF is real has become widespread. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 12:06:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA31850; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:00:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:00:29 -0700 Message-ID: <3F93D353.20707@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:21:39 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex-digest Digest V103 #282 References: <200308260413.VAA16679@mx1.eskimo.com> <000201c396e6$af083120$832be6cf@VALUEDD6A54265> In-Reply-To: <000201c396e6$af083120$832be6cf@VALUEDD6A54265> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52221 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Alan Schaefer wrote: >How do I get to the archives? > http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 16:13:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA24068; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:10:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:10:48 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:19:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: vortex-digest Digest V103 #282 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52223 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 8:21 AM 10/20/3, Terry Blanton wrote: >Alan Schaefer wrote: > >>How do I get to the archives? >> > >http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/ Also, for another form of archiving and archives all the way back to 1995 see the vortex web page at: Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 12:58:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA01626; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:04 -0700 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <132.2615a4ea.2cc59633@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:49:07 EDT Subject: The Bohr Hydrogen Spectrum & The Optimal Resonant Frequencies & Phases of CF To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1066679347" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: <1o2lrC.A.OZ.rxDl_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52222 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------------------------------1066679347 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Bohr Hydrogen Spectrum & The Optimal Resonant Frequencies & Phases of CF According to Niel Bohr the spectrum of hydrogen (Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett series) gives the relation between the hydrogen atom electronic discrete quanta of radiation transitions and the visible region of light from Violet 4000 Angstrom (A) to Red 7000 A for the Balmer series. The Paschen series approaches infrared. The energy of a photon radiated by an atom is " hv = E sub 0 - E sub 1 where E = -2 pie^2m Z^2e^4/n^2h^2 for n = 1, 2, 3, ,,,, v = 2 pie^2mZ^2e^4/h^3 (1/n sub i to 2 -1/n sub 0 to 2) In a spectroscope, the electrons of the material being investigated absorb energy from the electric arc or spark and hence jump to outer, more energetic levels. " (Pg 30 to 34, Chemistry A Conceptual Approach Charles E. Mortimer). If we can determine the frequencies of the hydrogen nucleus protons and nuetrons which have a positive canal ray energy release which does not emitt harmfull radiation, which may be greater than the Laymen series frequencies for the electrons near the microwave or the inverse near ultraviolet or x rays, then we could use the precise frequencies or sympathetic resonant multiples of the frequencies of the proton and nuetron in the precise quantum subnuclear phases in a electric arc or spark to create cold fusion by deforming the nucleus in a series of energy sparks tuned to the proper resonant frequencies of the nucleus to release the energy gradually so that it does not create harmful radiation and does not require a great deal of energy to release it. The force of attraction or centripetal force between the Nucleus with a charge of +Ze and the electron with a charge of -e is given by Coulombs law as -Ze^2/r^2 =mv^2/r or v^2 =Ze^2/mr. If we set r equal to the radius of the neutron and proton in the nucleus we should be able to get the orbit of the positive charges on the nucleus to determine their precise resonant frequencies and phases to be used in an arc, torch, or spark discharge electrode or a sonofusion device to create hydrogen cold fusion with canal rays which may be in the microwave or the inverse ultraviolet and x ray region. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1066679347 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Bohr Hydrogen Spectrum & The Optimal Resonant Frequencies &= Phases of CF
 
According to Niel Bohr the spectrum of hydrogen (Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Br= ackett series) gives the relation between the hydrogen atom electronic=20= discrete quanta of radiation transitions and the visible region of light fro= m Violet 4000 Angstrom (A) to  Red 7000 A for the Balmer series. The Pa= schen series approaches infrared.  The energy of a photon radiated by a= n atom is
 
" hv =3D E sub 0 - E sub 1 where E =3D -2 pie^2m Z^2e^4/n^2h^2 for n =3D 1,= 2, 3, ,,,,
 
v =3D 2 pie^2mZ^2e^4/h^3 (1/n sub i to 2 -1/n sub 0 to 2)
 
In a spectroscope, the electrons of the material being investigated abs= orb energy from the electric arc or spark and hence jump to outer, more ener= getic levels. "
 
(Pg 30 to 34, Chemistry A Conceptual Approach Charles E. Mortimer).&nbs= p;
 
If we can determine the frequencies of the hydrogen nucleus protons and nue= trons which have a positive canal ray energy release which does not emitt ha= rmfull radiation, which may be greater than the Laymen series frequenci= es for the electrons near the microwave or the inverse near ultraviolet or x= rays, then we could use the precise frequencies or sympathetic resonant mul= tiples of the frequencies of the proton and nuetron in the precise= quantum subnuclear phases in a electric arc or spark to create cold fusion=20= by deforming the nucleus in a series of energy sparks tuned to the proper re= sonant frequencies of the nucleus to release the energy gradually so that it= does not create harmful radiation and does not require a great deal of ener= gy to release it.
 
The force of attraction or centripetal force between the Nucleus with a cha= rge of +Ze and the electron with a charge of -e is given by Coulombs law as=20= -Ze^2/r^2 =3Dmv^2/r or v^2 =3DZe^2/mr.
 
If we set r equal to the radius of the neutron and proton in the nucleu= s we should be able to get the orbit of the positive charges on the nucleus=20= to determine their precise resonant frequencies  and phases to be used=20= in an arc, torch, or spark discharge electrode or a sonofusion device t= o create hydrogen cold fusion with canal rays which may be in the micro= wave or the inverse ultraviolet and x ray region.

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1066679347-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 20 23:58:15 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA19891; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:56:59 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:56:59 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:57:26 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Wireless transmission of electricity Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1145403040==_ma============" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: <5XzWJ.A.m2E.6iNl_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52224 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --============_-1145403040==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I've failed to get any response to my postings on the Rife Microscope. Did anyone see it? I'm hoping to get some response to this. Tom Valone of Intregity Research sent me this. This is the first time that I've seen someone with academic credentials saying things like this. Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, former professor of nuclear and astrophysics at the University of Nevada, has experimentally measured the earth's oscillatory waves called "Schumann cavity micropulsations." She maintains that the earth's magnetosphere is a potential source of electrical energy, as Tesla emphasized. Rauscher points out that relatively small longitudinal impulses, which a Tesla Tower could supply, theoretically can trigger earth-ionosphere oscillations to take place so resonant receivers can tap the earth's atmospheric electrical energy, with a magnetosphere boost. Tesla estimated the available energy of the earth-ionosphere cavity at 7.5 gigawatts. Dr. Rauscher today shows that it is closer to 3 terawatts (3 billion kW) with the magnetosphere included in the calculations, while the US only consumes about 425 million kW (425 GW) today for electrical needs (at 27% of the world usage, based on DOE-EIA data). Therefore, the earth about twice the capacity available for electrical consumption than the entire world presently utilizes everyday. The First Nikola Tesla Energy Science Conference & Exposition will be held November 8-9, 2003 in Washington DC Metro area at the Sheraton College Park Ballroom, 4095 Powder Mill Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705, phone 301-937-4422 www.sheraton.com/collegepark --============_-1145403040==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Wireless transmission of electricity
I've failed to get any response to my postings on the Rife Microscope. Did anyone see it? I'm hoping to get some response to this.

Tom Valone of Intregity Research sent me this. This is the first time that I've seen someone with academic credentials saying things like this.

Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, former professor of nuclear and astrophysics at the University of Nevada, has experimentally measured the earth's oscillatory waves called "Schumann cavity micropulsations." She maintains that the earth's magnetosphere is a potential source of electrical energy, as Tesla emphasized. Rauscher points out that relatively small longitudinal impulses, which a Tesla Tower could supply, theoretically can trigger earth-ionosphere oscillations to take place so resonant receivers can tap the earth's atmospheric electrical energy, with a magnetosphere boost. Tesla estimated the available energy of the earth-ionosphere cavity at 7.5 gigawatts. Dr. Rauscher today shows that it is closer to 3 terawatts (3 billion kW) with the magnetosphere included in the calculations, while the US only consumes about 425 million kW (425 GW) today for electrical needs (at 27% of the world usage, based on DOE-EIA data). Therefore, the earth about twice the capacity available for electrical consumption than the entire world presently utilizes everyday.


The First Nikola Tesla Energy Science Conference & Exposition will be held November 8-9, 2003 in Washington DC Metro area at the Sheraton College Park Ballroom, 4095 Powder Mill Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705, phone 301-937-4422 <http://www.sheraton.com/collegepark>www.sheraton.com/collegepark
--============_-1145403040==_ma============-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 06:00:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA05855; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:57:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:57:54 -0700 Message-ID: <01a301c397d2$a56daae0$995bccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: Subject: Re: Wireless transmission of electricity Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:29:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0194_01C397AD.6CE46670" 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 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52225 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_0194_01C397AD.6CE46670 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wireless transmission of electricityTom Mallow wrote: I've failed to get any response to my postings on the Rife Microscope. = Did anyone see it? I'm hoping to get some response to this. For some reason I did not get your post. I know a little about it: = what is your question or comment? My understanding, based on reports I = have read, is that Rife went to great lengths to build an illuninator = that could flood a specimen with essentially monochormatic light of = variable wavelength. This enabled him to avoid chromatic aberration in = the lens designs of his time, and achieve sharp images at higher = magnifications than were available in conventional microscopes. These = enabled him to see nanobacteria which he believed to be a previously = unknown source of disease, but one "expert" dismissed the spots as = 'dust'. Since then better lens designs have reduced chromatic = aberration. Great magnification and image clarity is obtained with = specialized optics used in microelectronics manufacture, but there, = again, monochromatic light sources are used.=20 Rife also believed that with the intense monochromatic light of his = illuminator, he could kill bacteria with illumination of the correct = wavelength. There is some current support for this. Currently, tunable = lasers would be used for such purposes. While I have not seen any = diagrams of Rife's illuminator, it must have been a tour de force for = its day, unfortunately insufficiently appreciated.=20 Tom Valone of Intregity Research sent me this. This is the first time = that I've seen someone with academic credentials saying things like = this. Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, former professor of nuclear and astrophysics = at the University of Nevada, has experimentally measured the earth's = oscillatory waves called "Schumann cavity micropulsations." She = maintains that the earth's magnetosphere is a potential source of = electrical energy, as Tesla emphasized. Rauscher points out that = relatively small longitudinal impulses, which a Tesla Tower could = supply, theoretically can trigger earth-ionosphere oscillations to take = place so resonant receivers can tap the earth's atmospheric electrical = energy, with a magnetosphere boost. Tesla estimated the available energy = of the earth-ionosphere cavity at 7.5 gigawatts. Dr. Rauscher today = shows that it is closer to 3 terawatts (3 billion kW) with the = magnetosphere included in the calculations, while the US only consumes = about 425 million kW (425 GW) today for electrical needs (at 27% of the = world usage, based on DOE-EIA data). Therefore, the earth about twice = the capacity available for electrical consumption than the entire world = presently utilizes everyday. The operative phrase is "theroetically trigger earth-ionosphere = oscillations" as if there exists an amplification effect such that = excitation by a transmitter at the correct frequency would cause a = cascade of large oscillations. Perhaps the more correct word is = "hopefully". If such instability existed, there are ample natural = phenomena that would 'trigger' it; we don't see it, so there must be = damping mechanisms as well. that does not mean that Tesla could not have = driven the earth-ionosphere cavity with his oscillator, nor tapped = energy from it at a distance. As for such being a means of distributing = universal 'free' energy, such excitation would generate radio noise that = would not be tolerated anytwhere today, where that same cavity is used = as a means of communication.=20 Mike Carrell ------=_NextPart_000_0194_01C397AD.6CE46670 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wireless transmission of electricity
Tom Mallow wrote:
 

I've failed to get any response to my = postings on the=20 Rife Microscope. Did anyone see it? I'm hoping to get some response to = this.
 
For some reason I did not get your post. I = know a little=20 about it: what is your question or comment? My understanding, based on = reports=20 I have read, is that Rife went to great lengths to build an = illuninator that=20 could flood a specimen with essentially monochormatic light of = variable=20 wavelength. This enabled him to avoid chromatic aberration in the lens = designs=20 of his time, and achieve sharp images at higher magnifications than = were=20 available in conventional microscopes. These enabled him to see = nanobacteria=20 which he believed to be a previously unknown source of disease, but = one=20 "expert" dismissed the spots as 'dust'. Since then better lens designs = have=20 reduced chromatic aberration. Great magnification and image clarity is = obtained with specialized optics used in microelectronics manufacture, = but=20 there, again, monochromatic light sources are used.
 
Rife also believed that with the intense = monochromatic=20 light of his illuminator, he could kill bacteria with illumination of = the=20 correct wavelength. There is some current support for this. Currently, = tunable=20 lasers would be used for such purposes. While I have not seen any = diagrams of=20 Rife's illuminator, it must have been a tour de force for its day,=20 unfortunately insufficiently appreciated.

Tom Valone of Intregity Research sent me = this. This=20 is the first time that I've seen someone with academic credentials = saying=20 things like this.

Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, former professor of = nuclear=20 and astrophysics at the University of Nevada, has experimentally = measured=20 the earth's oscillatory waves called "Schumann cavity = micropulsations."=20 She maintains that the earth's magnetosphere is a=20 potential source of electrical energy, as Tesla = emphasized. Rauscher=20 points out that relatively small longitudinal impulses, which a = Tesla=20 Tower could supply, theoretically = can trigger earth-ionosphere=20 oscillations to take place so resonant receivers can tap the = earth's=20 atmospheric electrical energy, with a magnetosphere boost. Tesla = estimated the=20 available energy of the earth-ionosphere cavity at 7.5 = gigawatts. Dr.=20 Rauscher today shows that it is closer to 3 terawatts (3 billion = kW) with=20 the magnetosphere included in the calculations, while the US only = consumes about 425 million kW (425 GW) today for electrical needs = (at 27%=20 of the world usage, based on DOE-EIA data). Therefore, the earth = about=20 twice the capacity available for electrical consumption than the = entire=20 world presently utilizes everyday.
 
The operative phrase is "theroetically trigger = earth-ionosphere oscillations" as if there exists an amplification = effect such=20 that excitation by a transmitter at the correct frequency would cause = a=20 cascade of large oscillations. Perhaps the more correct word is = "hopefully".=20 If such instability existed, there are ample natural phenomena that = would=20 'trigger' it; we don't see it, so there must be damping mechanisms as = well.=20 that does not mean that Tesla could not have driven the = earth-ionosphere=20 cavity with his oscillator, nor tapped energy from it at a distance. = As for=20 such being a means of distributing universal 'free' energy, such = excitation=20 would generate radio noise that would not be tolerated anytwhere = today, where=20 that same cavity is used as a means of communication. =
 
Mike Carrell
------=_NextPart_000_0194_01C397AD.6CE46670-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 09:14:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA23952; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:09:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:09:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20031021160840.50363.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: Wireless transmission of electricity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52226 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: and this would do what to weather, create what kind of em radiation, interference, ect..... --- thomas malloy wrote: > I've failed to get any response to my postings on > the Rife > Microscope. Did anyone see it? I'm hoping to get > some response to > this. > > Tom Valone of Intregity Research sent me this. This > is the first time > that I've seen someone with academic credentials > saying things like > this. > > Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, former professor of nuclear > and astrophysics > at the University of Nevada, has experimentally > measured the earth's > oscillatory waves called "Schumann cavity > micropulsations." > She maintains that the earth's magnetosphere is a > potential source of > electrical energy, as Tesla emphasized. Rauscher > points out > that relatively small longitudinal impulses, which a > Tesla Tower > could supply, theoretically can trigger > earth-ionosphere oscillations > to take place so resonant receivers can tap the > earth's atmospheric > electrical energy, with a magnetosphere boost. Tesla > estimated the > available energy of the earth-ionosphere cavity at > 7.5 gigawatts. Dr. > Rauscher today shows that it is closer to 3 > terawatts (3 billion > kW) with the magnetosphere included in the > calculations, while the US > only consumes about 425 million kW (425 GW) today > for electrical > needs (at 27% of the world usage, based on DOE-EIA > data). Therefore, > the earth about twice the capacity available for > electrical > consumption than the entire world presently utilizes > everyday. > > > The First Nikola Tesla Energy Science Conference & > Exposition will be > held November 8-9, 2003 in Washington DC Metro area > at the Sheraton > College Park Ballroom, 4095 Powder Mill Rd., > Beltsville, MD 20705, > phone 301-937-4422 > www.sheraton.com/collegepark __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 09:43:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA15055; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:39:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:39:44 -0700 Message-ID: <3F95612D.4080601@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:39:09 -0400 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wireless transmission of electricity References: <20031021160840.50363.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031021160840.50363.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52227 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: alexander hollins wrote: >and this would do what to weather, create what kind of >em radiation, interference, ect..... > Well, remember that little event in Tunguska, Siberia in 1908 . . . . ? http://www.frank.germano.com/tunguska.htm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 09:58:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA27052; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:55:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:55:13 -0700 Message-ID: <20031021165510.64909.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: Wireless transmission of electricity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <3F95612D.4080601@rtpatlanta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52228 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: personally, everyone says that his death ray was a modification of the transmitter. im not so sure myself. --- Terry Blanton wrote: > alexander hollins wrote: > > >and this would do what to weather, create what kind > of > >em radiation, interference, ect..... > > > > > Well, remember that little event in Tunguska, > Siberia in 1908 . . . . ? > > http://www.frank.germano.com/tunguska.htm > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 10:26:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA17719; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:21:02 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:21:02 -0700 Message-ID: <007201c397f6$ad5b59e0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031020143755.01cba8d8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Tacky sci-fi takes CF for granted Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:13:39 -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 KAA17647 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52229 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell writes: > Anyway, the point is, on some level in the popular culture the notion that > CF is real has become widespread. A deeper question is, at some level does "life imitate art" (not to imply that the movie is question is really art) ? Without trying to get to far out there philosophically, let's just say that "life imitates art" is a bit more than a humorous twisted idiom-meme... Sheldrake could not only be correct with his concept of memes, but he could just be scratching the surface, so to speak... i.e. the particular "memes" (like cold fusion) which take hold quickly here (Earth) could be memes that are either well-ingrained elsewhere, or hopefully the memes that take hold quickly here may do so because they are actually derived from reality elsewhere... Jones That explanation is akin to the only way that I personally can come-to-grips with the whole UFO phenomenon - I don't think the witnesses are lying (at least not all of them) but that they are individuals who cannot adequately separate reality from an overpowering meme (or waking dream) that could possibly reflect reality elsewhere... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 10:57:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA09764; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:53:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:53:10 -0700 Message-ID: <00ae01c397fb$2b0d8e40$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:45:48 -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 KAA09564 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52230 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This looks like another version of the story that Erik posted. Interesting thought building on this. Lets say that the CF reaction is quenched at a fairly moderate temperature but will tolerate moderate internal pressure (maybe CF is even more robust at pressure)... it goes without saying that we would would like to find some way to convert the heat of CF to electricity more efficiently than thermoelectrics... 7-10% efficiency from thermoelectrics isn't going to cut it (unless the COP is up around 15) and those high-tech thermoelectric chips from ENECO and others may not pan out... at any rate they need 600 F or higher to be efficient. At 358 degrees F, which should be within the range of CF heat, water will provide an internal steam pressure of about 150 psi. to a cell. Wouldn't that be enough pressure to force water through one of those ceramic filters in question? If the 10 volts were available I wonder if the amperage is even close to the molar volume which is passed? That might end up being fairly efficient thermodynamically, enough to self-power the cell with a little left over. Plus you could still use thermoelectric conversion on whatever heat remained. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 11:06:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA15507; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:00:26 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:00:26 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031021134651.01cba608@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:59:22 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Fleischmann responds to Lawrence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52231 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fleischmann responded to some comments made here by Stephen Lawrence, on September 29. Lawrence's comments: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Here's another answer, a little different from the one Jed got. I heard it in a lecture at MIT on cold fusion. The lecturer said this is the answer he got when he asked Fleischman the same question. As I recall it, he said he was told by Fleischman that it was "common knowledge" at the time among electrochemists that calibrating a calorimeter for an electrolysis run using light water was straightforward, and could be done to very high precision (a number of 99% sticks in my mind). BUT, Fleischmann told him, calibration using heavy water never worked well -- the results would commonly wander around by a few percent. A precision of perhaps 95% was the best one could do. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I asked Fleischmann, "did you recall saying this?" His response is rather wooly, which is typical of him. I guess it boils down to "no." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . With regard to this particular e-mail, it seems clear that this particular comment (that the calorimetry of the Pd-H and Pd-D systems is radically different; actually, we usually compared Pt-D and Pd-D - the effects are the same) originates in the recollections of a scientist of a lecture I gave at M.I.T. in the early days - certainly no later than 1990. The trouble with this type of verbal recollection is that it usually is wrong or incomplete (as is true of this particular case). As an highly experienced attorney said to me in S.L.C. such witness statements are known to be ~50% wrong. People tend to hear what they wish to hear and memory tends to emphasise the distinction between the actual statements and the recollections. I believe that what I must have said is that the calibration of the calorimeters with blanksystems (Pd-H or Pt-D) shows that these are highly precise and accurate. Our later measurements showed that the relative errors are ~ 0.01% but in 1989 they were 0.1% using the particular techniques we employed at that time. On the other hand, the errors with the Pd-D system are usually of the order of a few % sometimes a few 10%. What is more, these errors are biased in the sense that they imply the generation of heat in the system. Am I right that this is the interpretation which you have placed on the e-mail from Stephen Lawrence? It always seemed to me that it was hardly necessary to tell people that one had to determine the Instrument Functionof the calorimeters using blanksystems (which coincidentally gave the rate of excess enthalpy generation due to the reduction of electrogenerated oxygen) but I was wrong about this. In the early days, I wrote three papers about this and related matters; they were all rejected. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleischmann also took issue with Mizuno's comment that the the possibility of CF would occur to "any electrochemist." I think Fleischmann reads too much into this statement, which was meant to be somewhat casual. I think Mizuno meant that the possibility would occur to any electrochemists, but he would quickly dismiss it for precisely the reasons Fleischmann describes. It takes an enterprising researcher to proceed with an experiment he thinks is probably impossible. In other words, Mizuno's statements were "incomplete," as Fleischmann suggests. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I feel that I ought to add some comments about Mizuno's statements ; he is largely wrong or, at least, his statements are incomplete. The idea that D in Pd might undergo fusion might well occur to any electrochemist (it actually occurred to me in 1947) but, this idea would be rejected because Quantum Mechanics showed that such fusion was impossible. However starting in the late 1950's we developed a programme looking for the effects of Quantum Electrodynamics in the many-body condensed phase systems. Q.E.D. is a closed book to most people especially as regards to those aspects dealing with condensed phase systems. In 1983/84 Stan Pons and I asked the question whether Q.E.D. might also be relevant to fusion in lattices. As far as I was concerned, this was largely based on the work of Percy Bridgeman in the 1930's. . . . Of course, if Q.E.D. is first and foremost in your mind, you will decide quite early on that fusion in a lattice would be quite different to that in diluted plasmas. We therefore have two options; we can investigate the energy balances directly (as we have done) or else we can make some measurements derived from Hot Fusion. Incidentally, it is also quite wrong to say that the latter are *much* more sensitive than the former. Calorimetric methods exist which are nearly as sensitive as any measurements based on neutron emission but such methods have not been used so far largely because the effects have been so surprising (also, people do not know about these methods!). You might also bear in mind that (i) we were financing this work personally and therefore had to use a cheap methodology, (ii) we were carrying out this work in secret and therefore had to avoid systematic conventional nuclear measurements. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 11:25:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA03492; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:17 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 909b8a8ff0cae19159d456a4b333f05c Reply-To: michael.foster@excite.com From: "Michael Foster" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: michael.foster@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Message-Id: <20031021182127.D2A703E23@xmxpita.excite.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:21:27 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52232 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I love this. Two guys from Canada repeat Faraday's experiment from circa 1840 and everybody gets excited. OK, so Faraday used pond sediment pounded into an iron pipe instead of a glass frit. Poor old Mike gets less and less respect these days. M. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 11:39:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA15860; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:36:18 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:36:18 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031021140213.00bab1c8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:36:04 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52233 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > At 358 degrees F, which should be within the range of CF heat, water > will provide an internal steam pressure of about 150 psi. to a cell. > Wouldn't that be enough pressure to force water through one of those > ceramic filters in question? . . . > > Plus you could still use thermoelectric conversion on whatever heat > remained. That would make it a two-stage device, similar to a double expansion steam engine. (This is also called "cascading.") As long as you are making a two or three stage heat engine, you might as well use three types of thermoelectric chips designed for different temperatures. I expect that would be simpler, and probably cheaper. You can look up "multi-stage" or "cascade" + "thermoelectric" on Google to find many more references these days. Configurations such as this achieved ~17% efficiency at Japan's National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL), at 800 degrees C, in 1998. See: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/1998/07/980707.htm#top They are probably better than that by now, although I expect they are still lab prototypes. It makes little sense to develop expensive tiny thermoelectric generators (TEG) in today's world, where there are no tiny, cheap sources of heat. It is an interesting paradox that a zero-cost sort of heat (CF) would economically justify the development of relatively expensive small heat engine. Very cheap fuel usually calls for, and promotes, the development of cheaper engines, and engine peripherals (control systems and whatnot). This is similar to the way cheap CPU chips led to the development of cheap hard disks, keyboards, etc. However, in some cases these economic factors are overruled by enhanced usability or convenience. Thus, after a several-year delay, cheap semiconductors prompted the development of very expensive rechargeable batteries, for things like laptop computers and cell phones. Cheaper photovoltaic chips, small wind turbines and other conventional energy sources have already prompted the development of cheaper, more reliable control systems, inverters and other peripherals. These are usually in the 1 to 50 KW range, not cell-phone size. The demand for clean, reliable power for computers greatly reduced the price of small UPS systems. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 12:57:02 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA10606; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:51:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:51:39 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" , Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:14:08 -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: <20031021182127.D2A703E23@xmxpita.excite.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52234 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi. I agree with Mike, the basic technology has been around for a long time, I remember finding references to this effect when I was researching the double layer in electrochemical capacitors. The new thing, is the ability to machine a bazillion capillaries in a piece of ceramic, and fit them with some sort of electrode. That's a neat trick, and is to be respected, but it's hardly a "new" method of generating electricity. Rather it's a new manufacturing technique. K. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Foster [mailto:michael.foster@excite.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer I love this. Two guys from Canada repeat Faraday's experiment from circa 1840 and everybody gets excited. OK, so Faraday used pond sediment pounded into an iron pipe instead of a glass frit. Poor old Mike gets less and less respect these days. M. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 17:40:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA13185; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:37:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:37:04 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 909b8a8ff0cae19159d456a4b333f05c Reply-To: michael.foster@excite.com From: "Michael Foster" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: michael.foster@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Message-Id: <20031022003631.622603E2E@xmxpita.excite.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52237 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Keith wrote: > The new thing, is the ability to machine a bazillion > capillaries in a piece of ceramic, and fit them > with some sort of electrode. That's a neat trick, > and is to be respected, but it's hardly a "new" > method of generating electricity. Rather it's > a new manufacturing technique. Actually, modern high-tech materials may not be needed at all. Both chalk and plaster of Paris are microscopically porous and they may do the job just as well. Edison used the reverse of this effect to create what I think is one of the all-time cleverest and most unusual inventions, the electromotograph. This was a strange acoustic amplifier created in order to avoid infringing on Bell's electromagnetic telephone speaker patent. It's main drawback was that it was 'way too loud to have a private phone conversation; not to mention that you had to wind it up and you had keep it wet. I won't go into the details of its construction, as you can just look it up on Google, but it used a rotating wet chalk cylinder with a platinum spatula riding against it. In experimenting with this device, Edison discovered that it would generate an electric current. At the time this was thought to be an electrolytic effect, but no current was generated unless the cylinder was rotating. So I digress a little. M. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 16:00:09 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA02688; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:57:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:57:51 -0700 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <168.254a8d18.2cc713be@aol.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:57:02 EDT Subject: Re: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1066777022" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 920 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52236 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------------------------------1066777022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:55:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonesb9@pacbell.net writes: Interesting thought building on this. Lets say that the CF reaction is quenched at a fairly moderate temperature but will tolerate moderate internal pressure (maybe CF is even more robust at pressure)... it goes without saying that we would would like to find some way to convert the heat of CF to electricity more efficiently than thermoelectrics... 7-10% efficiency from thermoelectrics isn't going to cut it (unless the COP is up around 15) and those high-tech thermoelectric chips from ENECO and others may not pan out... at any rate they need 600 F or higher to be efficient. The Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery developed around 1990, which is patented and proven to work as posted at www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm is 50 percent efficient, since it uses resonant circuits to transfer ions into electricity directly and can be powered by cold fusion to excite ions in the battery. If we use miniature super conducting circuits instead of resonant circuits in the Paul Brown battery we can get the power conversion from cold fusion directly to electricity up to 75 percent or higher. Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1066777022 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:55:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonesb9= @pacbell.net writes:
Interesting thought building on this. Lets say= that the CF reaction is quenched at a fairly moderate temperature but will=20= tolerate moderate internal pressure (maybe CF is even more robust at pressur= e)... it goes without saying that we would would like to find some way to co= nvert the heat of CF to electricity more efficiently than thermoelectrics...=

7-10% efficiency from thermoelectrics isn't going to cut it (unless=20= the COP is up around 15) and those high-tech thermoelectric chips from ENECO= and others may not pan out... at any rate they need 600 F or higher to be e= fficient.
The Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery developed around 1990, whi= ch is patented and proven to work as posted at  www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm is 50 percent= efficient, since it uses resonant circuits to transfer ions into electricit= y directly and can be powered by cold fusion to excite ions in the battery.&= nbsp; If we use miniature super conducting circuits instead of resonant circ= uits in the Paul Brown battery we can get the power conversion from cold fus= ion directly to electricity up to 75 percent or higher.
 

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1066777022-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 19:07:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA18962; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:05:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:05:21 -0700 From: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:04:39 +0000 (UTC) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: NOTvery close to new ....Re: a 'soil battery' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52238 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo., some quick notes: (A) The idea of using two dissimilar metals as electrodes for a battery is centuries old. (B) Using varied forms of "already there electrolytes" including soil, sea water, other water, plant and animal electrolytes is Also centuries old. (C) The electrodes will corrode and expend themselves so this is not a "free energy" set up. (D) This is an example of old work that has been published as "new" and the reasons behind this include but are by no means limited to: 1] hyped by news 2] information from "Internet" and "digital-computer-data base" sources being a poor substitute for paper information in many cases. The first things to do when one reads about a 'new and improved' something involve a little common sense and homework. Look up the terms and teach youself something about the topic, or find a good tutor or mentor to help you learn. The McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science is not a bad place to begin. However you Must follow a few simple guidelines if you hope to benefit beyond marginally: a] Look up the topics in the PAPER printer version in the library. b] Using pencil and paper Write Down all the terms in the articles you consult that fall intoi any of the following groups: 1] The term[s] are not familiar to you. 2] The article suggests you to look up the follow on terms with wording to the effect of: "See xxx" 3] Look up ALL the terms from above... AND .... Follow Through on any terms This may generate. Those who take the effort to do this will be ahead of 99 percents of their peers in most cases, and far far beyond those who only use computers for their information. JH NOTE TO Rajesh: Please contact me in private if you would like to discuss real energy systems. On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:08:56 -0400 > From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu, vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: a 'soil battery' > > Hi all > > I joined this group a month or so back when I had joined the Phoenix-Quest > group. > > Am no expert on vortex issues but I like to read about what all are > thinking in this field. > > Anyway, I came across a latest local newswire agency report here (am from > Bombay in India) about a > man developing a new kind of battery. I thought I should share it with you > all. Its given below. I > look forward to your thoughts/views on this. > > Rajesh > > Here goes: > > http://in.news.yahoo.com/031018/139/28mhr.html > > Saturday October 18, 4:56 PM > > Mumbai man turns up with a new type of battery > > Mumbai, Oct.18 (ANI): Dhiren Thaker, a junior manager in the information > technology department at > Jindal Iron and Steel Company, has conceptualized and developed an > alternative method of generating > electricity. Would you believe it, he has achieved this feat simply with > the use of soil. > > He has named his experiment as "Soil Battery." Starting his research in > 1987, Thaker has > successfully managed to run a digital clock, an analog clock, a > transistor, light emission diodes, > calculators and video games. He says that these gadgets have been running > on the soil battery for > the last three years without any problem, and adds that the electrical > power remains constant with > no change in current or voltage fluctuations. These batteries need be > watered only once a year. > > What strikes the imagination is not the mere running of these gadgets, but > the scientific and > futuristic implications of this research for rural, medical and military > applications. > > Incidentally Dhiren has also experimented with other alternate electrical > resources, such as trees > and plants (bananas, leaves etc), but he ruled them out as it not being > eco-friendly. > > "It is a simple arrangement of two electrodes- anode (copper plate) and > cathode (zinc plate) placed > in an electrolyte (moist soil). Electrolysis takes place wherein negative > ions generated by the > cathode flow to the anode and the positive ions flow to the cathode. The > electrolyte makes the > energy flow possible," Dhiren says. > > "Soil in itself constitutes of different types of elements, the most > crucial of which are iron, > potassium and magnesium. Hence, it is with this such arrangement that a > process of electrolysis > takes place," he adds. > > Soil containing urea generates current up to more than 13mA. A single cell > of the developed 'Soil > Battery' created has been tested to generate 0.85 V to 1.24 V and up to > 10mA current. Such several > cells can be arranged and connected in parallel and series to generate > required electrical energy > for various purposes and applications. > > "I hope the media and the concerned scientific and governmental > authorities will hear my call for > support. I will be able to start my research in a bigger scale. This is my > project, which is meant > for rural India, where electricity is such a scarce and expensive > commodity," Thaker said. (ANI) > > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 21 23:45:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id XAA18588; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:43:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:43:22 -0700 Message-ID: <002101c3985f$3cfdffe0$3d10b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: CF Heat and Neutrino-Deuteron/Proton,or Electron Scattering Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:42:02 -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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9403b87acdab0ddf443fb519544c038144e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52239 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: IMHO, any neutrino that starts out from a CF or "LENR-CANR" reaction has to give a "kick" to the involved nuclei sufficient to create local heat regardless of the extremely low interaction/scattering (Proton, Deuteron or Electron) cross section of the neutrino once it is in flight. http://www.to.infn.it/~giunti/NU/pap/0211462/node35.html http://jupiter.as.arizona.edu/~burrows/eos.wind.thermal/thermal.html http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/facultyinfo/beier/beier.html http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/42/1/16 This one is 76 pages long, but pages 14-19 are of interest. http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/pr/2002/PR02CompendiumWeb.pdf Even though an electron neutrino might have a "rest mass of ~ 0.4 eV, if it kicks off a nucleus with 0.51 MeV it is moving very close to c, with a relativistic mass equal to half the rest mass of an electron (~ 4.5e-31 kg). Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 22 05:58:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA01360; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:57:33 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:57:33 -0700 Message-ID: <001101c39893$7fec1a60$ee11b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: CF Heat and Neutrino-Deuteron/Proton,or Electron Scattering Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:56:07 -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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940923171667dfc86ac856cdd1244f645c6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <6JxC0B.A.KV.86nl_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52240 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Although the pep-reaction (that produces a 1.44 MeV neutrino) is 230 times less likely to occur in the solar core than the pp reaction between two protons that produces a deuteron (a bound proton neutron) plus a positron and a spectrum of 0.42 MeV neutrinos, it certainly looks like the CF/LENR-CANR reactions strongly resemble the pep reaction mechanism. This implies that reactions such as D-e-D, D-e-T, D-e-He, D-e-Pd, D-e-Ni, and so on, occur in CF/LENR-CANR reactions resulting in "Recoil Heat" and the virtually undetectable neutrino (with a higher probability, and without the electron-positron and neutrino-antineutrino pair production that has to occur in the pp reaction). Could it be that "low energy deuteron stripping" that occurs in low energy deuterium discharges, produces neutrinos? Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 22 08:11:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA10471; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:06:20 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:06:20 -0700 Message-ID: <002901c398a5$7e9314e0$ee11b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: CF Heat and Neutrino-Deuteron/Proton,or Electron Scattering Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:05:00 -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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940412547fc6061cec17a1ac7f081987a11350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52241 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:45:08 Frederick Sparber wrote: > IMHO, any neutrino that starts out from a CF or "LENR-CANR" reaction has to give a > "kick" to the involved nuclei sufficient to create local heat regardless of the > extremely low interaction/scattering (Proton, Deuteron or Electron) cross section of > the neutrino once it is in flight. Even though an electron neutrino might have a "rest mass of ~ 0.4 eV, if it kicks off a nucleus with 1.44 MeV it is moving very close to c, with a relativistic mass equal to 1.44 MeV/0.4 eV +1 = 3.6e6 times it's E/c^2 = 7.1e-37 kg rest mass = 2.56e-30 kg or ~ 2,8 times the 9.1e-31 kg rest mass of an electron. Thus MV ~ = mc where MV is the recoil momentum of the reacting nucleus and mc is the momentum of the neutrino. Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 10:32:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA04880; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007e01c39988$1971db80$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" References: <20031022003631.622603E2E@xmxpita.excite.com> Subject: Re: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:07:08 -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 mx2.eskimo.com id KAA04826 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52242 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Foster writes > Keith wrote: > > The new thing, is the ability to machine a bazillion > > capillaries in a piece of ceramic, and fit them > > with some sort of electrode. That's a neat trick, > > and is to be respected, but it's hardly a "new" > > method of generating electricity. Rather it's > > a new manufacturing technique. > Actually, modern high-tech materials may not be needed at all. Both chalk and plaster of Paris are microscopically porous and they may do the job just as well. Maybe even a supposed "new manufacturing technique" is too generous. On a closer look, this announcement now seems little more than tripe, but not for the reasons above.... One has to wonder why the announcement would ever be cast in the aura of a breakthrough if it were even an improved manufacturing technique involving finer capillaries, but it may not even be that. I just downloaded the article from IOP (where it is free for 30 days), but I don't have time to read it closely today: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0960-1317/13/6/320/ But from the abstract, I think it is clear to see why this, or really not ANY electro-kinetic concept will be commercialized soon: "As the streaming current is of the order of a nano-amphere and is additive, we propose here a method to develop an electrokinetic battery consisting of an array of microchannels that converts the hydrostatic pressure of a liquid into electrical work." OK, get this: to get an amp of current we would have to place a billion of these membranes in series. If the pressure drop per layer were only, say, a half atm. per layer (generous) ... then...well, you can see the probelm: 500 million atm of pressure to get an amp of current, or 10 watts of power. If you have ever used one of those ceramic water filters when camping, you are probably well aware that these things do not pass liquids easily. In order to maximize the Helmholz layer separation possibilities, it would seem one would need to get the porosity down in the sub-nanometer range - this is true, but even that has been done in the past (and NASA still does it today), but that technology is still not true electrokinetics and it is ineffectual as a primary energy converter but is useful for a stored energy source (sodium-sulphur battery, now known as NAS or AMTEC). The Helmholz layer is really all about "structural capacitance" and it has been pretty well-known for a long time (Debye-Hückel theory ) that large amounts of applied mechanical pressure are insufficient to overcome the much larger electrostatic forces involved; ergo, ANY and all membrane concepts are doomed except so far as it may be useful only for a battery that must be recharged (because then one is dealing with *variations* in EM forces, and not EM vs. pressure (which is electokinetics). This may sound like a small difference in semantics, but the problems with true electrokinetics are much more difficult to overcome, and nothing has come closer so far than AMTEC. For a "prime mover" energy converter. i.e. one where pressure gradients or temperature gradient is somehow able to be converted into electrical current directly, then all this hoopla from Canada is misguided (is science journalism now taking its cues from Madison Avenue?) and this research has really not accomplished anything major and the article title is misleading if not an outright lie. At best they claim to generate a tiny amt. of electricity (one nano -amp !) from a pressure gradient, using water flowing through small channels but that is not new nor in any way a method of generating electricity "from water," not even an improved manufacturing technique (but maybe I should wait before casting this article as absolute BS until studying the download in greater detail). Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 10:52:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA28594; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:49:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:49:11 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:11:48 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <007e01c39988$1971db80$8837fea9@cpq> X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52243 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Jones. Sorry to sound a bit testy, but what makes you think that the arrays need to be in series to get a reasonable current? The arrays need to be in parallel, like any other source of EMF, to get more current. So you drill a billion holes in the ceramic, and get a few milliamps of current. Presumably it's not some elderly master machinist on the Bridgeport, hence my comment on the machining technique. It would be nice if some "off the shelf" thing could be used, as suggested by Mike ( what a weird invention he mentions! ). The claims were on the order of 10V 1mA or thereabouts, as I've read on the web. I'd appreciate a copy of the article. K. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jonesb9@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:07 PM To: vortex Subject: Re: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Michael Foster writes > Keith wrote: > > The new thing, is the ability to machine a bazillion > > capillaries in a piece of ceramic, and fit them > > with some sort of electrode. That's a neat trick, > > and is to be respected, but it's hardly a "new" > > method of generating electricity. Rather it's > > a new manufacturing technique. > Actually, modern high-tech materials may not be needed at all. Both chalk and plaster of Paris are microscopically porous and they may do the job just as well. Maybe even a supposed "new manufacturing technique" is too generous. On a closer look, this announcement now seems little more than tripe, but not for the reasons above.... One has to wonder why the announcement would ever be cast in the aura of a breakthrough if it were even an improved manufacturing technique involving finer capillaries, but it may not even be that. I just downloaded the article from IOP (where it is free for 30 days), but I don't have time to read it closely today: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0960-1317/13/6/320/ But from the abstract, I think it is clear to see why this, or really not ANY electro-kinetic concept will be commercialized soon: "As the streaming current is of the order of a nano-amphere and is additive, we propose here a method to develop an electrokinetic battery consisting of an array of microchannels that converts the hydrostatic pressure of a liquid into electrical work." OK, get this: to get an amp of current we would have to place a billion of these membranes in series. If the pressure drop per layer were only, say, a half atm. per layer (generous) ... then...well, you can see the probelm: 500 million atm of pressure to get an amp of current, or 10 watts of power. If you have ever used one of those ceramic water filters when camping, you are probably well aware that these things do not pass liquids easily. In order to maximize the Helmholz layer separation possibilities, it would seem one would need to get the porosity down in the sub-nanometer range - this is true, but even that has been done in the past (and NASA still does it today), but that technology is still not true electrokinetics and it is ineffectual as a primary energy converter but is useful for a stored energy source (sodium-sulphur battery, now known as NAS or AMTEC). The Helmholz layer is really all about "structural capacitance" and it has been pretty well-known for a long time (Debye-Hückel theory ) that large amounts of applied mechanical pressure are insufficient to overcome the much larger electrostatic forces involved; ergo, ANY and all membrane concepts are doomed except so far as it may be useful only for a battery that must be recharged (because then one is dealing with *variations* in EM forces, and not EM vs. pressure (which is electokinetics). This may sound like a small difference in semantics, but the problems with true electrokinetics are much more difficult to overcome, and nothing has come closer so far than AMTEC. For a "prime mover" energy converter. i.e. one where pressure gradients or temperature gradient is somehow able to be converted into electrical current directly, then all this hoopla from Canada is misguided (is science journalism now taking its cues from Madison Avenue?) and this research has really not accomplished anything major and the article title is misleading if not an outright lie. At best they claim to generate a tiny amt. of electricity (one nano -amp !) from a pressure gradient, using water flowing through small channels but that is not new nor in any way a method of generating electricity "from water," not even an improved manufacturing technique (but maybe I should wait before casting this article as absolute BS until studying the download in greater detail). Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 11:41:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA04432; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:33:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:33:04 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031023143214.01cbab70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:32:53 -0400 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Energy bill animated cartoon by Fiore Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52244 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is pretty funny: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/ - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 11:54:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA21757; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:50:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:50:08 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:51:29 -0500 Subject: Re: More on thermal depolymerization Message-ID: <20031023.135556.-1972005.2.wardsworld@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3 From: Ward Johanson Resent-Message-ID: <7NmlAD.A.3TF.fLCm_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52245 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello Jed, How are you and yours? How would I look up your reference See: N. Kristof, "Fighting the Fevers," New York Times, September 24, 2003? Ward From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 11:55:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA23382; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:52:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:52:08 -0700 Message-ID: <004d01c39995$ca637b80$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:45:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01C3995B.1D7E5C80" 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: <0JJURB.A.3sF.WNCm_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52246 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_004A_01C3995B.1D7E5C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Keith writes, "but what makes you think that the arrays need to be in series to get a = reasonable current? The arrays need to be in parallel, like any other source of = EMF, to get more current. So you drill a billion holes in the ceramic, = and get a few milliamps of current. Presumably it's not some elderly = master machinist on the Bridgeport, hence my comment on the machining technique." I was going by the author's own wording of "additive" in the abstract = but as you say, parallel makes more sense in the context of increasing = current....=20 but, alas, it looks like you are now going to force me to read this = article despite being turned-off by the apparent hyperbole (which of = course is not the fault of the "real" authors but rather the fault of = the secondary sources...) "The claims were on the order of 10V 1mA or thereabouts, as I've read on = the web." The abstract was claiming "nano" not "milli" nor "micro" but, as stated, = the actual article is available from IOP. Let me know if you can't = download it and I will forward the PDF. Jones BTW a quick glance at the article shows a maximum efficiency of .05% = (fig 10) and indeed the plates appear to be stacked in series (fig 11) = and not in parallel, but give me a little more time... ugh, not very = encouraging.... ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C3995B.1D7E5C80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Keith writes,
 
"but what makes you think that the arrays need to be in series to = get a=20 reasonable
current? The arrays need to be in parallel, like any other = source=20 of EMF, to get more current. So you drill a billion holes in the = ceramic, and=20 get a few milliamps of current. Presumably it's not some elderly master=20 machinist on the Bridgeport, hence my
comment on the machining=20 technique."
 
I was going by the author's own wording of "additive" in the = abstract=20 but as you say, parallel makes more sense in the context of increasing=20 current....
 
but, alas, it looks like you are now going to force me to read = this=20 article despite being turned-off by the apparent hyperbole (which of = course is=20 not the fault of the "real" authors but rather the fault of the = secondary=20 sources...)
 
"The claims were on the order of 10V 1mA or thereabouts, as I've = read on=20 the web."
 
The abstract was claiming "nano" not "milli" nor "micro" but, as = stated,=20 the actual article is available from IOP. Let me know if you can't = download it=20 and I will forward the PDF.
 
Jones
 
BTW a quick glance at the article shows a maximum efficiency of = .05% (fig=20 10) and indeed the plates appear to be stacked in series (fig 11) and = not in=20 parallel, but give me a little more time... ugh, not very = encouraging....
 
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C3995B.1D7E5C80-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 12:27:59 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA08897; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:16:08 -0700 (PDT) From: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:15:23 +0000 (UTC) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: What is Titanium 50 ''required'' for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52247 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I do not know who sent the message reproduced below... but am curious about what Ti-5- is required for? On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:48:34 -0400 > From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: herman@bw113.antioch-college.edu, vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Transmutation Cu-65 and Ag-110 > > Whilst I realisie that ordinary chemical methods cannot separate or enrich > proportions of isotopes, this company claims to be able to precisely > control > the parameters of nano crystal formation in titanium dioxide.. One wonders > if this technique could be adopted to enrich samples to get the Jones > Beene's "required" smmaple of titanium-50? > > http://www.altairinc.com/ > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 12:44:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA29280; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:39:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:39:28 -0700 Message-ID: <001f01c3999c$5570a760$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:31:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C39961.A7A82D40" 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52248 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_001C_01C39961.A7A82D40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Keith, Yes, it appears that decent current (microamp) requires a parallel array = of many chips, but these are not machined "holes" like in a membrane, so = much as channels cut by lithography techniques...and the overall = efficiency is not high. It looks like a microamp to power a MEMS device is all they are after... "It is noted that a 1500 nA current from a 30 cm hydrostatic pressure = drop using tap water might not be large enough to power up most = microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) devices."=20 Bottom line: Looks to me like the popular science headline writers took = an innocent story and blew it out of proportion.=20 Do you find anything here that points towards a useable improvement in = the direct conversion of either heat or pressure into electricity? Jones ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C39961.A7A82D40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Keith,
 
Yes, it appears that decent current (microamp) requires a = parallel=20 array of many chips, but these are not machined "holes" like in a = membrane, so=20 much as channels cut by lithography techniques...and the overall = efficiency is=20 not high.
 
It looks like a microamp to power a MEMS device is all they are=20 after...
 
"It is noted that a 1500 nA current from a 30 cm hydrostatic = pressure drop=20 using tap water might not be large enough to power up most=20 microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) devices."
 
Bottom line: Looks to me like the popular science headline writers = took an=20 innocent story and blew it out of proportion.
 
Do you find anything here that points towards a = useable improvement in=20 the direct conversion of either heat or pressure into electricity?
 
Jones
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C39961.A7A82D40-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 16:36:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA17960; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:29:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:29:39 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:52:10 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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: <004d01c39995$ca637b80$8837fea9@cpq> X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <3iFZoC.A.WYE.iRGm_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52249 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Jones. What's with this HTML jive??? ME PREFER ALL CAPS! CAPSLOCK KEY IS GOOD! LIKE OLD DAYS OF TERMINALS WITH FUNNY SQUARE HOLED CARDS!?!?! Ok, I'll stop shouting now. Back to God's own tongue, 7-bit ASCII. I'm looking at figure 11. Clearly the microchannels are running horizontal to the page, and are arranged in parallel. Fig 3. shows schematically what they're doing, each microchannel is modeled as a separate element, all in parallel. A triumph of nanotechnological engineering. They mention using common porous materials, as we've been discussing here. The conclusion mentions current in the microamp range. I have heard news reports mentioning the higher values, but they could be exaggerated. I thought I read it @ newscientist.com but not so... K. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jonesb9@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:45 PM To: vortex Subject: RE: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Keith writes, "but what makes you think that the arrays need to be in series to get a reasonable current? The arrays need to be in parallel, like any other source of EMF, to get more current. So you drill a billion holes in the ceramic, and get a few milliamps of current. Presumably it's not some elderly master machinist on the Bridgeport, hence my comment on the machining technique." I was going by the author's own wording of "additive" in the abstract but as you say, parallel makes more sense in the context of increasing current.... but, alas, it looks like you are now going to force me to read this article despite being turned-off by the apparent hyperbole (which of course is not the fault of the "real" authors but rather the fault of the secondary sources...) "The claims were on the order of 10V 1mA or thereabouts, as I've read on the web." The abstract was claiming "nano" not "milli" nor "micro" but, as stated, the actual article is available from IOP. Let me know if you can't download it and I will forward the PDF. Jones BTW a quick glance at the article shows a maximum efficiency of .05% (fig 10) and indeed the plates appear to be stacked in series (fig 11) and not in parallel, but give me a little more time... ugh, not very encouraging.... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 18:54:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA03710; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:52:29 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:52:29 -0700 From: Yakov Reply-To: rockcast@earthlink.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, "Jones Beene" Subject: Re: Electric energy from water Helmholtz layer Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:55:29 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <20031022003631.622603E2E@xmxpita.excite.com> <007e01c39988$1971db80$8837fea9@cpq> In-Reply-To: <007e01c39988$1971db80$8837fea9@cpq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310232155.29722.rockcast@earthlink.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id SAA03643 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52250 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thursday 23 October 2003 13:07, Jones Beene wrote: > Michael Foster writes > > > Keith wrote: > > > The new thing, is the ability to machine a bazillion > > > capillaries in a piece of ceramic, and fit them > > > with some sort of electrode. That's a neat trick, > > > and is to be respected, but it's hardly a "new" > > > method of generating electricity. Rather it's > > > a new manufacturing technique. > > > > Actually, modern high-tech materials may not be needed at all. Both chalk > > and plaster of Paris are microscopically porous and they may do the job > > just as well. > > Maybe even a supposed "new manufacturing technique" is too generous. On a > closer look, this announcement now seems little more than tripe, but not > for the reasons above.... One has to wonder why the announcement would ever > be cast in the aura of a breakthrough if it were even an improved > manufacturing technique involving finer capillaries, but it may not even be > that. I just downloaded the article from IOP (where it is free for 30 > days), but I don't have time to read it closely today: > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0960-1317/13/6/320/ > > But from the abstract, I think it is clear to see why this, or really not > ANY electro-kinetic concept will be commercialized soon: > > "As the streaming current is of the order of a nano-amphere and is > additive, we propose here a method to develop an electrokinetic battery > consisting of an array of microchannels that converts the hydrostatic > pressure of a liquid into electrical work." > > OK, get this: to get an amp of current we would have to place a billion of > these membranes in series. If the pressure drop per layer were only, say, > a half atm. per layer (generous) ... then...well, you can see the probelm: > 500 million atm of pressure to get an amp of current, or 10 watts of power. > If you have ever used one of those ceramic water filters when camping, you > are probably well aware that these things do not pass liquids easily. > > In order to maximize the Helmholz layer separation possibilities, it would > seem one would need to get the porosity down in the sub-nanometer range - > this is true, but even that has been done in the past (and NASA still does > it today), but that technology is still not true electrokinetics and it is > ineffectual as a primary energy converter but is useful for a stored energy > source (sodium-sulphur battery, now known as NAS or AMTEC). > > The Helmholz layer is really all about "structural capacitance" and it has > been pretty well-known for a long time (Debye-Hückel theory ) that large > amounts of applied mechanical pressure are insufficient to overcome the > much larger electrostatic forces involved; ergo, ANY and all membrane > concepts are doomed except so far as it may be useful only for a battery > that must be recharged (because then one is dealing with *variations* in EM > forces, and not EM vs. pressure (which is electokinetics). > > This may sound like a small difference in semantics, but the problems with > true electrokinetics are much more difficult to overcome, and nothing has > come closer so far than AMTEC. For a "prime mover" energy converter. i.e. > one where pressure gradients or temperature gradient is somehow able to be > converted into electrical current directly, then all this hoopla from > Canada is misguided (is science journalism now taking its cues from Madison > Avenue?) and this research has really not accomplished anything major and > the article title is misleading if not an outright lie. At best they claim > to generate a tiny amt. of electricity (one nano -amp !) from a pressure > gradient, using water flowing through small channels but that is not new > nor in any way a method of generating electricity "from water," not even an > improved manufacturing technique (but maybe I should wait before casting > this article as absolute BS until studying the download in greater detail). > > Jones Aw Crud!!! And I was so hoping that the gent had stumbled, as if no one else had serendipitiousely found it before in over one hundred years of the principle's knowledge and use, that capillary action itself, possibly out of ZPE, would generate the movement and give rise to the moving electric field and so generate power; but like the senile old man outside the cathouse, I'll just go away dreaming sad, bad thoughts. Yakov From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 19:39:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA04283; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:37:27 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:37:27 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:37:46 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: fabricating a water battery Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52251 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: suppose you could find a ceramic substrate with the proper sized holes. The paper has a graph with size of holes on one axis and output on the other. Now suppose that I used chip making technology to put a billion electrodes on the ceramic. The electrodes would be configured to hook the cells in series. Then just fill the container with electrolyte and pressurize it with air and I would have a direct converter of mechanical pressure to electricity. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 23 19:45:34 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA07122; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:40:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:40:44 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3F95612D.4080601@rtpatlanta.com> References: <20031021160840.50363.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> <3F95612D.4080601@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:40:57 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: Wireless transmission of electricity Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-DCC-CPI-Metrics: Clear 1161; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52252 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In response to my posting >alexander hollins wrote: > >>and this would do what to weather, create what kind of >>em radiation, interference, ect..... >> To which Terry Blanton replied > >Well, remember that little event in Tunguska, Siberia in 1908 . . . . ? > >http://www.frank.germano.com/tunguska.htm I've heard that scenario before Terry, I fail to see how a beam weapon could produce the anomalous isotopes which were detected at Tunguska. I much prefer the exploding comet theory. It seem to me that Mike Carrel is right in his belief that since there are natural and man made electrical oscillations which should trigger these earth ionosphere oscillations, we should be able to see them. The article that Tom Valone published talked about longitudinal waves. AFAIK, all the EMF waves that humans generate are longitudinal. That is other than the waves generated by noninductive coils. I'm wondering if there are any natural phenomena that generate longitudinal waves? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 24 11:37:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA27000; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:11 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:11 -0700 Message-ID: <20031024183202.63061.qmail@web11707.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: fabricating a water battery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52253 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: now, while it may not be a good generator, everyone, you do realize that tom here has possibly just created the worlds smallest and most accurate pressure sensor? --- thomas malloy wrote: > suppose you could find a ceramic substrate with the > proper sized > holes. The paper has a graph with size of holes on > one axis and > output on the other. Now suppose that I used chip > making technology > to put a billion electrodes on the ceramic. The > electrodes would be > configured to hook the cells in series. Then just > fill the container > with electrolyte and pressurize it with air and I > would have a direct > converter of mechanical pressure to electricity. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 25 11:10:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA28186; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:07:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:07:04 -0700 Message-ID: <002501c39b21$cf08eac0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:59:14 -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 LAA27995 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52254 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It is not well-known among PhDs (but it is taken for granted on vortex) that one can use simple sparking to create X-rays which are of much higher energy than the sparking voltage. For instance, 800 volt sparks will create X-rays of 10 keV. The implications for an improved free-energy experiment based on possibly boot-strapping this are not yet clear, but could be significant. This surprising effect is partially (and maybe inadequately) explained in the literature by the so called "pinch" effect. A generally accepted explanation of the pinch effect mechanics is based on the "radiation collapse" model, a model that has relevance to CF. Here is a paper that is of interest because the credentials of the authors (SLAC) appear to be above reproach: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/icfa/fall97/paper2/paper2.pdf The effect itself is not claimed to be OU, by any means (the authors do have to protect their phoney-baloney jobs, as Mel Brooks likes to say), but one wonders, given that many types of similar discharges are claimed to eventually produce excess energy in plasma experiments like Chernetskii, Correa, Mizuno, etc, even going back to Langmuir's torch in the 1920's, if the effect could not be refined into something that is rock-solid, crystal clear evidence of overunity, if only to silence the critics and the oft-heard retort that OU has never been conclusively demonstrated... ... also of interest, the authors state: "The maximum observed X-ray energy (~10keV), generated at the lowest voltage (~0.8kV), is above K-shell energy of typical gases we used in our tests, and materials used in our spark electrodes (see Table 1 and Chapter 4). The X-ray production persists even for the carbon electrodes which have the smallest K-shell energy (0.284keV); this would appear to eliminate a theory that the electrode atoms are responsible for the X-ray production." I take this to mean that since the k-shell of the gases and electrodes are not responsible for the x-rays, then the effect must be *nuclear* by default .... well, even though that fact may negate the importance of the experiment suggested above (because anything nuclear is clearly NOT overunity, as that term is normally defined), nevertheless... ... think about the implication of nuclear reactions at 800 volts! Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 25 11:41:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA21604; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:38:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:38:51 -0700 Message-ID: <007201c39b27$238f9cb0$1845ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <002501c39b21$cf08eac0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:38:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52255 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones said: > It is not well-known among PhDs (but it is taken for granted on vortex) that one can use simple sparking to create X-rays which are of much higher energy than the sparking voltage. For instance, 800 volt sparks will create X-rays of 10 keV. The implications for an improved free-energy experiment based on possibly boot-strapping this are not yet clear, but could be significant. > > This surprising effect is partially (and maybe inadequately) explained in the literature by the so called "pinch" effect. A generally accepted explanation of the pinch effect mechanics is based on the "radiation collapse" model, a model that has relevance to CF. Here is a paper that is of interest because the credentials of the authors (SLAC) appear to be above reproach: > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/icfa/fall97/paper2/paper2.pdf > > The effect itself is not claimed to be OU, by any means (the authors do have to protect their phoney-baloney jobs, as Mel Brooks likes to say), but one wonders, given that many types of similar discharges are claimed to eventually produce excess energy in plasma experiments like Chernetskii, Correa, Mizuno, etc, even going back to Langmuir's torch in the 1920's, if the effect could not be refined into something that is rock-solid, crystal clear evidence of overunity, if only to silence the critics and the oft-heard retort that OU has never been conclusively demonstrated... > > ... also of interest, the authors state: > "The maximum observed X-ray energy (~10keV), generated at the lowest voltage > (~0.8kV), is above K-shell energy of typical gases we used in our tests, and materials used in our spark electrodes (see Table 1 and Chapter 4). The X-ray production persists even for the carbon electrodes which have the smallest K-shell energy (0.284keV); this would appear to eliminate a theory that the electrode atoms are responsible for the X-ray production." > > I take this to mean that since the k-shell of the gases and electrodes are not responsible for the x-rays, then the effect must be *nuclear* by default .... well, even though that fact may negate the importance of the experiment suggested above (because anything nuclear is clearly NOT overunity, as that term is normally defined), nevertheless... > > ... think about the implication of nuclear reactions at 800 volts! An interesting thought. The Correa's PAGD cell was driven by a stack of gel-cell batteries totaling a few hundred volts, and the load was a similar battery pack. The packs were carefully calibrated before and after each run by fully charging them and then observing the discharge curve over time. The energy extracted from the source pack by maintaining the discharge conditions could then be compared with the energy dumped into the sink pack over the test period. Batteries were used instead of conventional power supplies because phenomena attendant to the cell's operation tended to ruin the supplies. In one experiment, the Correas arranged switching so that the source and sink packs could be exchanged, and for eight hours observed operation without external input power, and a net gain in the energy of the sink packs. Their demonstration cell operated well below atmospheric pressure. Observation of the discharge and artifacts left on the electrodes suggest the existence of a vortex of energy, consistent with the aether theories of Harold Aspden. I know of no claims for nuclear energy. Nor, in that context, for ZPE as generally understood. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 25 12:37:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA03947; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:34:10 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:34:10 -0700 Message-ID: <003b01c39b2d$fc971820$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <002501c39b21$cf08eac0$8837fea9@cpq> <007201c39b27$238f9cb0$1845ccd1@asus> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:27:10 -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 MAA03895 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52256 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell writes, > Their demonstration cell operated well below atmospheric pressure. > Observation of the discharge and artifacts left on the electrodes suggest > the existence of a vortex of energy, consistent with the aether theories of > Harold Aspden. I know of no claims for nuclear energy. Nor, in that context, > for ZPE as generally understood. There are both broad and narrow definitions for either ZPE or aether, but the two have never seemed to be mutually exclusive - however, your comment just elucidated the possibility that the two, in the context of wave/particle dualities, could be the differing aspects of that duality which exists outside of our 3-space. In other words, the "aether" could be focusing on the particle aspect while "ZPE" could be focusing on the frequency and wave aspects.... BTW, Mike, did the Correas ever look for x-rays? I suppose that we would have already heard if they had found significant x-rays, but even if they checked for them with an external monitor, it is possible that radiation in the neighborhood of 10KeV would not pass through the walls of their reactor or would be below the threshold of whatever meter they were using. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 25 12:58:51 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA20717; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:55:05 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:55:05 -0700 Message-ID: <009501c39b31$c98a6960$1845ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <002501c39b21$cf08eac0$8837fea9@cpq> <007201c39b27$238f9cb0$1845ccd1@asus> <003b01c39b2d$fc971820$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:54:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <_knMMD.A.mDF.ZUtm_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52257 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A Jones wrote: > > BTW, Mike, did the Correas ever look for x-rays? I suppose that we would have already heard if they had found significant x-rays, but even if they checked for them with an external monitor, it is possible that radiation in the neighborhood of 10KeV would not pass through the walls of their reactor or would be below the threshold of whatever meter they were using. Paulo told me that they stumbled on the PAGD effect while experimenting with X-rays. Once they were able to control the effect, they studied it *very* thoroughly. This led to a whole realm of physics which is discussed in a series of monographs. I won't speculate on the connection between that work and ZPE. I know that there is a strong connection between the Correas and Aspden, who has been studying the aether for quite a long time, but his view is not "ZPE". I don't know if they saw X-rays. The OU energy effect was very strong, up to 100 X. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 25 14:34:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA02044; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:31:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:31:37 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:31:35 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Maser-theory BL in the home In-Reply-To: <009501c39b31$c98a6960$1845ccd1@asus> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <52xyhD.A.tf.4uum_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52258 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hey, I just stumbled across http://jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/gmr/index.htm from last march. Stable plasmoid in microwave oven which DOESN'T shatter the glass bowl. Cool! Why does it work? Here's a possiblity. I heard from PHYS-L that coffee in a microwave oven convects strongly because the microwaves only heat about .5" or 1" thick of water. This means that the top and sides of the coffee are heated, but not the core. This means that the hot water on the sides will rise, forcing the water in the center to descend. It forms a "convection cell" torus like Bernard convection (see http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bernard+cells%22) If this happens, then such a rolling torus-shape would drag the cool surrounding air upwards, then pull some of it downwards through a "donut hole" in the plasma. The cool air would surround the torus, and hot air could not build up in the region above it. I was thinking that we'd have to maintain a layer of flowing water on the glass to keep it from shattering from differential heat. No need! PS, the plasma forms a nice large load, akin to a huge tub of water, so maybe the magnetron DOESN'T overheat, anymore than it overheats when cooking a big roast. Suggestions below. I haven't tried any of these. I came up with them while on a long walk, when I visualized what those little plasma flames must be. Hey, they're electrode-less discharges. Like those RF light bulbs, where a high-power RF coil is wrapped around a quartz tube with gas inside. Get a tank of welder's Argon or Helium. Blow a slow stream into the plasma pool. What will happen? At the very least we'd replace the noxious nitrogen/oxygen chemistry with nice nontoxic noble gas. The color should be different, and perhaps the discharge will be brighter. (With luck, we'll find that noble gases posses very unusual physics, as in Papp engine, inert-gas beam devices, etc.) Once you have non-nitrogen in the bowl, try making the famous high-intensity "sulfur light", stick some sulfur powder into the plasma pool. I tried this without the argon, but it just makes a big cloud of acrid fumes (sulfur oxides, H2SO4, etc.) Install a glass or ceramic tube through the top of the bowl which extends down into the plasma. Will the hot plasma rise up through it? Extend the tube through the metal ceiling of the oven. Add a small fan to push plasma up the tube as fast as it forms. Maybe we can make a little "candle flame" outside the oven, a plasma torch for home experiments. (if pyrex melts or shatters, a half-cm tube made of fused quartz might not be hard to track down.) Install a plastic shaft which can rotate a ceramic rod up into the plasma pool. Stick some salt grains onto the end of the rod, and our plasma pool should experience a wave of blazing yellow as the Na+ ions spread through it. Or try Strontium or other salts used to color fireworks. Or try little bits of copper wire. Add several rods, and any touch from these "magic wands" can turn the plasma pool most any color we desire. Make a new hole-grid exit and add a plastic paddle w/handle-rod to allow the oven's blower to be selectively shunted away from the main chamber as desired. Yet it still cools the magnetron. If the glass sphere stays cool by itself, then the big flow of air need not disturb the plasma pool. "Ball Lightning" supposedly passes through screen doors, walls, etc. If we replace the glass sphere with a flat bowl where the plasma actually touches the surface, what if we make a hole in the bowl and install various kinds of glass plates with tiny holes? Will the plasma pass through them? How small a hole can it get through? Try thin unglazed ceramic (ceramic is sintered powder, with billions of nano-holes.) Here's a ceramic plate: $6 http://sales.goldmine-elec.com/prodinfo.asp?prodid=8327 Once a plasma-pool has ignited, can it be kept alive by much lower frequencies? How about a thick coil of copper tube connected to a high-power RF oscillator (say 27 MHz from an old diathermy box?) Then turn off the microwaves and open the oven door. Stick samples into the plasma pool by hand. Take it out of the oven entirely What a great lecture demo. Or more like a new pet. A glowing pool of fluid-gas in a fishbow. Feed it different "foods." Poke it with a stick! Once we've tamed a plasma pool, add certain ions and then move the gate to let it pour upwards between the electrode gap of a big DC high voltage cap-discharge device. Supposedly BL in nature is different than microwave BL, supposedly because the lightning currents have somehow stored vast energy in the blob of plasma. Maybe the plasma will stop acting like a flame, and develop that mysterious surface-tension effect which forms it into a bouncy sphere. If this happens, then wear ear protection before poking it with a stick! Speaking of spheres, people have reported sphere-like microwave plasmas which become attached to small holes in the paint in the metal oven walls. So, put an insulating coating on a metal plate, scratch a small hole in the middle, then let a plasma pool pour upwards onto the plate. Will it form a glowing hemisphere? If so, can the metal plate be turned around, yet the hemisphere won't pour upwards like a hot flame? (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 Sat Oct 25 16:13:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA18308; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:10:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:10:47 -0700 Message-ID: <005201c39b4c$3f9428c0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Maser-theory BL in the home Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:03:47 -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 QAA18268 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52259 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty writes, > Get a tank of welder's Argon or Helium. Blow a slow stream into > the plasma pool. What will happen? [snip] (With luck, we'll find that noble > gases posses very unusual physics, as in Papp engine, inert-gas > beam devices, etc.) There is a line of reasoning that could relate to the nature of those supposed energy anomalies that you referred to with argon. There is a natural isotope, 36 Ar (.3%) which is unusually "light" for an isotope whose most likely atomic mass is 40. If there are any implications to this, it could arise when/if a proton gets into the k-shell of 36Ar. Would that proton then alter coulomb forces as felt by the 36Ar nucleus enough to "encourage" an occasionally electron capture? Alternatively, both He and Ar have been used by Mills/BLP as catalyst. If you do try an experiment looking for x-rays in such a ball-lightning set-up, check to see if your gas supplier has argon with some hydrogen in it. Apparently they use a gas-fill like that for some kinds of neon art. Unfortunately, most GM tubes won't work well around microwaves, so to see if you are getting any x-rays you must use dental film, which might also substitute for that absorber pad that Naudin is using. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Oct 25 16:47:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA14824; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:45:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:45:48 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <133.26e5d0f1.2ccc6505@aol.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:45:09 EDT Subject: Re: Maser-theory BL in the home To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_133.26e5d0f1.2ccc6505_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52260 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_133.26e5d0f1.2ccc6505_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/25/03 7:13:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonesb9@pacbell.net writes: > Get a tank of welder's Argon or Helium. Blow a slow stream into > > the plasma pool. What will happen? [snip] (With luck, we'll find that > noble > > gases posses very unusual physics, as in Papp engine, inert-gas > > beam devices, etc.) > Done this. Helium does not ionize well and tends to put the arc out. Frank znidarsic --part1_133.26e5d0f1.2ccc6505_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/25/03 7:13:28 PM Eastern Dayligh= t Time, jonesb9@pacbell.net writes:


Get a tank of welder's Argon or= Helium. Blow a slow stream into
> the plasma pool. What will happen? [snip]  (With luck, we'll find=20= that noble
> gases posses very unusual physics, as in Papp engine, inert-gas
> beam devices, etc.)


Done this.  Helium does not ionize well and tends to put the arc out.
Frank znidarsic --part1_133.26e5d0f1.2ccc6505_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Oct 26 12:43:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA32639; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:30:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:30:34 -0800 Message-ID: <004c01c39bfe$f3515ce0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Navigating the Dirac sea Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:22:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0049_01C39BBB.E3BCD9A0" 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: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52261 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_0049_01C39BBB.E3BCD9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It has been said that geniuses fall into two classes: ordinary ones like = Einstein, whose achievements are within the grasp of many (and some will = improve upon his legacy) - and then there is another class: the "magi" - = the few like Isaac Newton whose intellect is so astounding and ahead of = its time that mere mortals can scarcely comprehend it for many years. = Paul Dirac is said to be one of the three or four magi of the modern = era. Many people have never heard of him, due mainly to his = "pathological shyness" which almost forced him to turn down the Nobel = prize (at age 31!). He accepted it only after being advised that, as the = first person to refuse a Nobel Prize, the press would foster even more = unwanted publicity on him and that it would end up being an even greater = embarrassment .=20 By 1929 Dirac had come up with his "big picture" of a shadow-reality, an = unseen background stratum, a negative-energy "sea" of electrons, he = called it. Since then, others have tried to interpret, re-interpret and = revise this insight, but to what avail...? Is Dirac's sea really what we = now call ZPE, the aether, etc or is it unrelated? Remember that the = first *positron* tracks were observed in a cloud chamber by Anderson in = 1933, and it took a while for the importance positronium to settle-in. I = do not recall ever hearing of Dirac revising his "sea" to be composed of = positronium but really he had already anticipated this, as any "hole" in = his sea would have the same properties as a positron. Dirac's equations = predicts four different kinds of electrons: spin up with positive = energy, spin down with positive energy, spin up with negative energy, = and spin down with negative energy. A negative energy electron will = speed up as it losses energy until it is traveling at the speed of light = with an energy approaching negative infinity. However, since there are = many holes in the Dirac sea, each would behave as particle vis-a-vis = our 3-space. Since the hole is the absence of negative energy electron, = the hole would have exactly the opposite properties of a negative energy = electron. It would have positive mass, positive energy, and positive = charge, i.e. the positron or anti-electron!=20 Many of our best physics professors (like their predecessors for the = last 100 years) now preach that "physics is nearly complete," that is, = that we already know almost everything of importance that there is to = know in the world around us. All that is left (from their perspective) = is to fill-in some minor details around the edges... but, yes, all of = the really big variables are now firmly framed for them. We may grin at = the quaintness of this continuation of ignorant bliss well into the 21st = century by today's self-appointed experts like Bob Park and his pal = Randi, but until the next Dirac bursts on the scene, we will probably = have to continue to be brow-beaten by these Luddites... and they are = definitely not too sure that ZPE is a concept that fits-in very well, = but none of them are so foolish as to attempt to contradict Dirac, so = maybe it behooves the free-energy advocate to attempt to revise his = negative sea ideas into the present context.=20 Do we even know for sure something very basic... like the very basic = fact that gamma rays are purely photonic? I'm not that sure, and there = is some glimmer of contrary evidence (outside of cold fusion) that plays = into the negative sea ... this website is not without its problems, but = it is provocative... http://www.unquantum.com/ For the sake of argument, what are the implications for the proposition = that wave/particle duality itself is not a 50/50 kind of duality but = that it is more like a "sliding scale" which varies by energy content... = i.e. low energy transfers- heat, light etc, are almost "all wave" and no = mass, while above a certain cutoff (say ~ 500 KeV) we can force the = situation and get mostly particle and little wave. That is probably = where S. Chubb is trying to go with his phonon-coupled model - the one = that goes from reality to abstraction and back again to reality without = nary a blink of the eye. Maybe he should have stuck closer to his former = band-gap ideas (which are much closer to Mills than many realize) and = ditch the magic phonons into the Dirac sea? Did Dirac really contemplate "free energy" from a hidden sea, as we = understand ZPE today? Robert Forward thought so and said that the Dirac = Sea is one-and-the-same as "vacuum energy" or ZPE, and that it is out on = the fringes of our 3-space where electron-positron pairs are swiftly = created and destroyed continuously like sea-foam. These pairs cannot = materialize in our 3-space because their lifetime is too short for the = limits of the uncertainty principle. But this sea may be able transfer = many small debits to us, almost unseen, transforming the Dirac sea into = your basic QM balancing act, the cosmic ATM, so to speak. Once you = understand the secret code, you can withdraw lots of "instant cash" in = the form of 6.8 eV photons but eventually you have to pay it back with a = ~500 KeV lump-sum credit =3D a "lost" electron ? Well, I hope all of this doesn't overcharge Paul's account ... Jones "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."=20 ....Ken Olson, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C39BBB.E3BCD9A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It has been said that geniuses fall into two classes: = ordinary=20 ones like Einstein, whose achievements are within the grasp of many=20 (and some will improve upon his legacy) - and then there is another = class:=20 the "magi" - the few like Isaac Newton whose intellect is so = astounding and=20 ahead of its time that mere mortals can scarcely comprehend it for = many=20 years. Paul Dirac is said to be one of the three or four magi of = the modern=20 era. Many people have never heard of him, due mainly to his = "pathological=20 shyness" which almost forced him to turn down the Nobel prize (at age = 31!). He=20 accepted it only after being advised that, as the first person to refuse = a Nobel=20 Prize, the press would foster even more unwanted publicity on him and = that it=20 would end up being an even greater embarrassment .
 
By 1929 Dirac had come up with his "big picture" of a = shadow-reality, an=20 unseen background stratum, a negative-energy "sea" of electrons, he = called=20 it. Since then, others have tried to interpret, re-interpret and revise = this=20 insight, but to what avail...? Is Dirac's sea really what we now call = ZPE, the=20 aether, etc or is it unrelated?  Remember that the first = *positron*=20 tracks were observed in a cloud chamber by Anderson in 1933, and it = took a=20 while for the importance positronium to settle-in. I do not recall ever = hearing=20 of Dirac revising his "sea" to be composed of positronium but really he = had=20 already anticipated this, as any "hole" in his sea would have the same=20 properties as a positron. Dirac's equations predicts four different = kinds of=20 electrons: spin up with positive energy, spin down with positive energy, = spin up=20 with negative energy, and spin down with negative energy.  A = negative=20 energy electron will speed up as it losses energy until it is traveling = at the=20 speed of light with an energy approaching negative infinity. = However,=20 since there are many  holes in the Dirac sea, each would behave as = particle=20 vis-a-vis our 3-space.  Since the hole is the absence of negative = energy=20 electron, the hole would have exactly the opposite properties of a = negative=20 energy electron. It would have positive mass, positive energy, and = positive=20 charge, i.e. the positron or anti-electron!
 
Many of our best physics professors (like their predecessors for = the last=20 100 years) now preach that "physics is nearly complete," that is, = that we=20 already know almost everything of importance that there is to know in = the world=20 around us. All that is left (from their perspective) is to fill-in some = minor=20 details around the edges... but, yes, all of the really big = variables are=20 now firmly framed for them. We may grin at the quaintness of this = continuation=20 of ignorant bliss well into the 21st century by today's = self-appointed=20 experts like Bob Park and his pal Randi, but until the next Dirac bursts = on the=20 scene, we will probably have to continue to be brow-beaten by these = Luddites...=20 and they are definitely not too sure that ZPE is a concept that = fits-in=20 very well, but none of them are so foolish as to attempt to contradict = Dirac, so=20 maybe it behooves the free-energy advocate to attempt to revise his = negative sea=20 ideas into the present context.
 
Do we even know for sure something very basic... like the very = basic=20 fact that gamma rays are purely photonic? I'm not that sure, and = there is=20 some glimmer of contrary evidence (outside of cold fusion) that plays = into the=20 negative sea ... this website is not without its problems, but it = is=20 provocative...
 
For the sake of argument, what are the implications for the = proposition=20 that wave/particle duality itself is not a 50/50 kind of duality but = that it is=20 more like a "sliding scale" which varies by energy content... i.e. low = energy=20 transfers- heat, light etc, are almost "all wave" and no mass, = while above=20 a certain cutoff (say ~ 500 KeV) we can force the situation and get = mostly=20 particle and little wave. That is probably where S. Chubb is trying to = go with=20 his phonon-coupled model - the one that goes from reality to abstraction = and=20 back again to reality without nary a blink of the eye. Maybe he should = have=20 stuck closer to his former band-gap ideas (which are much closer to = Mills than=20 many realize) and ditch the magic phonons into the Dirac sea?
 
Did Dirac really contemplate "free energy" from a hidden sea, as we = understand ZPE today? Robert Forward thought so and said that the = Dirac Sea=20 is one-and-the-same as "vacuum energy" or ZPE, and that it is out = on the=20 fringes of our 3-space where electron-positron pairs are swiftly created = and=20 destroyed continuously like sea-foam. These pairs cannot = materialize in our=20 3-space because their lifetime is too short for the limits of the=20 uncertainty principle. But this sea may be able transfer many=20 small debits to us, almost unseen, transforming the Dirac sea = into=20 your basic QM balancing act, the cosmic ATM, so to speak. Once you=20 understand the secret code, you can withdraw lots of "instant cash" in = the form=20 of 6.8 eV photons but eventually you have to pay it back with = a ~500=20 KeV lump-sum credit =3D a "lost" electron ?
 
Well, I hope all of this doesn't overcharge Paul's account = ...
 
Jones
 
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." =
....Ken Olson, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,=20 1977.

 
------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C39BBB.E3BCD9A0-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 09:15:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA18307; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:10:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:10:49 -0800 Message-ID: <003c01c39cac$458ecbc0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: Nanobes and hydrinos Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:03:40 -0800 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 JAA18193 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52262 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A The Science Channel (formerly The Discovery Channel) carried a fascinating story this weekend about another controversial discovery on the fringes of science - the discovery of a kind of proto-life at the nanoscale. The ramifications of the story have some potential relevance to LENR.... perhaps... ;-) http://www.uq.edu.au/nanoworld/uwins.html Until Dr. Uwins work, living organisms, as opposed to the component parts of organisms, had not been found anywhere close to this size range, some of which structures are a few hundred atoms across, about the size of nerve axons and mitochondria. The so-called "fossilized nanobacteria" which is found in old rocks was not even thought to be truly a life-form by many scientists, but instead unexplained inorganic structure. But the discovery of actively growing organic features in the same size range of the fossilized nanobacteria is the first evidence that novel organisms with these small dimensions do exist on earth, even now, and that they were a possible precursor of all life. You may remember the controversy that surrounded the fact that the fossilized version had also been seen in rocks from Mars. "The discovery of novel, living nano-organisms growing on Triassic and Jurassic sandstones opened up an exciting area of research in 1997. The existence of nano-sized organisms has been proposed for a number of years by geologists who refer to a range of mineralized structures in rocks as the fossil remnants of nanobacteria. Bacteria range in size from 150nm (Mycoplasmas)-50µm in diameter while the proposed nanobacteria are an order of magnitude smaller with diameters reported to range from 20nm-150nm." Much of the current criticism over the existence of nanobacteria had been lack of proof that they were ever living organisms which fulfilled the requirements of life - namely the ability to metabolize and reproduce. The second argument against their existence is that nanobacteria are too small to harbor the enzymatic and genetic material considered essential for life, but apparently they do contain DNA. However it appears nanobes cannot photosynthesize visible sunlight, because for one thing the wavelength of visible light is far larger than these structures. They must have depended on solar UV at first, but did they later "learn" to generate their own UV? OK, if you are still with me, then you are ready for that giant leap of speculation that ties this newly discovered living nanobe into the world of LENR / hydrino / ZPE. It begins with this query, "what on earth could be the energy source that sustains this ultra-small version of life in the absence of solar UV?" Apparently they are found growing where there is no light source, and of course IR heat is out of the question as the power source. Well, here are five facts to throw into the mix...it just happens that sandstone from the Jurassic contains a lot of potassium, an element that is 1) somewhat radioactive, and 2) has been implicated excess energy from below-ground-state hydrogen. furthermore 3) most of advanced life, especially nerve axons, contains "potassium channels" 4) the images of nanobes could probably pass for potassium channels in axons [side note] If proto-nerves (i.e. a "communication resource") actually preceded cellular life as we know it, then that kind of adds a whole new layer of meaning to the axiom "Cogito ergo sum" or for those whose Latin is a bit rusty "I think, therefore I am" Back to those nanobe geometric dimensions - they are right smack where, if the energy source were UV photons released from "below-ground-state hydrogen," they should be resonant with the structure. Or alternatively if the decay energy of 40K is the power source, then they could possibly utilize that beta decay energy up and down the potassium channel, although the hydrino makes more sense from purely geometric considerations. But also, perhaps these structures are like little 4-space antennae that cohere UV photons directly from Dirac's sea? ....getting in pretty deep, aren't we? Maybe so, maybe not. See: The Fourth Dimension of Life: Fractal Geometry and Allometric Scaling of Organisms: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/education/csss/files02/west2.pdf Next to the final thought: Once you collect enough of these "crackpot ideas" that seem to support each other, will anybody "who thinks" start to take them seriously...? Jones PPS gleanings: "Cogito ergo sum" for the thinker... God...."I am, therefore, I am." Dr. Suess....'I'm Sam, therefore I am." Worker bee..."I think, therefore I've had my coffee." Smart virgin..."Cogito ergo caelebs" The Little Engine--"I think I am, therefore I am. I think I am, therefore I am." Email Mass Marketer--"I don't think, therefore I spam." Shaq--"I dunk, therefore I slam." Spouse--"It's always got to be about you, doesn't it!" Or, should it be "I think, therefore I think I am.... I think!" ...Or "I think that I think, therefore I think that I think I am" ...Or "I think that I think, therefore I think that I think that I think I am" ad infinitum... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 10:11:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA04210; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:06:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:06:17 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9D5A1F.30303@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:47:11 -0500 From: Stephen Lawrence User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation References: <002501c39b21$cf08eac0$8837fea9@cpq> <007201c39b27$238f9cb0$1845ccd1@asus> In-Reply-To: <007201c39b27$238f9cb0$1845ccd1@asus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <8f89rC.A.XBB.W6Vn_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52263 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote: > Jones said: > > >>... think about the implication of nuclear reactions at 800 volts! > And Mike Carrell went on to say: > An interesting thought. The Correa's PAGD cell was driven by a stack of > gel-cell batteries totaling a few hundred volts, and the load was a similar > battery pack. The packs were carefully calibrated before and after each run > by fully charging them and then observing the discharge curve over time. The > energy extracted from the source pack by maintaining the discharge > conditions could then be compared with the energy dumped into the sink pack > over the test period. Batteries were used instead of conventional power > supplies because phenomena attendant to the cell's operation tended to ruin > the supplies. In one experiment, the Correas arranged switching so that the > source and sink packs could be exchanged, and for eight hours observed > operation without external input power, and a net gain in the energy of the > sink packs. > ????? Did I miss something here? This sounds incredible. This description sounds like they were generating power out with no power in and no identifiable fuel, and the system as a whole was self-sustaining. But that would have been earth-shattering news if it were true. Since nobody else commented on this, I must surely have misssed something -- right...? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 10:12:21 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA06088; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:07:52 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.70.24.54] X-Originating-Email: [mgoldes@msn.com] From: "Mark Goldes" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Evgeny Podkletnov Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:53 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2003 17:49:53.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA2255F0:01C39CB2] Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52264 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer - Ken Shoulders would like to get in touch with you re Evgeny Podkletnov's work. Please contact him at krscfs@svn.net Thanks, Mark _________________________________________________________________ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 10:33:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA29649; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:27:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:27:34 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:27:59 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EPR and faster than light communication Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52265 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From time to time, quantum mechanics paradoxes, faster than light (FTL) communication, and cryptographic issues have been discussed here on vortex. These issues all come together in a package when the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox is concerned. The EPR paradox relates to the fact that photons that are quantum entangled must, upon one of the photon states being measured, communicate the measured state to the paired photon instantaneously, and thus faster than light itself can travel. The purpose here is to suggest an experiment to determine if the quantum states of paired photons are truly communicated and maintained on an instant basis, or whether they are merely predetermined at the time of creation only. When quantum entangled photons are created their polarization directions are orthogonal, but can't be determined until actually measured. This requirement to destroy the photons in the measuring process requires a light speed limited communication channel to compare the states measured and the polarization filter orientations and to thus confirm the entangled state, or to determine the initial direction of polarization, assuming such truly exists in some hidden form prior to the actual measurement. A method is suggested here to determine if a hidden orthogonal state of polarization is maintained at FTL speed between entangled photons. The method is to use the chirality of sugar or other chiral molecules with similar optical magneto-optical properties to rotate the direction of polarization of one of the pair during a specific time period and then detect whether or not the paired photon rotates during that time period. Rotation of polarization is a relative effect. If the rotation in some period of time can be detected, it is not needed to know the initial orientation of the photons, and thus the slower than light speed channel is not needed to compare polarizing filter orientations. The method consists of the following. 1. Splitting of entangled photon streams into two channels. 2. One channel, called the local channel, consists of a delay loop that delays emission of the photons in that channel such that they are emitted locally at the same time the photons in the communication channel arrive at their destination. The local channel is assumed to be located entirely at the transmitting site. 3. Each channel is put through an initial polarizing filter, the orientation of which is unimportant. What is important is that the paired photons each go through an initial polarizing filter at about the same time and at a time prior to the photons entering a polarization rotation device. 4. The photons from the local channel are directed through a device (a rotator) that rotates the polarization. Such a device can be made from sugar water inside a solenoid. Polarization of any light directed through the main axis of the solenoid will be rotated an amount that depends on the strength of the magnetic field and the length of the solenoid. 5. Photons from both channels pass through final polarizing filters that are orthogonal to their respective initial polarizing filters. The final filters must be located such that entangled photon pairs pass though them at a time after the polarity rotation. (Note, the relative angle of the final filter need not be orthogonal to the corresponding initial filter, but an orthogonal angle should provide the highest quality signal.) 6. Photons that pass through the final filters are then directed to detectors that measure the beam intensity and then to devices that utilize the resulting signal as a communications channel. 7. The degree of rotation is manipulated so as to send meaningful messages which clearly can be detected over the local channel. If matching messages are detected via the communications channel then the EPR paradox is resolved in favor of FTL communication of state. Note that this method only depends on detection of (relative) rotation at a specific time interval from photon creation. This eliminates the need for knowing the initial state of the photons involved. The polarization filters and the detector in the local channel are not required to effect the communication. In fact, elimination of these merely increases the intensity of the signal received via the communication channel. If the EPR paradox is resolved in favor of FTL communication, then clearly this method can be used for FTL communication. Though message latency due to distance is eliminated, the communication data rate is still limited by the speed at which the polarization rotation rate can be changed. In the case of sugar water, this speed is very slow. If FTL communication proved possible, then it is expected very fast polarization rotators would soon be developed. It is interesting that this method in itself does not provide secure communications in the sense that, provided the hacker polarizes the (tapped) communication channel at a timing prior to the polarization rotation, and then measures the polarization rotation via use of a final filter at a time that is at least after the photons leave the rotator, he can read the message. The method as presented permits the use of large light intensity, thus a small amount can be tapped without being detected. Security depends on employment of additional measures outside the scope of the method. One of the problems of this method is being sure the entangle state is not disrupted, especially in the local channel. One means to avoid this problem for purposes of an experiment, is to place the beam origin and entangler at a point halfway between the receiver and the transmitter-rotator. In this manner the beam can be sent unimpeded between devices, with timing perfectly maintained and easily adjusted by slightly moving the location of the transmitter. One problem with this idea is that it may not be possible to rotate the polarization of a photon without actually destroying it and creating a new one, and thus breaking the entanglement. Note that the delay for communication is adjusted by making the local channel delay local photon rotation until just prior to the arrival of the communication channel photons at their destination. The delay could be much less, but then this increases the message transmission delay, i.e. the message latency time as opposed to the data rate. Note also that the message channel initial polarizing filter can be located at the point of message channel origination. Message detection is then best achieved by a polarization filter at the destination that is orthogonal to the beam's normal polarization, followed by a light intensity detector. This method eliminates concerns about timing issues at the receiving destination, and is useful for experimental purposes. However, it maximizes exposure of the message to eavesdropping. It is possible to make the message available for reading during a very select time interval. This is accomplished by passing the local channel photons through a rotator and then, after a brief time interval, passing the same photons through a rotator that rotates the photons back to their original orientation. If the communication is via light beam, then this sets a limit to how far away the receiver can be. Further, it requires an eavesdropper, provided he is closer than the intended receiver, to know exactly how much delay to add to the received message to obtain a proper signal. The sender can protect the actual message by passing the local beam through additional meaningless random rotations (at other times) that hide the location (in time) of the real data. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 11:13:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA04123; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:07:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:07:50 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9D6CE5.7020404@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:07:17 -0500 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nanobes and hydrinos References: <003c01c39cac$458ecbc0$8837fea9@cpq> In-Reply-To: <003c01c39cac$458ecbc0$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52266 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: >Or, should it be "I think, therefore I think I am.... I think!" > >...Or "I think that I think, therefore I think that I think I am" > >...Or "I think that I think, therefore I think that I think that I think I am" > >ad infinitum... > In the Beginning First Man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think. Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star, I've miles And miles Of files Pretty files of your forefather's fruit and now to suit our great computer, You're magnetic ink. First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be. Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles And piles Of trials With smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave And keep on thinking free. -Moody Blues "On the Threshold of a Dream" From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 11:14:27 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA05179; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:09:10 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9D6D5F.7020100@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:09:19 -0500 From: Stephen Lawrence User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EPR and faster than light communication References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <6YiYoB.A.zQB.V1Wn_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52267 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have a naive question about quantum entanglement. Horace Heffner wrote: > From time to time, quantum mechanics paradoxes, faster than light > (FTL) communication, and cryptographic issues have been discussed > here on vortex. These issues all come together in a package when the > Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox is concerned. The EPR paradox > relates to the fact that photons that are quantum entangled must, > upon one of the photon states being measured, communicate the > measured state to the paired photon instantaneously, and thus faster > than light itself can travel. If the information transfer is, indeed, instantaneous, then in _which_ frame of reference would it be so? Of course, any two events separated by a spacelike interval are "simultaneous" in _some_ frame of reference. Hence, the question -- is the information sent and received instantaneously in the inertial frame of the lab, or the frame of the receiver, or the frame of emitter, or some distinguished "global rest frame"? If it's not a distinguished rest frame, then it would seem that this would provide the ability to send information backward in time, as well as "sideways" (assuming we can accelerate a laboratory up to near C in order to provide a sufficiently skewed frame of reference). But if it is a distinguished "rest frame", then I guess we'd better take another look around for an aether. Right...? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 11:19:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA09245; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:42 -0800 Message-ID: <006f01c39cbd$70b88a00$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <002501c39b21$cf08eac0$8837fea9@cpq> <007201c39b27$238f9cb0$1845ccd1@asus> <3F9D5A1F.30303@pobox.com> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:06:34 -0800 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 LAA09165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52268 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lawrence writes, > ????? Did I miss something here? This sounds incredible. > This description sounds like they were generating power out with no > power in and no identifiable fuel, and the system as a whole was > self-sustaining. > But that would have been earth-shattering news if it were true. > Since nobody else commented on this, I must surely have misssed > something -- right...? The only thing you may have missed is Jed's earlier objections to the whole deal with the Correas, which is similar to his argument against the Mills' hydrino: that being if it is so damn wonderful, why are these folks not *proactive* wrt independent replication -that is, why are they not cooperating to the max with independent labs and why are they always coming up with lame excuses for this lack of cooperation (like Scott Little is really a competitor in disguise) ? Neither claimant is at all proactive, more like antagonistic, and for their own differing reasons, which I wont get into... but JR's prior post and arguments are in the archives... and those arguments are hard to argue with on logical grounds... even though I must admit that I personally believe that in both cases there is something very important there that is difficult to replicate. ...surely you have read BillB's comments on "inventors disease"? Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 11:25:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA18095; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:21:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:21:32 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:44:37 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: EPR and faster than light communication Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52269 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: from time to time, quantum mechanics paradoxes, faster than light (FTL) communication, and cryptographic issues have been discussed here on vortex. These issues all come together in a package when the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox is concerned. The EPR paradox relates to the fact that photons that are quantum entangled must, upon one of the photon states being measured, communicate the measured state to the paired photon instantaneously, and thus faster than light itself can travel. The purpose here is to suggest an experiment to determine if the quantum states of paired photons are truly communicated and maintained on an instant basis, or whether they are merely predetermined at the time of creation only. When quantum entangled photons are created their polarization directions are orthogonal, but can't be determined until actually measured. This requirement to destroy the photons in the measuring process requires a light speed limited communication channel to compare the states measured and the polarization filter orientations and to thus confirm the entangled state, or to determine the initial direction of polarization, assuming such truly exists in some hidden form prior to the actual measurement. A method is suggested here to determine if a hidden orthogonal state of polarization is maintained at FTL speed between entangled photons. The method is to use the chirality of sugar or other chiral molecules with similar optical magneto-optical properties to rotate the direction of polarization of one of the pair during a specific time period and then detect whether or not the paired photon rotates during that time period. Rotation of polarization is a relative effect. If the rotation in some period of time can be detected, it is not needed to know the initial orientation of the photons, and thus the slower than light speed channel is not needed to compare polarizing filter orientations. The method consists of the following. 1. Splitting of entangled photon streams into two channels. 2. One channel, called the local channel, consists of a delay loop that delays emission of the photons in that channel such that they are emitted locally at the same time the photons in the communication channel arrive at their destination. The local channel is assumed to be located entirely at the transmitting site. 3. Each channel is put through an initial polarizing filter, the orientation of which is unimportant. What is important is that the paired photons each go through an initial polarizing filter at about the same time and at a time prior to the photons entering a polarization rotation device. 4. The photons from the local channel are directed through a device (a rotator) that rotates the polarization. Such a device can be made from sugar water inside a solenoid. Polarization of any light directed through the main axis of the solenoid will be rotated an amount that depends on the strength of the magnetic field and the length of the solenoid. 5. Photons from both channels pass through final polarizing filters that are orthogonal to their respective initial polarizing filters. The final filters must be located such that entangled photon pairs pass though them at a time after the polarity rotation. (Note, the relative angle of the final filter need not be orthogonal to the corresponding initial filter, but an orthogonal angle should provide the highest quality signal.) 6. Photons that pass through the final filters are then directed to detectors that measure the beam intensity and then to devices that utilize the resulting signal as a communications channel. 7. The degree of rotation is manipulated so as to send meaningful messages which clearly can be detected over the local channel. If matching messages are detected via the communications channel then the EPR paradox is resolved in favor of FTL communication of state. Note that this method only depends on detection of (relative) rotation at a specific time interval from photon creation. This eliminates the need for knowing the initial state of the photons involved. The polarization filters and the detector in the local channel are not required to effect the communication. In fact, elimination of these merely increases the intensity of the signal received via the communication channel. If the EPR paradox is resolved in favor of FTL communication, then clearly this method can be used for FTL communication. Though message latency due to distance is eliminated, the communication data rate is still limited by the speed at which the polarization rotation rate can be changed. In the case of sugar water, this speed is very slow. If FTL communication proved possible, then it is expected very fast polarization rotators would soon be developed. It is interesting that this method in itself does not provide secure communications in the sense that, provided the hacker polarizes the (tapped) communication channel at a timing prior to the polarization rotation, and then measures the polarization rotation via use of a final filter at a time that is at least after the photons leave the rotator, he can read the message. The method as presented permits the use of large light intensity, thus a small amount can be tapped without being detected. Security depends on employment of additional measures outside the scope of the method. One of the problems of this method is being sure the entangle state is not disrupted, especially in the local channel. One means to avoid this problem for purposes of an experiment, is to place the beam origin and entangles at a point halfway between the receiver and the transmitter-rotator. In this manner the beam can be sent unimpeded between devices, with timing perfectly maintained and easily adjusted by slightly moving the location of the transmitter. One problem with this idea is that it may not be possible to rotate the polarization of a photon without actually destroying it and creating a new one, and thus breaking the entanglement. Well, I hope I got all this right! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 12:46:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA18425; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:40:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:40:07 -0800 Message-ID: <000901c39cc1$0b8b3700$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <003c01c39cac$458ecbc0$8837fea9@cpq> <3F9D6CE5.7020404@rtpatlanta.com> Subject: Re: Nanobes and hydrinos Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:32:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id MAA18308 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52270 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry > And keep on thinking free. -Moody Blues "On the Threshold of a Dream" Good advice, if not a little "Edgy" and guess what...Ray thomas even wrote a song called "I am" Salt water never grew roses Seems roses can't grow in the sea A river can fashion a valley >From a thousand sweet drinking streams I am (built in the image of the Father) I am (from the outside looking in) I am the son (but inside is a different place) Yes I am (beautify earth -- and scream, I AM) I am the son Yes I am the son of love I am Born in time when eyes could see What's written in the stars Freedom was ever And ever was never far I am (I am) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 13:10:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA13640; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:06:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:06:04 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9D73D3.704@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:36:51 -0500 From: Stephen Lawrence User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation References: <002501c39b21$cf08eac0$8837fea9@cpq> <007201c39b27$238f9cb0$1845ccd1@asus> <3F9D5A1F.30303@pobox.com> <006f01c39cbd$70b88a00$8837fea9@cpq> In-Reply-To: <006f01c39cbd$70b88a00$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52271 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > Stephen Lawrence writes, > > >> ????? Did I miss something here? This sounds incredible. > > [some stuff snipped] > > The only thing you may have missed is Jed's earlier objections to the > whole deal with the Correas, which is similar to his argument against > the Mills' hydrino: that being if it is so damn wonderful, why are > these folks not *proactive* wrt independent replication -that is, why > are they not cooperating to the max with independent labs and why are > they always coming up with lame excuses for this lack of cooperation > (like Scott Little is really a competitor in disguise) ? > No, I saw all of that. But this appears to be in a totally different category -- this isn't an experiment which might or might not show some anomalous effect if you know exactly what to look for. This is, figuratively speaking, a "working water heater". Or at least, that's what the description sounded like. At the point where a self-sustaining net-energy-positive device is demonstrated, discussion of whether there's really an effect and whether or not it works comes to an abrupt end. (But so far, that's never happened -- or maybe Exxon suppressed it.) This seemed to describe such a device -- and it was apparently built without useless bells and whistles, like having an automobile body wrapped around it, which would just have served to obfuscate the operation. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 13:54:11 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA27899; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:49:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:49:57 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9D9307.40605@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:49:59 -0500 From: Stephen Lawrence User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: OT: General science question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52272 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Two questions, actually. Both OT -- apologies! -- they have to do with issues that are firmly embedded in the TANSTAAFL world of conventional physics. (At this time I can't think of another forum in which to ask these -- my friends don't know this stuff and it's about 25 years too late to ask my physics professor.) 1) Does anyone have a suggestion for a reasonable forum (newsgroup, message board, whatever) where relativity, special and general, are on-topic discussion items? (NB -- I already looked at sci.physics.relativity and IMO it's not a reasonable forum. I was quite disappointed: It seems to consist of a bunch of guys sending insults to each other -- all information is lost in the noise. Ditto sci.physics and alt.sci.physics -- the insults tend to be cross-posted to the three lists. Even worse than s.p.f., if that's possible.) 2) Absent an answer to the previous, here's another rather OT question. Does anybody here happen to know, in 20 equations or less, how to evaluate the Christofel symbols on a curved manifold _without_ referring to a higher dimensional flat space in which the manifold is embedded? Just so this doesn't sound too arcane, let me add that the Christofel symbols represent the partial derivatives of the basis vectors with respect to each other; without a flat reference space, I just don't see how to get a handle on them. I freely admit that this is probably a dumb question in any case, but I'm trying to understand curvature and I'm finding this issue puzzling. As an exercise I tried to work out the curvature tensor for the surface of a sphere using polar coordinates, and realized I didn't know how to do it without making use of the flat R^3 space in which the sphere was embedded. And that can't be right, since AFAIK the curved space we live in isn't embedded in a higher-dimension flat space -- or if it is, nobody knows the mapping. Anyway, apologies again, and thanks for any suggestions. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 14:28:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA09549; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:47 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031027170802.00b03718@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:25:34 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation / is Amoco part of Exxon? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52273 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lawrence writes: > No, I saw all of that. But this appears to be in a totally different > category -- this isn't an experiment which might or might not show some > anomalous effect if you know exactly what to look for. This is, > figuratively speaking, a "working water heater". > > Or at least, that's what the description sounded like. Yes, definitely. I think we all agree if this experiment is replicated it will be Game Over. The procedure seems air-tight. Mike Carrell observed this experiment, and he is a careful, meticulous, smart guy, and he thinks so. The only thing this claim lacks is replication. Four or five others have to observe it, report it, and tell us exactly what they did and how they measured it. The Correas would be completely vindicated by replication. But I gather refused to show it to experts other than Carrell and a few others, and they have stopped working on it. They are strange people. > At the point where a self-sustaining net-energy-positive device is > demonstrated, discussion of whether there's really an effect and whether > or not it works comes to an abrupt end. (But so far, that's never > happened -- or maybe Exxon suppressed it.) As far as I know, the only thing Exxon ever suppressed was their own superb CF results. See: Amoco Production Company, Research Department, Theodore V. Lautzenhiser, Daniel W. Phelps, Report T-90-E-02, 90081ART0082, 19 March 1990, Cold Fusion: Report on a Recent Amoco Experiment. Isn't Amoco part of Exxon? Maybe not? It is a shame I cannot upload that report. I should at least add it to our index. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 14:31:08 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA13301; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:28:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:28:54 -0800 Message-ID: <20031027222840.22519.qmail@web11705.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:28:40 -0800 (PST) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: EPR and faster than light communication To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <3F9D6D5F.7020100@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52274 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --- Stephen Lawrence wrote: > I have a naive question about quantum entanglement. > > Horace Heffner wrote: > > From time to time, quantum mechanics paradoxes, > faster than light > > (FTL) communication, and cryptographic issues have > been discussed > > here on vortex. These issues all come together in > a package when the > > Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox is > concerned. The EPR paradox > > relates to the fact that photons that are quantum > entangled must, > > upon one of the photon states being measured, > communicate the > > measured state to the paired photon > instantaneously, and thus faster > > than light itself can travel. > > If the information transfer is, indeed, > instantaneous, then in _which_ > frame of reference would it be so? > > Of course, any two events separated by a spacelike > interval are > "simultaneous" in _some_ frame of reference. Hence, > the question -- is > the information sent and received instantaneously in > the inertial frame > of the lab, or the frame of the receiver, or the > frame of emitter, or > some distinguished "global rest frame"? > > If it's not a distinguished rest frame, then it > would seem that this > would provide the ability to send information > backward in time, as > well as "sideways" (assuming we can accelerate a > laboratory up to near > C in order to provide a sufficiently skewed frame of > reference). But > if it is a distinguished "rest frame", then I guess > we'd better take > another look around for an aether. Right...? > no, just another direction. for example, what if quantum entanglement represents a physical attachment in a different direction. the so called 4th dimension. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 14:39:55 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA23320; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:37:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:37:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20031027223701.24213.qmail@web11705.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:37:01 -0800 (PST) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: OT: General science question To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <3F9D9307.40605@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52275 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: question 1, yeah, i see that with most all usenet. sorry, i dont know any beteer forums. question two. ::dumb blank stare:: ummm.... my head hurts --- Stephen Lawrence wrote: > Two questions, actually. Both OT -- apologies! -- > they have to do with > issues that are firmly embedded in the TANSTAAFL > world of conventional > physics. (At this time I can't think of another > forum in which to ask > these -- my friends don't know this stuff and it's > about 25 years too > late to ask my physics professor.) > > 1) Does anyone have a suggestion for a reasonable > forum (newsgroup, > message board, whatever) where relativity, special > and general, are > on-topic discussion items? (NB -- I already looked > at > sci.physics.relativity and IMO it's not a reasonable > forum. I was quite > disappointed: It seems to consist of a bunch of > guys sending insults to > each other -- all information is lost in the noise. > Ditto sci.physics > and alt.sci.physics -- the insults tend to be > cross-posted to the three > lists. Even worse than s.p.f., if that's possible.) > > 2) Absent an answer to the previous, here's another > rather OT question. > Does anybody here happen to know, in 20 equations > or less, how to > evaluate the Christofel symbols on a curved manifold > _without_ referring > to a higher dimensional flat space in which the > manifold is embedded? > Just so this doesn't sound too arcane, let me add > that the Christofel > symbols represent the partial derivatives of the > basis vectors with > respect to each other; without a flat reference > space, I just don't see > how to get a handle on them. > > I freely admit that this is probably a dumb question > in any case, but > I'm trying to understand curvature and I'm finding > this issue puzzling. > As an exercise I tried to work out the curvature > tensor for the > surface of a sphere using polar coordinates, and > realized I didn't know > how to do it without making use of the flat R^3 > space in which the > sphere was embedded. And that can't be right, since > AFAIK the curved > space we live in isn't embedded in a > higher-dimension flat space -- or > if it is, nobody knows the mapping. > > Anyway, apologies again, and thanks for any > suggestions. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 15:22:06 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA08499; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:19:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:19:33 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031027144204.00ba9d68@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:34:44 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: I did say that, but it can be a slippery slope . . . one must be careful Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52276 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > > ????? Did I miss something here? This sounds incredible. > > > This description sounds like they were generating power out with no > > power in and no identifiable fuel, and the system as a whole was > > self-sustaining. > > > But that would have been earth-shattering news if it were true. > > > Since nobody else commented on this, I must surely have misssed > > something -- right...? > > The only thing you may have missed is Jed's earlier objections to the > whole deal with the Correas, which is similar to his argument against > the Mills' hydrino: that being if it is so damn wonderful, why are these > folks not *proactive* wrt independent replication -that is, why are they > not cooperating to the max with independent labs and why are they > always coming up with lame excuses for this lack of cooperation (like > Scott Little is really a competitor in disguise) ? I did say that, and I stick to it, but let me add that this attitude sometimes leads to dangerous, unwarranted conclusions. We must be careful not to overdo this. Many anti-CF skeptics say "where is the water heater?" We must not follow their example and demand a practical working device. When skeptics say, "if CF is true, why don't more people know about it," they are describing their own ignorance. Just because I personally do not know about, or understand, a Mills replication, that does not mean there are no replications. As Mike Carrell and other have reported, some aspects of the Mills claims have been replicated. (I just wish someone would replicate the energy generation claims more directly.) Furthermore, I know several CF researchers who withhold good, solid results. They are not proactive. They are not as bad as some perpetual motion machine inventors. Joseph Papp may have been the most extreme in history. Apparently he committed manslaughter to hide his machine from a critic. Stanley Meyer reportedly threw a bottle at someone he thought was looking at his machine too closely. These people were dangerous lunatics, whereas the withdrawn, sullen CF researchers who refuse to publish in detail harm no one but themselves. It *is* possible to have good results even though you appear to be hiding something. It is possible to be a lunatic and also a great scientist. You can be a jerk and a great scientist. As far as I can tell from the sanitized history books, famous people such Galileo and Edison were a nasty piece of work, as the British say. The real problem is that when a researcher hides his results, or when a researcher is not replicated for some other reason -- perhaps not his fault -- we have no way to judge the results. There seems to be evidence that Papp really had something. I.E. reports rumors others are seeing the Papp effect today. But rumors cannot substitute for openly published scientific papers and replications. They do not meet the standards of proof. Science works because it is rigorous and bound by stodgy, conservative rules proven by the test of time. People like Fleischmann are "painfully conservative" for a good reason: they have seen many mistakes made by those who took short cuts and did not follow these rules. This calls for a delicate balance. It calls for value judgments, which should make us uncomfortable. Ideally such things play no role in science, but we are only human, so our judgment is affected by feelings, value judgments, intuition, expectation, and our sense of the researcher's personality and trustworthiness. There is one more important issue here. Most researchers are competent at most aspects of basic science, just as most doctors can treat any common illness, and a work-a-day programmer can do a reasonably good job at systems analysis, coding or debugging. It is natural that we feel suspicious of people who claim they have made a fantastic breakthrough, yet who cannot describe the breakthrough in ordinary scientific terms, and who apparently do not understand basic physics. Idiot savants who make important contributions yet who do not understand the fundamentals do exist, but they are exceedingly rare. This brings up a painful example I have been thinking about mentioning for weeks, regarding the Correas, one of the people Beene lists. There is a dreadful document at their web site: http://www.aetherometry.com/ There is no direct hyperlink; scroll down on the left and select: "Edmund Storms Correspondence" I do NOT mean the parts in this document attacking me. Ignore that stuff! What is so awful is that the Correas do not understand the textbook definition of "work." They cannot tell the difference between an object held up by balanced opposing forces, and an object held up by a person's arm or a helicopter, which requires continuous expenditure of energy. Poor Ed Storms tried to explain this difference to them patiently time after time, but they do not understand him. (Storms is a first-class teacher. His "Student's Guide" is one of the most popular papers on LENR-CANR.org.) What is even worse, to me personally, is that Gene Mallove does not appear to understand the concept either. I hope he is merely blinded by wishful thinking in this particular case. Like the Nobel laureates who wrote glowing reviews of the Taubes book, his normal good judgment slipped. Everyone makes mistakes. Careful experts with decades of experience such as Bockris flub up on rare occasions. (I have corrected such flubs in their papers.) But fundamental mistakes, repeated despite numerous corrections, cannot be overlooked. It is hard to believe that people who cannot grasp the concept of "work" can do credible experiments on energy. Indeed, all but one of the experiments performed by the Correas that I have evaluated were dreadful. (The exception was important. It was the "battery pack" demo described by Carrell. It it is ever replicated it will be an extremely important result.) Their other experiments were so full of holes they were meaningless. As I pointed out here, they deliberately mix in noise and signal, they do not calibrate, they do not run blanks . . . they make every mistake in the book. Let me summarize: People who make absurd mistakes and who have giant gaps in their understanding of basic physics MAY POSSIBLY make important discoveries We can't dismiss that possibility out of hand. Idiot savants do exist. But we must be extra careful when evaluating their work. Above all, it is critically important that results reported by such people be replicated by researchers of ordinary, professional competence. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 15:43:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA29434; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:37:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:37:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:38:47 -0700 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: "R. Wormus" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OT: General science question Message-ID: <41607578.1067272727@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3F9D9307.40605@pobox.com> References: <3F9D9307.40605@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <_NJNtC.A.nLH.Cxan_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52277 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Try sci.physics.research it is a moderated news group. Ron --On Monday, October 27, 2003 4:49 PM -0500 Stephen Lawrence = < wrote: > Two questions, actually. Both OT -- apologies! -- they have to do with > issues that are firmly embedded in the TANSTAAFL world of conventional > physics. (At this time I can't think of another forum in which to ask > these -- my friends don't know this stuff and it's about 25 years too > late to ask my physics professor.) >=20 > 1) Does anyone have a suggestion for a reasonable forum (newsgroup, > message board, whatever) where relativity, special and general, are > on-topic discussion items? (NB -- I already looked at > sci.physics.relativity and IMO it's not a reasonable forum. I was quite > disappointed: It seems to consist of a bunch of guys sending insults to > each other -- all information is lost in the noise. Ditto sci.physics > and alt.sci.physics -- the insults tend to be cross-posted to the three > lists. Even worse than s.p.f., if that's possible.) >=20 > 2) Absent an answer to the previous, here's another rather OT question. > Does anybody here happen to know, in 20 equations or less, how to > evaluate the Christofel symbols on a curved manifold _without_ referring > to a higher dimensional flat space in which the manifold is embedded? > Just so this doesn't sound too arcane, let me add that the Christofel > symbols represent the partial derivatives of the basis vectors with > respect to each other; without a flat reference space, I just don't see > how to get a handle on them. >=20 > I freely admit that this is probably a dumb question in any case, but I'm > trying to understand curvature and I'm finding this issue puzzling. As > an exercise I tried to work out the curvature tensor for the surface of a > sphere using polar coordinates, and realized I didn't know how to do it > without making use of the flat R^3 space in which the sphere was > embedded. And that can't be right, since AFAIK the curved space we live > in isn't embedded in a higher-dimension flat space -- or if it is, nobody > knows the mapping. >=20 > Anyway, apologies again, and thanks for any suggestions. >=20 > =20 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 16:05:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA21273; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:58:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:58:14 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031027131016.01c0b620@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:32:35 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC Cold war began to end 40 years ago . . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <0gxYFC.A.EMF.UEbn_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52278 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is an anniversary worth thinking about. June 10, 1963 was a turning point in the cold war. President Kennedy declared unilaterally that the U.S. would no longer conduct above ground nuclear bomb tests. See: http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/jfkuniv.htm Quotes: "Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace - based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions-on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace - no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. . . ." This speech seemed irresponsible and hopelessly idealistic to some people back in 1963. It was not a happy time. Many thought that nuclear war was inevitable. But look how things turned out. There were no more above-ground nuclear tests. The threat from the Soviet Union did evaporate. There was no war after all, and it turned out the Soviets never seriously intended to launch one, if we can believe Gorbachev. History came out better than Kennedy himself dared to imagine. The world often seems to be a March of Folly, what with terrorism, the suppression of cold fusion, polar ice caps melting, and so on. It is easy to call yourself a "realist" and become mired in pessimism. But extreme pessimists are not realistic; they are blind to history. The quintessential optimist is someone like Clarke who has no illusions about the past, and who knows that things can get much better -- or much worse. If Kennedy could be this clear-headed yet optimistic in 1963, we have no right to give up today. Political extremists at both ends of the spectrum tend to be unrealistic pessimists. Here is an good example of the anti-everything, bitch-and-moan, pathological skeptic: http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire080202.asp I do not mean to pick on "conservatives" -- and this guy does not deserve that title anyway. You can find equally grim attacks on capitalism in The Nation. My father said that extremists at both ends of the spectrum are so similar you can hardly tell them apart. He knew what he was talking about. He spent much of WWII in Russia working with Soviet authorities, trying to coordinate lend-lease assistance. Trying to get them to take "yes" for an answer. He said he never met such right-wing conservative blockheads. To get a sense badly they botched things, especially weapons and wars (what he was there to help with), see the remarkable movies "Enemy at the Gates" and "K19 The Widowmaker." The Russians gave permission to film parts of "K19" in the actual headquarters of the Soviet navy. That is sort of like letting people film an anti-war movie in the Pentagon, or letting someone film hundreds of naked women in Grand Central Station. It gives you a sense how much things have changed. (Note: someone did, in fact, film hundreds of naked women in Grand Central Station last night.) - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 17:16:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA01377; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:14:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:14:26 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:14:57 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EPR and faster than light communication Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52279 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:09 PM 10/27/3, Stephen Lawrence wrote: >I have a naive question about quantum entanglement. >If the information transfer is, indeed, instantaneous, then in _which_ >frame of reference would it be so? > >Of course, any two events separated by a spacelike interval are >"simultaneous" in _some_ frame of reference. Hence, the question -- is >the information sent and received instantaneously in the inertial frame >of the lab, or the frame of the receiver, or the frame of emitter, or >some distinguished "global rest frame"? > >If it's not a distinguished rest frame, then it would seem that this >would provide the ability to send information backward in time, as >well as "sideways" (assuming we can accelerate a laboratory up to near >C in order to provide a sufficiently skewed frame of reference). But >if it is a distinguished "rest frame", then I guess we'd better take >another look around for an aether. Right...? If instant communication were found to exist then the term "rest frame" would need to take on an entirely new meaning, if any meaning is truly left for the term at all. Relativity in general comes into question. There is in fact not necessarily a need for aether in that case either but rather a completely unexpected theory. Reality then must be someting we do not understand at all at its most fundamental level. We are then left only to the reconciliation that our theories make us fairly good engineers, and to the awe at how little we now truly understand. If instant communication exists, and/or truly simultaneous quantum states that can be constrained by quantum computer so as to obtain instantaneous solutions in problem spaces having more instantiations than particles in the universe, including photons, then we will have vast new tools at our disposal. Someone on vortex (I think it was Knuke) asked a while ago what the most significant technology might be for mankind to develop in the near future. I personally have little doubt it is the ability to determine the feasibility of arbitrarily large B2 Boolean polynomials in a fast single machine cycle. Any arithmatic problem can be put into B2 Boolean polynomial form, as of course can problems of logic as well as mathematical proofs. The ability to determine B2 Boolean equation feasibilty is equivalent to the ability to solve such equations in linear time. Logic can be applied to logic itself, to the forms of polymnomials to be solved, as opposed to merely solving polynomials. True thinking machines, mutually telepathic machines, can then not be far away. If we can communicate instantaneously, then we can send remote control robotic missions to the far ends of the universe. The barriers imposed by relativity, and speed of light communication, are gone. There is a fairly good discussion of the possibily of circumventing relativity's barriers in Paul Hill's book: *Unconventioanl Flying Objects*. If all these amazing things are possible, then unfortunately the principle of the survival of the fittest and the theory of evolution take on a whole new importance. I digress far too soon into possible consequences of an experiment which has not been done and which may in fact be based on the false assumption that entanglement can be retained while rotating the polarization of a photon of an entangled pair. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 18:57:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA03278; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:54:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:54:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:55:37 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EPR and faster than light communication Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52280 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:09 PM 10/27/3, Stephen Lawrence wrote: >I have a naive question about quantum entanglement. >If the information transfer is, indeed, instantaneous, then in _which_ >frame of reference would it be so? > >Of course, any two events separated by a spacelike interval are >"simultaneous" in _some_ frame of reference. Hence, the question -- is >the information sent and received instantaneously in the inertial frame >of the lab, or the frame of the receiver, or the frame of emitter, or >some distinguished "global rest frame"? > >If it's not a distinguished rest frame, then it would seem that this >would provide the ability to send information backward in time, as >well as "sideways" (assuming we can accelerate a laboratory up to near >C in order to provide a sufficiently skewed frame of reference). But >if it is a distinguished "rest frame", then I guess we'd better take >another look around for an aether. Right...? If instant communication were found to exist then the term "rest frame" would need to take on an entirely new meaning, if any meaning is truly left for the term at all. Relativity in general comes into question. There is in fact not necessarily a need for aether in that case either but rather a completely unexpected theory. Reality then must be someting we do not understand at all at its most fundamental level. We are then left only to the reconciliation that our theories make us fairly good engineers, and to the awe at how little we now truly understand. If instant communication exists, and/or truly simultaneous quantum states that can be constrained by quantum computer so as to obtain instantaneous solutions in problem spaces having more instantiations than particles in the universe, including photons, then we will have vast new tools at our disposal. Someone on vortex (I think it was Knuke) asked a while ago what the most significant technology might be for mankind to develop in the near future. I personally have little doubt it is the ability to determine the feasibility of arbitrarily large B2 Boolean polynomials in a fast single machine cycle. Any arithmatic problem can be put into B2 Boolean polynomial form, as of course can problems of logic as well as mathematical proofs. The ability to determine B2 Boolean equation feasibilty is equivalent to the ability to solve such equations in linear time. Logic can be applied to logic itself, to the forms of polymnomials to be solved, as opposed to merely solving polynomials. True thinking machines, mutually telepathic machines, can then not be far away. If we can communicate instantaneously, then we can send remote control robotic missions to the far ends of the universe. The barriers imposed by relativity, and speed of light communication, are gone. There is a fairly good discussion of the possibily of circumventing relativity's barriers in Paul Hill's book: *Unconventioanl Flying Objects*. If all these amazing things are possible, then unfortunately the principle of the survival of the fittest and the theory of evolution take on a whole new importance. I digress far too soon into possible consequences of an experiment which has not been done and which may in fact be based on the false assumption that entanglement can be retained while rotating the polarization of a photon of an entangled pair. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 00:15:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA00303; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:10:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:10:59 -0800 Message-ID: <001f01c39d22$76d18f80$c510b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: Nanobes and hydrinos Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:07:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9407ebb608ba64775e5260d3634eb43e582350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52282 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:13:23 Jones Beene wrote: http://www.uq.edu.au/nanoworld/uwins.html "The discovery of novel, living nano-organisms growing on Triassic and Jurassic sandstones opened up an exciting area of research in 1997. The existence of nano-sized organisms has been proposed for a number of years by geologists who refer to a range of mineralized structures in rocks as the fossil remnants of nanobacteria. Bacteria range in size from 150nm (Mycoplasmas)-50µm in diameter while the proposed nanobacteria are an order of magnitude smaller with diameters reported to range from 20nm-150nm." Along similar lines a CNN article on Saturday Oct 25 2003: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/25/clay.life.reut/ WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Science backed up religion this week in a study that suggests life may have indeed sprung from clay -- just as many faiths teach. A team at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said they had shown materials in clay were key to some of the initial processes in forming life. "We are saying that we have demonstrated growth and division without any biochemical machinery. Ultimately, if we can demonstrate more natural ways this might have happened, it may begin to give us clues about how life could have actually gotten started on the primitive Earth." Among religious texts that refer to life being formed from the soil is the Bible's Book of Genesis where God tells Adam, (King James translation), "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." In correspondence with the late Dr. Carl Sagan we discussed my notion that the inorganic refractory (but water reactive) Carbides, Nitrides, Cyanides and Cyanogen thrown off supernovae as cosmic dust that forms the solar system would react exotermally with water releasing acetylene-di-acetylene, to make the simple four-carbon sugar Ribose, and/or Acrylic acid (which reacts with ammonia released when Calcium Nitride reacts with water) to form amino-acids. The end result of water on this "dust cocktail" (clay) is RNA and DNA. OTOH, from my 4th grade poetry class: Life is real! Life is earnest! And grave is not its goal Dust thou art to dust returns Was not spoken of the soul! Trust no future how're pleasant Let the dead past bury its dead Act, act in the living present Heart within and God overhead Let us to be up and doing With a heart for any fate Still achieving still pursuing Learn to labor and to wait (Rudyard Kipling) Good advice. :-) Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 04:18:50 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA15960; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:13:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:13:28 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:14:01 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: EPR and faster than light communication Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52283 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: "3. Each channel is put through an initial polarizing filter, the orientation of which is unimportant. What is important is that the paired photons each go through an initial polarizing filter at about the same time and at a time prior to the photons entering a polarization rotation device." I also wrote: "Note that this method only depends on detection of (relative) rotation at a specific time interval from photon creation. This eliminates the need for knowing the initial state of the photons involved. The polarization filters and the detector in the local channel are not required to effect the communication. In fact, elimination of these merely increases the intensity of the signal received via the communication channel." The above is erroneous, or at least misleading. At minimum, relative orientation of inital filters in the channels is important. There should be no filtering in the local channel during transmission tests of the communication channel. The message being transmitted is known, so for purposes of an experiment there is a need to transmit the message from the receiver to the sender or vice versa by light speed means in order to verify that the method works. In practical use, provided the method works, there is no need to send messages between parties by (slow) light speed. Also noteworthy is that two independent one-way channels can be used in full duplex fashion to echo a return message, possibly just a digital signature of the original message, and thus to verify receipt of a transmission at faster than light speed. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 05:25:12 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA30034; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:23:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:23:26 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:23:46 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: EPR and FTL communication (Draft #2) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52284 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From time to time, quantum mechanics paradoxes, faster than light (FTL) communication, and cryptographic issues have been discussed here on vortex. These issues all come together in a package when the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox is concerned. The EPR paradox consists of the fact that photons that are quantum entangled must, upon one of the photon states being measured, communicate the measured state to the paired photon instantaneously, and thus faster than light itself can travel. The purpose here is to suggest an experiment to determine if the quantum states of paired photons are truly communicated and maintained on an instant basis. When quantum entangled photons are created their polarization directions are orthogonal, but absolute orientation can't be determined until actually measured. This requirement to destroy the photons in the measuring process requires a light speed limited communication channel to compare the states measured and the polarization filter orientations and to thus confirm the entangled state. A method is suggested here to determine if a hidden orthogonal state of polarization is maintained at FTL speed between entangled photons. The method is to use the chirality of sugar or other materials with similar magneto-optical properties to rotate the direction of polarization of one of the pair during a specific time period and then detect whether or not the paired photon rotates during that time period. Rotation of polarization is a relative effect. If the rotation in some period of time can be detected, it is not needed to know the initial orientation of the photons, and thus a slower than light speed channel is not needed to compare polarizing filter orientations. The method consists of the following. 1. The splitting of entangled photon streams into two channels. 2. One channel, called the local channel, consists of a delay loop that delays emission of the photons in that channel such that they are processed locally at the same time the photons in the communication channel arrive at their destination. The local channel is assumed to be located entirely at the transmitting site. Alternatively the entangled stream generator can be located at the half-way point between sender and receiver, and beam one channel to each. 3. Photons in the local channel are routed through a device (a rotator) that rotates the polarization of photons in the local channel. Such a device can be made from sugar water inside an electromagnetic solenoid. Polarization of any light directed through the main axis of the solenoid will be rotated an amount that depends on the strength of the magnetic field and the length of the solenoid enclosed sugar-water path. 4. Photons in the communication channel are passed through an initial polarizing filter (the initial filter). The initial filter can be located anywhere such that the communication channel photons are polarized prior to the local channel photons entering the rotator. 5. Photons in the communication channel are passed through a final polarizing filter (the final filter) oriented orthogonal to the channel beam and to the polarization direction of the photons in the communication channel as set by the initial polarizing filter but without any rotation being applied to the local channel beam. 6. Photons that pass through the final filter are then directed to detectors that measure the beam intensity and then to devices that utilize the resulting signal as a communications channel. 7. The degree of rotation is manipulated by the rotator so as to send meaningful messages. If the messages sent are detected via the communications channel then the EPR paradox is resolved in favor of FTL communication of state. Note that this method only depends on detection of (relative) rotation at a specific time interval from photon creation. This method eliminates the need for knowing the initial state of the photons involved. Polarization filters in the local channel are not used to effect the communication. If the EPR paradox is resolved in favor of FTL communication, then clearly this method can be used for practical FTL communication. Though message latency due to distance is eliminated, the communication data rate is still limited by the speed at which the polarization rotation rate can be changed. In the case of sugar water, this speed is very slow. If FTL communication proved possible, then it is expected very fast polarization rotators would soon be developed. It is interesting that this method in itself does not provide secure communications in the sense that, provided an eavesdropper polarizes the (tapped) communication channel at a timing prior to the polarization rotation, and then measures the polarization rotation via use of a final filter at a time that is at least after the photons leave the rotator, he can read the message. The method as presented permits the use of large light intensity, thus a small amount can be tapped without being detected. Security depends on employment of additional measures outside the scope of the seven steps above. One of the problems of this method is being sure the entangled state is not disrupted, especially in the local channel. One means to avoid this problem for purposes of an experiment, is to place the beam origin and entangler at a point halfway between the receiver and the transmitter-rotator. In this manner the beam can be sent unimpeded between devices, with timing perfectly maintained and easily adjusted by slightly moving the location of the transmitter. One problem with this idea is that it may not be possible to rotate the polarization of a photon without actually destroying it and creating a new one, and thus breaking the entanglement. Note that the delay for communication is adjusted by making the local channel delay local photon rotation until just prior to the arrival of the communication channel photons at their destination. The delay could be much less, but then this increases the message transmission delay, i.e. the message latency time as opposed to the data rate. Note also that the message channel initial polarizing filter, the initial filter, can be located at the point of message channel origination. Message detection is then achieved by a polarization filter at the destination that is orthogonal to the beam's normal polarization, followed by a light intensity detector. This method eliminates concerns about timing issues at the receiving destination, and is useful for experimental purposes. However, it maximizes exposure of the message to eavesdropping. It is possible to make the message available for reading during a very select time interval. This is accomplished by passing the local channel photons through a rotator and then, after a brief time interval, passing the same photons through a rotator that rotates the photons back to their original orientation. If the communication is via light beam, then this sets a limit to how far away the receiver can be. Further, it requires an eavesdropper, provided he is closer than the intended receiver, to know exactly how much delay to add to the received message to obtain a proper signal. The sender can protect the actual message by passing the local beam through additional meaningless random rotations (at other times) that hide the location (in time) of the real data. Note again that there should be no filtering in the local channel during transmission tests of the communication channel. The message being transmitted is known, so for purposes of an experiment there is a an apparent need to transmit the message from the receiver to the sender or vice versa by light speed means in order to verify that the method works. In practical use, provided the method works, there is no need to send messages between parties by (slow) light speed. Two independent one-way channels can be used in full duplex fashion to echo a return message, possibly just a digital signature of the original message, and thus to verify receipt of a transmission at faster than light speed. An experiment requiring the simplest message would involve sending a single bit via a one-way FTL communication channel and returning it via a second one-way (return) FTL communication channel, and repeating this process to establish an oscillation. It is then necessary to transmit over a sufficient distance D that the oscillation frequency f is faster than the frequency F = c/D that can be achieved by light. The principle difficulty with this approach is that the best oscillation frequency that can be obtained with sugar water is fairly slow, thus D must be large. An effective experiment requires finding a material that produces a fast f or being able to transmit long distances, i.e. being able to produce a strong beam of entangled photons. Regular progress is being made in the latter arena. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 05:50:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA19611; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:46:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:46:45 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c39d59$d4b94e30$f157ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031027170802.00b03718@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation / is Amoco part of Exxon? Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:54:06 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52285 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed wrote: > > The Correas would be completely vindicated by replication. But I gather > refused to show it to experts other than Carrell and a few others, and they > have stopped working on it. They are strange people. The PAGD phenomenon I observed requires careful definition, else one's optimism can run wild. Without going into a lot of detail, you have a partially evacuated tube with a couple of parallel electrodes with a few hundred volts impressed. Under the right conditions, a pale glow appears and occasionally a powerful spark will jump across the gap of an inch or two. When I saw it the spark happened every few seconds. An attached circuit diverts that energy into a battery. If you measure the energy used to set up that pale glow and the energy delivered by the sparks, you get a very impressive energy gain. The energy appears to come from nowhere, but is attributed to the aether. You can't time the sparks; if you trigger them, the energy delivery disappears. You can make them go faster, but the net energy is less. The Correas have studied this phenomenon intensly. There is a long history of attempts to form development partnerships, and initiatives by various parties for developmental realtionships which have not happened for various reasons I will not go into here. Years ago, shortly after my period of involvement with them, Gene Mallove visited and witnessed demostrations that I also saw, and an alliance of some kind was formed. The Correas have published articles in IE and on a website. I have an impression that several rotary devices have been built, powered by PAGD and other aether-related sources. I do not know how powerful they are. My knowledge of current developments is very fragmentary. I would be pleased with evidence that substantial sustained power release is being achieved. A problem with the PAGD demonstration I saw is that a whole new class of transducer devices would be needed to make the system self-sustain and produce useful work besides. I am given to understand that something may have come from a collaboration between the Correas and Harold Aspden. > > > > Isn't Amoco part of Exxon? Maybe not? Exxon bought Mobil Oil. Amoco is owned by someone else, perhaps Chevron. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 09:42:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA02719; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:34:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:34:56 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9EA890.1030009@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:34:08 -0500 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation / is Amoco part of Exxon? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031027170802.00b03718@pop.mindspring.com> <000001c39d59$d4b94e30$f157ccd1@asus> In-Reply-To: <000001c39d59$d4b94e30$f157ccd1@asus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52286 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote: >Exxon bought Mobil Oil. Amoco is owned by someone else, perhaps Chevron. > British Petroleum (BP) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 10:26:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA09744; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:21:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:21:43 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:21:37 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52287 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday I wrote: "I think we all agree if this experiment is replicated it will be Game Over. The procedure seems air-tight. Mike Carrell observed this experiment, and he is a careful, meticulous, smart guy, and he thinks so." I was referring to the "ping-pong battery test" in which a bank of batteries reportedly should have been exhausted, but they ended up with a higher charge than they started. Mike explained that the tests he saw were not as definitive: > The PAGD phenomenon I observed requires careful definition, else one's > optimism can run wild. Without going into a lot of detail, you have a > partially evacuated tube with a couple of parallel electrodes with a few > hundred volts impressed. Under the right conditions, a pale glow appears and > occasionally a powerful spark will jump across the gap of an inch or two. > When I saw it the spark happened every few seconds. An attached circuit > diverts that energy into a battery. . . . I knew that Mike did not observe the ping-pong test, but I confused the issue. I should have said something like: "I think we all agree that if the ping-pong experiment is replicated it will be Game Over. The procedure seems air-tight. Mike Carrell observed some Correa glow discharge experiments, he is a careful, meticulous, smart guy, and he thinks the tests have merit, so we should not dismiss the claims . . ." It is unclear to me how long the ping-pong test ran, and whether it was past the point at which the batteries should have been completely exhausted. A definitive test should run that long. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 10:49:56 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA27690; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:47:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:47:02 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.1.20031028183610.030adec0@pop3.newnet.co.uk> X-Sender: lawrence@pop3.newnet.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:41:43 +0000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Stephen Lawrence Subject: Re: Stephen Lawrence In-Reply-To: <200310212246.PAA25327@mx1.eskimo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <0hOR3D.A.fwG.lmrn_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52288 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Er, do I take it that there are (at least) two Stephen Lawrence's on this list?? Stephen Lawrence, not remembering saying anything like this. At 15:46 21/10/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Fleischmann responded to some comments made here by Stephen Lawrence, on >September 29. Lawrence's comments: > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >Here's another answer, a little different from the one Jed got. I heard it >in a lecture at MIT on cold fusion. The lecturer said this is the answer >he got when he asked Fleischman the same question. > >As I recall it, he said he was told by Fleischman that it was "common >knowledge" at the time among electrochemists that calibrating a >calorimeter for an electrolysis run using light water was straightforward, >and could be done to very high precision (a number of 99% sticks in my >mind). BUT, Fleischmann told him, calibration using heavy water never >worked well -- the results would commonly wander around by a few percent. >A precision of perhaps 95% was the best one could do. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >I asked Fleischmann, "did you recall saying this?" His response is rather >wooly, which is typical of him. I guess it boils down to "no." > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >. . . With regard to this particular e-mail, it seems clear that this >particular comment (that the calorimetry of the Pd-H and Pd-D systems is >radically different; actually, we usually compared Pt-D and Pd-D - the >effects are the same) originates in the recollections of a scientist of a >lecture I gave at M.I.T. in the early days - certainly no later than 1990. >The trouble From: Stephen Lawrence, 8 Supanee Court, French's Road, Cambridge, England, CB4 3LB. Tel/Fax +44 1223 564373 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 11:52:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA17274; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:39:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:39:16 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:38:49 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: OT: General science question Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52289 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:49 PM 10/27/3, Stephen Lawrence wrote: >2) Absent an answer to the previous, here's another rather OT question. > Does anybody here happen to know, in 20 equations or less, how to >evaluate the Christofel symbols on a curved manifold _without_ referring >to a higher dimensional flat space in which the manifold is embedded? >Just so this doesn't sound too arcane, let me add that the Christofel >symbols represent the partial derivatives of the basis vectors with >respect to each other; without a flat reference space, I just don't see >how to get a handle on them. This is way above my head. However, true to character, I won't hesitate to make foolish comments anyway. I wonder here if you are trying to do something nonsensical? The surface Christoffel symbols require and are defined by the surrounding space. How can they have meaning without the surrounding space? The geometry of the surface itself is and must be defined in terms of some surrounding space. I take the following from the Korn and Korn Handbook. Here, due to ascii requirements, denote the Christoffel surface symbols of the form: a { b c } in the form: {a,b,c}_S Assume that any reference to r here is a reference to a vector. The symbo @ is used to indicate partial differentiation, and underscore indicates subscript. the symbol ^ indicates exponentiation. Here "dot" means vector dot product. A vector path element along a surface curve r = r[u(t), v(t)] or u=u(t), v = v(t) is dr = r_u du + r_v dv and the square of the element of distance ds = |dr| on the surface is given at each surface point (u,v) by: ds^2 = |dr|^2 = E(u,v) du^2 + 2F(u,v) du dv + G(u,v) dv^2 where: E(u,v) = r_u dot r_u = (@x/@u)^2 + (@y/@u)^2 + (@z/@u)^2 F(u,v) = r_u dot r_v = (@x/@u)(@x/@v) + (@y/@u)(@y/@v) + (@z/@u)(@z/@v) G(u,v) = r_v dot r_v = (@x/@v)^2 + (@y/@v)^2 + (@z/@v)^2 This is called the fundamental form of the surface. I suppose you could define the suface within some other non-cartesian coordinate form so as to come up with your own special versions of E, F, and G. It appears to me that it is only important that the dot function be computable and that differentiability is available as required. Once you have E, F and G then, define K = 2(EG-F^2), where EG-F^2 is called the metric-tensor determinate, so that we have the Christoffel three-index symbols of the second kind defined compactly for the surface S: {1,1,1)_S = (GEu - 2FFu + FEv)/K {1,1,2}_S = {1,2,1)_S = (GEv - FGu)/K {1,2,2}_S = (-FG + 2GFv - GGu)/K {2,1,1}_S = (-FEu + 2EFu -EEv)/K {2,1,2}_S = {2,2,1)_S = (EGu - FEv)/K {2,2,2}_S = (EGv - 2FFv + FGu)/K Best of luck. If this doesn't help any you might try one of the sci.math groups. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 12:40:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA04812; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:36:30 -0800 Message-ID: <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:29:19 -0800 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 MAA04766 Resent-Message-ID: <-SEy4B.A.GLB.ONtn_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52290 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell writes, > "I think we all agree that if the ping-pong experiment is replicated it > will be Game Over. The procedure seems air-tight. Mike Carrell observed > some Correa glow discharge experiments, he is a careful, meticulous, smart > guy, and he thinks the tests have merit, so we should not dismiss the > claims . . ." One small point of clarification...actually it may be a big point, considering how many times con-men have used the "ping-pong" idea. To be truly indicative of OU, the ping-pong test must be carried out for several days if not weeks, especially if the rated Amp-hr storage capacity of the batteries is high relative to the Amp-hr draw of the experiment. This is due to several now well-recognized processes of battery rejuvenation such as "desulfurization," which can occur without any free energy. The Newman motor, for instance, fails miserably when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries. It is no more than 50% efficient according to one of his investors but it will definitely recharge dead batteries because of the high back EMF of the leaky commutator (which is why it is inefficient in normal operation). You can free-spin, at high rpm, many kinds of electric motors literally for days on two auto batteries in ping-pong mode. Many remember Joe Newman got a lot of mileage, so to speak, out of this ping-pong effect before it became better known, and often based his claims solely on the ability to regenerate dead batteries. Tilley followed suit, but was equally self-deceived (as many on vortex predicted). An Irish con man tried the same stunt a few years back, and probably more than a few other con-men have duped investors using this trick. All the skeptic needs to insist on for an accurate assessment of the ping-pong effect is to substitute capacitance for the batteries. If the inventor balks, then you can be sure that he has tried it already and failed. I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not have tried it already? Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 12:59:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA20628; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:54:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:54:32 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028154923.00b03608@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:54:25 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Stephen Lawrence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52291 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lawrence echoes the classic academic argument that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by another man of the same name. He writes: > Er, do I take it that there are (at least) two Stephen Lawrence's on this > list?? > Stephen Lawrence, not remembering saying anything like this. > > At 15:46 21/10/2003 -0700, you wrote: > >Fleischmann responded to some comments made here by Stephen Lawrence, on > >September 29. Lawrence's comments: > > > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >Here's another answer, a little different from the one Jed got. I heard it > >in a lecture at MIT on cold fusion. The lecturer said this is the answer > >he got when he asked Fleischman the same question. I copied the quote from a message dated 9/29/2003, 12:31:45 PM. Anyway, whoever said it, it was interesting point. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 13:12:53 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA30168; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:09:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:09:03 -0800 Message-ID: <003301c39d8f$2554bb60$be11b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:07:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940d532077415d1dce113f233abe5a34733350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52292 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are > substituted for the batteries in the PAGD? Probably they will self-charge before power is applied, Jones. Looks like that ~ 66 billion neutrinos/sec per cm^2 with an energy range from thermal to >> 20 MeV, plus background anti-neutrinos is interacting in the electric field, as it seems to be in the decay rate modification of radioisotopes, and possibly in LENR-CANR where high fields exist at the electrodes. If PAGD is set up on the power grid...... :-) Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 13:50:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA21181; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:39:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:39:27 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028155530.01c18028@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:37:37 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52293 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene writes: > One small point of clarification...actually it may be a big point, > considering how many times con-men have used the "ping-pong" idea. > > To be truly indicative of OU, the ping-pong test must be carried out > for several days if not weeks, especially if the rated Amp-hr storage > capacity of the batteries is high relative to the Amp-hr draw of the > experiment. Yes. This is why I said the batteries must be "completely exhausted" beyond question. Measuring battery capacity is not easy, and it is not an exact science. I spoke with one of the engineers who worked on my electric bicycle, which uses two Yuasa lead acid 12 Volt, 12 Amp Hour batteries. He said initially they were getting 25 miles to the charge, but it turned out that ruined that batteries, so they had to reduce the range to 20 miles. Still, if the experiment produces much more energy than the total rated capacity of the batteries, and the batteries are still charged, and there is no other input, it would be unquestionably far over unity, despite the uncertainty introduced by batteries. As I said, it is unclear to me how long the tests ran. > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for > the batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not > have tried it already? As I recall, Correa said that capacitors would not work for some reason, and he has not tried them. Perhaps Mike Carrell remembers more about this. As I said, this experiment must be replicated before we can believe it. Nearly all experiments must be replicated, except a few that are self-evident and beyond any conceivable error, such as Mizuno's enormous heat after death event, which was more of an accident than an experiment. That can only be lie or proof that CF is real; there is no middle ground. In the short list of famous self-evident experiments, I have often included the x-ray, the explosion of the atom bomb, and the first airplane flight at Kitty Hawk. Actually, now that I have read more about the latter I think it should be listed as "almost definitive" because there were some previous impressive uncontrolled hops, such as Herring, 1898. In 1908 Orville Wright wrote a carefully defined set of engineering criteria to separate an uncontrolled hop from a flight. I agree the first flight met his criteria, but it barely met them. It was skirting the edge of disaster, and it only worked because it was piloted by two people who had nerves of steel. The Kitty Hawk airplane was about as close to uncontrollable as any actual airplane can be. (I have not seen the new Microsoft simulation, but I gather it demonstrates this realistically.) Anyway, it wasn't until the summer of 1905 and the third or forth major redesign that airplanes became truly controllable and capable of flying for more than few minutes without a crash. A new book presents an interesting fictionalized treatment of the Cast of Characters who pioneered aviation: W. Boyne, "Dawn Over Kitty Hawk," (Forge, 2003). They were such misfits and weirdos I almost feel I have met them, reincarnated as CF researchers. They ranged from unsavory (Herring, Langley) to unbelievably stupid (Ferber) to stark staring crazy (the Wrights - let's be honest about this). They were the kind of people who would come within an inch of being killed in an accident, pick themselves up, dust off the sand, repair the machine and try it again a few hours later, and again the next day, and the next day, hundreds of times. In other words, they were admirable but crazy. CF researchers do not risk their lives, but they go to extremes, and I think most people would see them as crazy. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 14:41:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA28103; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:38:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:38:52 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:39:25 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Stephen Lawrence Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52294 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:54 PM 10/28/3, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Stephen Lawrence echoes the classic academic argument that Shakespeare's >plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by another man of the same name. >He writes: > > > Er, do I take it that there are (at least) two Stephen Lawrence's on this > > list?? > > Stephen Lawrence, not remembering saying anything like this. > > > > At 15:46 21/10/2003 -0700, you wrote: > > >Fleischmann responded to some comments made here by Stephen Lawrence, on > > >September 29. Lawrence's comments: > > > > > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > > >Here's another answer, a little different from the one Jed got. I heard it > > >in a lecture at MIT on cold fusion. The lecturer said this is the answer > > >he got when he asked Fleischman the same question. > >I copied the quote from a message dated 9/29/2003, 12:31:45 PM. Anyway, >whoever said it, it was interesting point. > >- Jed Interesting. There indeed appears to be two Stephen Lawrence's on the list: Stephen Lawrence and Stephen Lawrence At least there are two email addresses involved. Here is the post to which Jed refers: At 1:28 PM 9/29/3, Stephen Lawrence wrote: >Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> This raises a fascinating question. Why did F&P look for heat in the >> first place? > >Here's another answer, a little different from the one Jed got. I heard >it in a lecture at MIT on cold fusion. The lecturer said this is the >answer he got when he asked Fleischman the same question. > >As I recall it, he said he was told by Fleischman that it was "common >knowledge" at the time among electrochemists that calibrating a >calorimeter for an electrolysis run using light water was >straightforward, and could be done to very high precision (a number of >99% sticks in my mind). BUT, Fleischman told him, calibration using >heavy water never worked well -- the results would commonly wander >around by a few percent. A precision of perhaps 95% was the best one >could do. > >And from there it was a short logical leap to think maybe something was >injecting some anomalous heat into the apparatus, and it might be worth >looking for it. > >Take this for whatever it's worth. The lecturer went on to say that >he'd asked other electrochemists about this D vs H effect and they'd >never heard of it, but, he said, maybe it really was "common knowledge" >among some he hadn't asked. > >This was at a seminar perhaps six months ago. If anyone cares I'll try >to dig up the name of the prof. I don't recall it off the top of my head. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 15:09:48 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA12377; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:03:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:03:03 -0800 Message-ID: <002201c39da7$90350940$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:02:29 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52295 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:21 PM Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation > > It is unclear to me how long the ping-pong test ran, and whether it was > past the point at which the batteries should have been completely > exhausted. A definitive test should run that long. > > - Jed > The plates in the Correa tubes were very thin and subject to overheating and warping. I doubt that they could run for even an hour straight without serious degradation. In contrast the plates in my tubes are 3/4 in thick and barely exceed room temperature during any mode of operation. I purchased the Correa's dvd hoping to see the battery banks and monster capacitors shown in their circuit diagram for this experiment. Unfortunately there was not a single glimpse to be seen. Mike has seen my apparatus operate several years ago. I have made significant progress since then. I have seen mostly forward pulses and also a few reverse pulses, but OU remains elusive. Although the Correa circuit (fig. 9 of pat. 5,449,989 or page 36 of vol. 2 No. 7 of IE) is a bridge capable of responding to both forward and reverse pulses, they never differentiate between the two as to which predominates in either frequency or power. Figure 9 is awkwardly drawn. If you redraw the circuit to place D7, D8, C7a, C7b, CP and R3 inside the diode bridge the circuit will instantly make more sense. However, if one studies the circuit in light of OU energy extraction it makes no sense at all unless the kind of electricity the Correa's are extracting is really strange stuff. Regarding their monster caps, they range from 3,300mfd to 20,700mfd and must be rated for at least 350v. They cannot be electrolytics since the deep cycling will cause them to over heat and explode. (been there, done that) I have never seen catalog information for any nonelectrolytic of that capacity. It seems to me that they would have to be the size of a small car and have a similar price tag! I would love to discuss these things with some of you by phone if anyone is interested. I hate typing. Contact me first at revtec@ptd.net. Mike, I would love to talk to you some more, but your old phone number doesn't work. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 15:22:14 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAB25604; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:19:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:19:24 -0800 Message-ID: <001501c39da9$d8e92de0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:50 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <0N7XLB.A.6PG.7lvn_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52297 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: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:29 PM Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation > Jed Rothwell writes, > > > > "I think we all agree that if the ping-pong experiment is replicated it > > will be Game Over. The procedure seems air-tight. Mike Carrell observed > > some Correa glow discharge experiments, he is a careful, meticulous, smart > > guy, and he thinks the tests have merit, so we should not dismiss the > > claims . . ." > > > One small point of clarification...actually it may be a big point, considering how many times con-men have used the "ping-pong" idea. > > To be truly indicative of OU, the ping-pong test must be carried out for several days if not weeks, especially if the rated Amp-hr storage capacity of the batteries is high relative to the Amp-hr draw of the experiment. This is due to several now well-recognized processes of battery rejuvenation such as "desulfurization," which can occur without any free energy. The Newman motor, for instance, fails miserably when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries. It is no more than 50% efficient according to one of his investors but it will definitely recharge dead batteries because of the high back EMF of the leaky commutator (which is why it is inefficient in normal operation). You can free-spin, at high rpm, many kinds of electric motors literally for days on two auto batteries in ping-pong mode. > > Many remember Joe Newman got a lot of mileage, so to speak, out of this ping-pong effect before it became better known, and often based his claims solely on the ability to regenerate dead batteries. Tilley followed suit, but was equally self-deceived (as many on vortex predicted). An Irish con man tried the same stunt a few years back, and probably more than a few other con-men have duped investors using this trick. All the skeptic needs to insist on for an accurate assessment of the ping-pong effect is to substitute capacitance for the batteries. If the inventor balks, then you can be sure that he has tried it already and failed. > > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not have tried it already? > > Jones > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 15:23:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA25360; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:19:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:19:07 -0800 Message-ID: <001001c39da9$cf1fafa0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:34 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52296 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: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:29 PM Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation > Jed Rothwell writes, > > > > "I think we all agree that if the ping-pong experiment is replicated it > > will be Game Over. The procedure seems air-tight. Mike Carrell observed > > some Correa glow discharge experiments, he is a careful, meticulous, smart > > guy, and he thinks the tests have merit, so we should not dismiss the > > claims . . ." > > > One small point of clarification...actually it may be a big point, considering how many times con-men have used the "ping-pong" idea. > > To be truly indicative of OU, the ping-pong test must be carried out for several days if not weeks, especially if the rated Amp-hr storage capacity of the batteries is high relative to the Amp-hr draw of the experiment. This is due to several now well-recognized processes of battery rejuvenation such as "desulfurization," which can occur without any free energy. The Newman motor, for instance, fails miserably when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries. It is no more than 50% efficient according to one of his investors but it will definitely recharge dead batteries because of the high back EMF of the leaky commutator (which is why it is inefficient in normal operation). You can free-spin, at high rpm, many kinds of electric motors literally for days on two auto batteries in ping-pong mode. > > Many remember Joe Newman got a lot of mileage, so to speak, out of this ping-pong effect before it became better known, and often based his claims solely on the ability to regenerate dead batteries. Tilley followed suit, but was equally self-deceived (as many on vortex predicted). An Irish con man tried the same stunt a few years back, and probably more than a few other con-men have duped investors using this trick. All the skeptic needs to insist on for an accurate assessment of the ping-pong effect is to substitute capacitance for the batteries. If the inventor balks, then you can be sure that he has tried it already and failed. > > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not have tried it already? > > Jones > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 15:36:29 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id PAA03560; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:33:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:33:03 -0800 Message-ID: <001901c39dab$bcb73e80$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:32:22 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52298 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: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:29 PM Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not have tried it already? > > Jones > All of my PAGD experiments use capacitors for storage. I guess this explains my OU failures. Nevertheless, I do see what I consider anomolous events that deserve a more thorough investigation. Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 16:53:05 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA24938; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:46:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:46:38 -0800 Message-ID: <01db01c39db5$19c52de0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> <001901c39dab$bcb73e80$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:39:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com id QAA24864 Resent-Message-ID: <0ghDB.A.eFG.t3wn_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52299 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Jeff, > All of my PAGD experiments use capacitors for storage. I guess this > explains my OU failures. Nevertheless, > I do see what I consider anomolous events that deserve a more thorough > investigation. Do you have a web site up yet with any of your results? I would like to hear about those anomalous events and whether or not you are interested in trying some variations on the theme. Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 18:28:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA29582; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:35 -0800 Message-ID: <002601c39dc2$de082d80$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> <001901c39dab$bcb73e80$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> <01db01c39db5$19c52de0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: PAGD experiments Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:17:56 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52300 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: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:39 PM Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation > Hi Jeff, > > > All of my PAGD experiments use capacitors for storage. I guess this > > explains my OU failures. Nevertheless, > > I do see what I consider anomolous events that deserve a more thorough > > investigation. > > Do you have a web site up yet with any of your results? > > I would like to hear about those anomalous events and whether or not you are interested in trying some variations on the theme. I do not have a web site, but would like to discuss my results and try some new variations. E-mail me directly at revtec@ptd.net to exchange phone numbers. Jeff > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 18:29:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA02169; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:26:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:26:40 -0800 Message-ID: <000a01c39dc4$006b78e0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: Subject: PAGD photos Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:26:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C39D9A.1773DF20" 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 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52301 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_0007_01C39D9A.1773DF20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been trying to attach photos to an E-mail to vortex-l, but it = never seems to go through. Anyone know how to fix the problem? Jeff ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C39D9A.1773DF20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have been trying to attach photos to = an E-mail to=20 vortex-l, but it never seems to go through.  Anyone know how to fix = the=20 problem?
 
Jeff
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C39D9A.1773DF20-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 18:56:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id SAA21311; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:54:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:54:18 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028185830.035dfcf8@mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek@mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:59:01 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: PAGD photos In-Reply-To: <000a01c39dc4$006b78e0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_460968828==.ALT" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52302 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --=====================_460968828==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I think you're not supposed to do that. Try sending directly to whoever is interested At 09:26 PM 10/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: >I have been trying to attach photos to an E-mail to vortex-l, but it never >seems to go through. Anyone know how to fix the problem? > >Jeff Thanks, Steve --=====================_460968828==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I think you're not supposed to do that.
Try sending directly to whoever is interested

At 09:26 PM 10/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I have been trying to attach photos to an E-mail to vortex-l, but it never seems to go through.  Anyone know how to fix the problem?
 
Jeff

Thanks,

Steve --=====================_460968828==.ALT-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 19:27:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA11298; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: PAGD photos Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:46:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <000a01c39dc4$006b78e0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52303 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If you wish to post some pic's, send them to me and I'll host them on my server. I generally post patent documents there, but I'd be happy to post a few of your pictures. K. -----Original Message----- From: revtec [mailto:revtec@PTD.NET] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: PAGD photos I have been trying to attach photos to an E-mail to vortex-l, but it never seems to go through. Anyone know how to fix the problem? Jeff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 20:30:50 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA23282; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:24:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:24:51 -0800 Message-ID: <007f01c39dd4$7ee01c70$ae45ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation (Correa Ping-Pong) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:15:39 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52304 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones wrote: > Jed Rothwell writes, > > > > "I think we all agree that if the ping-pong experiment is replicated it > > will be Game Over. The procedure seems air-tight. Mike Carrell observed > > some Correa glow discharge experiments, he is a careful, meticulous, smart > > guy, and he thinks the tests have merit, so we should not dismiss the > > claims . . ." > > > One small point of clarification...actually it may be a big point, considering how many times con-men have used the "ping-pong" idea. > > To be truly indicative of OU, the ping-pong test must be carried out for several days if not weeks, especially if the rated Amp-hr storage capacity of the batteries is high relative to the Amp-hr draw of the experiment. This is due to several now well-recognized processes of battery rejuvenation such as "desulfurization," which can occur without any free energy. The Newman motor, for instance, fails miserably when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries. It is no more than 50% efficient according to one of his investors but it will definitely recharge dead batteries because of the high back EMF of the leaky commutator (which is why it is inefficient in normal operation). You can free-spin, at high rpm, many kinds of electric motors literally for days on two auto batteries in ping-pong mode. > > Many remember Joe Newman got a lot of mileage, so to speak, out of this ping-pong effect before it became better known, and often based his claims solely on the ability to regenerate dead batteries. Tilley followed suit, but was equally self-deceived (as many on vortex predicted). An Irish con man tried the same stunt a few years back, and probably more than a few other con-men have duped investors using this trick. All the skeptic needs to insist on for an accurate assessment of the ping-pong effect is to substitute capacitance for the batteries. If the inventor balks, then you can be sure that he has tried it already and failed. > > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for the batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not have tried it already? > --------------------------------- Some points are important, which I glossed over because I did not anticipate that the discussion would expand. Many have question the Correa's use of batteries, followed by a "why don't they". In many hours of reading and discussion, I learned that nothing in the PAGD experiments was done casually or without careful purpose. Remember first that the PAGD phenomenon is really new, and that in experiments you have to observe and follow Nature and not impose your preconceived ideas. PAGD appears to capture the energy of passing vortices of aether. If you balk at that, go study Harold Aspden and read the Correa patents and my summary article in IE. For some reason, you can't power the system from the wall through a transformer, etc. I was told that it was tried and power supplies got fried. It has to float, free of grounds, etc. After much study and experimentation, the Correas chose 12 V sealed gel-cell batteries as the most stable and predictable available. *Before* and *after* each run, the packs are fully charged and then discharged through resistors, with periodic measurements of voltage to calibrate the discharge curve in terms of stored energy. Thus, by measuring the terminal voltage after a relaxation period, a accurate measure of the stored energy is possible. You don't have to run the batteries to exhaustion. A formal demonstration of the system for qualified investors is a four day affair, including tutorials and observation of the battery calibration process. I tried to summarize the process graphically in my IE article and almost succeeded, but goofed a calibration of the x-axis, much to the annoyance and disgust of Mitch Swartz who properly rebuked me. Capacitors don't really work, for the energy dumped is a lot of joules and the sink voltage must not rise, else the discharge will be quenched. Therefore you need a *really big* capacitor, and that means a battery. Battery storage is a chemical process which can't occur at high speed, so the sink battery is shunted by large capacitors which absorb the transient peak, the energy then passed to the battery. While engaged with the Correas in the matter, I thought about voice-coil transducers coupled to large masses, which appear as huge capacitors when reflected through the transducer effect. While Jed may feel 'safe' requiring that the ping-pong test be run for days, and Jones may recall voltage recovery effects in primary battery packs used by Newman, when you carefully study what the Correas did, you realize that eight hours was enough to show the effect, and the rise in energy level is real and not an illusion. What the Correas did and what Newmann did have only the word "battery" in common. Newmann fudged by using different but 'similar' primary battery packs. He did not calibrate before and after, nor did he use the *same* batteries. He did great shows but nonexistent science. Yes, this is altogether remarkable. The answer to the next question, why isn't this in commercial applications, is complex for the Correas as it is for Mills, but with different details. In each case, there is a real phenomenon yielding significant energy from a new and non-polluting source. Each has its own rules which have to be accommodated to bridge to the existing applications world. Bridging that gap takes $ millions and initial tight guidance by a technical leader. Each as faced opposition in one form or another. Mills has private investor backing, the Correas financed their own work and were not able to find suitable backing. The Correas are now publishing monographs on a broad spectrum of research of which PAGD is one part at www.aetherometry.com. Mike Carrell Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 20:31:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA23298; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:24:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:24:53 -0800 Message-ID: <008001c39dd4$7f328230$ae45ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> <001901c39dab$bcb73e80$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation (Jeff Fink) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:16:03 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52305 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jeff Fink wrote: > > > > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for the > batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not have tried > it already? > > > > Jones > > > All of my PAGD experiments use capacitors for storage. I guess this > explains my OU failures. Nevertheless, > I do see what I consider anomalous events that deserve a more thorough > investigation. > > Jeff Fink Jeff, It is only here that I can match you up with 'revtec'. Yes, I do remember my visit to your garage lab years ago and your sincere efforts to duplicate the PAGD effect. I also remember that you were attempting to 'improve' on the Correa design in ways that seemed perfectly reasonable. I remember talking to Paulo about this, with peripheral reference to your work. He did not respond to your requests, as you know. I'm not surprised, but I cannot convey any specific 'reason why'. I remember asking if anyone had replicated, and the answer seemed to be no, although he seemed curious to know if anyone had. He did indicated that one ahs to be master of a number of arts to duplicate the effect, even with the immensely detailed information in the patents. In another post just written in response to Jone's comments, I elaborate on the reason for the batteries. In my article in the May-June 1996 IE, for a particular pulse, the input energy from the drive battery pack was 0.08 Coulomb and the energy delivered to the charge pack was 1.2 Coulomb. The discharge quenches as soon as the voltage across the electrodes reaches the extinction voltage for the pressure involved, which is real quick with only capacitors to absorb the current. Thus the energy sink must remain at a low voltage **and** absorb the whole current pulse, which means capacitors across batteries, as shown, or a totally different transducer system. I believe that the Correas are collaborating with Harold Aspden to build a PAGD-motor system, which would be based on a deeper understanding of PAGD do's and dont's than I have. I'm sure it seemed like a lot of elaboration and a real pain to deal with the batteries and so much slicker to use capacitors. But a ***first rule*** in replicating another's work is to **replicate** it and not do something else, 'improving' it before one understands all the nuances. This plagued the CF world. People thought F&P just tossed a lump of palladium in an electrolytic cell and got excess heat, but got excess frustration instead. F&P were perhaps remiss in not stating how difficult it can be to produce the effect unless you know **exactly** what you are doing. The Correa circuit looks odd, also. It almost looks like a relaxation oscillator, but is not if you study it carefully. I got the impression that everything about the setup was determined experimentally, by what worked and what didn't. The cell capacitance is quite low and must be so. You add shunt capacitance and it will act as a relaxation oscillator, but without any OU effects. When I visited the Correa's lab, it was clear that the cell pressure and operating conditions were 'tuned' to make the effect appear. The patents are quite clear about the general nature of the operating zone, but exact values will depend on the exact configuration. You have to have a grasp of the physics involved also to know how to 'tune'. Good vacuum practice is also necessary. My phone number is the same, with an area code change to 856. I'd be happy to hear from you by phone or private email. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Oct 28 20:40:36 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA28798; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:33:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:33:15 -0800 Message-ID: <00b101c39dd5$af3cad10$ae45ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028185830.035dfcf8@mail.dlsi.net> Subject: Re: PAGD photos Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:29:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0093_01C39DAB.50F444E0" 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 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52306 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_0093_01C39DAB.50F444E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jeff, you can't send images to HSG because they can carry viruses. You = can join the HSG Yahoo group and post images and other material in the = Files section. You can also send images directly to me.=20 Mike Carrell ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C39DAB.50F444E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jeff, you can't send images to HSG because they can = carry=20 viruses. You can join the HSG Yahoo group and post images and other = material in=20 the Files section. You can also send images directly to me. =
 
Mike Carrell
 
------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C39DAB.50F444E0-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 04:47:44 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id EAA26608; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:43:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:43:22 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9FB5F2.2080904@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:43:30 -0500 From: Stephen Lawrence User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stephen Lawrence References: <5.1.1.6.1.20031028183610.030adec0@pop3.newnet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.1.20031028183610.030adec0@pop3.newnet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52307 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lawrence wrote: > Er, do I take it that there are (at least) two Stephen Lawrence's on > this list?? Yes. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 06:54:32 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA31356; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:50:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:50:57 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031029094638.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:50:55 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Stephen Lawrence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52308 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Stephen Lawrence wrote: > Stephen Lawrence wrote: > > Er, do I take it that there are (at least) two Stephen Lawrence's on > > this list?? > > Yes. That should be: Yes. Yes. (yes, yes . . .) Remember (remember): It is better to light a candle than recurse the darkness. - Jed, on reverb (reverb) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 07:08:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA11629; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:05:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:05:04 -0800 Message-ID: <023d01c39e2c$f5344920$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <002201c39da7$90350940$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:56:51 -0800 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 HAA11540 Resent-Message-ID: <-NpR8B.A.j1C.fc9n_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52309 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jeff, One comment about a product that might have a future for you (if you win the lottery). > Regarding their monster caps, they range from 3,300mfd to 20,700mfd and > must be rated for at least 350v. They cannot be electrolytics since the > deep cycling will cause them to over heat and explode. (been there, done > that) I have never seen catalog information for any nonelectrolytic of > that capacity. It seems to me that they would have to be the size of a > small car and have a similar price tag! If 100 Farads would help... There is one company making batteries designed to function like a monster cap, the Xstatic Batcap. They can contain a multi-farad charge plus the battery has a lower storage capability 6-10 seconds at max amps, so the result might be a good compromise for PAGD or arc discharge types of research, except.... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3054916842&category=4950 Unfortunately the cost to handle 350 volts would be high. Even the smallest model 300 (300 Cold Cranking Amps -Battery equal to 100 Farads - Capacitor) which is 3 x 3 x 5 inches and 2.5 lbs - but costs $170 and you would need about 30 of them, or 60 for ping-pong mode, so I guess that's a bit extravagant unless a sponsor comes along... If you had these set up in time for the solar flare due to come around in a couple of hours I wonder if you would get one of Fred Sparber's self-charging effects.... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 07:28:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA30613; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:23:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:23:23 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031029095433.00bab3f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:23:22 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: P&F did not know what they were doing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52310 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Carrell writes: > the CF world. People thought F&P just tossed a lump of palladium in an > electrolytic cell and got excess heat, but got excess frustration instead. > F&P were perhaps remiss in not stating how difficult it can be to produce > the effect unless you know **exactly** what you are doing. It is true that P&F, Bockris, McKubre and others who replicated early knew a great deal about electrochemistry, and this knowledge is essential. But P&F did not really know in detail why their experiments worked and other experiments failed. Johnson Matthey (J-M) knew. It still knows. Fleischmann said that when they began the research, they went straight to J-M, told them what they wanted to do, and asked for the best material for that purpose. They withheld only one secret -- but withholding it was unconscionable, in my opinion. They should have told everyone: "call J-M and ask for a sample of the palladium they use in their hydrogen filters. That kind works, most other kinds do not." The table published by Miles years later proved this. They eventually did say this, but in the meanwhile people wasted years of effort, and CF got a bad reputation. Perhaps people would not have listened if they had said this in 1989. Perhaps things would have gone badly no matter what they said or did. But at least it would not have been their fault. Elsewhere, Carrell writes: > [The Mills and Correa experiments] each has its own rules which have to be accommodated to bridge to the > existing applications world. Bridging that gap takes $ millions and initial > tight guidance by a technical leader. Each as faced opposition in one form > or another. Mills has private investor backing, the Correas financed their > own work and were not able to find suitable backing. This is piffle. They never gave investors or anyone else a chance. They did not facilitate independent observations and replications, without which no scientist will believe such claims. If their claims are true, and they would act like ordinary sane human beings instead of lunatics, they would have billions of dollars in backing, and they would be the most celebrated people on earth. All of the Correas' problems -- ALL OF THEM -- are caused by the Correas themselves: by their hubris, ignorance, and foolish empty pride. If they die and are forgotten it will serve them right. The same goes for Mills and many of the CF researchers. I cannot judge the technical details of many of these claims. I certainly cannot judge whether Mills has been partly or fully replicated. But when it comes to history, human nature and business I am far ahead of Mills, Correa and most CF researchers. I am confident that I am right, and they are wrong. Also, I understand what "work" means in basic physics, and Correa does not. Perhaps he knows some advanced physics that are over my head, but he does not understand some important junior high school level physics. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 07:35:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA05624; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:32:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:32:11 -0800 Message-ID: <3F9FDD88.2040708@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:32:24 -0500 From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stephen Lawrence References: <5.1.1.6.1.20031028183610.030adec0@pop3.newnet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.1.20031028183610.030adec0@pop3.newnet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52311 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry -- I used to use my middle initial but it got dropped somewhere along the line. I've put it back. From now on I'm "Stephen A. Lawrence". Cheers... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 08:12:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA05611; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:09:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:09:45 -0800 Message-ID: <20031029160942.36240.qmail@web11703.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:09:41 -0800 (PST) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: PAGD photos To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <00b101c39dd5$af3cad10$ae45ccd1@asus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <891UBD.A.aXB.IZ-n_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52312 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: please. i have yet to see an actual jpg virus. also, you can go to hpphoto.com and sign up for a free account there. they are an image host. then you can make a link, and post the links. --- Mike Carrell wrote: > Jeff, you can't send images to HSG because they can > carry viruses. You can join the HSG Yahoo group and > post images and other material in the Files section. > You can also send images directly to me. > > Mike Carrell > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 08:23:43 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA14873; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:20:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:20:13 -0800 Message-ID: <006b01c39e38$6b22b620$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028131323.00baa198@pop.mindspring.com> <018501c39d92$2aa8d6c0$8837fea9@cpq> <007f01c39dd4$7ee01c70$ae45ccd1@asus> Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation (Correa Ping-Pong) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:19:24 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52313 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Carrell" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:15 PM Subject: Re: A pinch of x-radiation (Correa Ping-Pong) > > I wonder what would happen when large capacitors are substituted for the > batteries in the PAGD? Surely they are not so ignorant as to not have tried > it already? > > > > PAGD appears to capture the energy of passing vortices of aether. If you > balk at that, go study Harold Aspden and read the Correa patents and my > summary article in IE. For some reason, you can't power the system from the > wall through a transformer, etc. I was told that it was tried and power > supplies got fried. It has to float, free of grounds, etc. I have fried a few parts already, but not a power supply. I get what I consider anomolous pulses but perhaps I don't fry the supply because it takes an OU pulse to do that and I havn't had any of those. > Capacitors don't really work, for the energy dumped is a lot of joules and > the sink voltage must not rise, else the discharge will be quenched. > Therefore you need a *really big* capacitor, and that means a battery. > Battery storage is a chemical process which can't occur at high speed, so > the sink battery is shunted by large capacitors which absorb the transient > peak, the energy then passed to the battery. My storage cap voltage only rises 1 to 5v per PAGD event. I control the operating voltage range with a load bank. A 1 to 5v gradient does not seem excessive, and I can easily reduce that with more caps. (these can be electrolytic) I'm presently using multiple 350v 5600mfd caps in parallel which cost me $65 ea. Jeff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 09:32:26 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA10032; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:29:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:29:50 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031029121720.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:29:07 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52314 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote: > P&F did not really know in detail why their experiments worked and other > experiments failed. Johnson Matthey (J-M) knew. It still knows. Fleischmann > said that when they began the research, they went straight to J-M, told > them what they wanted to do, and asked for the best material for that > purpose. That is to say, J-M understood how to make Pd that fulfills the requirements set forth years later by Storms in "How to Produce . . ." This is Pd that stands up to high loading without cracking, distending or disintegrating. For some reason Fleischmann knew he wanted that kind of material. However, he did not know how to make it. He told me that, explicitly. He said something like: "When you need something, you go to the experts. It saves time. The people at J-M know more about materials than I do." The Storms' criteria are here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf I do not know whether J-M, Fleischmann, or anyone else can answer deeper questions such as: 1. What is behind the Storms' criteria? Why should robust Pd work while other types do not? 2. Do these criteria only apply to bulk Pd, and not finely divided Pd powder or Pd co-deposited on Cu? (Probably.) 3. Do these criteria apply to other metals such as Ni or Pt? (Probably not.) - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 10:44:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA02371; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:36:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:36:27 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031029125731.00bab658@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:36:15 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC Nobel committee snubs MRI inventor Damadian Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52315 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Raymond Damadian invented the MRI machine. I do not think anyone disputes that. However, the Nobel prize committee snubbed him, and awarded a prize for the MRI to Lauterbur and Mansfield instead. Some people speculate that this is because Damadian is a creationist, which is politically incorrect. I suspect it is because he is a maverick who stepped on many people's toes in his long fight to be accepted. See: http://www.reason.com/links/links100903.shtml http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_mri.asp Anyway, here are a few of thoughts about this. Obviously I think this is unfair. I would award Damadian the Nobel even if he were the biggest crackpot on earth. Even is CF is eventually accepted, I doubt a Nobel will ever be awarded to Pons or Fleischmann. The establishment is so steeped in folly, it will never be able to admit its error. This means that the Nobel prize itself must gradually turn into a farce, before fading away. That is what happened to the French Academy award for painting in the 19th century after the academy turned its back on impressionism. I think creationism is crackpot nonsense, but you cannot compare it to other kinds of ignorance. It is an expression of religion, which goes back to childhood and one's deepest emotions and self image. Everyone is irrational about something. It is not like the Correas' whacko definition of "work." No religious text misdefines work, or confuses it with some ancient superstition. Many perpetual motion machine inventors have misguided beliefs that fall somewhere in between creationism and the Correas' "work" definition -- midway between an understandable culture-bound illusion and baseless ignorance. Perpetual motion irrationality is understandable because people seem to have a deep, inborn longing to produce energy, especially over-unity, something-for-nothing energy. They have been trying to do this for centuries, long before there was an energy crisis, or fears of global warming. It is an obsession. It attracts fanatics, and it generates endless rumors. Similar obsessions with immortality, racial superiority, or encounters with aliens on earth often generate atrocious pseudo-science. You might say that perpetual motion is a kind religious quest for a Holy Grail. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 12:49:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA20616; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:41:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:41:05 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" Subject: Jeff Finks PAGD pics. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:03:43 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <1q2Ex.A.ACF.gXCo_@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52316 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All. Jeff provided me with many pics of his experimental apparatus, I've taken the liberty of reducing the file size and have posted them to my site. Here's the links to each pic. http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0173O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0146O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0148O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0149O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0154O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0156O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0159O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0160O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0164O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0166O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0167O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0171O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0172O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0144O.jpg http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0143O.jpg You'll have to ask him for a write-up, but most pics are self explanatory. That big wooden thing around the discharge tube in some pics is a coil... K. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 13:35:00 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA04726; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:31:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:31:35 -0800 Message-ID: <005201c39e60$39dc6520$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" References: Subject: Re: Jeff Finks PAGD pics. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:04:21 -0800 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 NAA04658 Resent-Message-ID: <"CYpiC1.0.m91.s63e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52317 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Keith Nagel writes > Jeff provided me with many pics of his experimental > apparatus, I've taken the liberty of reducing the > file size and have posted them to my site. Here's > the links to each pic. Neat. I wonder if the change from bluish to that distinctive rose-colored glow of: http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0159O.jpg is associated directly with any of the energy anomalies that Jeff sees? It certainly looks like the Mizuno/Naudin glow.... Not to mention that "rose-colored glow" is surely a meme for something which is mysterious and not well understood Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 14:00:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA26116; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:55:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:55:00 -0800 Message-ID: <005701c39e67$3474dd40$f756ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <005201c39e60$39dc6520$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: Jeff Finks PAGD pics. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:54:09 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <"Mjup23.0.mN6.pS3e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52318 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jones writes: > I wonder if the change from bluish to that distinctive rose-colored glow of: > http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0159O.jpg > > is associated directly with any of the energy anomalies that Jeff sees? > > It certainly looks like the Mizuno/Naudin glow.... > > Not to mention that "rose-colored glow" is surely a meme for something which is mysterious and not well understood > > Jones In my opinion, I would not make much of the color of the glow. Glow discharges in air can have a bluish or reddish color. The discharges I saw in the Correa's lab were, as I recall bluish, and well concentrated. The current in the pulse can be in the tens of amperes and a pinch effect can be operating. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 14:12:24 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA06227; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:07:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:07:42 -0800 Message-ID: <3FA02DC0.2B5A5A2B@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:17:50 -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: P&F did not know what they were doing References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031029121720.00b035a0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IBC_g.0.DX1.je3e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52319 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > > P&F did not really know in detail why their experiments worked and other > > experiments failed. Johnson Matthey (J-M) knew. It still knows. Fleischmann > > said that when they began the research, they went straight to J-M, told > > them what they wanted to do, and asked for the best material for that > > purpose. > > That is to say, J-M understood how to make Pd that fulfills the > requirements set forth years later by Storms in "How to Produce . . ." This > is Pd that stands up to high loading without cracking, distending or > disintegrating. For some reason Fleischmann knew he wanted that kind of > material. However, he did not know how to make it. He told me that, > explicitly. He said something like: "When you need something, you go to the > experts. It saves time. The people at J-M know more about materials than I do." > > The Storms' criteria are here: > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf > > I do not know whether J-M, Fleischmann, or anyone else can answer deeper > questions such as: > > 1. What is behind the Storms' criteria? Why should robust Pd work while > other types do not? The active material is located on the surface of the cathode. The complex alloy that grows on this surface needs a very high deuterium loading to work. This degree of loading can not be achieved if the underlying Pd cracks, hence loses its deuterium content. Therefore, when Pd is used, it must be able to achieve a very high average deuterium content so that the surface can form a phase similar to PdD2. > > > 2. Do these criteria only apply to bulk Pd, and not finely divided Pd > powder or Pd co-deposited on Cu? (Probably.) If the active material is deposited on a metal that does not transport deuterium away from the surface, like Pt, Cu, Au and Ag, the substrate properties are not important. > > > 3. Do these criteria apply to other metals such as Ni or Pt? (Probably not.) These metals are opaque to deuterium, hence allow the required surface composition to form without having to worry about the substrate composition. None of this insight was available to P-F, nor to many people working in the field even at the present time. In fact, most people still do not believe this model. Ed > > > - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 14:36:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA30289; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:32:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:32:26 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031029171441.00b03690@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:32:25 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"fn9bh.0.8P7.v_3e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52321 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Edmund Storms writes: > > I do not know whether J-M, Fleischmann, or anyone else can answer deeper > > questions such as: > > > > 1. What is behind the Storms' criteria? Why should robust Pd work while > > other types do not? > > The active material is located on the surface of the cathode. The complex alloy > that grows on this surface needs a very high deuterium loading to work. This > degree of loading can not be achieved if the underlying Pd cracks, hence loses its > deuterium content. Therefore, when Pd is used, it must be able to achieve a very > high average deuterium content so that the surface can form a phase similar to > PdD2. I guess that has been clear for some time. That pushes the question one step out. I should have asked: Why should high loading in the complex alloy be important? Overall, or average loading does not seem to be important with other methods and materials, but clearly it is essential with the classic P&F original system. McKubre's data proves that. I guess one could summarize Ed's model by saying that high loading matters with all materials, but it can be achieved in a very small space, locally, right there in the special alloy at the surface. Conditions in the bulk do not matter, and average loading do not matter. I do not think everyone in the field would agree. (Of course not. You can't get everyone in the field to agree on the selection of beverages during an ICCF coffee break.) Anyway, this thread title is not really accurate. Of course P&F did know what they were doing. But their most important "trick" was to go to experts at J-M for assistance. A person who knows the limits to his own knowledge, and knows when to get help, is wise indeed. I wish more people in this field would do that. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 14:36:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA27455; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:29:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:29:11 -0800 Message-ID: <3FA03F40.5010408@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:29:20 -0500 From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OT: General science question References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hC7e62.0.vi6.ty3e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52320 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks for the response. Horace Heffner wrote: > > > This is way above my head. Hah. > > I wonder here if you are trying to do something nonsensical? The > surface Christoffel symbols require and are defined by the > surrounding space. How can they have meaning without the surrounding > space? In GR, our 4-dimensional spacetime is a curved manifold, _but_ there's no known embedding in a higher dimensional flat space. Hence, there isn't any flat space from which we can inherit stuff like a fixed metric -- or a sensible way to compute the Christoffel symbols. But they're used for other things, so they must be computable somehow. > The geometry of the surface itself is and must be defined in terms of > some surrounding space. Yah, you would think so... > > I take the following from the Korn and Korn Handbook. > > Here, due to ascii requirements, denote the Christoffel surface > symbols of the form: > > a { b c } > > in the form: > > {a,b,c}_S > > Assume that any reference to r here is a reference to a vector. The > symbo @ is used to indicate partial differentiation, and underscore > indicates subscript. the symbol ^ indicates exponentiation. Here > "dot" means vector dot product. > > A vector path element along a surface curve > > r = r[u(t), v(t)] or u=u(t), v = v(t) > > is > > dr = r_u du + r_v dv > > and the square of the element of distance ds = |dr| on the surface is > given at each surface point (u,v) by: > > ds^2 = |dr|^2 = E(u,v) du^2 + 2F(u,v) du dv + G(u,v) dv^2 > > where: > > E(u,v) = r_u dot r_u = (@x/@u)^2 + (@y/@u)^2 + (@z/@u)^2 > > F(u,v) = r_u dot r_v = (@x/@u)(@x/@v) + (@y/@u)(@y/@v) + > (@z/@u)(@z/@v) > > G(u,v) = r_v dot r_v = (@x/@v)^2 + (@y/@v)^2 + (@z/@v)^2 > > > This is called the fundamental form of the surface. I suppose you > could define the suface within some other non-cartesian coordinate > form so as to come up with your own special versions of E, F, and G. > It appears to me that it is only important that the dot function be > computable and that differentiability is available as required. Sounds right. > Once you have E, F and G then, define K = 2(EG-F^2), where EG-F^2 is > called the metric-tensor determinate, so that we have the > Christoffel three-index symbols of the second kind defined compactly > for the surface S: > > {1,1,1)_S = (GEu - 2FFu + FEv)/K > > {1,1,2}_S = {1,2,1)_S = (GEv - FGu)/K > > {1,2,2}_S = (-FG + 2GFv - GGu)/K > > {2,1,1}_S = (-FEu + 2EFu -EEv)/K > > {2,1,2}_S = {2,2,1)_S = (EGu - FEv)/K > > {2,2,2}_S = (EGv - 2FFv + FGu)/K Ah hmmm! At this point you appear to have obtained the Christoffel symbols directly from the metric tensor -- and that would seem to do it. I need to dig around a bit and try to figure out if this is valid even when the local coordinate system is curved. If so then I think I can say I feel less confused than previously. Thanks again... > > Best of luck. If this doesn't help any you might try one of the > sci.math groups. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 14:47:19 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA05696; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:41:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:41:28 -0800 Message-ID: <001001c39e6d$ae823aa0$6701a8c0@msns.flt.ptd.net> From: "revtec" To: References: <005201c39e60$39dc6520$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: Jeff Finks PAGD pics. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:40:40 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <"nvYkn1.0.qO1.O84e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52322 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I wonder if the change from bluish to that distinctive rose-colored glow of: > http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0159O.jpg > > is associated directly with any of the energy anomalies that Jeff sees? > > It certainly looks like the Mizuno/Naudin glow.... > > Not to mention that "rose-colored glow" is surely a meme for something which is mysterious and not well understood > The rose color occurs at higher gas pressures near the upper threshhold for light off. At lower pressures the color goes to pale lavender and then blue. Krypton tends to be bluer then rarified air. A haze line appears close to the cathode surface at the high pressure threshold. As the vacuum pump pulls a higher and higher vacuum the haze line rises as high as 3 in above the cathode plate. Maximum reactivity occurs near a height of 3/4 in. Jeff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 14:52:54 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA08931; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:45:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:45:16 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Jeff Finks PAGD pics. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:08:00 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <005701c39e67$3474dd40$f756ccd1@asus> Importance: Normal X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"UnKCK3.0.OB2.xB4e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52323 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All. I talked to Jeff about this. He indicated that he mostly works with rarefied air, so the blue is likely nitrogen. Not sure about the red, he wasn't clear over the phone about that pic. He mentioned using argon, but didn't mention a pic# to match. I don't think he's near the pinch region, voltages are ~600V and current from the supply is limited by a large charging resistor. He mentioned using a ~1microFarad cap as a "keep-alive" current source for the impulses, very similar to how you use snubber caps with SCR's. If there is any pinch effect it would be caused by that bit of the circuit. I need to see the whole schematic to understand if that's possible. I would encourage him to scan or draw a schematic of the basic setup to include with the pics, which will give us more to talk about. K. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:mikec@snip.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Jeff Finks PAGD pics. Jones writes: > I wonder if the change from bluish to that distinctive rose-colored glow of: > http://www.kpnconsulting.com/vortex/DSCN0159O.jpg > > is associated directly with any of the energy anomalies that Jeff sees? > > It certainly looks like the Mizuno/Naudin glow.... > > Not to mention that "rose-colored glow" is surely a meme for something which is mysterious and not well understood > > Jones In my opinion, I would not make much of the color of the glow. Glow discharges in air can have a bluish or reddish color. The discharges I saw in the Correa's lab were, as I recall bluish, and well concentrated. The current in the pulse can be in the tens of amperes and a pinch effect can be operating. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 14:55:31 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA10320; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:47:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:47:21 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Message-ID: <73.36d8ff05.2cd19d49@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:46:33 EST Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing To: vortex-l@eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_73.36d8ff05.2cd19d49_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 Resent-Message-ID: <"hmbZ83.0._W2.uD4e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52324 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --part1_73.36d8ff05.2cd19d49_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/29/03 10:28:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, JedRothwell@mindspring.com writes: > but he does not understand some important junior > high school level physics. > > - Jed > Yes all of physics in not wrong. We are just looking for a little crack in the existing constructs that will allow for the production of free energy. Frank Z --part1_73.36d8ff05.2cd19d49_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/29/03 10:28:57 AM Eastern Standa= rd Time, JedRothwell@mindspring.com writes:


but he does not understand some= important junior
high school level physics.

- Jed


Yes all of physics in not wrong.  We are just looking for a little crac= k in the existing constructs that will allow for the production of free ener= gy.

Frank Z --part1_73.36d8ff05.2cd19d49_boundary-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 17:09:30 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA28336; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:07:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:07:47 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [66.217.176.199] X-Originating-Email: [patrick_dowland@hotmail.com] From: "Patrick Dowland" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:07:14 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2003 01:07:14.0648 (UTC) FILETIME=[27C22D80:01C39E82] Resent-Message-ID: <"g4Kja1.0.cw6.YH6e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52325 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, man, are you sure you're all right in the head? To me, it sounds like the fact that you feel like a nobody is getting you certifiably deranged. You latch on to people that you suspect have what you don't have - creativity, joy, passion, whetever - and you try to prove to yourself, over and over, that you are better than them. If you could, you'd be like one of those rabid priests in the Blake poem, putting up scissor wire to prevent people from playing at what they love. Except that when you do your rabid shtick, you do it in the name of Business and Textbook Physics instead of God the Father and the Bible. Also, fortunately, you don't have much power to do anything but spout. Don't you ever stop to look at yourself? Here is the poem I am talking about: I went to the Garden of Love. And saw what I never had seen: A Chapel was built in the midst, Where I used to play on the green. And the gates of this Chapel were shut, And Thou shalt not, writ over the door; So I turn'd to the Garden of Love, That so many sweet flowers bore, And I saw it was filled with graves, And tomb-stones where flowers should be: And priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds, And binding with briars, my joys & desires. Patrick >From: Jed Rothwell >To: vortex-L@eskimo.com >Subject: P&F did not know what they were doing >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:23:22 -0500 > >Mike Carrell writes: > > > the CF world. People thought F&P just tossed a lump of palladium in an > > electrolytic cell and got excess heat, but got excess frustration >instead. > > F&P were perhaps remiss in not stating how difficult it can be to >produce > > the effect unless you know **exactly** what you are doing. > >It is true that P&F, Bockris, McKubre and others who replicated early knew >a great deal about electrochemistry, and this knowledge is essential. But >P&F did not really know in detail why their experiments worked and other >experiments failed. Johnson Matthey (J-M) knew. It still knows. Fleischmann >said that when they began the research, they went straight to J-M, told >them what they wanted to do, and asked for the best material for that >purpose. They withheld only one secret -- but withholding it was >unconscionable, in my opinion. They should have told everyone: "call J-M >and ask for a sample of the palladium they use in their hydrogen filters. >That kind works, most other kinds do not." The table published by Miles >years later proved this. They eventually did say this, but in the meanwhile >people wasted years of effort, and CF got a bad reputation. Perhaps people >would not have listened if they had said this in 1989. Perhaps things would >have gone badly no matter what they said or did. But at least it would not >have been their fault. > > >Elsewhere, Carrell writes: > > > [The Mills and Correa experiments] each has its own rules which have to >be accommodated to bridge to the > > existing applications world. Bridging that gap takes $ millions and >initial > > tight guidance by a technical leader. Each as faced opposition in one >form > > or another. Mills has private investor backing, the Correas financed >their > > own work and were not able to find suitable backing. > >This is piffle. They never gave investors or anyone else a chance. They did >not facilitate independent observations and replications, without which no >scientist will believe such claims. If their claims are true, and they >would act like ordinary sane human beings instead of lunatics, they would >have billions of dollars in backing, and they would be the most celebrated >people on earth. > >All of the Correas' problems -- ALL OF THEM -- are caused by the Correas >themselves: by their hubris, ignorance, and foolish empty pride. If they >die and are forgotten it will serve them right. The same goes for Mills and >many of the CF researchers. I cannot judge the technical details of many of >these claims. I certainly cannot judge whether Mills has been partly or >fully replicated. But when it comes to history, human nature and business I >am far ahead of Mills, Correa and most CF researchers. I am confident that >I am right, and they are wrong. Also, I understand what "work" means in >basic physics, and Correa does not. Perhaps he knows some advanced physics >that are over my head, but he does not understand some important junior >high school level physics. > >- Jed > > _________________________________________________________________ Never get a busy signal because you are always connected with high-speed Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers. https://broadband.msn.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 17:21:40 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id RAA05969; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:20:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:20:18 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [66.217.176.199] X-Originating-Email: [patrick_dowland@hotmail.com] From: "Patrick Dowland" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:19:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2003 01:19:46.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7D77F70:01C39E83] Resent-Message-ID: <"92fKe3.0.BT1.HT6e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52326 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Znidarsic wrote: >Yes all of physics in not wrong. We are just looking for a little crack in >the existing constructs that will allow for the production of free energy. Just imagine, out of a little crack in the constructs will gush forth unstoppable torrents of free energy. Patrick _________________________________________________________________ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Oct 29 20:04:42 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA30956; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:59:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:59:34 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:59:19 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex Subject: Nanobes and all chemistry everywhere In-Reply-To: <003c01c39cac$458ecbc0$8837fea9@cpq> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"XgUw51.0.ZZ7.bo8e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52327 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jones Beene wrote: > The Science Channel (formerly The Discovery Channel) carried a > fascinating story this weekend about another controversial discovery on > the fringes of science - the discovery of a kind of proto-life at the > nanoscale. The ramifications of the story have some potential relevance > to LENR.... perhaps... ;-) Hey, it's Halloween. Time for scary stories around the flickering glass campfire. When I read the book DARK LIFE, I had a weird and frightening thought. Some nanobes are supposed to be hyperthermophiles, and therefore hard to kill. In fact they prefer environments with pressurized boiling water. Some even enjoy corrosive environments and thrive in strong H2SO4 solution found in certain caves. OK, suppose that nanobe spores get into everything, yet the bacteria in the colonies are so small that their effects could be easily mistaken for simple chemistry... even more so because we've always trusted that conventional "sterilizing" eliminates any biological stuff. But in reality suppose that sterilization procedures have actually been promoting nanobe growth, and our chemical research from day one has been heavily contaminated with heat-loving pH-tolerant mineral-eating bacteria. Suppose that nanobes coat the surfaces of all the middling-pure chemicals coming from suppliers, and always have. Suppose that some reactions would not take place but for the invisible presence of biological catalysts nobody knew were there. Gah, what if the MAJORITY of conventional chemistry is nanobe-mediated? For example, maybe a typical car battery would totally stop working if we could just kill off every single nanobacterium that colonizes the sulfide & oxide layers. OK... is Pd cold-fusion actually a function of nanobacteria? Heh. Maybe when your Pd sample isn't contaminated with the right species, or if you don't promote nanobe growth with the right sequence of temperature and ion concentrations, and then give them the mineral they love to chomp on, your chickens will neither multiply nor incandesce, and you won't see any excess heat. The above sounds delusional. But here's something similar which has implications almost as scary. Dr. Folk found that he could kill nanobes with chlorine. He placed Cl-sterilized aluminum samples in distilled water in sterilized containers, and found that the aluminum wouldn't corrode. He then introduced some city tap water (which is full of nanobes), and the corrosion process immediately took off. Common metal corrosion, at least the aluminum version, cannot proceed without nanobe involvement. And nobody had a hope of discovering this unless they first suspected that conventionally "sterile" environments are not sterile after all, and then discovering a way to create a genuinely sterile environment. Maybe this story starts and ends with aluminum corrosion... but maybe the story of aluminum corrosion is an analogy for most of the chemical processes we know about (including normal biology, including hot corrosive industrial processes.) Maybe science is still in the dark ages after all, and chemists of 2050 will look at modern research the same way contemporary physicians look at medieval humor-beliefs and bloodletting!!! BLEAUGH! (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 Wed Oct 29 20:38:10 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA30859; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:34:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:34:51 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031029202647.03608e20@mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek@mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:39:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Ad hominem attacks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_553403156==.ALT" Resent-Message-ID: <"A6udk.0.yX7.gJ9e_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52328 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --=====================_553403156==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Gentlemen: "Ad hominem" arguments, attacking the arguer and not the argument, are not intelligent discourses in logic, but rather invalid expressions of logic mixed with anger. Civility is greatly appreciated. Steve --=====================_553403156==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Gentlemen:

"Ad hominem" arguments, attacking the arguer and not the argument, are not intelligent discourses in logic, but rather invalid expressions of logic mixed with anger.

Civility is greatly appreciated.


Steve --=====================_553403156==.ALT-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Oct 27 20:49:39 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id UAA04372; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:45:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:45:25 -0800 From: Baronvolsung@aol.com Message-ID: <21.3678dac8.2ccf4a55@aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:28:05 EST Subject: Re: EPR and faster than light communication To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Roundtable7@yahoogroups.com CC: Baronvolsung@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1067315285" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5002 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52281 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: -------------------------------1067315285 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/27/2003 9:57:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, hheffner@mtaonline.net writes: If we can communicate instantaneously, then we can send remote control robotic missions to the far ends of the universe. The barriers imposed by relativity, and speed of light communication, are gone. There is a fairly good discussion of the possibily of circumventing relativity's barriers in Paul Hill's book: *Unconventioanl Flying Objects*. According to the email I received posted at the following link www.rhfweb.com\timetravel time travel and faster than light travel are possible by means of electromagnetic stretch and by producing a plasma or electromagnetic wall of light with an ordinary radio or tv to manipulate time. We could easily make a computer communication chip that travels faster than the speed of light by using high frequency light waves to create a micro electromagnetic plasma energy wall in the chip to allow information to travel from one chip to another through the timeless energy doorway in the chip at speeds faster than the speed of light. According to Bohm in the Holographic Universe photons naturally teleport through time at speeds faster than light and exist in many states at the same time to solve the Hiesenburg uncertainty principle and the particle wave duality problem at the same time in order to get information about the photon in the past and future to find it in the present with complete certainty and without affecting the speed of the photon. We should be able to combine quantum computer chip technologies, with photonic plasma faster than light energy field technologies, and super conducting and fiber optic scalar potential electrical wave circuit technologies to create faster than light computer communication technologies. "It is interesting to note that Nikola Tesla was quoted as saying that by producing a "wall of light" (no doubt with electromagnetic energy) space and time could be manipulated. " "Finally, we found a book entitled "Black Holes And Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" (by Kip Thorne) which seems to have answered that perplexing question. In the book, it mentions things which seem to come close to what happened to my friend. In the book, it is posited that what may have happened to him is what is known as an "electromagnetic stretch and by creating an electrical plasma wall or door way that". They hypothesize that the Universe oscillates (electromagnetically at certain fundamental, and harmonic, frequencies) not only in three dimensions but in TIME as well and that if you could shield yourself from these oscillations that it might be possible to arrive at different times. They do mention that we are not aware of this process because we oscillate along with the Universe and, therefore, never notice these oscillating time shifts. I suppose an analogy would be thinking of being on a planet that rotates at about 1,000 M.P.H. and sails in its solar orbit (i.e., around the sun) at just about 67,000 M.P.H. - YET WE DON'T FEEL THE SPEED - GET IT! Vanguard/KeelyNet comments - this theory is very reminiscent of one related by the highly questionable Al Bielek where each mass aggregate is temporally and possibly spatially or dimensionally locked to its point of creation. See the file on Dimensional Shifts on KeelyNet. As of 10/02/97, I received an email from the author stating that an experimental circuit for the time travel device described above would be posted at the following URL; http://www.olypen.com/emanon /schematic.htm You might check out the website to see what is available www.olypen.com/emanon As of 10/02/97, the schematic is not online and in a subsequent email the author indicated it was thought best not to post it because it was too dangerous due to the frequencies used. Thanks!...>>> Jerry Return to Time Travel Page " Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: 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 -------------------------------1067315285 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/27/2003 9:57:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, hheffne= r@mtaonline.net writes:
If we can communicate instantaneously, then we= can send remote control
robotic missions to the far ends of the universe= .   The barriers imposed by
relativity, and speed of light comm= unication, are gone.  There is a fairly
good discussion of the possi= bily of circumventing relativity's barriers in
Paul Hill's book: *Unconve= ntioanl Flying Objects*.
According to the email I received posted at the following link www.rhfweb.com\timetravel
time travel and faster than light travel are possible by means of elect= romagnetic stretch and by producing a plasma or electromagnetic wall of ligh= t with an ordinary radio or tv to manipulate time.  We could easily mak= e a computer communication chip that travels faster than the speed of light&= nbsp;by using high frequency light waves to create a micro electromagnetic p= lasma energy wall in the chip to allow information to travel from one chip t= o another through the timeless energy doorway in the chip at speeds faster t= han the speed of light.  According to Bohm in the Holographic Universe=20= photons naturally teleport through time at speeds faster than light and exis= t in many states at the same time to solve the Hiesenburg uncertainty princi= ple and the particle wave duality problem at the same time in order to get i= nformation about the photon in the past and future to find it in the present= with complete certainty and without affecting the speed of the photon. = ; We should be able to combine quantum computer chip technologies, with phot= onic plasma faster than light energy field technologies, and super conductin= g and fiber optic scalar potential electrical wave circuit technologies to c= reate faster than light computer communication technologies.
 
"It is interesting to note that Nikola Tesla was quoted as saying that=20= by producing a "wall of light" (no doubt with electromagnetic energy) space=20= and time could be manipulated. "
 
"Finally, we found a book e= ntitled "Black Holes And Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" (by Kip=20= Thorne) which seems to have answered that perplexing question.
 
In the book, it mentions things which seem to come close to what happen= ed to my friend. In the book, it is posited that what may have happened to h= im is what is known as an "electromagnetic stretch and by creating an electr= ical plasma wall or door way that".

They hypothesize that the Universe oscillates (electromagnetically at c= ertain fundamental, and harmonic, frequencies) not only in three dimensions=20= but in TIME as well and that if you could shield yourself from these oscilla= tions that it might be possible to arrive at different times.

They do mention that we are not aware of this process because we oscill= ate along with the Universe and, therefore, never notice these oscillating t= ime shifts.
 
I suppose an analogy would be thinking of being on a planet that rotate= s at about 1,000 M.P.H. and sails in its solar orbit (i.e., around the sun)=20= at just about 67,000 M.P.H. - YET WE DON'T FEEL THE SPEED - GET IT!=20
Vanguard/KeelyNet comments - this theory is very reminiscent of one related=20= by the highly questionable Al Bielek where each mass aggregate is temporally= and possibly spatially or dimensionally locked to its point of creation. Se= e the file on Dimen= sional Shifts on KeelyNet.=20
As of 10/02/97, I received an email from the author stating that an experime= ntal circuit for the time travel device described above would be posted at t= he following URL;=20

http://www.olypen.co= m/emanon /schematic.htm=20

You might check out the website to see what is available
www.olypen.com/emanon

As of 10/02/97, the schematic is not online and in a subsequent email th= e author indicated it was thought best not to post it because it was too dan= gerous due to the frequencies used. Thanks!...>>> Jerry=20
Return to Time Trave= l Page

 
 
"
 

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\baron, Email: w= ww.rhfweb.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark,
Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html, Personal Web Page: = www.rhfweb.com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfweb.com\n= ewage
Star Haven Community Services, at www.rhfweb.com\sh
Radiation=20= Health Foundation Trust at www.rhfweb.com
-------------------------------1067315285-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 02:04:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id CAA16746; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:02:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:02:59 -0800 Message-ID: <001801c39ecc$e7125080$0300a8c0@nixlaptop> From: "Nick Palmer" To: References: Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:01:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <"_-dR23.0.a54.H7Ee_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52329 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: <> Patrick (or is it really Paulo?). It's strange that sometimes the type of person who most vehemently describes others as deranged is actually clinically "closer to the edge" than their targets... God told me that :^} From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 05:56:16 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id FAA31491; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:53:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:53:47 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [66.217.177.121] X-Originating-Email: [patrick_dowland@hotmail.com] From: "Patrick Dowland" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:53:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2003 13:53:15.0195 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A6118B0:01C39EED] Resent-Message-ID: <"Himgk1.0.th7.gVHe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52330 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick Palmer: >It's strange that sometimes the type of >person who most vehemently describes others as deranged is actually >clinically "closer to the edge" than their targets... Yup, precisely my take on Rothwell. Thanks for agreeing, mate. Patrick _________________________________________________________________ Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 06:16:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id GAA13659; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:13:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:13:40 -0800 From: "explorecraft" To: Subject: RE: P&F did not know what they were doing Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:09:47 +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: 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] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - explorecraft.com Resent-Message-ID: <"uRFv7.0.LL3.KoHe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52331 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Actually, the way it works is that as long as you perceive most people as being boring you can know you are remaining fringe. If you begin to feel that that only a few people merit bagging, then odds are you are slipping back into mainstream mentality. What is normal, anyway? It is an absence of originality. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Dowland [mailto:patrick_dowland@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, 2003 October 30 20:53 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing > > > Nick Palmer: > > >It's strange that sometimes the type of > >person who most vehemently describes others as deranged is actually > >clinically "closer to the edge" than their targets... > > Yup, precisely my take on Rothwell. Thanks for agreeing, mate. > > > Patrick > > _________________________________________________________________ > Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account > has exceeded > its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! > http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 06:28:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA26492; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:25:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:25:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.1.20031030141950.02d18690@pop3.newnet.co.uk> X-Sender: lawrence@pop3.newnet.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:21:02 +0000 To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" From: Stephen Lawrence Subject: Stephen R Lawrence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"yy-101.0.qT6.vyHe_"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52332 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ...And I'm Stephen R. Lawrence... (Note to S.A.L. - Greetings!! Now I know 4 people called Stephen Lawrence...) From: Stephen Lawrence, 8 Supanee Court, French's Road, Cambridge, England, CB4 3LB. Tel/Fax +44 1223 564373 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 07:05:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA16437; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:01:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:01:08 -0800 Message-ID: <002501c39ef5$8ef36dc0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: Nanobes and all chemistry everywhere Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:53:11 -0800 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 HAA16331 Resent-Message-ID: <"itR8C2.0.b04.oUIe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52333 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty writes, > Hey, it's Halloween. Time for scary stories around the flickering glass > campfire.... > OK... is Pd cold-fusion actually a function of nanobacteria? That thought actually crossed my mind as I was writing the first post (not Pd-CF so much as experiments like the Case cell)... but that message was getting so far "out there" already that I resisted the temptation.... but I see that, being a little closer to Halloween, you are free to be somewhat less constrained by the bounds of rationality ... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 07:37:50 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA17362; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:36:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:36:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000b01c39ef9$1b0a21c0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:18:41 -0800 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 mx2.eskimo.com id HAA17189 Resent-Message-ID: <"cRWw-2.0.BF4.j_Ie_"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52334 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Dowland" > >Yes all of physics in not wrong. We are just looking for a little crack in > >the existing constructs that will allow for the production of free energy. > > Just imagine, out of a little crack in the constructs will gush forth > unstoppable torrents > of free energy. Nothing like a little misplaced cynicism to start off one's day.... But at least this small dose of impending ignorance will not, in retrospect, sound nearly so absurd as: "Radio has no future," Lord Kelvin once declared. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) is nevertheless considered to be one of the greatest nineteenth century physicists, despite an abysmal lack of foresight and creativity. He was just "by-the-book kind" of guy... As bad as his radio prediction was, however, it was not his worst. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," and for good measure: "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." Wow, what a dunderhead the great physicist was in certain respects.... "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now," Kelvin declared at an address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1900. "All that remains is more and more precise measurement." (1900 marked the dawn of the birth of quantum physics.) But that self-appointed expert of everything Lord Kelvin, was surpassed by one of the fathers of atomic energy: "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing," Ernst Rutherford declared one day in 1933. "Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." To be fair to Rutherford, Einstein himself had made a similar remark the previous year: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable," he declared. "It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." Oh...so much for expert opinion.... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 07:49:49 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA12260; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:47:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:47:07 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031030094926.01c0af08@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:23:26 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"evfDn1.0.9_2.v9Je_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52335 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Patrick Dowland writes: > Jed, man, are you sure you're all right in the head? To me, it sounds > like the fact that you feel like a nobody is getting you certifiably > deranged. I don't feel like a nobody. It is strange that you got that impression. > You latch on to people that you suspect have what you don't > have - creativity, joy, passion, whetever - and you try to prove to > yourself, over and over, that you are better than them. Who do you have in mind? The title of this thread is a little misleading. I did not mean that P&F did not literally know what they were doing. My point is, everyone knows that materials are key to making a CF experiment work, and Fleischmann said on many occasions that he relied on the material science expertise at J-M. That was his biggest "secret," and it did not remain secret for long. He told everyone by 1992, as I recall. He even distributed samples of J-M material. He said: "When Uncle Martin gives you a cathode, it works. When you pick one at random, it doesn't work. What does that tell you?" It is a shame he did not say that three years earlier when more people were listening to him. As for the creativity, joy, passion or raw sanity of people like Papp or Correa, no one needs my help to judge these things. Papp all but admitted that he destroyed his machine and committed manslaughter to protect his secret, after calling in a group of people to see a demonstration. If that isn't crazy, what is? (Even if his theory of operation is wrong, and he did not actually cause the explosion, there is little doubt that he *thought* he caused it, and he meant to cause it.) You can read the debate between Correa and Storms and decide for yourself whether Correa is creative. At least with regard to basic physics, I don't call that "creative" -- I think he has a screw loose. He does not sound joyful to me. Passionate, yes. Please read the document and judge for yourself. You might agree with his definition of "work." I would not want anyone to take my word for such things. That makes me look like the accuser, or the source of nasty rumors, when all I am doing is reporting what these people say about themselves. Nothing I say about them is one-tenth as awful as what they say about themselves. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 07:59:18 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA22760; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:57:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:57:34 -0800 Message-ID: <003101c39efa$5f7d84e0$1041ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <002501c39ef5$8ef36dc0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Re: Nanobes and all chemistry everywhere Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:27:27 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <"TAXip2.0.LZ5.jJJe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52336 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jones wrote: > > > OK... is Pd cold-fusion actually a function of nanobacteria? Make that suppression of CF. I remember a paper from someone in Italy who suspected nanobe contamination of cathodes and took extraordinary means to exclude nanobes and found that the experiments worked much better. I've had discussions with Folk in other contexts, where I was not impressed with his work. I knew he is now interested in nanobacteris and will take a second look. A number of investigators have reported seeing extremely small life forms associatew with a number of diseases, including cancer. They were promptly pushed to the fringe. There is growing evidence that life is more pervasive and ubiquitous than we thought; we menfolk are just an epiphenomenon. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 08:26:47 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA18389; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:24:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:24:06 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031030104007.01c10030@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:24:02 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: In defence of Lord Kelvin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"lH0XK3.0.FV4.biJe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52337 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I believe that is how the British spell "defense." Jones Beene takes a crack at Lord Kelvin, who admittedly made himself an easy target on many occasions, with statements such as: "radio has no future" and "heavier than air flying machines are impossible." I have been thinking about him and Rutherford a lot because I am reading Clarke's "Profiles of the Future" again, in Japanese. Beene writes: > William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) is nevertheless considered to be one > of the greatest nineteenth century physicists, despite an abysmal lack > of foresight and creativity. He was just "by-the-book kind" of guy... I disagree. I think he was one of the greatest, and he was amazingly creative. He wasn't a "by-the-book" guy, he *wrote* the books. Calling him "by-the-book" is like accusing Shakespeare of writing too many cliches. His problem was that he did not know anything about heavier-than-air flying machines, and he thought he did. People cannot be experts in all subjects, but sometimes bright people get the impression they can judge a subject without studying it carefully. That is why the Nobel laureates wrote glowing review of the Taubes book. Those guys are not stupid normally, but everyone makes stupid mistakes from time to time. They are only human. Beene quotes Rutherford: "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing," This is an example of another kind of problem. Kelvin was no expert about airplanes, but Rutherford was an expert about atoms. Clarke described Rutherford's failure of imagination in the lead-up to his First Law: "The example of Lord Rutherford demonstrates that it is not the man who knows most about a subject, and is the acknowledged master of his field, who can give the most reliable pointers to its future. Too great a burden of knowledge can clog the wheels of imagination; I have tried to embody this fact of observation in Clarke's Law, which may be formulated as follows: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." > Oh...so much for expert opinion.... I have great respect for expert opinion. But expert opinion only reaches as far as the evidence known to the experts. Rutherford did not realize that some nuclear fission reactions release more energy than it takes to trigger them. How could he have known that? Prior to 1989, only a few people suspected that hydrides and deuterides can produce a nuclear reaction. There was no reason an expert should have suspected they do. No one was remiss in failing to anticipate CF. All the expertise in the world does give a person second sight, or ESP, or the ability to know things before they are discovered. Only a few people in history, such as Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon, have had the gift of enormous foresight. I should say "gift" advisedly, because it was more of a burden than a gift. Any expert can predict near term incremental progress likely to occur in his field, but when it comes to predicting radical, totally unexpected breakthroughs, experts are no better than amateurs. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 08:42:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id IAA02142; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:38:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:38:26 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031030103018.00ba9d80@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:36:22 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"RAd7O2.0.mW.1wJe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52338 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Edmund Storms writes: > The active material is located on the surface of the cathode. The complex alloy > that grows on this surface needs a very high deuterium loading to work. This > degree of loading can not be achieved if the underlying Pd cracks, hence loses its > deuterium content. Do we really know that high loading at the surface is required? Some of the gas loading techniques such as Arata's may not produce high loading, but they seem to generate heat anyway. Perhaps the concentration is high because the particles are so small. When Pd has cracks in it, you can see the gas gathering in large bubbles at the cracks, and floating away. I suppose there is hardly any concentration elsewhere on the surface. When there are no cracks a fine sheen of bubbles appear all over the surface. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 09:07:37 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id JAA01239; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:04:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:04:45 -0800 Message-ID: <006c01c39f06$d66577a0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <002501c39ef5$8ef36dc0$8837fea9@cpq> <003101c39efa$5f7d84e0$1041ccd1@asus> Subject: Re: Nanobes and all chemistry everywhere Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:56:55 -0800 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 JAA01180 Resent-Message-ID: <"2CfbC3.0.AJ.iIKe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52339 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Mike, > > > OK... is Pd cold-fusion actually a function of nanobacteria? > > Make that suppression of CF. I remember a paper from someone in Italy who > suspected nanobe contamination of cathodes and took extraordinary means to > exclude nanobes and found that the experiments worked much better. Maybe I was reading too much into Bill's slightly tongue-in-cheek posting, but one point he seemed to be making is that some recognized techniques that one believes might rid a surface of nanobacteria, such as steam sterilization, might instead cause them to proliferate - and it is probably pretty difficult to be sure which way you are going unless you have an electron microscope as a resource. But yes, it is likely that - because the electrode "interface" is so critical to CF - that nanobacteria would hinder the excess energy process rather than help (unless, of course, some kind of LENR is indeed also a part of their (the nanobes) own metabolic pathway (which was my original point, also slightly tongue-in-cheek). > A number of investigators have reported seeing extremely small > life forms associated with a number of diseases, including cancer. They were > promptly pushed to the fringe. Yes, this is the scary thing [just in time for the season, no?]. In addition to nanobes, among our possible "enemies" at the nanoscale, there are "prions." In fact one might say that nanobacteria are to bacteria just as prions are to a virus. Prions are just strings of protein that cannot reproduce on their own (unlike nanobacteria) and neither have genes - only protein. Nanobes do have in addition to protein, one thing that prions do not have - a repeatable "structure" which probably derives from either DNA or RNA. If so, it is possible that this specialized kind of protein string (DNA) in fact evolved because it is basically "tubular" and can provide a needed kind of hollow structure to channel certain ions (like potassium) and not because DNA can transfer genetic information (that comes much later as an unintended "fringe" benefit !). But of course all four, whether they are technically "living" or not, can infect a host and cause devastating disease - and may be implicated in some form of gene-alteration, leading to cancer. Now that's a truly horrifying thought. I think I'll just stick to "Nightmare on Elm Street" for my seasonal dose of fright... Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 10:13:28 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA26340; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:05:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:05:47 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031030124918.00ba9d80@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:02:48 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: RE: In defence of Lord Kelvin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"OLii52.0.TR6.xBLe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52340 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote: > All the expertise in the world does give a person second sight, or ESP, or > the ability to know things before they are discovered. I meant "does NOT give . . ." for crying out loud. There are many books such as C. Cerf, V. Navasky, "The Experts Speak," (Pantheon, 1984) that make fun of faulty expert predictions. I find some of these books annoying. Most of the quotes are from people who were not experts, but only thought they were. Others were quite correct, but you have to know the context to understand why. Cerf and Navasky reveal their own ignorance by poking fun at them. For example, from p. 241, in 1915 the Sci. Am. wrote that France was no longer buying military monoplanes, only biplanes: ". . . This decision practically sounds the death knell of the monoplane as a military investment." The editors wrote: "Far inferior in speed and maneuverability to its single-winged cousin, the biplane soon became merely a curiosity." That's completely wrong, as anyone familiar with World War I aviation would know. Biplanes dominated military aviation until the 1930s, and they were, and still are, extremely maneuverable. D. Milstead, "The Got It Wrong!" (Guinness, 1995) is better. It puts in a good word for CF! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 10:56:58 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id KAA04772; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:53:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:53:08 -0800 Message-ID: <3FA151AA.507B538B@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:01:40 -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: P&F did not know what they were doing References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031030103018.00ba9d80@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MXnyf.0.TA1.JuLe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52341 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms writes: > > > The active material is located on the surface of the cathode. The > complex alloy > > that grows on this surface needs a very high deuterium loading to > work. This > > degree of loading can not be achieved if the underlying Pd cracks, hence > loses its > > deuterium content. > > Do we really know that high loading at the surface is required? Compositions near the surface have been measured. In any case, when the average bulk composition is high enough to produce the effect, the surface composition has to be higher. > Some of the > gas loading techniques such as Arata's may not produce high loading, but > they seem to generate heat anyway. Perhaps the concentration is high > because the particles are so small. The Pd used by Arata and Iwamura did not contain Li. Apparently, the presence of Li requires a higher D/Pd ratio to become active. > > > When Pd has cracks in it, you can see the gas gathering in large bubbles at > the cracks, and floating away. I suppose there is hardly any concentration > elsewhere on the surface. When there are no cracks a fine sheen of bubbles > appear all over the surface. That's right. Cracks stop the surface from acquiring the required composition. Ed > > > - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 12:35:41 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id MAA30476; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0800 Message-ID: <00b601c39f23$c30bad60$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Cc: "Frederick Sparber" Subject: Waxing transcendental Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:24:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C39EE0.B398BBE0" 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: <"_04qt.0.0S7._KNe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52342 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_00B1_01C39EE0.B398BBE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I love it when the word "transcendent" or "transcendental" gets thrown = into science discussions. There should probably be a little mysticism = which is allowed to remain in science, if only to show that science and = religion are far closer to each other than many realize - in fact for = centuries they were the same preoccupation (before they became = "occupations" with all the jealousy that the term implies). Tuesday night you may have seen the PBS documentary on "string theory" = called "The Elegant Universe" taken from Brian Greene's book of the same = name, the one that almost won the Pulitzer. If anybody has followed = vortex over the years, they probably realize that Fred Sparber has been = striving to perfect his intriguing and evolving version of string = theory, and Fred seems to know quite a bit more than many of the = so-called experts that appeared on the show, especially in relating = string theory to gravity, but that is another story that awaits = experimental validation. Mention was made on the TV show of a coincidental connection made in the = early years of string theory back to the Swiss mathematician Leonhard = Euler (1707-1783), and his 'beta function.' In 1970, Nambu, Nielsen, and = Susskind published a theory of the physics behind the Euler beta = function, which could describe point-particles as one-dimensional loops = of string instead of points. If the strings are small enough, they = appear pointlike. Though it was never mentioned on the show, this kind = of string dimension might possibly be considered to be a fractal. But = instead, the string theorists like to say that every string relationship = has is its own separate "dimension," leading to any number of = dimensions, from 6 to 26. This is both confusing and perhaps a needless = bastardizing of a common term, but also a little more than semantics. Euler also has an unusual "summation constant," the gamma factor, a = transcendental number like pi. Among the myriad of constants that appear = in mathematics, this constant arises in many surprising areas yet = maintains a profound sense of mystery. Gamma can be defined as the limit = of the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + . . . up to 1/n, minus the natural = logarithm of n -the numerical value being 0.5772156. . This summation = formula pops up with Bernoulli numbers, Chaos theory, harmonic series = partial sums, and sums of logarithms, thereby calculating large = factorials (Stirling's series) with ease. He even found that his gamma = approximation of pi was surprisingly accurate for so little work. But = the exact nature of gamma remains a mystery, although it is related to = another equally esoteric mystery, the Riemann Hypothesis. But why? Another transcendental number is "alpha" the fine structure constant - = a constant that pops up everywhere in "free-energy" discussions because = it is the EM "coupling constant" or a measure of the strength of the = electromagnetic force - and can be found in it's zero energy state by = the formula a =3D e^2/4PiE(h/2Pi)c; where e =3D the elementary charge, E = =3D the electric constant, M =3D magnetic constant, h =3D Planck = constant, and c =3D speed of light in vacuum. The result is close to = 1/137 (it's actually more like 1/137.03597...). In fact "the secret of = the universe," Douglas Adams notwithstanding, is not 42 but instead it = is why alpha is so close to 1/137 and not more or less. Calculations = indicate that if it were slightly different, stars wouldn't exist to = produce elements and there would be no life, as we know it. Now a transcendental number is not necessarily transcendent in the same = rich sense as other spiritual topics... or is it... when one gets into = inter-dimensionality, that is. Would we open any doors of spiritual = understanding if we could connect alpha and gamma through fractal = geometry? Maybe, but we may need another transcendental number called Feigenbaum's = number? It is about 4.669211660910299067185320382047... give or take a = few zillion random digits - but it is also a universal constant in = fractal (fractional dimension) geometry. It is said that Mitchell = Feigenbaum called home to his mother when he discovered this number's = "universality " could cross dimensions - and told her how this number = was going to make him famous. She must have been very proud... and now = very confused. Anyway, I've been playing around with my calculator to see what comes up = with various functions and transpositions of these transcendental = numbers (to six digits) to see if they do seem to connect across = dimensions, but in true mystical fashion it wouldn't be very interesting = to just spell it out, like... yeah, it really is 42. Besides, how do you = attach meaning to dimensional relationships which mathematically modify = energy relationships?=20 Maybe you just call it ZPE Jones ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C39EE0.B398BBE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I love it when the word "transcendent" or "transcendental" gets = thrown into=20 science discussions. There should probably be a little mysticism which=20 is allowed to remain in science, if only to show that science and = religion=20 are far closer to each other than many realize - in fact for = centuries=20 they were the same preoccupation (before they became "occupations" with = all the=20 jealousy that the term implies).
 
Tuesday night you may have seen the PBS documentary on "string = theory"=20 called "The Elegant Universe" taken from Brian Greene's book of the same = name,=20 the one that almost won the Pulitzer. If anybody has followed vortex = over the=20 years, they probably realize that Fred Sparber has been striving = to perfect=20 his intriguing and evolving version of string theory, and Fred seems to = know=20 quite a bit more than many of the so-called experts that appeared on the = show,=20 especially in relating string theory to gravity, but that is another = story that=20 awaits experimental validation.
 
Mention was made on the TV show of a coincidental connection made = in the=20 early years of string theory back to the Swiss mathematician Leonhard = Euler=20 (1707-1783), and his 'beta function.' In 1970, Nambu, Nielsen, and = Susskind=20 published a theory of the physics behind the Euler beta function, which = could=20 describe point-particles as one-dimensional loops of string instead of = points.=20 If the strings are small enough, they appear pointlike. Though it was = never=20 mentioned on the show, this kind of string dimension might = possibly be=20 considered to be a fractal. But instead, the string theorists like to = say that=20 every string relationship has is its own separate "dimension," leading = to any=20 number of dimensions, from 6 to 26. This is both confusing and = perhaps a=20 needless bastardizing of a common term, but also a little more than = semantics.
 
Euler also has an unusual "summation constant," the gamma=20 factor, a transcendental number like pi. Among the myriad of = constants that=20 appear in mathematics, this constant arises in many surprising areas yet = maintains a profound sense of mystery. Gamma can be defined as the limit = of the=20 sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + . . . up to 1/n, minus the natural logarithm of n = -the=20 numerical value being 0.5772156. . This summation formula pops up with=20 Bernoulli numbers, Chaos theory, harmonic series partial sums, and sums = of=20 logarithms, thereby calculating large factorials (Stirling's series) = with ease.=20 He even found that his gamma approximation of pi was surprisingly = accurate for=20 so little work. But the exact nature of gamma remains a mystery, = although it is=20 related to another equally esoteric mystery, the Riemann Hypothesis. But = why?
 
Another transcendental number is "alpha"  the fine structure = constant=20 - a constant that pops up everywhere in "free-energy" discussions = because=20 it is the EM "coupling constant" or a measure of the strength of = the=20 electromagnetic force - and can be found in it's zero energy state = by the=20 formula a =3D e^2/4PiE(h/2Pi)c; where e =3D the elementary charge, E =3D = the electric=20 constant, M =3D magnetic constant, h =3D Planck constant, and c =3D = speed of light in=20 vacuum. The result is close to 1/137 (it's actually more like=20 1/137.03597...).  In fact "the secret of the universe," Douglas=20 Adams notwithstanding, is not 42 but instead it is why alpha is so = close to=20 1/137 and not more or less. Calculations indicate that if it were = slightly=20 different, stars wouldn't exist to produce elements and there would be = no life,=20 as we know it.
 
Now a transcendental number is not necessarily transcendent in the = same=20 rich sense as other spiritual topics... or is it... when one gets into=20 inter-dimensionality, that is. Would we open any doors of spiritual=20 understanding if we could connect alpha and gamma through fractal=20 geometry?
 
Maybe, but we may need another transcendental number=20 called Feigenbaum's number? It is about=20 4.669211660910299067185320382047... give or take a few zillion random = digits=20 - but it is also a universal constant in fractal (fractional = dimension)=20 geometry.  It is said that Mitchell Feigenbaum called home to his = mother=20 when he discovered this number's "universality " could cross dimensions=20 - and told her how this number was going to make him famous. She = must have=20 been very proud... and now very confused.
 
Anyway, I've been playing around with my calculator to see what = comes up=20 with various functions and transpositions of these = transcendental=20 numbers (to six digits) to see if they do seem to connect across=20 dimensions, but in true mystical fashion it wouldn't be very = interesting to=20 just spell it out, like... yeah, it really is 42. Besides, how do = you=20 attach meaning to dimensional relationships which mathematically modify = energy=20 relationships?
 
Maybe you just call it ZPE
 
Jones
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C39EE0.B398BBE0-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 13:12:50 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA30104; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:08:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:08:49 -0800 Message-ID: <3FA17DC4.8010202@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:08:20 -0500 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Waxing transcendental References: <00b601c39f23$c30bad60$8837fea9@cpq> In-Reply-To: <00b601c39f23$c30bad60$8837fea9@cpq> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ADpAH.0.FM7.XtNe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52343 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jones Beene wrote: > I love it when the word "transcendent" or "transcendental" gets thrown > into science discussions. And no such discussion can leave out 1.618 . . . http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,12450,875198,00.html excerpt: "But the most surprising thing is that a number deemed aesthetically pleasing by human beings also crops up in nature and science. Take the arrangement of leaves on the stem of a plant. As each new leaf grows, it does so at an angle offset from that of the leaf below. The most com mon angle between successive leaves is 137.5 - the golden angle. Why? Because 137.5 = 360 - 360/G, where G is the golden ratio." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 13:16:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA02361; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:14:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:14:37 -0800 Message-ID: <20031030211432.30088.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:14:32 -0800 (PST) From: alexander hollins Subject: Re: Waxing transcendental To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <3FA17DC4.8010202@rtpatlanta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"X-aXV.0.ea.zyNe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52344 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: or, my favorite little blurb from The God Particle , (damn Dr. Lederman got a good ghost writer!) 1/180 --- Terry Blanton wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > > I love it when the word "transcendent" or > "transcendental" gets thrown > > into science discussions. > > > And no such discussion can leave out 1.618 . . . > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,12450,875198,00.html > > excerpt: > > "But the most surprising thing is that a number > deemed aesthetically > pleasing by human beings also crops up in nature and > science. Take the > arrangement of leaves on the stem of a plant. As > each new leaf grows, it > does so at an angle offset from that of the leaf > below. The most com mon > angle between successive leaves is 137.5 - the > golden angle. Why? > Because 137.5 = 360 - 360/G, where G is the golden > ratio." > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 13:21:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id NAA06396; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:18:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:18:53 -0800 Message-ID: <001801c39f2b$53ea73f0$6f7cccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031030103018.00ba9d80@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: P&F did not know what they were doing Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:18:08 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <"23caO1.0.qZ1.z0Oe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52345 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > > Do we really know that high loading at the surface is required? Some of the > gas loading techniques such as Arata's may not produce high loading, but > they seem to generate heat anyway. Perhaps the concentration is high > because the particles are so small. In Arata's cells, the capsule surface is not the loading site. D ions diffuse through the wall and propagate across the surface of the nanopowder Pd inside. The internal capsule pressure can become quite high. The highly fractured surface presentes many opportunities for loading. With particles a few hundred atoms across, the distinction between surface and interior begins to blur. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 16:22:07 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA09001; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:20:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:20:44 -0800 Message-ID: <3FA18CB0.7090501@rtpatlanta.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:12:00 -0500 From: "Terry Blanton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [OT] Magnets Might not Heal but LEDs Do Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7CsIN.0.PC2.ShQe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52346 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0%2C1286%2C60786%2C00.html?tw=wn_tophead_10 "On this much, scientists and doctors agree: Tiny flashes of infrared light can play a role in healing wounds, building muscle, turning back the worst effects of diabetes and repairing blinded eyes. But what they can't decide on is why all these seemingly miraculous effects happen in the first place." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 30 22:37:13 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA12253; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:34:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:34:25 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rick@highsurf.com@mail.highsurf.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003101c39efa$5f7d84e0$1041ccd1@asus> References: <002501c39ef5$8ef36dc0$8837fea9@cpq> <003101c39efa$5f7d84e0$1041ccd1@asus> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:51:53 -1000 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Nanobes and all chemistry everywhere Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx2.eskimo.com id WAA12153 Resent-Message-ID: <"f9A8m.0.M_2.j9We_"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52347 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:27 AM -0500 10/30/03, Mike Carrell wrote: >A number of investigators have reported seeing extremely small >life forms associatew with a number of diseases, including cancer. They were >promptly pushed to the fringe. Like the 10 years they spent pushing that "nut" who suggested that most stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria living on the stomach lining. Everyone knew that was impossible because the stomach is essentially a sterile acid environment. How's that fringe looking now? Any Vortexian who hasn't read "Dark Life" needs to take immediate corrective action. Check Amazon - it's out of print, but many copies are still available. - RM Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 31 00:31:25 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA04110; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:29:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:29:41 -0800 Message-ID: <002f01c39f80$92818d60$c011b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re: O.T. Light Therapy Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:28:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da9402e25ae3a1a580a4cd88ce030c2f7c062350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"WFzEc.0.201.qrXe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52348 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: These are very popular for growing "POT" indoors. :-) Sylvania Gro-Lux Wide Spectrum 40 Watt 48 Inch Fluorescent Bulb ~ $12.00 or less http://www.sylvania.com/forum/pdfs/faq0040-0800.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wide Spectrum Fluorescent Bulbs This lamp was developed for accelerating growth in greenhouse grown crops. It is best used in situations where plants receive some sunlight, as in a greenhouse or near a window. The additional added energy in the far-red region of this lamp's color spectrum promotes the photosynthetic performance. The lamp radiates energy in the far-red (700-800nm), red (600-700nm) and blue (400-500nm) regions of the spectrum and produces results similar to the combined use of cool white fluorescent and incandescent lamps. With this single fluorescent source, the need for the color of incandescent lamps is eliminated, temperatures can be better controlled and operating costs are reduced. Color temperature measures 3400 degrees Kelvin, Color Renderng Index (CRI) of 89". "Available in a 48 inch, 40 watt size (20,000 hour life span, initial output of 1650 lumens) which fits in a standard 4 foot fluorescent fixture." Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 31 00:50:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id AAA16523; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:46:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:46:36 -0800 Message-ID: <003901c39f82$ef368b80$c011b83f@computer> From: "Frederick Sparber" To: Subject: Re. O.T. Light Therapy Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:45:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-ELNK-Trace: 0b1c9d71006e06a171639b933de7ae6f7e972de0d01da940d091541717d00645de94879285c6a38f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: <"TehyG1.0.524.i5Ye_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52349 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: More Info: "Light therapy has also been given the name " phototherapy". A study done by the Mayo Clinic in 1989 suggests that the results of light therapy are a direct effect of light itself, generated at specific wavelengths, and are not necessarily a function of the characteristics of coherency and polarization associated with lasers. In a study entitled Low-Energy Laser Therapy: Controversies and New Research Findings, Jeffrey R. Basford, M.D. of the Mayo Clinic's Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, suggests that the coherent aspect of laser may not be the source of its therapeutic effect. He states "firstly, the stimulating effects (from therapeutic light) are reported following irradiation with non-laser sources and secondly, tissue scattering, as well as fiber optic delivery systems used in many experiments rapidly degrade coherency . . . Thus any effects produced by low-energy lasers may be due to the effects of light in general and not to the unique properties of lasers. This view is not difficult to accept when it is remembered that wave-length dependent photobiochemical reactions occur throughout nature and are involved in such things as vision, photosynthesis, tanning and Vitamin D metabolism. In this view, laser therapy is really a form of light therapy, and lasers are important in that they are convenient sources of intense light at wavelengths that stimulate specific physiological functions (Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 9:1-5, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, 1989)." "LED's and LASERS are no more than convenient devices for producing electromagnetic radiation at specific wavelengths, and in addition to the one already cited, several other studies establish that it is the light itself at specific wavelengths that is therapeutic in nature and not the machine which produced it." "The equation between the machine and the biological response is a common error often made by those who wish to promote the commercial interests of low-energy laser technology." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Plants need two types of light waves for optimal growth and flowering - red waves for inducing blooms and blue waves for overall growth. These waves are supplied naturally by sunlight. (Remember science class with ROY G BIV and the prism?) The task at hand for the indoor gardener is to replicate sunshine indoors. You can actually do this pretty easily with "grow light" bulbs. These fluorescent bulbs are specifically designed to provide the correct light waves for plants." "The lighting requirements for plants can also be supplied with standard fluorescent lights. If you choose this approach, get one each of a warm white bulb (for red waves) and cool white (for blue waves) bulb. Put them in a standard two-tube "shop light" fixture. The best size is the 40-watt, 48" long fixture. They are lightweight and inexpensive. The reflective coating on the inside of the hood provides even more light for the plant. The fixtures themselves are about 12" wide, so this arrangement with two tubes installed will provide sufficient growing light for one foot of table width. The fixture will be suspended over your plants. Replace the bulbs when you begin to detect a reduction in light output. Keep them dusted to allow maximum output." A Study on The Effect of Light on Children: http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/ir659/hathaway.pdf Regards Frederick From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 31 07:31:03 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA10455; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:24:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:24:09 -0800 Message-ID: <003401c39fc1$f16a83e0$8837fea9@cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" Subject: LENR is an earworm Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:16:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01C39F7E.E1481880" 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: <"5ZrPT.0.BZ2.Owde_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52350 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_002F_01C39F7E.E1481880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A final pre-Halloween post...hopefully Mention has been made of the disturbing fact (to the science-police) = that "cold fusion" is well on its way to becoming a cultural "meme," = despite the best efforts of Park, Randi and other Luddites to nip it in = the bud. There was a quasi-serious story on the Beeb recently about "Brain itch" = or "cognitive itch" which is that disturbing phenomenon that keeps = "songs in the head"... you know, as in " I just can't get that song out = of my head..."=20 "Research in the US has found that songs get stuck in our heads because = they create a "brain itch" that can only be "scratched" by repeating the = tune over and over." In Germany, this type of song is known as an = "ohrwurm" - an earworm - and typically has a high, upbeat melody and = repetitive lyrics that verge between catchy and annoying. And earworms = seems to be prevalent in cultures that have the reputation of being = highly "disciplined," but that could be coincidental. One has to wonder, from the perspective of 'survival benefit' what this = brain itch is all about. On the downside, it must be the predecessor = condition to the mental pathology known as obsessive/compulsive = disorder... not desirable... so perhaps it has a great deal of = non-obvious positive benefit that balances out against the negative, or = else one would think it would be "de-selected" way back in out = evolutionary history. Perhaps the earworm, like money or greed itself, is a slight distortion = of a needed "self-motivating influence," the hidden purpose of which is = fulfilled in many kinds of creative or inventive processes that demand = that individuals become "self-starters" independently of authority. An = of course, Sheldrake tells us that memes themselves are purely a = function of repetition, not truthfulness, and we all appreciate that = "quantity has its own special quality" or some such idiom. After all, = the "werewolf" has become an ingrained meme in western culture that will = probably linger on forever, thanks to a period of ingemination back in = the dark-ages followed by a prolonged lack of quality script-writers in = Hollywood. Songs such as"YMCA", "Macarena, "Duke of Earl" and "Who Let The Dogs = Out" owe their success to a propensity to give rise to the dreaded = earworm - and its not just the younger population who are vulnerable... = even the great musicians are susceptible to this pre-neurotic = condition... Mozart's children, it is said, would drive him nuts him by = playing melody or scales on the family's piano but stopping before = completing the tune. "He would have to rush down and complete the scale = because he couldn't bear to listen to an unresolved scale"=20 I guess something similar is involved when anyone takes up a dedicated = hobby, becomes a political activist, or an evangelist for any cause, = even those on the fringes of science... so maybe 'LENR as an earworm' is = not a bad thing... it's just that the 'unresolved scale' of LENR is.... Jones ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C39F7E.E1481880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A final pre-Halloween = post...hopefully

Mention has been made of the disturbing fact (to the=20 science-police) that "cold fusion" is well on its way to becoming a = cultural=20 "meme," despite the best efforts of Park, Randi  and other Luddites = to nip=20 it in the bud.

There was a quasi-serious story on the Beeb recently = about "Brain=20 itch" or "cognitive itch" which is that disturbing phenomenon = that keeps=20 "songs in the head"...  you know, as in " I just can't get = that song=20 out of my head..."

"Research in the US has found that songs get stuck in our heads = because=20 they create a "brain itch" that can only be "scratched" by repeating the = tune=20 over and over."  In Germany, this type of song is known as an = "ohrwurm" -=20 an earworm - and typically has a high, upbeat melody and repetitive = lyrics that=20 verge between catchy and annoying. And earworms seems to be = prevalent=20 in cultures that have the reputation of being highly "disciplined," but = that=20 could be coincidental.
 
One has to wonder, from the perspective of 'survival benefit' what = this=20 brain itch is all about. On the downside, it must be the predecessor = condition=20 to the mental pathology known as obsessive/compulsive disorder... not=20 desirable... so perhaps it has a great deal of non-obvious positive = benefit that=20 balances out against the negative, or else one would think it would be=20 "de-selected" way back in out evolutionary history.

Perhaps the earworm, like money or greed itself, is a slight = distortion=20 of a needed "self-motivating influence," the hidden purpose of which is=20 fulfilled in many kinds of creative or inventive processes that = demand that=20 individuals become "self-starters" independently of authority. An of = course,=20 Sheldrake tells us that memes themselves are purely a function of = repetition,=20 not truthfulness, and we all appreciate that "quantity has its own = special=20 quality" or some such idiom. After all, the "werewolf" has = become an=20 ingrained meme in western culture that will probably linger on forever, = thanks=20 to a period of ingemination back in the dark-ages followed by a = prolonged=20 lack of quality script-writers in Hollywood.

Songs such as"YMCA",  "Macarena, "Duke of Earl" and "Who Let = The Dogs=20 Out" owe their success to a propensity to give rise to the dreaded=20 earworm - and its not just the younger population who are = vulnerable...=20 even the great musicians are susceptible to this pre-neurotic = condition...=20 Mozart's children, it is said, would drive him nuts him = by=20 playing melody or scales on the family's piano but stopping before = completing=20 the tune.  "He would have to rush down and complete the scale = because he=20 couldn't bear to listen to an unresolved scale"
 
I guess something similar is involved when anyone takes up a = dedicated=20 hobby, becomes a political activist, or an evangelist for any cause, = even those=20 on the fringes of science... so maybe 'LENR as an earworm' is not a bad = thing...=20 it's just that the 'unresolved scale' of LENR is....
 
Jones
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C39F7E.E1481880-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 31 11:43:46 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id LAA29864; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:35:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:35:50 -0800 Message-ID: <000101c39fe6$14a94d40$3658ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <002501c39ef5$8ef36dc0$8837fea9@cpq> <003101c39efa$5f7d84e0$1041ccd1@asus> Subject: Re: Nanobes and all chemistry everywhere Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:47:09 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <"fQzXD.0.LI7.Lche_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52351 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick wrote: > Any Vortexian who hasn't read "Dark Life" needs to take immediate corrective action. Check Amazon - it's out of print, but many copies are still available. > > - RM > Honolulu, HI > I just ordered mine. In the same area are "The Surprising Archaea" and "The Deep Hot Biosphere". Oil is not a 'fossil' fuel. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 31 14:50:22 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA03820; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:43:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:43:06 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031031174117.01c0ce30@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@mindspring.com@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:43:12 -0500 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: More ICCF10 papers coming soon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"4NFy53.0.Wx.wLke_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52352 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Apparently the final due date for ICCF10 papers was changed. Nobody told me. Anyway, several papers from Iwamura, Miles, Celani, Arata and others came in since Wednesday. I hope to have them on the web site early next week. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Oct 31 16:39:20 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id QAA23600; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:36:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:36:36 -0800 Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:35:58 +1100 From: Robin van Spaandonk Subject: Re: Waxing transcendental In-reply-to: <3FA17DC4.8010202@rtpatlanta.com> 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: <00b601c39f23$c30bad60$8837fea9@cpq> <3FA17DC4.8010202@rtpatlanta.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"58gLB.0.Um5.I0me_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52353 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:08:20 -0500: Hi, [snip] >"But the most surprising thing is that a number deemed aesthetically >pleasing by human beings also crops up in nature and science. Take the >arrangement of leaves on the stem of a plant. As each new leaf grows, it >does so at an angle offset from that of the leaf below. The most com mon >angle between successive leaves is 137.5 - the golden angle. Why? >Because 137.5 = 360 - 360/G, where G is the golden ratio." Doesn't this just result in the edges of the new leaf just "grazing" the edge of the leaf below, resulting in maximal light utilisation for minimum leaf area? (I.e. all the light is intercepted, with minimal leaf overlap). 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 Oct 31 19:10:45 2003 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id TAA03077; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:07:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:07:52 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c3a025$038ad490$9f56ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031030094926.01c0af08@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Correa-Storms-Rothwell Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:05:09 -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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Resent-Message-ID: <"dBTSq1.0.wl.8Eoe_"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/52354 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed wrote: > > As for the creativity, joy, passion or raw sanity of people like Papp or > Correa, no one needs my help to judge these things. >You can read the debate between > Correa and Storms and decide for yourself whether Correa is creative. At > least with regard to basic physics, I don't call that "creative" -- I think > he has a screw loose. He does not sound joyful to me. Passionate, yes. > Please read the document and judge for yourself. You might agree with his > definition of "work." I would not want anyone to take my word for such > things. That makes me look like the accuser, or the source of nasty rumors, > when all I am doing is reporting what these people say about themselves. > Nothing I say about them is one-tenth as awful as what they say about > themselves. "....the eye of the beholder", as the saying goes. I have read a good portion of the correspondence between the Correas and Ed Storms, enough to see the drift of the conversation. I'm more familiar with the Correa's viewpoint than either Ed or Jed. I have had the benefit of hours of personal conversation and extended correspondence with all three. I do not expect my following comments to 'settle' anything. I will be satisfied with a bit more mellow perspective. First, Paulo Correa respects Ed Storms as a scientist, and has said so to me directly. The correspondence is very polite. The discussion revolves around the Correa's observations of the behavior of an electroscope, a very simple device for demonstrating electrostatic charge. It consists of closed insulating vessel, usually glass, in which a length of conducting metal foil is draped over a horizontal wire, which is bent to allow one end to protrude through an insulating stopper. When 'charged', the ends of the foil 'leaves' mutually repel until the 'charge' is somehow dissipated. While 'charged', the foil remains elevated against the pull of gravity. In the language of conventional physics, no "work" is being done to maintain the foil elevated and 'motionless'. The Correas assert that "work" is being done. Thus begins an extended dispute and Jed's fulminating assertion that the Correa's don't understand the definitionof "work" and are therefore [unprintable]. I can say that they perfectly well understand the conventional definition of work, but they are pointing to a more fundamental issue having to do with the nature of "energy" [formally defined as the 'ability to do work', which is a kind of hand waving, for there exists no more fundamental definition, even if everybody uses the term and think they know what it means]. On a microscopic level the foil consists of atoms in motion and motion within the atoms, so there is 'activity'. Somehow it is maintained. Standard physics in a way glosses over all this. The Correas used a metaphor: consider holding a weight stationalry at arm's length against the pull of gravity. You would soon sweat with the "work" involved. Now obviously producing the necessary tension in your muscles involves a complex expenditure of "energy" for which there are conventional ways of translating this into internal "work", even though "work" is not being done on the weight. The Correas are not being "conventional". From their early studies of Reich's aether and orgone energy to the PAGD cell, to their return to orgone accumulators and electroscopes, the Correas have been in pursuit of a different and perhaps more fundamental description of physical reality. In doing this, they have used language of people such as Reich and Tesla to make distinctions which may be important but have been glossed over in contemporary physics. Thus there arises a lot of discussion of terms, definitions, and concepts. One could dismiss all this as another instance of verbose pseudoscience were it not for the remarkable properties of the PAGD cell and other observations. I noted in the correspondence that the Correas repeatedly referred to monographs on their website defining various concepts. I could not tell from the dialogue, as far as I read, if Ed had ever downloaded and attempted to master them. I have not read these, perhaps I will at some point. All of this is very much over Jed's head, which he freely admits, as is the work of Mills. I appreciate his candor in this. As said of the little girl with the curl, when Jed is good, he is very very good, and when he is off target....he is well, off target, pointedly so. I don't know if this helps anyone here. To go further requires a serious attempt to understand the Correa's line of thought. Demonizing people does not help. Mike Carrell