Re: MALLOVE WAS CLUELESS

The information offered on this webpage (and in PDF format) is a ve= ry=20 brief look at a UFO drive system that will help to explain the "hyper drive=20= UFO"=20 phenomenon, whereby UFO craft are observed to project a beam of energy ahead= of=20 them and appear to ride into that beam - and thus are pulled rather than=20 propelled by the UFOs generated forces. Certainly this is how it appears in=20= the=20 video footage of the "hyper-drive" UFOs observed and filmed over Mexico in t= he=20 1990's (and subsequently shown on British TV), and in the observation of thi= s=20 pulling force by Clark McClelland (Former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, KSC, Flo= rida=20 - USA) in his "hyper drive" UFO sighting. The brief details below are based=20= on=20 technical information research-developed recently regarding a The Double-Hel= ix=20 "Onion Drive" System and was sourced to me on 18 May 2003 by Jeff Savage an=20 engineer/researcher and his associate Richard Robson a physics consultant. S= ome=20 of the technical conclusions for this project (alluded to briefly below) cou= ld=20 not have been made without the additional input from physicist Warren York I might add, and an additiona= l mention=20 is in order for Clark McClelland in subsequently attracting Dr. Hal Puthoff's attention (at the Institute For Adv= anced=20 Studies - Austin, Texas) to the details of this unique energy generation=20 system.
http://www.ufophysics.com/onion.htm

I could swear I sent you The paper above a couple of= =20 years
back. So what's the scoop on York?

Any-ways

Thanks for the updates you send=20 me.

Ed Fouche

The only other links that work.

http://webpages.charter.net/pubmaster/UncertainSoul.pdf

http://webpages.charter.net/pubmaster/faqg1i.htm

Tom Bearden=20
http://webpages.charter.net/pubmaster/rptbix.htm=

------=_NextPart_001_0005_01C421C9.A9DB9660-- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C421C9.A9DB9660 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Untitled.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Untitled.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://webpages.charter.net/pubmaster/ [InternetShortcut] URL=http://webpages.charter.net/pubmaster/ Modified=8010B2DFE621C401ED ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C421C9.A9DB9660-- --part1_118.31757165.2daeea43_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 14 13:20:46 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3EKKasj020612; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:20:36 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3EKKW0g020585; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:20:32 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:20:32 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Speed of gravity and diminishing gravity Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:47:27 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54107 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ARGH! Horace writes: >There is in fact a magnetic equivalent, co-gravity, called K instead of B. No kidding Horace. There is something which is to gravity as magnetism is to electricity. But, and my point was, IT IS NOT MAGNETISM. If I spin a piece of neutral matter, do I get a magnetic field? No, I get a gravito-kinetic field. You can call it gravito-magnetic, as the relativists do, but if I take a Hall probe and measure I'll never see a magnetic field. I am aware neither you nor Relativity predict a magnetic field; all I'm saying is that the name is very misleading. Same thing with co-gravitational. Do we call the magnetic field the co-electric field? I suppose one can make a better argument for this, but it still strikes me as misleading ( plus it implies that monopoles don't exist which I personally disagree with. And yes, just to be explicit, I am aware of how relativity shows the magnetic field as being a relativistic effect ). This naming issue is a pet peeve of mine, from my own explorations of the various theories surrounding the observed isomorphism of charge and mass. >You seem to have completely missed the principles of the isomorphism. No. You seem to require a complete background treatment with every post. Must you be so concrete? Assume that I generally agree with your (Jefimenkos, etc ) isomorphism, and that it can be shown that the speed of gravity can be had by making a direct measure of the gravito-kinetic force, as will be done in the next few months with the Gravity B probe. Maxwell was well regarded for doing this same experiment in electromagnetism....did you know???(grin) You have all the elements to do the derivation, or I could go look in the filing cabinet for my old notes on the subject. Anyway, the stumbling block to engineering with these ideas is the lack of a gravito-kinetically permeable material. What would such a material look like? Answer this question can we can begin doing something more in this area than what has already been done over the past 50 odd years. K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 15 00:05:56 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3F75psj004096; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:05:52 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3F75jFc004054; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:05:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:05:45 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:13:24 -0800 To: From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Speed of gravity and diminishing gravity Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54108 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:16 PM 4/14/4, Keith Nagel wrote: >PS: I use the term gravito-kinetic rather than the more >traditional gravito-magnetic because, well, there's no >magnetism associated with gravity so why use a name >that implies such? Perhaps better would be gravito-spinnetic? >But then spin is a slippery word. At 4:47 PM 4/14/4, Keith Nagel wrote: >ARGH! > >Horace writes: >>There is in fact a magnetic equivalent, co-gravity, called K instead of B. > >No kidding Horace. There is something which is to gravity >as magnetism is to electricity. But, and my point was, >IT IS NOT MAGNETISM. Oh! Sorry! You are simply talking somantics not concepts. Yes, I certainly (hopefully!) have not used the term gravito-magnetic or electro-gravitic either. By the theory presented EM and gravity are highly separate, despite the 1-1 mapping. >If I spin a piece of neutral matter, >do I get a magnetic field? No, I get a gravito-kinetic >field. You can call it gravito-magnetic, as the relativists >do, but if I take a Hall probe and measure I'll never >see a magnetic field. I am aware neither you nor Relativity >predict a magnetic field; all I'm saying is that the name is very >misleading. I certainly wholeheartedly agree, and hopefuly I have not used the misleading "gravito-magnetic" term. >Same thing with co-gravitational. Here I disagree. Jefimenko named it such, and since he developed the principle work from which my little isomorphism is derived, it seems fitting I should respect whatever name he chose. >Do we call >the magnetic field the co-electric field? Interestingly, Jefimenko himself discussed this problem. At least he recognized it as a problem, though his final resolution was to call K co-gravity, or the co-gravitational field. If scientists had known historically that magnetism was not a wholly separate entity, they might indeed have called it co-electric, or the electric field co-magnetic. >I suppose one >can make a better argument for this, but it still strikes >me as misleading ( plus it implies that monopoles don't >exist which I personally disagree with. And yes, just >to be explicit, I am aware of how relativity shows the >magnetic field as being a relativistic effect ). Actually, aside from Maxwell's law saying there are no monopoles, there is no reason that they can not exist. If monopoles are permitted to exist in electromagnetism, then there is nothing to prevent co-gravitational pole particles from existing in the imaginary dimensions in which gravity partly resides. The isomorphism is complete in that regard. > >This naming issue is a pet peeve of mine, from my >own explorations of the various theories surrounding the >observed isomorphism of charge and mass. Yes, it is an issue for various folks. Personally I can't see why "gravito-kinetic force" can't just be referred to as "gravity" or "gravitational force" unless the reference is specifically to the co-gravitational force or field, in which case "co-gravity" or "co-gravitational force" should work OK, even though I agree the long spelling is unfortunate. Perhaps the terms "co-gravic", "co-gravic field" and "co-gravic force", would work better. Also, "K", "K-field" and "K-force" are short enough! I actually thought "gravito-kinetic" was a good term until the subject isomorphism was developed. I like the fact that K and kinetic start with the same letter. Now I feel the use of the word kinetic is especially misleading. The term seems to refer to kinetics, i.e. Newtonian mechanics, which this theory shows to be almost entirely resident in the "real" (i.e. non-imaginary) electromagnetic dimensions, and thus not so much related to gravitation as to electromagnetics! I hope I haven't totally confused the issue now! > >>You seem to have completely missed the principles of the isomorphism. > >No. You seem to require a complete background treatment with >every post. Must you be so concrete? Sorry! Actually I strive to be concrete, or at least precise, and also to the point. Never quite successful at it, but I'm getting better at it as the years go by. The real problem in this case though is that I simply misread what you said. Just another one of my blunders. >Assume that I >generally agree with your (Jefimenkos, etc ) isomorphism, and that it can >be shown >that the speed of gravity can be had by making a direct measure of >the gravito-kinetic force, as will be done in the next few >months with the Gravity B probe. Maxwell was well regarded >for doing this same experiment in electromagnetism....did you know???(grin) >You have all the elements to do the derivation, or I >could go look in the filing cabinet for my old notes on >the subject. I don't know precisely to what you refer here, what specific problem you want solved. I can certainly do some computations using the isomrphic laws, but wouldn't want to get stuck spending a lot of time doing nasty integrations etc.! 8^) > >Anyway, the stumbling block to engineering with these ideas >is the lack of a gravito-kinetically permeable material. >What would such a material look like? It might have to exist entirely in the imaginary dimensions, thus we would not be able to sense it as far as I can understand off the top of my head. (Keep in mind I just recently put all this together as possibly believable, and have been very busy with taxes, home repair issues, and writing a book. I don't really have a clue yet where this isomorphism might lead.) Such matter would have to consist of masses with both +i and -i components in order to build atoms, quantized spins, etc. In other words it might have to be purely gravitational mass without electromagnetic components. I don't know that any kind of ordinary matter could be used for such, because I don't know of any hard evidence that negative mass (-i) matter exists, especially negative mass atoms that would be required to have the quantized gravitational spin necessary for such effects. >Answer this question >can we can begin doing something more in this area than what >has already been done over the past 50 odd years. I don't know enough yet to answer that question. I barely am beginning to understand what the theory means, much less engineering principles. BTW, I am not strongly *advocating* this theory, as I barely considered it potentially credible myself until the mass halo problem was resolved a few days ago. I am merely presenting it as possibly useful modification to Jefimenko's work that appears to have some meaningful and serious consequences in interpretation, and some uses in computation. *If* the theory is found to reasonably represent reality then the immediate practical consequence is not so much what we can do as what we should not do. Attempts to describe gravity as a consequence of electromagnetism or to develop electo-gravity thrusters or shields is not likely to produce any results. The focus therefore, electromagnetically, should be upon reduction of inertial mass, gaining a purchase on the vacuum or borrowing energy from the vacuum. At 1:16 PM 4/14/4, Keith Nagel wrote: >Hi Horace > >If gravity has a speed less than C, we would expect >the gravito-kinetic force to quite large. Why do you say this? >If the various >"fringe" experiments with gyroscopic weighings are >correct than the velocity would in fact be slower, >by a substantial percentage. Also, there is an apparent >spin handedness, in a strange way reminiscent of >the seeming lack of monopoles in the electromagnetic >theory. I am not familiar with this fringe work. > >The Gravity Probe B is scheduled to launch april 19th, and >will provide a "non-fringe" measurement of that >velocity. I suspect, given the provenance, that >they will measure it to be C. That still wouldn't >be the whole story, given the presumed lack of negative gravitational >"charge" We don't really know that such negative gravitational charge does not exist. It could be bundled up with anti-matter in some black holes in the center of the universe for all we know. All we really know is that it doesn't appear to be found in the vicinity of our solar system. It also might exist entirely in the imaginary gravitational dimensions. The important thing is that if it does exist, the laws of electromagnetism in all their glory fully apply to it. >the isomorphism you mention in your posts >isn't _quite_ isomorphic AFIK, the full isomorphism between EM and gravity is there, it is the matching of the components of reality to the theory that is the unknown. >but close enough for engineering >purposes...so aside from the balloon juice, can >we get to some engineering predictions? Last time I >hacked at this the forces were too tiny to easily >measure. Another good reason to focus on inertial and vacuum aspects. However, one fairly new aspect is the fact that inertial mass and gravitational mass may well not be one and the same. In fact, if you apply the space-time warping concept of GR, it is clear that c_g observed will change in the vicinity of massive objects. Thus even c and c_g do not maintain a constant ratio. Due to the principles of retardation, special relativistic effects should be expected in the gravitational dimensions just as they are in the electromagnetic dimensions, but the gammas will differ because the propigation speeds c and c_g differ. The value of c_g can not be constant to observers in the electromagnetic dimensions (us). However, I don't offhand see how this might be used in a practical way other than to verify the theory in some respect. This theory might lend some credence to the inertial mass reduction schemes I posted here a while back that develop net thrust by cyclically sheilding the reaction mass (inert gas) from the ZPF. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 15 04:47:37 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3FBlTXK025282; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:47:29 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3FBlHQt025205; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:47:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:47:17 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: New paper on Sam Faile site Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:49:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C422DF.A4BD96DA" Message-ID: <7979900A3B0FCD4B8A56AF3100DC3B2001B085 MCMASTER-SERVER.mcmaster.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Thread-Topic: New paper on Sam Faile site thread-index: AcQi35+ulabB/JxsT4WJONN54FEeYg== From: "Nick Reiter" To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54109 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C422DF.A4BD96DA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Gentlemen, =20 After an extended time away, hello! =20 A few weeks ago, I was able to post yet another study on the website dedicated to Sam Faile's work, and our mutual projects. =20 This paper tells of some of our digging into the shadowy (shady?) topic of ormus / White Powder gold / David Hudson monoatomic gold claims. The core of the paper concerns our attempt to replicate Hudson's Australian patent example #1 verbatim (or as close as I could get). =20 http://www.geocities.com/spfaile/Ormus.html =20 >From out of this came a lot of fumes, acid burns, and distressed spouse. Results have been negative to inconclusive for the most part, however I am still playing around with a curious little effect that may or may not be an electrostatic artifact, where selected grains of a powder will jump around in a strong magnetic field. More recently, I have tried to replicate some of the ormus claims for iridium, and found yet more "grain hopping." =20 So- tendered for all... =20 One other query - does the vortex list somehow exclude or bounce back certain types of e-mail accounts? I have tried for about a week to re-subscribe from my home e-mail, which is a roadrunner account (rr.com) and got bounced or rejected for several error code reasons. My office e-mail here seemed to take, obviously. =20 Best regards, =20 Nick Reiter ------_=_NextPart_001_01C422DF.A4BD96DA Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear=20 Gentlemen,

After = an extended=20 time away, hello!

A few = weeks ago, I=20 was able to post yet another study on the website dedicated to Sam = Faile's work,=20 and our mutual projects.

This = paper tells of=20 some of our digging into the shadowy (shady?) topic of ormus / White = Powder gold=20 / David Hudson monoatomic gold claims. The core of the paper = concerns our=20 attempt to replicate Hudson's Australian patent example #1 verbatim (or = as close=20 as I could get).

http://www.geocities= .com/spfaile/Ormus.html

From = out of this=20 came a lot of fumes, acid burns, and distressed spouse. Results = have been=20 negative to inconclusive for the most part, however I am still playing = around=20 with a curious little effect that may or may not be an electrostatic = artifact,=20 where selected grains of a powder will jump around in a strong magnetic=20 field. More recently, I have tried to replicate some of the ormus = claims=20 for iridium, and found yet more "grain hopping."

So- = tendered for=20 all...

One = other query -=20 does the vortex list somehow exclude or bounce back certain types of = e-mail=20 accounts? I have tried for about a week to re-subscribe from my = home=20 e-mail, which is a roadrunner account (rr.com) and got bounced or = rejected for=20 several error code reasons. My office e-mail here seemed to take,=20 obviously.

Best=20 regards,

Nick=20 Reiter
------_=_NextPart_001_01C422DF.A4BD96DA-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 15 07:12:41 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3FECXsj014235; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:12:33 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3FECNsV014153; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:12:23 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:12:23 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <003701c422f4$7d366d20$c864a8c0 win98> From: To: References: <7979900A3B0FCD4B8A56AF3100DC3B2001B085 MCMASTER-SERVER.mcmaster.local> Subject: Re: New paper on Sam Faile site Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:56 +0300 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 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54110 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Grain hopping is sure needs further investigation. Very Interesting! The strongest diamagnetic material is pyrolytic graphite, I have. Diamagnetism is far more weaker then ferromagnetism, so it is hardly noticeable without a special arrangement. On the other hand your particles appears strongly expelled by magnetic field with a orders of magnitude than graphite or bismuth. Barry Carter's video unfortunately look likely a self delusion. This is because particles jumps typically by the kick of other particles which moving abruptly caused by the friction of rough surface of the paper. It may not possible to obtain such jumping particles on a glass surface, I think. Moreover, it is questionable that the experimenter used a mixture of ferromagnetic and non ferromagnetic material on this demonstration allowing the possible artifact. For the vortex subscription/posting problem, you may try it again. Sometime this happens. Regards, hamdi ucar ----- Original Message ----- From: Nick Reiter To: vortex-L eskimo.com Sent: 15 April 2004 14:49 Subject: New paper on Sam Faile site Dear Gentlemen, After an extended time away, hello! A few weeks ago, I was able to post yet another study on the website dedicated to Sam Faile's work, and our mutual projects. This paper tells of some of our digging into the shadowy (shady?) topic of ormus / White Powder gold / David Hudson monoatomic gold claims. The core of the paper concerns our attempt to replicate Hudson's Australian patent example #1 verbatim (or as close as I could get). http://www.geocities.com/spfaile/Ormus.html [snip] Best regards, Nick Reiter From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 15 07:42:23 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3FEgAXK015905; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:42:10 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3FEg8xc015885; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:42:08 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:42:08 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <000f01c422f7$84eb5be0$8837fea9 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <7979900A3B0FCD4B8A56AF3100DC3B2001B085 MCMASTER-SERVER.mcmaster.local> <003701c422f4$7d366d20$c864a8c0@win98> Subject: Re: New paper on Sam Faile site Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:39:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ultra5.eskimo.com id i3FEfxXK015840 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54111 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nick, Can you explain the video a little better? Was the magnet being rotated at the time? Hamdi writes, > Grain hopping is sure needs further investigation. Very Interesting! If the magnet was static, this is indeed more than interesting.... > Barry Carter's video unfortunately look likely a self delusion. I'm not so sure. Are you suggesting that it looks to be staged? If this was not staged, it is indeed an extraordinary effect. Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 15 07:46:58 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3FEkqsj024719; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:46:53 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3FEkq40024704; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:46:52 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:46:52 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f From: "explorecraft" To: Subject: RE: New paper on Sam Faile site Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:46:14 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C42333.13529520" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <7979900A3B0FCD4B8A56AF3100DC3B2001B085 MCMASTER-SERVER.mcmaster.local> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54112 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C42333.13529520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Send this page to a friend=20 =20 Print This Page =20 =20 January 15, 2004 (SHFW) WASHINGTON - While President Bush turned his head=20 towards the heavens, a coalition of labor unions and environmental groups=20 unveiled a plan Wednesday that calls for $300 billion over 10 years to resea= rch and=20 design alternative energy sources. The New Apollo Plan, named after John F. Kennedy's Apollo Mission to put a=20 man on the moon, stands as a substitute to the plan President Bush proposed=20= last=20 year and concentrates on renewable energy sources such as solar, biomass and= =20 wind technologies while producing millions of jobs for Americans. "I'm excited about the Apollo Alliance and its vision for our energy future,= "=20 said Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., in an e-mail statement. "The study the Apollo= =20 Alliance released today underscores the reality that a healthy and sustainab= le=20 economy and a healthy and sustainable environment are not mutually exclusive= ;=20 in fact, they go hand-in hand. It spells out how we can achieve energy=20 independence in a decade by making strategic investments in clean energy tec= hnology=20 and new infrastructure." Udall, a key supporter of the plan, canceled his scheduled appearance at the= =20 news conference because of an obligation in Colorado, his spokesman said. The Perryman Group, an economic and financial analysis group from Texas that= =20 produced the report at no charge, estimated that the plan would generate=20 almost 1.4 million permanent jobs, produce $284 billion in net energy saving= s and=20 stimulate the economy by adding $953 billion in personal income and $324=20 billion in retail sales. "This is the 41st consecutive month that we've lost jobs in the manufacturin= g=20 sector," said M. Ray Perryman, president of the Perryman Group. "That is=20 indicative of a trend, a very disturbing trend. The only way to reverse that= is=20 ... to make the next generation of products." Highlights of the plan include advanced technology in hybrid cars, more=20 efficient factories, a modernized electrical system and improved mass=20 transportation options. President Bush's plan relied on producing more energ= y from oil and=20 other traditional sources. The Apollo plan would also create 2 million jobs a year for the duration of=20 the project and help America become "energy independent" by not relying on=20 foreign oil. "What intrigued me was the list of people supporting this," Perryman said. Seventeen labor unions - including the United Steel Workers of America,=20 United Automobile and Aerospace Workers, and the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Co= uncil -=20 most major environmental groups and many politicians, including Democratic=20 presidential candidates Howard Dean, John Kerry and Wesley Clark support the= =20 Apollo Project. "We can only succeed if we come together, like the Apollo Alliance has, to=20 balance our priorities for the environment, energy independence and job=20 creation," Kerry said in a press release. On the same day President Bush unveiled his plan to send a man to Mars, the=20 Apollo Alliance argued for more jobs and revenue here on Earth. "Creating a sustainable energy system requires imagination, requires=20 invention, and it requires remarkable vision," said Robert Borosage, co-dire= ctor of=20 the Campaign for America's Future. "This is the stuff of dreams that deals w= ith=20 real-world imperatives." Republican Sens. Pete Domenici, N.M., chair of the Energy and Natural=20 Resources Committee, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colo., a committee member,= who both=20 favored Bush=E2=80=99s stalled energy plan, declined to comment on the Apoll= o=20 proposal. Some of the nation=E2=80=99s largest unions will be pressing the Apollo Plan= with=20 Democratic candidates in the coming months. "Rather than worry about making sure we can secure oil from corporations in=20 the Mid-East, you'd better be worried about securing jobs and energy=20 self-sufficiency for workers in the Midwest," said Leo Gerard, president of=20= United=20 Steelworkers of America. Gerard also cited the future as a key reason to support renewable energy=20 sources. "I don't want my grandkids to come into a world where you can't get a decent= =20 family-supporting industrial job and that I've got to live in fear of=20 terrorism because we have to protect our oil assets ... in the Mid-East," Ge= rard said.=20 "The Apollo Plan and the Apollo Alliance lead us in a totally different=20 generation and direction." Other nations have surged ahead of America in producing renewable energy=20 sources. According to the report, Japan controls 43 percent of the solar power market= ,=20 "an industry invented in America," and European countries control 90 percent= =20 of wind turbine production, while America is importing fuel cells from Canad= a. AXcess News will be reporting on any new market trends related to this story= .=20 Members should watch their in-box for late breaking news. If you're not a=20 member, consider joini= ng now. Members get the latest business news, commentaries=20 and stock picks delivered right to their in-box. =20 =20 Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.com\ba= ron, Email: www.rhfweb.= com\emailform.html President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html,=20 Personal Web Page: www.rhfweb.com= \personal New Age Production's Inc., www.rhfw= eb.com\newage Star Haven Community Services, at www.r= hfweb.com\sh. Radiation Health Foundation Trust at www.= rhfweb.com Making a difference one person at a time Get informed. Inform others. --part1_134.2e3f88a0.2dc1395b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Kerry Says Apollo Project is the Kind of Strategy We Need to Ach= ieve True Energy Independence

=E2=80=9CThe New Energy for America Plan released today by th= e Apollo Alliance is exactly the kind of strategy America needs to achieve t= rue energy independence. We can only succeed if we come together, like the A= pollo Alliance has, to balance our priorities for the environment, energy in= dependence and job creation.

=E2=80=9CAmerica=E2=80=99s energy secur= ity depends on domestic, renewable energy sources. The Apollo Alliance is se= tting a course to that independence. In contrast, the Bush administration is= continuing to take America down a path of dependence on foreign oil and fai= ling to invest in new energy technologies. As president, I will reverse the=20= Bush assault on our environment and end the control the energy lobby has ove= r our government.
=E2=80=9CRenewable energy sources are important becaus= e they are entirely under our control. No foreign government can embargo the= m. No terrorist can seize control of them. No cartel can play games with the= m. No American soldier will have to risk his or her life to protect them.=E2=80=9CI am proud to have worked with the partners in the Apollo Alliance= throughout my career to ensure protect our environment and to promote energ= y independence. I applaud their efforts today and I look forward to co= ntinuing our work together.=E2=80=9D

Wind, biomass, solar power a= t center of Apollo energy plan

By Jenn Stewart - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire

A coalition of labor unions and environmental groups unveiled a <= FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"= SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">plan W= ednesday that calls for $300 billion over 10 years to research and design al= ternative energy sources.
Visit our AXcess= News Forum and add your comments on this story. Try your hand at writin= g, the best story will be published on our news network. Take our environmen= tal poll too!
=20

language=3DJavaScript> </SCRIPT> Send this page to a friend
=20
Print This Page
=20
=20

January 15, 2004 (SHFW) WASHINGTON - While President= Bush turned his head towards the heavens, a coalition of labor unions and e= nvironmental groups unveiled a plan Wednesday that calls for $300 billion ov= er 10 years to research and design alternative energy sources.
The New Ap= ollo Plan, named after John F. Kennedy's Apollo Mission to put a man on the=20= moon, stands as a substitute to the plan President Bush proposed last year a= nd concentrates on renewable energy sources such as solar, biomass and wind=20= technologies while producing millions of jobs for Americans.
"I'm excited= about the Apollo Alliance and its vision for our energy future," said Rep.=20= Mark Udall, D-Colo., in an e-mail statement. "The study the Apollo Alliance=20= released today underscores the reality that a healthy and sustainable econom= y and a healthy and sustainable environment are not mutually exclusive; in f= act, they go hand-in hand. It spells out how we can achieve energy independe= nce in a decade by making strategic investments in clean energy technology a= nd new infrastructure."
Udall, a key supporter of the plan, canceled his=20= scheduled appearance at the news conference because of an obligation in Colo= rado, his spokesman said.
The Perryman Group, an economic and financial a= nalysis group from Texas that produced the report at no charge, estimated th= at the plan would generate almost 1.4 million permanent jobs, produce $284 b= illion in net energy savings and stimulate the economy by adding $953 billio= n in personal income and $324 billion in retail sales.
"This is the 41st=20= consecutive month that we've lost jobs in the manufacturing sector," said M.= Ray Perryman, president of the Perryman Group. "That is indicative of a tre= nd, a very disturbing trend. The only way to reverse that is ... to make the= next generation of products."
Highlights of the plan include advanced te= chnology in hybrid cars, more efficient factories, a modernized electrical s= ystem and improved mass transportation options. President Bush's plan relied= on producing more energy from oil and other traditional sources.
The Apo= llo plan would also create 2 million jobs a year for the duration of the pro= ject and help America become "energy independent" by not relying on foreign=20= oil.
"What intrigued me was the list of people supporting this," Perryman= said.
Seventeen labor unions - including the United Steel Workers of Ame= rica, United Automobile and Aerospace Workers, and the AFL-CIO Industrial Un= ion Council - most major environmental groups and many politicians, includin= g Democratic presidential candidates Howard Dean, John Kerry and Wesley Clar= k support the Apollo Project.
"We can only succeed if we come together, l= ike the Apollo Alliance has, to balance our priorities for the environment,=20= energy independence and job creation," Kerry said in a press release.
On=20= the same day President Bush unveiled his plan to send a man to Mars, the Apo= llo Alliance argued for more jobs and revenue here on Earth.
"Creating a=20= sustainable energy system requires imagination, requires invention, and it r= equires remarkable vision," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaig= n for America's Future. "This is the stuff of dreams that deals with real-wo= rld imperatives."
Republican Sens. Pete Domenici, N.M., chair of the Ener= gy and Natural Resources Committee, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colo., a co= mmittee member, who both favored Bush=E2=80=99s stalled energy plan, decline= d to comment on the Apollo proposal.
Some of the nation=E2=80=99s largest= unions will be pressing the Apollo Plan with Democratic candidates in the c= oming months.
"Rather than worry about making sure we can secure oil from= corporations in the Mid-East, you'd better be worried about securing jobs a= nd energy self-sufficiency for workers in the Midwest," said Leo Gerard, pre= sident of United Steelworkers of America.
Gerard also cited the future as= a key reason to support renewable energy sources.
"I don't want my grand= kids to come into a world where you can't get a decent family-supporting ind= ustrial job and that I've got to live in fear of terrorism because we have t= o protect our oil assets ... in the Mid-East," Gerard said. "The Apollo Plan= and the Apollo Alliance lead us in a totally different generation and direc= tion."
Other nations have surged ahead of America in producing renewable=20= energy sources.
According to the report, Japan controls 43 percent of the= solar power market, "an industry invented in America," and European countri= es control 90 percent of wind turbine production, while America is importing= fuel cells from Canada.
AXcess News will be reporting on any new market=20= trends related to this story. Members should watch their in-box for late bre= aking news. If you're not a member, consider joining now. Members get the latest business news= , commentaries and stock picks delivered right to their in-box.
=20

Baron Von Volsung, www.rhfweb.co= m\baron, Email: www.rhf= web.com\emailform.html
President Thomas D. Clark, Email: www.rhfweb.com\emailform.html,=20
Personal Web Page: www.rhfweb= .com\personal
New Age Production's Inc., www.= rhfweb.com\newage
Star Haven Community Services, at w= ww.rhfweb.com\sh.
Radiation Health Foundation Trust at = www.rhfweb.com

Making a difference one person at a time
Get informed. Inform others.

--part1_134.2e3f88a0.2dc1395b_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 10:28:07 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SHRn2u002725; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:27:53 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SHRgpX002685; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:27:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:27:42 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <002201c42d44$f0545060$8837fea9 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: "vortex" References: <001a01c42c98$ffa0dcc0$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Kamada Experiment, was JCF5 papers available Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:19:17 -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 ultra5.eskimo.com id i3SHRU2u002637 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54269 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In Reference to the experiment mentioned yesterday: JCF5 paper by Kamada and Yoshizawa: "Heating of Heavy Water by Acoustic Wave Propagation in Magnetic Field and Phonon Maser Action of Deuteron" at: http://wwwcf.elc.iwate-u.ac.jp/jcf/file/jcf5/jcf5_06.pdf> As mentioned, there is the possibility that this experimenter has found, unbeknownst even to himself, another (and far more robust) technique to accomplish nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). In effect, instead of the usual NMR technique where an EM wave (RF pulse) is being propagated through a low impedance material in fixed magnetic field, the researcher has substituted a kinetic wave of the same frequency, which is the result of irradiation by an ultrasonic transducer (lead niobate piezo) which is being propagated and coupled to deuterons due to a relatively high impedance in water for ultrasound (Rayl x 10^-6). This possibility of this being the correct explanation is reinforced by the fact that Kamada is using a 6 Mhz+ wave in a 900 milli-T field (and the resonance for deuterons is very close to this number - assuming some modulation by the rest of the water molecule). Kamada has achieved nearly a 100,000 to one gain (COP= 10^6 !!!) and the assumption would likely be (from readers on this forum) that it is related to a LENR effect, as he clearly makes the point that the effect is absent in light water and the report appears at JCF5. If this is indeed a new form of NMR, then several possibilities emerge. 1) D+D cold fusion (Extremely Unlikely!) 2) The NMR has cause a deuteron to 'fission' or split, releasing a neutron (unlikely but millions of time more probable than 1.) OTOH we should be aware that LENR and NMR are miles apart thermodynamically, and if it is not LENR as the source of energy, how could such a gain be possible without a real nuclear alteration - just a resonance effect? Here is the way: 3) The NMR has accomplished OU water-splitting - of a previously unseen non-electrochemical variety. Following this non-Faradaic water-splitting and immediate recombination of D+OD, some energy gain is realized from the asymmetry. This is the most likely explanation IMHO. Let's compare the energy transfer effects of ultrasonic irradiation to RF irradiation. With sound, but NOT with EM waves, we have both a *stressing of the medium* in addition to accelerating electric charges. You get the 'accelerating charge' effect with both inputs, as the water molecule is extremely polar and always expresses charge when joggled. But with sound input only, that accelerating charge effect can combine with a kinetic stressing (mass compression-decompression effect) just as in sonoluminescence - and, most importantly, the velocity of the sound wave is 10^8 times less than c, so it is far more easily coupled to the highly polar molecule of moderate mass. Water at the nanometer scale, is moving about the same velocity, or very close to that of applied wave, instead of 100 million times slower so it is coupled extremely efficiently. As to where does this huge amount of OU come from ultimately, if not from LENR, I would suggest that it will be found to have originated with a 3.4 eV photon. And the source of that photon is related to the decay energy of virtual PS (half of 6.8 eV) which is found at the interface of normal 3-space and Dirac's sea (or ZPE if you prefer). This space may be thought to "open up" at a precise geometric dimension - that being the "Forster radius" - about 2 nm, which is probably the recoil distance found in the mechanical stressing (compression-decompression effect) mentioned above. This can be easily disproven by viewing the experiment in the dark, in the presence of a UV sensitive film or dye. First, of course, we have to duplicate this huge heat gain, with or without heavy water. If the extra heat which is realized with COP of 10^6 is a result of 3.) above is due to NMR and also to non-Faradaic splitting/recombination, which IMHO is the most likely explanation, then there is no reason to assume that we need deuterium, instead of plain water. Kamada clearly makes the point that the effect is absent in light water, but IF he has missed the boat as to the underlying mechanics being NMR (which is the premise of this post), then that would be expected because light water would not respond to a frequency of 6 MHZ. So, when you miss the correct explanation then the statement that the effect is absent in plain water is meaningless. To discover if the effect will occur in light water, one needs much higher frequency, and an appropriate magnetic field strength because the Gamma for H (protons) is about 42.6 MHz/T. This presents another conundrum as ultrasound does not extends into that range, except at higher applied fields. The highest commercial ultrasound probe that I have been able to locate so far goes up to about 20 MHz which would mean that we would need a magnetic field in excess of 2.1 T to get into the precise NMR range. I would expect that precision is critical for success, but unfortunately electromagnets will be required as no PMs can handle a field of 2.1 T. The *good news* is the effect should be even more robust at this combination of frequency/field... but hey, most of us would settle for a COP of 100,000... no? Jones From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 11:44:54 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SIijrI019761; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:44:45 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SIiORl019640; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:44:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:44:24 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428144212.01df4d90 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:44:15 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Spiffy new version of Miles 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/54270 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I just uploaded a spiffy new version of a famous Miles paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf The figures have all been re-created by a graphics company. I overlaid one of their images on a scan of the original, and found the data points are smack on target. I corrected a few spelling mistakes, and I added a properly formatted Acrobat table of contents, and bookmarks. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 11:55:48 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SIterI022720; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:55:41 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SItdYJ022697; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:55:39 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:55:39 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040427013512.13845.qmail web12402.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040427013512.13845.qmail web12402.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:55:36 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: thomas malloy Subject: Re: Gas-guzzlers and such 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/54271 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Kyle Mcallister posted; >rence between what is illegal and what is wrong. > >--Kyle "I'm really not an a**hole" Mcallister > >P.S.: I wonder how bad emissions are from today's >economy cars when they undergo the recommended number >of injection/intake cleaning sessions...I wonder how Green and clean and sustainability and the Easter Bunny are all myths that the liberal dreamers believe in. They are the same people who regard an electric vehicle as clean, when the truth is that, recharged from a coal burning power plant, they produce twice as many pounds of pollutants per vehicle mile as a diesel powered vehicle. IMHO, if you took carburated technology and added steam you could make a vehicle that was cleaner than the fancy fuel injected technology. Doing that is illegal, of course. Mandating the unchangability of pollution controls is another example of liberal foolishness. It's right up there with light rail transit. Grumble mumble. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 12:07:01 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SJ6qrI026370; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:06:54 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SJ6o9j026342; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:06:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:06:50 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <409000BF.3010804 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:06:39 -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: Spiffy new version of Miles paper References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428144212.01df4d90 mail.lenr-canr.org> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428144212.01df4d90 mail.lenr-canr.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <3VYMH.A.dbG.KDAkAB ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54272 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > I just uploaded a spiffy new version of a famous Miles paper: Sorry, I don't remember, but, are the discontinuities in figs. 29 through 33 in the original (beginning PDF file page 80)? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 13:03:08 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SK2r2u016296; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:02:54 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SK2mg5016253; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:02:48 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:02:48 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Message-ID: <85.a81985f.2dc167db aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:02:35 EDT Subject: What could this mean? To: vortex-l eskimo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_85.a81985f.2dc167db_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6800 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54273 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --part1_85.a81985f.2dc167db_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I got this email that the mail I sent contained a virus. I never sent an=20 email with to this address or ever sent an email with this subject. This ad= dress=20 is not in my mail folder. What could it mean? =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 V I R U S=A0 A L E R T =A0 Our viruschecker found a VIRUS in your email to "esposito napoli.infn.it= ". =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 We stopped delivery of this email! =A0 =A0 Now it is on you to check your system for viruses=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20= =A0=A0=20 =A0 For further information about this viruschecker see: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 http://amavis.org/ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 AMaViS - A Mail Virus Scanner, licenced GPL For your reference, here are the headers from your email: ------------------------- BEGIN HEADERS ----------------------------- >From fznidarsic aol.com=A0 Wed Apr 28 12:40:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: from napoli.infn.it ([211.231.9.84]) =A0 =A0 by mx1.na.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22877 =A0 =A0 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:40:57 +0200 From: fznidarsic aol.com Message-Id: <200404281040.MAA22877 mx1.na.infn.it> To: esposito napoli.infn.it Subject: Re: My details Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:42:38 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; =A0 =A0 boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_0006_0000616B.00006885" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) -------------------------- END HEADERS ------------------------------ --part1_85.a81985f.2dc167db_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I got this email that the mail I se= nt contained a virus. I never sent an email with to this address or ev= er sent an email with this subject. This address is not in my mail fol= der. What could it mean?

<snip>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 V I R U S=A0 A L E R T

=A0 Our viruschecker found a VIRUS in your email to "esposito napoli.infn.it= ".
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 We stopped delivery of this email!

=A0 =A0 Now it is on you to check your system for viruses=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20= =A0=A0

=A0 For further information about this viruschecker see:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 http://amavis.org/
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 AMaViS - A Mail Virus Scanner, licenced GPL

For your reference, here are the headers from your email:

------------------------- BEGIN HEADERS -----------------------------
>From fznidarsic aol.com=A0 Wed Apr 28 12:40:57 2004
Return-Path: <fznidarsic aol.com>
Received: from napoli.infn.it ([211.231.9.84])
=A0 =A0 by mx1.na.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22877
=A0 =A0 for <esposito napoli.infn.it>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:40:57 +0200=
From: fznidarsic aol.com
Message-Id: <200404281040.MAA22877 mx1.na.infn.it>
To: esposito napoli.infn.it
Subject: Re: My details
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:42:38 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
=A0 =A0 boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_0006_0000616B.00006885"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/)
-------------------------- END HEADERS ------------------------------

--part1_85.a81985f.2dc167db_boundary-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 13:10:46 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SKAarI010943; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:10:37 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SKAU4O010880; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:10:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:10:30 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428150012.01df4ff0 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:10:27 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Gas-guzzlers and such 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 ultra6.eskimo.com id i3SKAKrI010807 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54274 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: thomas malloy writes: > Green and clean and sustainability and the Easter Bunny are all myths > that the liberal dreamers believe in. They are the same people who > regard an electric vehicle as clean, when the truth is that, > recharged from a coal burning power plant, they produce twice as many > pounds of pollutants per vehicle mile as a diesel powered vehicle. That's not true. This issue has nothing to do with "liberals" or dreamers -- unless you think EPRI and the DoE are run by dreamers. It is engineering; you can look it up. Even the worst coal fired plants produce less pollution per joule of energy than conventional small diesel engines, and electric cars are much more efficient than any direct ICE engine design. The only thing that comes close is a hybrid ICE - electric. Most electricity comes from either modern coal fired plants, that produce very little pollution, or from other sources such as natural gas, nuclear or hydroelectric. Here is a wooly estimate of automotive diesel efficiency: http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/cleandieselautos.pdf "FACT: Clean diesel vehicles are more fuel-efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles, especially in stop-and-go city driving. On average, clean diesel vehicles achieve 20�40% better fuel economy than their gasoline-powered counterparts." Since gasoline ICE are 15% - 20% efficient, I suppose that means diesels are 25% - 30%, which is still well below hybrid designs. (Hybrid diesels are not much better than gasoline ICE, because both run at optimum speed.) Crank that through the tables in DoE, Hydrogen Program Plan FY 1993 - FY 1997, Exhibit A.2, Transportation Current Technologies: Crude oil/Gasoline 9.5 units starting energy converts to 1.0 unit of vehicle propulsion. Total Emissions (g/kWh delivered) CO2: 2,400 NOx: 4.2 SO2: (trace) This has the ICE at 15% efficient. Substitute 25% engines and you get: 5.6 units starting energy converts to 1.0 unit of vehicle propulsion. (Not sure how much pollution) Compare that to: Averaged Fossil Fuels/Electricity/Battery (electric car) 5.1 units starting energy converts to 1.0 unit of vehicle propulsion. Total Emissions (g/kWh delivered) CO2: 1,505 NOx: 4.2 SO2: 11.3 There is not much difference, BUT, bear in mind, a lot of electricity does not come from fossil fuels, and we could produce all the electricity we need from other sources, especially wind. (Of course it would cost a lot of money to build all those windmills and hydrogen pipelines, but not a lot compared to the alternatives. One or two more wars in the Middle East or another 20 years of OPEC would cost way more.) Since we do not presently have either diesel or electric cars, the real comparison should be made between advanced diesel engines (that might be sold in a few years), versus an electric car powered by a modern gas turbines and clean coal (that will be the main source of electricity in a few years, if Bush loses the election). The electric car comes out way ahead in both efficiency and pollution. But, as I said, an even better comparison should be between advanced diesel and wind powered automobiles (electric or hydrogen). Bear in mind the U.S. has the world's largest supply of reliable, accessible wind, in the Dakotas and Texas. This happens to be right in the middle of our fossil fuel supply pipeline system. We are sitting on energy resources as large as those of the Middle East, measured in potential power production (watts electric output versus maximum oil production), and about a million times larger measured in potential energy production (total output before the Middle East oil fields are exhausted in 50 years, and before the sun goes out in 4 billion years, and the wind stops blowing.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 13:15:58 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SKFirI012347; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:15:45 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SKFhtK012317; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:15:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:15:43 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <005e01c42d5d$34fb2820$8837fea9 cpq> From: "Jones Beene" To: References: <001a01c42c98$ffa0dcc0$8837fea9@cpq> <002201c42d44$f0545060$8837fea9@cpq> Subject: Revised: Kamada Experiment posting Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:13:01 -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 ultra6.eskimo.com id i3SKFWrI012263 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54275 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Due to a number of typos, plus one new idea and an attempt to clear up some confusion of terms in the previous post, here is a revised version. Reference to the experiment mentioned yesterday: JCF5 paper by Kamada and Yoshizawa: "Heating of Heavy Water by Acoustic Wave Propagation in Magnetic Field and Phonon Maser Action of Deuteron" at: http://wwwcf.elc.iwate-u.ac.jp/jcf/file/jcf5/jcf5_06.pdf As mentioned, there is the possibility that this experimenter has found, unbeknownst even to himself, another (and far more robust) technique to accomplish nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). More specifically, it is the premise of this posting that NMR is being used in a most unusual way - not for its typical use in imaging (as in MRI) but for its ability to sustain a loss-free, time-varying magnetic field at the nuclear level, in order to affect molecular and hydrogen bonding. It should be remembered that the magnetic field of the hydrogen atom from its orbiting electron is on the order of 12.5 T when felt at angstrom dimensions. A field of this intensity, when varied abnormally, is potentially able to make a substantial impact on the electrostatic attraction of ions, and consequently on normal molecular bonding. In effect, instead of the usual NMR technique where an EM wave (RF pulse) is being propagated through a low impedance material which has been polarized in a strong magnetic field, the researcher has substituted a kinetic wave of the same frequency, which is the result of irradiation by an ultrasonic transducer (a lead-niobate piezoelectric transducer). This sound wave is being propagated and coupled to deuterons due to a relatively high impedance in water for ultrasound and by the similarity in the propagation speed of the wave to the relative motion of the water molecule. This possibility of this being the correct explanation is reinforced by the fact that Kamada is using a 6 Mhz+ wave in a 900 milli-T field; and the resonance frequency for deuterons is very close to this number - assuming some slight modulation by the rest of the water molecule). Kamada has reprtedly achieved nearly a 100,000 to one gain (COP= 10^5 !!!) and the assumption would likely be (from readers on this forum) that such a gain must be related to a LENR effect, and Kamada clearly makes the point that the OU effect is absent in light water. If this effect any kind of pressure effect or is indeed a new form of NMR, then several possibilities emerge. 1) D+D cold fusion (Extremely Unlikely) 2) The NMR has cause a deuteron to 'fission' or split, releasing a neutron (unlikely but millions of time more probable than 1.) 3) The NMR has caused below-ground-state (hydrino) shrinkage OTOH we should be aware that LENR and NMR are miles apart thermodynamically, and if the effect is not LENR (as the source of excess energy), how could such a gain be possible without a nuclear reaction - just a resonance effect? Here is the way it could happen: 4) The NMR has caused an asymmetric water-splitting-recombination effect. The NMR in this last suggestion has accomplished no nuclear reaction but instead it has accomplished OU water-splitting-recombination of a previously undescribed non-electrochemical variety. In this process, intense time-varying magnetic action at the molecular level is able to loosen normal bonding parameters. Following this non-Faradaic water-splitting and immediate recombination of D+OD, some energy gain is realized from the asymmetry, and this small is multiplied over and over again - in effect, 'pumping' energy from the Dirac (zero point) field. This is the most likely explanation for the energy anomaly IMHO. Let's compare the energy transfer effects of ultrasonic irradiation to RF irradiation. With sound, but NOT with EM waves, we have both a *stressing of the medium* in addition to accelerating electric charges. You get the 'accelerating charge' effect with both inputs, as the water molecule is extremely polar and always expresses charge when joggled. But with sound input only, that accelerating charge effect can combine with a kinetic stressing (mass compression-decompression effect) just as in sonoluminescence. Importantly, the velocity of the sound wave is 10^8 times less than c, so it is more easily coupled to the highly polar water molecule. Water at the nanometer scale, is moving about the close to the same thermal velocity of the applied ultrasound wave, instead of 100 million times slower when compared to an EM wave - therefore, it is coupled to that sound wave extremely efficiently. This has the local effect which is the same as spinning around an extremely powerful magnet with a field that is felt at angstom dimensions of near 12.5 T. As to 'where' does any putative, huge amount of OU energy come from ultimately, if not from a nuclear reaction, I would suggest that it will be found to have originated with the capture of 3.4 eV photons. And the source of those photons is related to the decay energy of virtual Positronium (PS) which has a ionization decay of 6.8 eV, and which is always found at the interface of normal 3-space and Dirac's sea (or ZPE if you prefer). This space may be thought to "open up" at a precise geometric dimension that has proven relevance in physcis going back 50 years - that being the "Forster radius" - about 2 nm, which is probably the recoil distance found in the mechanical-stressing (compression-decompression effect) of the ultrasound, mentioned above. This ultimate photon source can be easily disproven by viewing the experiment in the dark, in the presence of a UV sensitive film or dye. First, of course, we have to duplicate this huge heat gain, with or without heavy water. If the extra heat which is realized (with COP of 10^5 is a result of NMR being translated into sequential non-Faradaic splitting/recombination of water, which IMHO is the most likely explanation, then there is no reason to assume that we need deuterium, instead of plain water. Kamada clearly makes the point that the effect is absent in light water, but IF he has missed the boat as to the underlying mechanics being NMR (which is the premise of this post), then that would be expected because light water would not respond to a frequency of 6 MHZ. So, when you miss the correct explanation then the statement that the effect is absent in plain water is meaningless. To discover if the effect will occur in light water, one needs much higher frequency, and an appropriate magnetic field strength because the Gamma for H (protons) is about 42.6 MHz/T. This presents another conundrum as ultrasound does not extends into that range, except at higher applied fields. The highest commercial ultrasound probe that I have been able to locate so far goes up to about 20 MHz which would mean that we would normally need a magnetic field in excess of 2.1 T. in order to get into the precise NMR range. I would expect that precision is critical for success, but unfortunately electromagnets would be required as no PMs can handle a field of 2.1 T. However, there is one alternative to an electromagnet. In conventional NMR, of course, nuclear spins are polarized by a large static magnetic field but that static field is not the only possibility. In sitautions where we are not interestied in precision imaging but only brute heat, then we are not interested at all in "pure" polarization but instead, in "relative" polarization. In energy situations, therefore, relative nuclear polarization could substitue for a staic field and be produced via microwave or optical pumping, such as with circularly polarized laser or maser light. The *good news* is the effect in light water, if it is an NMR effect, should be even more robust than in heavy water. At this combination of frequency and applied polarizing field, the potential effect should be far greater... but hey, most of us would settle for a COP of 100,000... no? Jones BTW, some years ago Dennis Letts invented and co-authored a paper with John Bockris on how the the NMR frequencies of Deuterium might be used to trigger the "cold fusion heat effect" in Deuterated Palladium. The paper was peer reviewed and published in FUSION TECHNOLOGY in 1994 : "Triggering of Heat and Sub-surface changes in Pd-D Systems." (Bockris, Sundaresan, Letts, Minevski). The 3 frequencies used by Letts are for the neutron, proton and the nucleus as a whole when sitting in the magnetic field created by the orbital electron (365 Mhz, 533mhz, 82 MHz when sitting in a 12.5 Tesla field from the electron). For an ion, the "spin flip" frequencies would be keyed to the strength of the external field rather than the intrinsic field. He demonstrated the effect in 1993 in the laboratories of ENECO in Salt Lake City, in the presence of two PhD's: Dr. John Bockris and Dr. Gale Thorne. He was able to demonstrate a clear connection between the presence of a few milliwatts of RF and increases of several watts in the thermal output of Deuterated Palladium systems but was never thereafter able to re-create the effect despite much effort. Is there something about Salt Lake City that "invites" anomalies? Maybe, but perhaps the effect was not really related to CF at all, and that was the problem. Perhaps the heat effect was an asymmetric water-splitting and recombination effect of the kind suggested above. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 13:21:01 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SKKqrI013527; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:20:54 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SKKpRK013500; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:20:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:20:51 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428161454.01e15bd0 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:20:50 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Spiffy new version of Miles 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/54276 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton writes: > Sorry, I don't remember, but, are the discontinuities in figs. 29 > through 33 in the original (beginning PDF file page 80)? Yup. They is. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 14:31:24 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SLVJrI002056; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:31:20 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SLVHmB002021; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:31:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:31:17 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <409022A6.8090609 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:31:18 -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: What could this mean? References: <85.a81985f.2dc167db aol.com> In-Reply-To: <85.a81985f.2dc167db 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/54277 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > I got this email that the mail I sent contained a virus. I never sent > an email with to this address or ever sent an email with this > subject. This address is not in my mail folder. What could it mean? Welcome to the world of spoofing. They snatch your email address and use it as the sender address as spam or to propogate a virus. http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/email_spoofing.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 14:35:53 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SLZirI003708; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:35:44 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SLZhh2003673; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:35:43 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:35:43 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: Subject: RE: Speed of gravity and diminishing gravity Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:02:10 -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: X-Rcpt-To: Resent-Message-ID: <_p1ej.A.R5.vOCkAB ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54278 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace writes: >The snippets below are almost hopelessly garbled, confused, and >unattributed to the authors. I hesitate to comment because I just don't >have time for this now. Yet you go ahead and do it. How pointless. >The above is a quote of Keith Nagel who appears at that point to either not >have read what I wrote or to be confused as to both the nature of the >isomorphism I proposed and its significance. Keith is also at that point >apparently focused more on terminology instead of the principles. Most certainly not on the first two points, but correct on the third. Rather than respond to rubbish, why not take a few moments to write about how you're using i in the context of mass. It's the one element of your isomorphism which seems different to me than what's been described by so many other authors on the subject. K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 16:32:46 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SNWYWx006973; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:32:35 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SNWLjf006895; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:32:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:32:21 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428191744.00b23590 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:31:00 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Think big. Think Bigger. 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/54279 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have been meaning to comment on what Ed Storms wrote: > The issue of waste heat is a nonstarter. The amount of heat being > generated by the earth itself, by the tides, and by solar flux is huge > compared to what mankind generates. Also, it radiates away in about a half-hour. In an article in I.E., I did a fairly careful analysis of overall waste heat from hypothetical CF systems versus present-day fossil fuel and electric power generation. I assumed that the efficiency of thermal energy conversion of heat into electricity, and heat into mechanical energy, would not improve -- because there would be no economic incentive to improve it. Despite this, I concluded that overall waste heat would be greatly reduced with CF. in other words, overall efficiency would be improved even though mechanical efficiency in each machine would not change. The main reason would be the use of decentralized electric generation. With clean fuel, this is inherently easier and cheaper, no matter what the fuel cost. (Even when the fuel cost is zero, as with CF, it is still advantageous.) That is why, for example, large Japanese office parks have gas-fired cogenerators. Ed made the same point: > CF has the HUGE advantage of being amenable to on-site power > generation, where you get maximum reuse of waste energy. Another huge advantage is that CF works well on a very small-scale. People do not realize that most energy demand is on a small-scale and much waste comes because of the mismatch between the size of our energy generators and the size of the machines that use the energy. Ideally, power supplies should be built into every device that requires energy, including pacemakers. Actually, the other day I found out that Pu-powered nuclear pacemakers have been used for quite a while. They last for 18 years. That is the kind of improved performance we will see with CF in every machine, and in every application. The only big disadvantage with Pu-pacemakers is when the patient dies, people sometimes forget to remove the pacemaker and they cremate it along with the body. > > "Why worry since slight solar fluctuations will dwarf anything we can do even with wide use of practical cold fusion engines?" > > While this is true, better energy sources would increase mindkind's ability to survive the consequence of global warming, > whatever its cause. It will take large amounts of energy to move the cities from the coasts (or isolate them with dikes and > pumping), to water land that has become too dry for normal farming, and to create local environments that would allow > comfortable living. We can think big here. Much Bigger. CF will give us far more power and material wealth than we have ever imagined. If substantial global warming from CO2 begins, we can use CF to remove the causes and reverse the trend. I mean we can remove the carbon from the atmosphere, combine it with water to make hydrocarbons (synthetic oil), and pump it under the deserts in Saudi Arabia. Or make synthetic coal and shovel it back underground. We can do this on massive scale, perhaps 10 times larger and faster than we are now doing it in the other direction. Most of the CO2 has been injected into the atmosphere in the last 100 years. We could put most of it back in 10 or 20 years. Of course this would cost a lot of money, but nowhere near as much as allowing global warming to continue. In any case, what other reasonable choice would we have? You may think that mankind could never rally, coordinate and spend money on vital projects such as this. But that is not the case. We are now engaged in a gigantic worldwide experiment injecting massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. The reasons we are doing this are frivolous -- even trivial. Future generations will find our actions inexplicable. There is no benefit to doing this. If we were to manufacture more efficient automobiles, better houses, more compact fluorescent light bulbs and so on, everyone would be more comfortable, healthier and safer. The US would be a member of OPEC, exporting oil. The only reason we have not done this is because our corporations are badly run, and our consumers and politicians are ignorant. Incidentally, Kyle Mcallister made some valid points about his particular situation and his automobile, but this is not applicable to the vast majority of consumers. Most people have enough money to buy the latest technology. A small minority -- including Kyle in this case -- will always find it better to use some obsolete or otherwise dysfunctional technology. This makes no difference. If Kyle and a few hundred thousand other people continue to use old automobiles while the rest of us convert to more modern machinery, pollution and oil shortages will vanish. Many people in rural Pennsylvania still burn firewood. This is inefficient and it causes a great deal of pollution per therm of space heating, but population density is low and these people have hundreds of acres of woods, so it costs them nothing. As long as they use reasonably modern, clean burning wood stoves, they cause no harm. On the other hand, when hundreds of thousands of people in built-up semi-urban areas in California burn wood, that causes problems. Imagine a project with 10 times as many "reverse oil wells" as we now have -- or 100,000 "coal un-mines" that bury millions of tons of solid carbon in the earth every year. That may seem unthinkable, but I expect we will have these and many more megaprojects in the not too distant future. If only we can make CF work! For example, I expect we will irrigate all of North Africa and much of the Gobi Desert. We will desalinate and deliver as much pure water worldwide as now flows in a good-sized river, say the Potomac or the Hudson. That may not seem like much, but if you could divert the entire Potomac River to North Africa, and ensure that it flows year round at the same rate (with no droughts) and you used advanced irrigation techniques developed by Israeli researchers, such as irrigating the roots, you could probably convert thousands of square kilometers into verdant farmland again. Once the conversion began, the weather patterns would change and the land would begin to irrigate itself. We would restore the landscape to what it was before we began destroying it around 1000 B.C. As a side benefit, we could extract from the stream of water most of the minerals and metals we need, and we could close down most mines. All this, and much more, becomes possible with CF. And it is utterly impossible with today's energy sources, such as fossil fuel. To accomplish these goals, we need 10 times more energy than we now have, we need it to cost a thousand times less money than we now pay, and to produces a million times less pollution. Continent-scale desalination projects with fossil fuels or even wind energy would be an ecological and economic nightmare. With CF they will be a valuable and highly profitable industry. It is as difficult for us to imagine how life might be in 50 years as it was for people in 1830 to imagine the world of 1880. These were by far the greatest decades of progress and change in history. Inventions such as the railroads, the telegraph, anesthetics, the record player and electric light or more astounding and have a more direct effect on people's lives in anything before or after. After 1880, people began to expect rapid change, so it was not as much of a shock to the common man when things such as the x-ray and the atomic bomb were revealed. I suspect that many people doing CF research do not realize what the consequences of their work may be, and how vitally important CF is. It will be FAR more than a clean "replacement" for present-day energy systems. "Replacement" is the wrong word. That is like saying a Pentium computer with a 100 gigabyte hard disk connected to the Internet is a replacement for a slide rule and a typewriter. CF will be quantitatively different by orders of magnitude, and qualitatively better in ways we cannot begin to imagine. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 16:39:10 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SNd1Wx009707; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:39:01 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3SNd0JK009687; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:39:00 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:39:00 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040428164254.00b13b20 mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:43:07 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: Think big. Think Bigger. In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428191744.00b23590 mail.lenr-canr.org> 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/54280 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Wow. S From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 18:45:49 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3T1jhWx010254; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:45:43 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3T1jgBT010241; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:45:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:45:42 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Titankey-e_id: <698baa91-93f5-4d5a-8686-016dfa0e3490> Message-ID: <002401c42d8b$a544f380$264eccd1 MIKEBY3NR533HT> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <85.a81985f.2dc167db aol.com> Subject: Re: What could this mean? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:45:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C42D6A.16CBE120" 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/54281 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C42D6A.16CBE120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't know. I've gotten similar messages, and my ISP says they aren't = harmful. I use Mailwasher to screen incoming email, bouncing unwanted = mai at the server. If that mail contained junk, the recipient of the = bounce could see such coming from me. Just speculation. Any experts? -- = Mike Carrell ----- Original Message -----=20 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com=20 To: vortex-l eskimo.com=20 Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 4:02 PM Subject: What could this mean? I got this email that the mail I sent contained a virus. I never sent = an email with to this address or ever sent an email with this subject. = This address is not in my mail folder. What could it mean? V I R U S A L E R T Our viruschecker found a VIRUS in your email to = "esposito napoli.infn.it". We stopped delivery of this email! Now it is on you to check your system for viruses =20 For further information about this viruschecker see: http://amavis.org/ AMaViS - A Mail Virus Scanner, licenced GPL For your reference, here are the headers from your email: ------------------------- BEGIN HEADERS ----------------------------- >From fznidarsic aol.com Wed Apr 28 12:40:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: from napoli.infn.it ([211.231.9.84]) by mx1.na.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22877 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:40:57 +0200 From: fznidarsic aol.com Message-Id: <200404281040.MAA22877 mx1.na.infn.it> To: esposito napoli.infn.it Subject: Re: My details Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:42:38 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_0006_0000616B.00006885" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) -------------------------- END HEADERS ------------------------------ ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C42D6A.16CBE120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't know. I've gotten similar = messages, and=20 my ISP says they aren't harmful. I use Mailwasher to screen incoming = email,=20 bouncing unwanted mai at the server. If that mail contained junk, the = recipient=20 of the bounce could see such coming from me. Just speculation. Any=20 experts? -- Mike Carrell

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 = 4:02=20 PM

Subject: What could this = mean?

I got this email that the mail I = sent contained=20 a virus. I never sent an email with to this address or ever sent = an=20 email with this subject. This address is not in my mail = folder. =20 What could it mean?

<snip>
=20    V I R U S A L E R T

Our viruschecker = found a=20 VIRUS in your email to "esposito@napoli.infn.it".
= =20    We stopped delivery of this=20 email!

Now it is on you to check your system for=20 viruses

For = further=20 information about this viruschecker see:
= =20    http://amavis.org/
= AMaViS -=20 A Mail Virus Scanner, licenced GPL

For your reference, = here are=20 the headers from your email:

------------------------- BEGIN = HEADERS=20 -----------------------------
>From fznidarsic aol.com Wed = Apr 28=20 12:40:57 2004
Return-Path: <fznidarsic aol.com>
Received: = from=20 napoli.infn.it ([211.231.9.84])
by mx1.na.infn.it=20 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22877
for=20 <esposito napoli.infn.it>; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:40:57 = +0200
From:=20 fznidarsic aol.com
Message-Id:=20 <200404281040.MAA22877 mx1.na.infn.it>
To:=20 esposito napoli.infn.it
Subject: Re: My details
Date: Wed, 28 = Apr 2004=20 19:42:38 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:=20 multipart/mixed;
=20 = boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_0006_0000616B.00006885"
X-Priority:=20 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by = AMaViS=20 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/)
-------------------------- END HEADERS=20 = ------------------------------

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C42D6A.16CBE120-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 20:26:10 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3T3Q2Mu011001; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:26:03 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3T3Podw010935; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:25:50 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:25:50 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f From: "explorecraft" To: Subject: RE: What could this mean? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:23:22 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C42DD3.FF7F51E0" 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 V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <85.a81985f.2dc167db aol.com> Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - lester.switchfusion.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - eskimo.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - explorecraft.com Resent-Message-ID: <-u_f1D.A.vqC.-WHkAB ultra5.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54282 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C42DD3.FF7F51E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is spam, by Amavis. -----Original Message----- From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com [mailto:FZNIDARSIC@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, 2004 April 29 03:03 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: What could this mean? =20 I got this email that the mail I sent contained a virus. I never sent = an email with to this address or ever sent an email with this subject. = This address is not in my mail folder. What could it mean? ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C42DD3.FF7F51E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is=20 spam, by Amavis.

-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 FZNIDARSIC aol.com [mailto:FZNIDARSIC@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, = 2004=20 April 29 03:03
To: vortex-l eskimo.com
Subject: What = could=20 this mean?

I got this email = that the=20 mail I sent contained a virus. I never sent an email with to this = address=20 or ever sent an email with this subject. This address is not in my = mail=20 folder. What could it = mean?
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C42DD3.FF7F51E0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Apr 28 21:43:31 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3T4hRMu001395; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:43:28 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3T4hPEl001371; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:43:25 -0700 Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:43:25 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-UNTD-OriginStamp: PuRpSoKrQ4GXGg1mfox2kUBvkV3d3zG9O6pnqVes/DFtfhS6fxfIrg== To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:45:41 -0500 Subject: Fw: Re: What could this mean? Message-ID: <20040428.234542.-104703.2.wardsworld juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_334b.5d29.2d53 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-6,8-10,15-17,20-25,27-33,34-32767 From: Ward Johanson Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54283 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_334b.5d29.2d53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ...and I get e-mails informing me that e-mails I never sent are returned undeliverable. My dad says he gets them also. I don't know. I've gotten similar messages, and my ISP says they aren't harmful. I use Mailwasher to screen incoming email, bouncing unwanted mai at the server. If that mail contained junk, the recipient of the bounce could see such coming from me. Just speculation. Any experts? -- Mike Carrell I got this email that the mail I sent contained a virus. I never sent an email with to this address or ever sent an email with this subject. This address is not in my mail folder. What could it mean? V I R U S A L E R T Our viruschecker found a VIRUS in your email to "esposito napoli.infn.it". We stopped delivery of this email! Now it is on you to check your system for viruses For further information about this viruschecker see: http://amavis.org/ AMaViS - A Mail Virus Scanner, licenced GPL ----__JNP_000_334b.5d29.2d53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
...and I get e-mails informing me that e-mails I never = sent=20 are returned undeliverable.

My dad says he gets them also.

I don't know. I've gotten similar = messages, and=20 my ISP says they aren't harmful. I use Mailwasher to screen incoming email,= =20 bouncing unwanted mai at the server. If that mail contained junk, the = recipient=20 of the bounce could see such coming from me. Just speculation. Any=20 experts? -- Mike Carrell

I got = this email that=20 the mail I sent contained a virus. I never sent an email with to = this=20 address or ever sent an email with this subject. This address is = not in=20 my mail folder. What could it mean?

<snip>
&= nbsp;=20    V I R U S A L E R T

Our=20 viruschecker found a VIRUS in your email to "esposito@napoli.infn.it".
= =20    We stopped delivery of this=20 email!

Now it is on you to check your system for=20 viruses

For = further=20 information about this viruschecker see:
&= nbsp;=20    http://amavis.org/
= AMaViS -=20 A Mail Virus Scanner, licenced=20 GPL

----__JNP_000_334b.5d29.2d53-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 01:28:21 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3T8SHWx009392; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:17 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3T8SFSL009365; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:15 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:15 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:35:30 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3, Part 1) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54284 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3) SOME BASIC ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO GRAVITONS In a quantum mechanics (QM) approach to gravity it is assumed that gravity, like the other forces, is carried by a messenger particle. This messenger particle is called a graviton. If gravitons carry the gravitational force then numerous questions and conflicts arise. If gravitons can interact with gravitons, as is typically thought of messenger particles, i.e. carry the gravitational force between themselves, then black holes would not be detectable in any way, even by their gravitational mass, because gravity itself could not escape them. If gravitons travel through space, then Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory, which shows gravity to be a side effect of the warping of space-time in the vicinity of mass, implies gravitons can not escape black holes for the same reason that photons can not, because space-time is too warped for them to escape. For these reasons, either GR is wrong or the QM approach to gravity is wrong, or gravitons do not travel through space-time as we know it, but rather through some other dimension or dimensions unrelated to space and time, but yet connecting all particles in space-time. The existence of such dimensions outside of space-time yet connecting every point of space-time would additionally help explain quantum entanglement, whereby information can be exchanged across the universe seemingly instantaneously. PHOTONS, ENERGY AND MASS Photons are today not thought to carry mass. However, it seems there is good reason to question this view. Energy and mass are involved in all photon exchanges. The universe may or may not spontaneously create mass and therefore energy from the vacuum, but it seems reasonable that in a given reference frame in this universe mass and energy must remain in the balance E/m = c^2. That is because photons carry momentum, and momentum corresponds to energy. By Plank's law, photons carry energy E: E = h*nu = h(c/lambda) and momentum p = h/lambda so photons always carry momentum and energy in the ratio E/p = h(c/lambda)/(h/lambda) = c Assume a photon is created by a nuclear event, where mass (delta m) is converted to energy at the exchange rate of E = (delta m) c^2, thus there is a loss of mass: (delta m) = E/c^2. This photon is thought, by conventional theory, to carry no mass, only the momentum p = E/c. However, to conserve momentum, a photon absorbed by a target mass must impart to the target mass an additional kinetic energy (delta K) corresponding to the change in velocity of the target due to the momentum change of the impacted mass, and if energy is conserved then (delta K)=E. However, by the special theory of relativity, that results in a corresponding increase in apparent mass of the absorbing body by the ratio (delta K)/c^2 = (delta m). So we have the mass (delta m) back! The photon carried mass (delta m) from one body to another. Therefore, in our rest frame, *both* mass and energy are conserved in such a photon exchange, as is the ratio E/m = c^2. The strange thing is that photons clearly carry mass from one place to another, i.e. do mass exchange in the end result, yet are thought to have no mass. Further, it is well known (from the lensing effects of stars) that photons are bent by gravity in an amount exactly equal to the amount a mass carrying body would be bent. It is said this proves space is warped about gravitational bodies, in that the supposedly mass-free photon travels the same path as a high speed mass carrying particle. It seems far more logical that the photon has mass, that gravitons act upon photons. Photons are trapped in a black hole by gravity. Strange that a photon traveling directly away from a black hole, a singularity, supposedly reverses course upon itself, retracing its path right back to the black hole! If this is because space is warped, how is it the photon has a path to retrace at all, and how is it that velocity c is maintained? Photons are thought to have no mass because the magnitude of their relativistic "momenergy" is zero, and this can only happen if their mass is zero. However, this approach to relativity does not consider he possibility that gravitational mass and inertial mass are not one and the same. A possible resolution of the apparent paradox is that the photon to carries gravitational mass, i.e. a gravitational charge, and yet carries zero inertial mass. The EM fields of the photon carry no net inertia. They do not self-interact because they travel at velocity C, thus virtual photons cannot achieve self-force exchange within the waveform required to create inertia. Then there is the principle issue of quantum gravity - the notion that gravity is exchanged by gravitons. If gravity is force exchange by gravitons, then the notion of warped space (in addition) provides a double apparent force, thus things are out of kilter. Is it graviton exchange that pulls the photon back to the black hole? If so, then the photon is capable of graviton exchange, and thus has mass. If it is not capable of graviton exchange, how is it that the photons are trapped by gravity, especially those on a course directly away from a singularity? It seems reasonable that some of the dark matter of the universe might be photons. They are only "dark" because they are not hitting our eyes. The kinetic pressure of photons should cause the universe to expand more rapidly, especially at the periphery, than predicted by mass gravitational and momentum considerations only. The effect in the center of the universe would be to create more apparent mass than expected, thought the mass density of photons in the vacuum of the universe would be exceedingly small. PHOTONS, GRAVITY, AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AND MOMENTUM To consider issues of conservation of energy and momentum we might engage in a thought experiment because a single inconsistency, a single violation of a law, invalidates the law. Suppose we are in a space ship near a black hole. Further suppose that, through very advanced technology, the space ship is able to skim a laser beam near the surface of the black hole in just such an orbit that it returns to the ship. Though the space-time metric does not allow such an orbit for matter, it does permit such an orbit for photons. We obtain thrust upon emitting the beam, and further by absorbing it upon its return. This thrust is due to the well known photon carried momentum. Further, due to our advanced technology, we can perfectly reflect or re-emit the beam, and continually repel ourselves from the black hole without the use of significant further energy. What is strange about all this? It is the lack of effect upon the black hole itself. Since (if) the photons have no gravitational mass, there is no gravitational attraction to the black hole, no mechanism of force on the black hole itself. This violates conservation of momentum, and thus conservation of energy as well. The photons change direction without a counter-force, thus violating Newton's laws. The photons, having no gravitational mass, neither warp space in the vicinity of the black hole nor exchange gravitons with the black hole. Let us assume for a moment that the photons merely bend about the black hole due to the warping of space, and that somehow space itself provides a mechanism for transmitting the counter-force to the black hole. If this is the case, then that force upon the black hole is indistinguishable from gravity itself, and thus *is* gravity. If the force between photons and mass precisely follows the gravitational rule, on both the photon and the mass, then how is it that force is distinguishable from gravity itself? Further, the photons carry and deliver mass. Is it not reasonable to assume they "have" mass? If photons do have mass then there is a seeming paradox that they can accelerate in zero time to speed c. However, as the mysteries of quantum mechanics and messenger particles go, this is not much of a paradox. Other than the fact we can not apply the formula m' = m * gamma to the photon, there is no reason that the photon can not still have zero rest mass, as the mass carried from place to place is incremental to and embodied in the masses which exchange the photon, not in the photon itself except during its journey. Inertial mass may in fact be separate and distinct from gravitational mass, and the instantaneous acceleration of the photon may indeed provide proof of that fact. When the photon is at "rest" it has already transferred its mass-energy to the body which has absorbed it. When in motion it has only one velocity, namely c. Its mass and energy is determined by the rest frame from which it is observed. Further, it may be questioned as to whether the photon actually has a journey, since in its reference frame the journey takes zero time. The path of its journey is thus laid out fully in advance of or at least at the moment of departure, and exists for the photon as a singularity in time. For the photon there is no oscillation, no frequency, no Newtonian effects, no process, no wavelength, merely an event. If time dilation is real, then the effects of gravity and every other form of possible interaction on a photon's set path must thus be worked out in, exist in, an instant. Gravity exchanges with the photon must exist in a framework independent of space-time. Similar truths would have to exist for the graviton if relativistic effects apply to the graviton. These strange qualities it seems makes photons and gravitons more alike than not alike, though to some extent they may in part exist in separate universes. The graviton must be incapable of exchanging gravity with itself, and must, when considered in the context of general relativity, exist at least partly outside of space-time. Despite the unfathomable nature of existence, in our limited framework of understanding, it seems more reasonable and consistent than not to assume that the photon has gravitational mass. However, assuming the contrary is also exciting, in that, as demonstrated by the above thought experiment, it opens the door to the possibilities of free energy and reaction mass free propulsion, since conservation of energy and momentum are no longer inviolable laws. CAUSALITY AND JEFIMENKO'S GRAVITY In establishing his correspondence between gravity and the electromagnetic field, based primarily on causality and the effects of retardation, Jefimenko, in *Causality, Electromagnetism, and Gravity*, creates the correspondence of G to -1/(4*Pi*epsilon_g_0) to -mu_g_0*c^2/(4*Pi). The term epsilon_g_0 here is the gravitational equivalent to the electrostatic permittivity of the vacuum epsilon_0, and mu_g_0 is the equivalent to the magnetic permeability of the vacuum mu_0, as will be explained below. Jefimenko's version of EM fully accounts for causality, i.e. the fact that a cause at a distance d can not precede the effect by time delta t which is less than d/c (or d/c_g in the case of gravity.) Jefimenko shows that causality justifies invention of the co-gravitational field K, analogous to B. This will be shown below to make a full gravitational-electromagnetic field isomorphism possible. Jefimenko demonstrates that B, and thus K, are merely computed quantities, secondary quantities that necessarily follow from the only true causes, the interaction of charge upon charge or mass upon mass. This provides strong evidence for the "real" existence of K, as "real" as B, i.e. that an (apparent) K can be observed experimentally to the same extent B can, though it is much more difficult to observe due to the extreme orders of magnitude involved. In other words, if causal electromagnetism is correct, then the causal gravity is also necessarily correct. The isomorphism holds by necessity because the full set of postulates have already been experimentally verified. However, if it turns out that causal electromagnetism is incorrect, and B exists in a real sense, then it does not follow that K can (any longer) be assumed to exist on the basis that it is merely a computed quantity, like energy. B and E are variable when the velocity of the observer is taken into account. This magnitude dependence on observer velocity is fully accounted for by causality treatment, because the relative velocity of the observer merely changes the apparent retardation. This aspect even more fully justifies Jefimenko's treatment of B as an artifact of charge motion. In Jefimenko's text the world of gravity and electromagnetism are maintained as separate worlds, and merely corresponded to each other. Jefimenko thus uses epsilon_0 in the gravity context to mean -1/(4*Pi*G), and mu_0 to mean -4*Pi*G/c^2. He also uses c to mean the speed of propagation of gravity. Here use the new notation epsilon_g_0 to mean the permittivity of space to gravity, mu_g_0 to mean permeability of space to co-gravity, and c_g to mean the speed of gravity propagation. So far there is really no change with the view of Jefimenko, only an extended notation. There are some immediate advantages to this notation, however. First it provides corresponding constants which could have been nicely used in the EM to gravity correspondences on page 104 of Jefimenko's book: *Causality, Electromagnetism, and Gravity*. Namely we could have the new Table 1, shown below. Electric Gravitational q m E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 mu_0 mu_g_0 Table 1: Initial Gravity-electromagnetism Isomorphism Correspondence Table However, this is still not ideal. We have a problem with signs, as it appears did Jefimenko, but which he remedies by placing minus signs in the corresponding formulae. The problem lies in the fact that, to maintain the convention that a positive force is repelling, we end up with sign problems between the force equations: Fg = G*(m1*m2/r) for gravity and Fe = k*(q1*q2/r^2) = (1/(4*Pi*epsilon_0))(q1*q2/r^2) for the Coulomb force. Jefimenko fixes this problem by making his epsilon_g_0 and mu_g_0 negative. Thus, in effect he has the gravitational equivalent to the above: Fg = G*(m1*m2/r) = (-1/(4*Pi*epsilon_g_0))*(m1*m2/r^2) His gravitational permittivity and co-gravitational permeability thus end up negative in order to preserve the correct sign on force. This eventually causes problems. An example is the Poynting vector correspondence: S = (1/mu_0) E x B vs the Jefimenko gravitational version: P = (c^2/(4*Pi*G)) K x g = (1/mu_g_0) K x g Note that Jefimenko here reverses K and G instead of using an arbitrarily placed minus sign. It appears that there is a handy way out of this lack of true isomorphism. That solution is to specify the sign of the mass charge in terms of i = (-1)^(1/2), the imaginary number i. Charge has sign, so why not mass? This then makes the isomorphism complete. We now have epsilon_g_0 = 1/(4*Pi*G) mu_g_0 = 4*Pi*G/(c_g)^2 and all the formulae then exactly correspond, including signs. The disadvantage to this approach is that the imaginary number i must be carried throughout the gravitational field units. Perhaps this is really an unexpected advantage though. Gravitational fields are imaginary, electromagnetic are real. There is then some hidden meaning to this? One is that the two worlds ARE for the most part disconnected. We have in fact an indication of field *dis-unification*. Additionally we have that anti-gravitational matter, if it exists as implied by symmetry, would then carry sign (-i). There are other immediate implications. Charge fields, being real, can never operate on gravitational mass. Gravitational masses, however, at least in pairs, or in the form of simultaneous co-fields g and K, it would appear at first glance can operate on electromagnetic fields. Alternatively, we might conjecture that all electromagnetic fields consist of an electromagnetic (real) and gravitational (imaginary) portion, and that the gravitational (imaginary) portion is very small in proportion to the electromagnetic (real) portion. More on this below. SPEED OF GRAVITY Jefimenko adapts his theory to account for general relativistic effects by adjusting the speed of gravity. He notes (p. 135 ff.) that to account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, that the speed of propagation of gravity must be about 0.3 c. We thus have c_g = 0.3 * c and we know that (c_g)^2 * epsilon_g_0 * mu_0_1 = 1 thus (0.09 c^2) * epsilon_g_0 * mu_0_1 = 1 and we also have mu_0 = (4/0.9)*Pi*G/c^2 We now have the full correspondence: Electric Gravitational q m * i E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 = 1.192602x10^9 kg s^2/m^3 mu_0 mu_g_0 = 1.037x10^-25 m/kg c c_g = = 8.99x10^7 m/s Table 2: Gravity-electromagnetism Isomorphism Correspondence Table where we now (roughly) know epsilon_g_0, mu_g_0, and c_g, and gravitational mass is expressed in terms of imaginary units i. J_g is mass current. Inertial mass everywhere in relativistic cases is the relativistic mass m0*gamma. We have a complete field isomorphism. This isomorphism implies both a connection, as well as disconnection, between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields. We have achieved a form of "field dis-unification." The existence of i in some resulting equations distinctly and permanently isolates the purely gravitational fields and masses from electromagnetic components. We also now have computed fundamental constants: c_g, epsilon_g_0, and mu_g_0, as they must be according to Jefimenko's theory. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 01:28:43 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3T8SZWx009557; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:35 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3T8SYfu009531; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:34 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:35:47 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3, Part 2) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54285 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3, Part 2) THE PROPOSED ISOMORPHISM IS NOT LIMITED TO JEFIMENKO'S VISION OF EM Any complete theory of electromagnetism, including electromagnetism within the framework of relativity, can be used to create an isomorphism between electromagnetism and gravity, provided B in the theory is not real in the sense it is simply a byproduct of the other laws of the electromagnetic theory, and the electromagnetic vector potential function can be be derived from the (retarded) motion of charge. Jefimenko showed that the law of causality, if postulated, ensures that B meets this criteria. It is suggested here that the subject isomorphism can be established by first measuring or establishing the rate of propagation of gravity, c_g. We then can compute the permeability of space to co-gravity: mu_g_0 = 4*Pi*G/(c_g)^2 and the permittivity of space to gravity: epsilon_g_0 = 1/(4*Pi*G). We now establish the isomorphism by applying the following rules to every electromagnetic law in order to obtain corresponding gravitational laws. Replace c, mu_0 and epsilon_0 with corresponding terms c_g, mu_g_0, and epsilon_g_0 above. Co-gravity K is defined as the gravitational equivalent to (corresponds under the isomorphism to) B, the magnetic field intensity B. Gravity g is defined as the gravitational equivalent of the electrostatic field E. Wherever charge is used, gravitational mass (gravitational charge) is substituted, with the sign of the charge removed (if ordinary matter is involved, i.e. not anti-gravitational matter) and replaced by the imaginary number i. J_g is the mass current vector corresponding to current density vector J. The magnetic field can in some circumstances be shown to be fully the result of special relativity effects (for example see *The Electromagnetic Field*, Albert Shadowitz). This then provides a means to obtain a gravity-electromagnetic field isomorphism independent of Jefimenko's approach. It is possibly reasonable to expect that c_g = c will yield valid results when the full ramifications of relativity are applied. However, if gravitons exist in dimensions entirely independent of space-time, then such an expectation may be unwarranted. It may also be that there exists relativistic considerations, and there are certainly causality or retardation considerations in the domain of the graviton which are based on c_g instead of c. Further, if space-time for the electromagnetic subspace is warped by gravity in some fashion, the subspace for gravitons, the imaginary subspace, can not be warped, thus the ratio of c/c_g may actually vary near massive objects. NEWTON'S LAWS Equations involving a single mass term, like Newton's description of inertia: F = m*a would seem, under the rules of the isomorphism, to produce an imaginary force ... if the m were a gravitational mass. The m must therefore be an inertial mass component of the affected body, it must be "real" and thus associated with an electrostatic field. A mechanism for producing such a force has long been theorized. That mechanism is due to the need for charged particle, e.g. the electron, to have a finite radius. If the electron did not have a finite radius, its field would contain an infinite energy and mass. Given that the electron has a finite radius, it must be composed of multiple mass portions, a mass portion associated with charge, and a mass portion associated with maintaining the structural integrity of the electron. Further, since the electron has a finite size, movement of one portion of the electron is "sensed" by other portions only in a delayed or "retarded" fashion. This delay results in a net self-force on the electron during acceleration, and thus increased inertia. The electromagnetic self-force accounts for most of the inertia of the electron. Exactly what percentage depends on the distribution of charge in the electron waveform. There possibly can be an inertial component to the gravitational mass or there must be some other component of the electron with inertial mass, as well as the electromagnetic inertial mass, if the full inertia of the electron is to be explained. (see papers by Ibbotson.) This is especially true for heavier leptons. MORE ON MASS COMPONENTS To summarize the conceptualization presented here thus far in a variation of Jefimenko's vision of gravity and electromagnetism, called here the EM_GK Isomorphism Theory, charged particles have both an electromagnetic mass and a gravitational mass component. Fields themselves thus far may or may not have a gravitational mass component. Inertia, however, is in the electron principally a function of the electromagnetic component of mass, and is due to the self-force of a charged particle when it accelerates. That self-force is due to the finite size of the charge, and the delay of force from one part of the charge to other parts over a finite distance. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are differing things with differing causes. The causes are charge and gravitational charge respectively. No attempt is made here to account for the inertial and gravitational mass of hadrons, heavy It is of interest that electromagnetic retarded self-forces in the electron were used to predict m=m0*gamma before relativity was even invented. It seems that the two kinds of mass are only correlated in our minds, and by their fixed proportion in the environments where we have done gravitational experiments. If gravity and light exist in isomorphic yet partially independent worlds, and if inertia is primarily a result of an electromagnetic (and strong force or other field) self-force of matter upon its own waveform, then by that isomorphism the gravitational portion of mass may itself have an analogous inertia which exists purely in the dimensions occupied by gravitons. There are thus two components to mass, the inertial mass component and the gravitational charge component. The fact the photon carries no inertial mass seems to dispel the notion that gravitational charge carries inertial mass. Gravity can not act upon the gravitational field carriers, but thus far might possibly be considered to act upon the electromagnetic field, i.e. upon virtual photons, and certainly upon photons. Otherwise, black holes could not exist. If gravitons affected gravitons, black holes would cease to exert gravitational forces. If gravitons did not affect electromagnetic fields, then it appears at fist consideration that photons would not be prevented from exiting black holes, and black holes would not exist. However, if gravitational charge exists entirely separate from electrostatic charge, then this may not be so. Much more on this below. If this conceptualization, The EM_GK Isomorphism Theory, is even roughly correct, then attempts at artificial gravity and electrogravity and even a fully unified field theory are likely to fail. The exciting thing, though, is that inertial mass might be manipulated to some degree by electromagnetics, and that has significant implications for both space travel and energy generation. MASS HALOS We will now dispel the possibility that electromagnetic fields carry a gravitational component, i.e. that gravitons act upon virtual photons or that electromagnetic fields carry gravitational mass. In other words, it will be shown that under the EM-GK Isomorphism, virtual photons can not carry a gravitational charge. When a pair of nearby charged particles are viewed from a distant perspective, they form a dipole field that dissipates in a 1/r^3 manner. Their fields are said to "superposition" and thus cancel. However, if fields carry a mass component, an imaginary gravitational mass component that is, this component will not superposition. The gravitational component terms will add independently, irrespective of the polarity of charges generating a super positioned field, because they each are positive and contain the factor i. We thus end up with a mass flow about any neutral mass equivalent to the mass of the electrostatic field that would exist if all the charges in that neutral mass were of the same polarity. Electrostatic fields are said to consist of virtual photon flows. According to the theory being advanced here, these virtual photons must at all points have an electromagnetic inertial mass component, and thus carry momentum, but lacking any imaginary portion, they cannot carry any gravitational component. Let us now assume for a while that electromagnetic fields have mass. A difference in charge might be viewed as a difference in time's arrow. Positive charge might absorb virtual photons and negative charge emit virtual photons, or vice versa. If not, and virtual photons have polarity, then there is a mass flow away and only away from any mass. Otherwise, there are matching mass flows into and out of any neutral mass. In either case, any mass has a large mass halo. The virtual photons flowing from neutral matter carry the vibrational energy signature of the emitting sources in addition to the momenta and presently assumed mass of the virtual photons. We will now attempt to quantify the size of the mass halo which must exist if electromagnetic fields carry gravitational mass, i.e. carry an imaginary portion under the proposed theory. The majority of the ordinary matter of interest here is composed of charged particles, i.e. either quarks having -1/3 or +2/3 the charge of an electron, or electrons themselves. Up quarks carry +2/3 q_e, or 2/3 the charge of an electron but opposite in sign. Down quarks carry 1/3 q_e. Even neutrons carry charged quarks, so must be accounted for in the tabulation of components of a mass halo. For purposes of computing the mass halo density, we are interested in knowing the density of absolute charge in matter, not net charge. Protons carry two up quarks and one down quark, thus carry a total of absolute charge of 4/3 q_e. Neutrons carry two down quarks and one up quark, and thus have no net charge, yet carry an absolute charge of 4/3 q_e. If we assume roughly 1.1 neutrons per proton in the matter of interest, then we have an average absolute charge density of: rho_c = ( 1.1*(4/3 q_e) + (4/3 q_e) + q_e)/(1.1 m_n + m_p + m_e) rho_c = 1.732x10^8 coul/kg The mass of the earth is 5.975x10^24 kg, so the earth carries an absolute charge of about 1.0375x10^33 coulombs. The mass of the sun is about 1.98x10^30 kg, so it carries an absolute charge of 3.43x10^38 coulombs. Given an electrostatic field E from charge q, at radius r we have: E = q/(4 Pi e_0 r^2) and thus the energy density rho_energy is given by: rho_energy = (e_0/2) E^2 = q^2/(32 Pi^2 e_0 r^4) and given that the energy is equal to m*c^2, we have rho_mass = rho_energy/c^2 so: rho_mass = q^2/(32 Pi e_0 c^2 r^4) and thus the density of mass in the mass halo is proportional to 1/r^4. Using 4 Pi r^2 dr as a volume element, we integrate to obtain total halo mass in a region: m_halo = integral of q^2/(8 Pi e_0 r^2 c^2) and the mass of the halo from r_1 to r_2 is given by: m_halo = (q^2/(8 Pi e_0 c^2) (1/r1 - 1/r2) and integrating from r1 to infinity we thus have total external halo mass m_t: m_t = (q^2/(8 Pi e_0 c^2)) (1/r1) Using 1.21x10^17 coulombs for the earth, and a radius of 3.185x10^6 m, and making the very imperfect assumption that all the charge is located at the center of the earth, we obtain a minimum external mass halo for the earth of: m_t_earth = (1.0375x10^33 C)^2/(8 Pi e_0 c^2) (1/(6.371x10^6 m)) m_t_earth = 8.45x10^51 kg m_t_earth / m_earth = (8.45x10^51 kg)/(5.975x10^24 kg) = 1.41x10^27 This is an enormous halo mass. We have not considered yet the ratio of the inertial mass portion to the gravitational mass portion. If here is any validity to this theory at all, then it is clear that the gravitational portion of the mass of the electromagnetic field must be very small indeed, much much less than 10^-27 of the total inertial mass of the electromagnetic field. Otherwise orbital mechanics applied to earth satellites would very quickly show us some gravitational anomalies. The apparent mass of the earth would increase with radius, and this would cause precession of the perigee. The mass halo also has implications to the quantity of recession of the perihelion of Mercury, and thus to the velocity of gravity that Jefimenko selected. It is further notable that the proportions of gravitational and inertial masses in electromagnetic fields need not be the same as that for ordinary matter. However, it would seem that the gravitational component of mass in an electromagnetic field can not be zero, else black holes can not exist. This seems to represent a crisis to the theory. There is a possible resolution to this crisis. Our initial assumption that electromagnetic fields carry gravitational mass was wrong. Electromagnetic field forces are carried by "virtual photons" and if virtual photons do not interact with gravitons then the need for the huge mass of the mass halo disappears. The implications of this fact are significant. Even though light itself can not escape black holes, electromagnetic fields can! Back holes might carry signatures of the angular momentum of their mass constituents in the form of massive magnetic fields. They can carry a net electrostatic charge that affects neighboring space. It is only when electromagnetic fields break free of inertial mass, i.e. are photons, that they carry the ability to interact with gravitons. Electromagnetic fields can only break free in the form of photons. Considering that quantum entanglement between the mass carrying particle and the photon it creates can exist, it is perfectly logical that such a space-time independent link exists via the graviton dimensions between the originating gravitational mass and the gravitational charge associated with an entangled photon. GRAVITATIONAL ZPE Gravitons may be assumed to be entities which isomorphically exist in a set of dimensions in part independent from their cousins the photons. Gravitons thus have their own independent but isomorphic constant speed c_g which is meaningful in the graviton-visible universe. The full extent of the isomorphism requires significant effort to reveal the full ramifications. However, when phenomena exist in the electromagnetic universe it is reasonable to expect analogous phenomena in the gravitational universe, and further for these phenomena to interact to some extent in the combined universe. The thermal motions of small charge pieces of mater in the universe is said by some to create zero point energy (ZPE) which accounts for the Zitterbewegung of matter. There must then be a gravitational equivalent to ZPE, a gravity wave equivalent to the zero point field (ZPF), due to the thermal vibration of matter throughout the universe. It is therefore a logical conclusion that the ZPF, with its cubical energy distribution by frequency, has two components, an electromagnetic component, and a gravitational component, though the gravitational component may be so small as to be undetectable. However, it may be that there exists a 1/r^3 distribution dipole field, both electromagnetic and gravitational, which also has a 1/r^3 energy to frequency distribution, that is in fact detectable close to large masses. NOTATION AND NOMENCLATURE RELATED TO GRAVITATION The EM-GK isomorphism provides analogs to a vast quantity of physical laws, formulae and terms. This can cause much confusion in the process of attempting to assign names and symbols the gravitational analog items. To be consistent, and end terminology confusion, when discussing or expanding the isomorphism proposed here between the electromagnetic (EM) and gravikinetic (GK) fields, when referring to a gravitational feature the analogous term borrowed from the EM universe should be prefixed with "gravi" to indicate that that analogous feature is in the GK universe. If it is not appropriate to prefix a term with "gravi" then it can be preceded with the adjective "gravitational". Under the proposed EM-GK isomorphism every variable, every formula, every unit in EM has a corresponding value, a gravitational analog. The formulas and variables from the EM world should be used faithfully, and simply subscripted where necessary with a g to designate the GK analog. The exceptions to these rules are the variables g, and G, and co-gravitational field K, which is hereby now called the gravimagnetic field K, which are symbols that already have specific meanings. Based on the above principles, the following are sample correspondences: electrostatic field E: gravitational field g magnetic field B: gravimagnetic field K electromagnetic (EM) : gravikinetic (GK) (a necessary rule exception) charge: gravicharge (an imaginary quantity in units of +i kg, or possibly -i kg, not to be confused with mass) current: gravicurrent (an imaginary quantity in units of +i kg/s) magnet: gravimagnet monopole: gravimonopole Poynting vector P: gravitational Poynting vector P_g ohm (omega): graviohm (omega_g) permittivity (epsilon) : gravipermittivity (epsilon_g) permeability (mu) : gravipermeability (mu_g) lightspeed (c): gravispeed (c_g) impedance of the vacuum (nu): graviimpedence of the vacuum (nu_g) Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism: Maxwell's laws of gravikinetics Gauss' Law of electric flux: Gauss' Law of gravitational flux Laplace's Law of Electrostatic potential: Laplace's Law of Gravitational Potential Similar terminology should be used when applied to the laws of Lenz, Biot-Savart, Ampere, Ohm, etc. This approach puts an end to the need for all kinds of special terms and variables. Also, when the meaning is clear, one can simply dispense with the g subscripts, and thus incur no notation overhead whatsoever. Note that this approach would not work well if the isomorphism were not complete. SOME COMPUTATIONS Let's try a sample calculation using the isomorphism. The mass of the earth is m_t_earth = 5.98x10^24 kg. The radius of earth is 6378 m. The moment of inertia for a sphere of radius r and mass M is (2/5) M r. For estimating purposes, considering the iron core, we might assume the mass is located in a ring of radius 2300 km, rotating once every day, i.e. at 2*Pi*2300 km/day = 167 m/s. The gravicurrent is (5.98x10^24 kg i kg)/day = 6.92x10^41 i kg/s. Note that i here is the imaginary number (-1)^(1/2). The gravimagnetic dipole moment mu_k of the earth's gravicurrent is thus the gravicurrent times the area of the current loop, or (6.92x10^41 i kg/s)(Pi*(2300 km)^2) gives: mu_k_earth = 1.15x10^55 i kg m^2/s Let us now compute the gravimagnetic dipole moment of a spinning steel ball of radius 1 cm spinning at 30,000 rpm. The volume of the ball is 4/3 Pi (1 cm)^3 = 4.189 cm^3, so its mass is about (7.14 g/cm^3)(4.189 cm^3) = 29.9 gm = .0299 kg. This is effectively spinning at a radius of .004 m, so has a velocity of (30000*2*Pi*.4 cm)/(60 s) = 12.56 m/s. The mass turns 30000 rpm/(60 s/m) = 550 rps and thus gravicurrent of (.0299 i kg)(500/s) = 14.95 i kg/s. The gravimagnetic dipole moment is thus the gravimagnetic dipole moment mu_k of the steel ball's gravicurrent is thus that gravicurrent times the area of the gravicurrent loop, or (14.95 i kg/s)(Pi*(.004 m)^2) gives: mu_k_ball = 7.51x10^-4 i kg m^2/s To properly calculate the gravimagnetic force between the earth and spinning steel ball, we might use a computer program to fully integrate the gravimagnetic field in the presence of the steel ball considering the density of the earth at each radius. However, for the sake of a first try at estimating the gravimagnetic field force we can simply assume the earth's gravimagnetic field to be due to a gravimagnetic dipole located at the center of the earth in the plane of the equator. The EM force between two magnetic dipoles mutually aligned on their axes is: F_mu = [-3 mu0/(2 Pi)] Mu_1 Mu_2 / r^4 Note that a positive force is repelling. Two mutually aligned gravicurrent coils (rings) generate an attracting force because their fields are aligned N-S ... N-S. For convenience, let's use Jefimenko's value of mu_g_0 = 1.037x10^-25 m/kg in order to convert the above into the isomorphic gravitational analog for the earth and ball: F_mu_g = [-3 mu_0_g/(2 Pi)] Mu_1 Mu_2 / r^4 F_mu_g = [-3 mu_0_g/(2 Pi)] mu_k_earth mu_k_ball / r^4 where Mu_1 and Mu_2 are gravimagnetic dipole moments expressed in units of [i kg/(m s)] and the separation distance r is in meters. For simplicity's sake let's assume the experiment is performed at the north pole. This gives r = 6378 m and the force is: F_mu_g = [-3 (1.037x10^-25 m/kg)/(2 Pi)] * (1.15x10^55 i kg m^2/s) * (7.51x10^-4 i kg m^2/s) / (6378 km)^4 = [4.95x10^-26 m/kg] * (1.765x10^51 kg^2 m^4/s^2) / 1.655x10^27 m^4 = .0528 N = 5.38 gf and we seem to be way off. However, if we use c_g = c we have: mu_g_0 = 4*Pi*G/c^2 = 9.3295973x10^-27 m/kg and the ratio of the two gravipermeabilities is (9.3295973x10^-27 m/kg)/(1.037x10^-25 m/kg) = 0.09 and we get a force of (5.38 gf)*0.09) = 0.484 gf, which is still too high. This gives an acceleration due to kinetic force of (0.484 gf)/(29.9 gm) = 0.01619 g. However, the assumptions provide only a crude estimate of the force. A careful integration of the co-gravitational field of the earth is required. Also, the approximation to the force between dipoles used here is only valid at much larger (relative) distances. It is not valid up close to the earth. A finite element approach may be the best way to get accurate results for this kind of problem. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 01:28:52 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3T8SlWx009737; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:47 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3T8Sk4H009714; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:46 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:46 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:36:06 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3, Part 3) Resent-Message-ID: <1oZx8.A.uXC.-yLkAB ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54286 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3, Part 3) RATIO OF INERTIAL MASS TO GRAVITATIONAL MASS It sometimes is noted as strange that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal. The EM_GK Isomorphic Theory shows that this coincidence is one of our own making, and thus an illusion. The kg weight and kgf force unit are related so nicely only by the fact that we live on earth, and that earth is fairly spherical, so g_earth is fairly constant at the surface. If our physicist ancestors lived on a planet where g was 3 times that of earth, the kgf would be 3 times as large and after setting that standard, i.e a kg weight being 3 times ours, the G they would subsequently discover or determine would be larger by a factor of 9 (than the G we earthlings "discovered") in order to compensate for that choice of definition of units of weight, i.e. gravitational mass. What is actually constant in our comparatively low gravity environment is the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass. Our perception that the two masses (actually mass and weight) are equal then is flawed, but our earthling determined value of G compensates for this. Under the isomorphic theory of gravity proposed, what is important is that some particles, like the photon, consist of quantized chunks of gravitational mass and quantized chunks of inertial mass which are bound together. If there is only one chunk of each, or a fixed ratio of such chunks, then the ratio of the two kinds of mass must always be constant, unless changed by relativistic effects involving differing messenger particle velocities. An increase in the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass would appear to be a slowing of time, because all physical clocks, having higher inertial mass, would appear to be slow. ANTI-MASS RADIATING BLACK HOLES If both positive charge mass (units of +i kg) and negative charge mass (units of -i kg), i.e. anti-mass, exist, and two particles carrying opposite mass charges are matter and antimatter to each other, then an amazing phenomenon can possibly happen if and when a black hole singularity becomes massive enough. The black hole can radiate mass having the opposite mass charge from that which the black holes has. In other words, when a black hole gets large enough it should spew forth at near light speed large amounts of matter that is anti-mass to the mass of which the black hole is made. As the gravitational field strength in a locality grows, so then does the probability that a mass-anti-mass pair fluctuating in and out of the vacuum can be permanently separated by that gravitational field. The particle having the same mass charge as the black hole quickly disappears into the singularity, or some approximation thereof. The anti-mass particle, however, is immediately blown out of the black hole with enormous energy. The event horizon for the anti-mass particle does not exist. Such an event does not just happen at an event horizon, but rather throughout a spherical volume about the singularity. The larger the singularity, the more anti-mass flow that can be expected out of the black hole, because the flow grows as the 3/2 power of the mass of the black hole. This is a fairly scary concept, because it means that once a critical mass is formed, a black hole can explode continuously in size without boundaries. It can suck up all the matter the vacuum can feed it. Its event horizon then grows at an exponential rate, as does its mass and rate of anti-mass radiation. Fortunately, this is not a likely possibility, because the gravicharge of the photon is very small, thus the quantum of gravitational charge must correspond to a small energy. Anti-gravitational matter it seems should be more commonplace. One possibility (other than denial of the proposed EM-GK isomorphism) that precludes this scenario is that matter and antimatter particles must all have identical mass charges. This is a very reasonable possibility. If mass-anti-mass pairs formed from the vacuum, they would not need a black hole to proliferate. They would self-repel. So, a more logical possibility then is that if anti-mass particle pairs exist, then, when they are created by vacuum fluctuations, their matter-anti-matter particles have differing electrostatic charges, but the same gravitational mass-charge. Such particles could thus have very large energies. In this way such particles can quickly annihilate and return to the vacuum from which they spring with far less frequency than electron-positron pairs. This also gets us around the problem of the exponentially exploding event horizon radius. It does not eliminate the possibility that black holes above some limit in mass will radiate near light-speed anti-mass particles. The reason for this is that when a particle pair separates within a fixed radius shell, and thus separate in a direction along a tangent to that shell, both particles are accelerated outward away from the black hole, and indefinitely separate, provided the tidal force that separates them (they each lie on separate diverging radii) is large enough. We thus see that the neighborhood in the locality of huge black holes could be filled with objects made of anti-mass, including anti-mass black holes (anti-mass attracts itself). Such a neighborhood would appear to gradually take on an increasingly weaker gravitational constant. Some visible (or even invisible) bodies consisting a mostly anti-mass would take on maverick motional characteristics. All highly speculative, yet all a direct and immediate consequence of the EM-GK Isomorphism Theory. Various particles are suggested by the resulting symmetries, including gravimonopoles. POSSIBLE FUTURE RESEARCH If gravitational charge m*i exists as posited here, it is reasonable to expect it to be quantized. Such a quantization might be detected via the lensing effect. The rate of the curvature of photons around heavy masses may exhibit quantum jumps as the spectrum is scanned. This is because the photon wavelengths can exist in a continuum of energy levels, while the photon gravitational mass may be quantized, and not affected relativistically the same as inertial mass, thus distinct "curvature lines" may develop when images are produced for only a specific wavelength if photons can carry multiple gravitational charges. Under this theory, the proven lack of gravitational mass in electromagnetic fields, the lack of interaction between gravitons and virtual photons, resolves long standing issues regarding the theory of the zero point field (ZPF). It has been a matter of controversy (see papers by Puthoff and Ibbotson referring the the SED theory) as to whether the ZPF is carried by virtual or real photons. Further, a long standing objection to the ZPF concept has been that, to maintain an energy/mass ratio of c^2 the density rho of the ZPF in the vacuum would be astronomical in size if the cutoff frequency of the cubic energy distribution occurs at a Plank wavelength. This theory clearly resolves these issues by showing that no such high rho is required provided the ZPF is carried by virtual photons. Further, if a means can be found to interact with the colossal ZPF virtual photon flow, enormous amounts of inertial reaction mass is available from the vacuum. Also of immediate interest is that existing determinations of G may be off due to a failure to consider the effects of the gravimagnetic field K, which is a dipole field and thus diminishes as 1/r^3. Satellites in polar orbits, or better, in orbits contrary to the earth's rotation, though in exactly the same orbits altitude wise, should experience slightly differing values of g, thus their orbital times should differ slightly. A true value of G can be determined by careful direct measurement of orbital parameters and times (without using G in the calculation), and then back computing G with corrections for the effects of the co-gravitational field K. Since nearby celestial bodies, lunar and solar orbits, and even galaxies tend to rotate in the same direction, close range G and long range G values should vary fairly consistently with distance, giving the entirely wrong impression of a super-gravitational repelling force and limiting the accuracy with which we can know G and the actual gravitational masses of celestial bodies. Further, due to orbits having eccentricity, a failure to correct for the apparent change of G with distance is a failure to properly account for the resulting orbital precession. Also of possible interest is determination of the magnitude of the gravimagnetic field of the Milky Way galaxy. Since much of the mass of the galaxy is located at the center, much of it in black holes and neutron stars, it is not possible to estimate the gravimagnetic dipole moment of the galaxy center. This quantity must be directly measured. Such a field, if significant in size, may be of use in interstellar or even interplanetary journeys. CONCLUSION There remains much work to do to consider the ramifications of the EM-GK isomorphism presented here, and its logical consequences. Inconsistencies with reality are likely. However, the mathematical nature of the isomorphism of fields that can be formed is provable based on various palatable premises, and a natural consequence of the nature of space and time, thus this gives some credence to deduced consequences. Innumerable electromagnetic equations can now be directly applied to gravitational calculations. Each of Maxwell's laws, for example, have a precisely defined gravitational equivalent. The practical consequences of this could be significant. Also important is the fact that many attempts to fully unify gravity and electromagnetism may be in vain, as their domains do not fully intersect. The theory indicates the principle available paths to obtaining powerful space drives and heavy lifters via electromagnetic means is via the electromagnetic modification of inertial mass or (by some unknown means) gaining a purchase on the vacuum. The gravimagnetic field might be of practical use, but its use appears very limited as a primary locomotion means compared to possible uses of the vacuum, the zero point field. The proposed isomorphism is indeed a very simple and minor advance, if that, and yet it seems strangely powerful. The proposed EM-GK isomorphic theory was built on the retardation theory published by Jefimenko. However, he did not establish a true isomorphism, so had to manually tweak the signs of various formulae to get things right. Further, Jefimenko had no means from his theory to discover that virtual photons carry no gravitational charge, and that photons do carry gravitational charge, nor a means to recognize that additional unfolded dimensions are required to describe gravity. He had no means of discovering an answer to the old problem as to why the zero point field is not massive in a gravitational sense. Jefimenko had no means to instantly recognize that Newton's F = m*a describes something principally in the world of electromagnetism, that inertia is principally electromagnetic, or at least not gravity related. The symmetries provided by the proposed EM-GK isomorphism suggest the possibilities of many new particles, and possibly a great expansion to the field of relativity, which Jefimenko's work does not fully embrace. Further suggested are implications to the mechanics of black holes, the possible existence of negative gravitational charge matter spewing forth from large black holes. The theory also suggests possible errors in our determination of G, and possible explanations for inconsistent results in some co-gravitation experiments. Possibly most importantly, theoretically speaking, if the subject theory has any veracity, it in large part *dis-unifies* electromagnetism and gravity. It demonstrates why true field unification may be so elusive. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 02:52:24 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3T9qIMu031650; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:52:18 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3T9qGbS031631; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:52:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:52:16 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <006c01c42dcf$ad85e510$0400a8c0 Craig> From: "SnowDog" To: References: <20040428.234542.-104703.2.wardsworld juno.com> Subject: Re: What could this mean? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 04:52:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54287 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>>I don't know. I've gotten similar messages, and my ISP says they aren't harmful. I use Mailwasher to screen incoming email, bouncing unwanted mai at the server. If that mail contained junk, the recipient of the bounce could see such coming from me. Just speculation. Any experts? -- Mike Carrell There are many email viruses these days which, when being opened on a new computer, send an email to each member in the user's address book, with the FROM address being one of the addressees. Some of the addresses in the user's address book will be bad, and the person who was selected as the FROM address will get the rejection notices. The internet is evil. We must unplug it. Craig Haynie From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 06:33:43 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TDXaMu031133; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:33:36 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TDXZ5L031110; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:33:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:33:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Date: 29 Apr 2004 13:33:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20040429133322.5996.qmail riot.eu.org> From: trefoil To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Think big. Think Bigger. References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428191744.00b23590 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-No-Archive: yes Resent-Message-ID: <8HVqTC.A.-lH.uQQkAB ultra5.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54288 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Jed Rothwell wrote: >In any case, what other reasonable choice would we have? > How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in? FEWER PEOPLE! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 06:54:54 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TDsjMu004447; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:54:45 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TDsges004420; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:54:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:54:42 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <40910919.7080704 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:54:33 -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: Think big. Think Bigger. References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428191744.00b23590 mail.lenr-canr.org> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040428191744.00b23590 mail.lenr-canr.org> 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/54289 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I almost deleted this post before reading it thinking it was one of the many "member enlargement" spam emails. :-) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 08:32:53 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TFWjWx010075; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:32:46 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TFWbpj010037; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:32:37 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:32:37 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040429095826.01df76c0 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:32:40 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Think big. Think Bigger. 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/54290 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: trefoil writes: > How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in? > FEWER PEOPLE! I am 100 percent in favor of population control. It can be accomplished with three steps which are themselves desirable for many other reasons: 1. Improving women's education and opportunities; 2. Improving health care and especially reducing infant mortality; 3. Providing old-age pensions. However, we cannot control pollution or prevent global warming merely by reducing the population. And we could reduce pollution by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude even with the present population, using existing technology. With CF I am convinced we could reduce it by 4 to 6 orders of magnitude, and it would cost us nothing. On the contrary, it would save a bunch of money, since pollution is defined as misplaced resources. The two problems are linked of course -- all else being equal, the more people there are, the more pollution they will cause. But all else is never equal. Take Tokyo, Japan, for example. In the 1970s the pollution in Tokyo was horrendous. A day when you could see Mount Fuji was so rare, it practically make the local news section in the papers. The rivers were toxic, and they stank from blocks away. Nowadays, you can see Mount Fuji whenever the weather is clear, and the rivers in the middle of Tokyo are teaming with more healthy fish than there have been since the 19th century. This is not because the Japanese population has decreased. Actually it has increased slightly, although it is presently stable and it is about to enter a steep decline. Is not because they discovered some secret high-tech solution to the problems. They simply implemented commonsense, cost-effective engineering and legal measures. With cold fusion, we could accomplish infinitely more, at much lower costs. Eventually, the solar system might have a human population of 100 billion people on the Moon, Mars and on Earth, with levels of pollution on earth so small they would be difficult to detect. All heavy industry -- especially agriculture -- should be moved to the Moon or underground on earth. Outdoor farming should be our first target. The sooner we do away with it, the better. It is the largest cause of pollution and serious environmental damage. Using cold fusion plus conventional agriculture (not chemical food synthesis) we could grow all of the food consumed by the present human population in an area the size of New York City, inside structures no taller than large skyscrapers. That would leave the rest of the earth for housing or vacant land for other species. Pimentel & Pimentel describe the crisis in land use and agriculture: "Iowa, which has some of the best soil in the world, has lost half of its topsoil after being formed for about 100 years." (p. 149) "further contributing to diminished supplies of agricultural land of the vast acreage is continually being lost to urban spread, industrial development, and roadways. For example, in the United States between 1945 and 1975 an area of annual cultural land of the size of Nebraska was blacktopped with roadways and covered with homes and factories." (p. 154) We need the houses, obviously. People have to live somewhere, and we prefer to live aboveground with a nice view. But the roadways, factories and above all agriculture are a measure of how absurdly wasteful and obsolete our technology is. These things consume orders of magnitude more land, water, energy, labor and money than they should. In agriculture, production reliability, product quality, and the use of space (production facilities) has hardly improved since prehistoric times! Since the stone age! We are still at the mercy of the weather, for crying out loud. Can you imagine any other modern industry in which a flood or a drought might cut local annual productivity by half? That's absurd. People should *never* be at the mercy of the weather. Most of the roadways should be replaced with telecommunications and air transport, or underground automated maglev transport, at 500 - 1000 kph. Obviously we will need scores of other breakthroughs to achieve such long-term goals, such as reliable space propulsion. Cold fusion is the essential starting point for all of these future innovations. Compact, reliable power supplies have always been the most important design element in a technology, and the limiting factor. Every machine from the stone ax, to the needle, to the supercomputer can be seen as a means of controlling, concentrating, converting, and channeling energy to serve some purpose. (Consuming and manipulating energy is not all that a supercomputer does, but consuming energy is the one thing that all machines do in common.) A few machines already have all the energy they need, and they cannot be improved by CF. For example, a sewing needle, a pen or a diamond anvil get all the power they can use from the human hand. You can put a test sample in as much pressure as it would encounter in the center of the earth (100 GPa) by turning a screw with one hand. The elegant, simple solar powered hand calculator has probably reached the end of its development. Electric bicycles are fun and I hope someday to ride a hundred kilometers on a cold fusion powered bicycle, but the human-powered bicycle will never lose its charm. If civilization lasts 500 million years into the future, I expect people will still be using spoons, hand calculators and bicycles pretty much like the ones we have now. Just about every other machine and tool will be made obsolete by cold fusion. Everything from the toilet to the airplane will be replaced by vastly improved CF powered models within the next century or two. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 10:53:06 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3THqwMu005575; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:52:59 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3THqsuc005553; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:52:54 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:52:54 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040429132052.01df54e8 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:52:39 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: OFF TOPIC Whimsical computer jargon 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/54291 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here is something from the LENR-CANR log. This is a "User-Agent HTTP request header": "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Yahoo! Slurp; http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/slurp)" This is an interesting little artifact of civilization. It is like a shard of an ancient pot; it tells you about the people who made it, and the people who used it. All trades have unique jargon. The words people make up to describe new things have often been whimsical or cynical, like the radar "main bang." But there is something special about computer jargon. For one thing, programmers think of words as symbolic names -- variable names, that can be chosen arbitrarily -- so the names might as well be amusing, and they are often detached from their real-world meaning (if there is any). Computer jargon often has an Alice in Wonderland feel, with variable names such as "SelectMe." Also, there is a kind of spirit to this jargon that you would not have seen before the mid-1960s. It reflects certain popular culture such as Monty Python, and in-group programmer jokes. "Mozilla" is probably based on "Godzilla." "Slurp" probably describes the function of the program that fetched this record. Everything made by man tells a story. Every iron sewer cover, glass insulator, or fast food restaurant paper napkin is a product of a particular time, and culture, and attitude. I am fascinated by the trash littering the street, or by a pile of rusting junk left in an abandoned Japanese farm house. Small children pick up such objects, bring them home, and treasure them. Adults think this is because children do not realize this is worthless junk; children do not yet know of the value of things. Actually, it is because adults have forgotten how wonderful ordinary objects are, and how much we can learn from them. A museum curator in the year 4000 AD would have a field day with such ordinary objects, and probably with the fragments of computer code and mundane data files that survive 2000 years. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 11:02:53 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TI2mWx023536; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:02:49 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TI2i04023510; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:02:44 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:02:44 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <4744538.1083261779019.JavaMail.root bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:02:59 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Randy Souther Reply-To: Randy Souther To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: cold fusion? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ultra6.eskimo.com id i3TI2dWx023477 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54292 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following is an abstract of a paper published in Physical Reveiw C recently. Sounds like cold fusion to me, but maybe the experts can verify. Randy Solid state internal conversion P�ter K�lm�n and Tam�s Keszthelyi Department of Experimental Physics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budafoki �t 8, F. I.I.10, H-1521 Budapest, Hungary (Received 8 July 2003; published 25 March 2004) It is shown that due to Coulomb interaction additional fusion reactions can happen in extra channels in solid state environment (e.g., in crystalline Pd) partly filled with deuterons. In the process that may be called solid state internal conversion, the total reaction energy is taken off by an accelerated charged particle (e.g., electron) and by the fused nucleus. The phenomenon is demonstrated on the p + d3He reaction. Formula for the nuclear reaction constant of the processes is presented. Its value for the p + d + (e)3He + (e) and the p + d + (d)3He + (d) reactions is calculated. �2004 The American Physical Society From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 11:07:32 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TI7IMu010713; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:07:19 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TI7GlS010692; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:07:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:07:16 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <40914438.8080705 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:06:48 -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: OFF TOPIC Whimsical computer jargon References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040429132052.01df54e8 mail.lenr-canr.org> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040429132052.01df54e8 mail.lenr-canr.org> 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/54293 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > "Mozilla" is probably based on "Godzilla." Yup, the Tokyo Tyrannosaurus is Mozilla's logo. http://www.mozilla.org/ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 11:40:45 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TIeeMj004829; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:40:40 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TIecgp004811; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:40:38 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:40:38 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040429141643.01df55d8 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:40:51 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: cold fusion? . . . Yes! 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 ultra6.eskimo.com id i3TIeUMj004587 Resent-Message-ID: <9ssm9C.A.CLB.mwUkAB ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54294 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Randy Souther writes: > The following is an abstract of a paper published in Physical Reveiw C > recently. Sounds like cold fusion to me, but maybe the experts can > verify. . . . > It is shown that due to Coulomb interaction additional fusion reactions > can happen in extra channels in solid state environment (e.g., in > crystalline Pd) partly filled with deuterons. In the process that may be > called solid state internal conversion, the total reaction energy is taken > off by an accelerated charged particle (e.g., electron) and by the fused > nucleus. The phenomenon is demonstrated on the p + d3He reaction. . . . I am no expert, but if that isn't cold fusion I'll eat my hat! Wow. "Physical Review C" no less. Another straw in the wind. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Okay, I paid $22.50 for a copy of this paper. I cannot make head or tail or the physics. I wish I could upload it. I can, at least quote it in part: "Recently, in order to improve the signal to background ratio, deuterated metal targets were used [1�5]. Comparing the results of these experiments with the results obtained with gaseous targets extra fusion events were obtained. The enhancement in the fusion rate is attributed to the presence of solid state material but up till now the theoretical explanation of the phenomenon is still missing [6�8]." Here are footnotes 1 - 8: [1] F. Raiola et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 13, 377 (2002); Phys. Lett. B 547, 193 (2002). [2] C. Bonomo et al., Nucl. Phys. A719, 37c (2003). [3] J. Kasagi et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71, 2881 (2002). [4] K. Czerski et al., Europhys. Lett. 54, 449 (2001); Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 193, 183 (2002). [5] A. Huke, K. Czerski, and P. Heide, Nucl. Phys. A719, 279c (2003). [6] K. Hagino and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. C 66, 055801 (2002). [7] S. Kimura et al., Phys. Rev. C 67, 022801 (2003). [8] G. Fiorentini et al., Phys. Rev. C 67, 014603 (2003). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Here are two of the abstracts for the papers listed above. #3 Kasagi et al.; yes, *that* Kasagi: Journal of the Physical Society of Japan Vol.71 No.12, December, 2002 pp.2881-2885 URL : http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/71/2881/ DOI : 10.1143/JPSJ.71.2881 Strongly Enhanced DD Fusion Reaction in Metals Observed for keV D+ Bombardment Jirohta Kasagi, Hideyuki Yuki, Taiji Baba, Takashi Noda, Tsutomu Ohtsuki and Andrey G. Lipson1 Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Tohoku University, Mikamine, Sendai 982-0826 1Institute of Physical Chemistry RAS, 117915 Moscow, Russia (Received June 21, 2002) The excitation functions of the yield of protons emitted in the D(d,p)T reaction in Ti, Fe, Pd, PdO and Au were measured for bombarding energies between 2.5 and 10 keV. It was found that the reaction rate at lower energies varies greatly with the host materials. The most strongly enhanced DD reaction occurs in PdO. At Ed=2.5 keV, it is enhanced by factor of fifty from the bare deuteron rate and the screening energy deduced from the excitation function amounts to 600 eV. An enhancement of this size cannot be explained by electron screening alone but suggests the existence of an additional and important mechanism of the screening in solids. KEYWORDS: DD fusion reaction in metal, reaction rate enhancement, screening energy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #7, Kimura et al.; I don't know 'em: Influence of tunneling on electron screening in low energy nuclear reactions in laboratories Sachie Kimura,1 Noboru Takigawa,1 Masanori Abe,2 and David M. Brink3 1Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan 2Department of Basic Science, Ishinomaki Senshu University, Ishinomaki 986-8580, Japan 3Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford,1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, United Kingdom (Received 26 November 2002; published 14 February 2003) Using a semiclassical mean field theory, we show that the screening potential exhibits a characteristic radial variation in the tunneling region in sharp contrast to the assumption of the constant shift in all previous works. Also, we show that the explicit treatment of the tunneling region gives a larger screening energy than that in the conventional approach, which studies the time evolution only in the classical region and estimates the screening energy from the screening potential at the external classical turning point. This modification becomes important if the electronic state is not a single adiabatic state at the external turning point either by pretunneling transitions of the electronic state or by the symmetry of the system even if there is no essential change with the electronic state in the tunneling region. �2003 The American Physical Society From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 11:50:05 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TInxMj007969; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:49:59 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TInwif007954; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:49:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:49:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040429144711.01e12d20 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:50:12 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: cold fusion? . . . Yes! 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 ultra6.eskimo.com id i3TIntMj007909 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54295 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: More related refs: Phys. Rev. A 40, 2824�2827 (1989) [Issue 5 � 1 September 1989 ] Fusion rates for hydrogen isotopic molecules of relevance for ``cold fusion'' K. Szalewicz and J. D. Morgan, III Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716 H. J. Monkhorst Quantum Theory Project, Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 Received 21 April 1989 In response to the recent announcements of evidence for room-temperature fusion in the electrolysis of D2O, we have analyzed how the fusion rate depends on the reduced mass of the fusing nuclei, the effective mass of a ``heavy'' electron, and the degree of vibrational excitation. Our results have been obtained both by accurately solving the Schr�dinger equation for the hydrogen molecule and by using the WKB approximation. We find that in light of the reported d-d fusion rate, the excess heat in the experiment by Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins [J. Electroanal. Chem. 261, 301 (1989)] is difficult to explain in terms of conventional nuclear processes. �1989 The American Physical Society Physical Review C (Nuclear Physics) Phys. Rev. C 67, 014603 (2003) (7 pages) Fusion rate enhancement due to energy spread of colliding nuclei G. Fiorentini,1,2 C. Rolfs,3 F. L. Villante,1,2 and B. Ricci1,2 1Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit� di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy 2Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy 3Institut f�r Experimentalphysik III, Ruhr-Universit�t Bochum, Germany (Received 28 October 2002; published 17 January 2003) Experimental results for sub-barrier nuclear fusion reactions show cross section enhancements with respect to bare nuclei which are generally larger than those expected according to electron screening calculations. We point out that energy spread of target or projectile nuclei is a mechanism that generally provides fusion enhancement. We present a general formula for calculating the enhancement factor and provide quantitative estimate for effects due to thermal motion, vibrations inside atomic, molecular, or crystal system, and due to finite beam energy width. All these effects are marginal at the energies that are presently measurable; however, they have to be considered in future experiments at still lower energies. This study allows us to exclude several effects as a possible explanation of the observed anomalous fusion enhancements, which remain a mystery. �2003 The American Physical Society From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 13:19:21 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TKJGMj003823; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:19:17 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TKJDXv003788; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:19:13 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:19:13 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040429161507.01dfa1f8 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:19:28 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: The experts say . . . 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/54296 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I asked three Leading Experts whether the Kolmon paper is about cold fusion or not. Attached are their responses. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kasagi - No response yet. (He is asleep!) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Storms - Yes, Jed, this is a form of cold fusion. When the fusion and transmutation reactions take place at a rate that can produce measurable heat, the conditions within the lattice have achieved the "ideal". . . . (etc. He can post the rest if he would like to.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hagelstein - as follows: A quick read of part of the paper is that it is about a conventional physics mechanism that is normally not included in dd-fusion calculations. I think it is trying to be relevant to the enhancements seen at low energies in deuterium beam experiments on metal deuterides, some of which were done by Kasagi. It is not a cold fusion paper. It is a conventional physics paper on an obscure mechanism which they predict, but which has not be verified by experiment directly yet. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 14:25:46 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TLPaMj020092; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:25:37 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TLPMmG019991; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:25:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:25:22 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Reply-To: From: "Keith Nagel" To: "Vortex" Subject: Easter Island/ was gas guzzlers. Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:51:44 -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/54297 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All. I'm sure everyone knows of Easter Island, that polynesian island with the enormous heads. The story of the island is a remarkable example of just how things can go when an ecosystem is stretched to the breaking point. http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm Every tree on the island was cut down, to make goods and housing but perhaps more importantly to make rollers to move the giant heads into position. Most of the effort and resources of the community were poured into those massive heads. Imagine the thoughts of the man with an axe cutting down that last tree, sure in the knowledge that the God of the giant heads will magically replace all the trees and/or transport the virtuous head builders to heaven. The latter did in fact happen, but the means of transport was the axe head of a rival clan. Needless to say, without trees the topsoil all washed into the ocean, and unable to grow anything or even build suitable boats to escape, the islanders were reduced to cannibalism and social collapse. Leaving a great mystery to the Dutch explorers; where did this once great civilization go? Of course, we Westerners are far too sophisticated to be destroying our environment for God and Mammon...right? K. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Apr 29 14:55:09 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3TLt1tN015615; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:55:01 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3TLsuOY015576; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:54:56 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:54:56 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:02:10 -0800 To: From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Speed of gravity and diminishing gravity Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54298 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >>The above is a quote of Keith Nagel who appears at that point to either not >>have read what I wrote or to be confused as to both the nature of the >>isomorphism I proposed and its significance. Keith is also at that point >>apparently focused more on terminology instead of the principles. At 6:02 PM 4/28/4, Keith Nagel wrote: > >Most certainly not on the first two points, but correct on the third. OK, I withdraw my either-or assertion above. I was apparently under the false impression that you said or implied that I did not know the difference between the magnetic and gravimagnetic fields. I didn't see how you could possibly believe that given the effort I had just made to distinguish the two. Apparently we both shared the goal of distinguishing between the two clearly in terminology. At 6:02 PM 4/28/4, Keith Nagel wrote: > >Rather than respond to rubbish, why not take a few moments to >write about how you're using i in the context of mass. Well, I figured your request might in effect be a bit open ended. I have posted "GR, QM, and Field Unification" (DRAFT #3) in order to correct some mistakes and to clarify some of the issues related to the above request. It realy needs a major rewrite and is still full of mistakes and unclear and bad writing. I don't regret posting it though as I may never get back to it. >It's the >one element of your isomorphism which seems different to me than >what's been described by so many other authors on the subject. I first suggested the isomorphism in posts here on vortex in 2003 under the thread "Jefimenko and Field Isomorphism" and related threads. Jefimenko clearly had sign problems with force direction, etc. His solution was to make epsilon_g_0 and mu_g_0 negative values. He then had to manually adjust the sign in various equations as the need arose. The use of the imaginary number i in the mass quantity seemed to me a natuaral way around the problems from a purely computational point of view. I then wondered about the possible interpretaion of gravitational mass being both an imaginary quantity and distinct from inertial mass, which is a real quantity. There was no i in F = m*a, but the interpretation of m as a purely inertial mass, and the implied distinction betwen inertial and gravitational mass was easy, as that possibility has been discussed often. The major flaw and a crisis to the theory was the quantity of mass implied to exist in the mass halo. I posted the nature of that crisis in early August, 2003, I believe. Possibly no one read it, but at minimum no one suggested any remedy to the problem. I don't know that the idea of an imaginary gravitational mass (i.e. gravitational charge) or field is in fact original. It is so obvious as to make me think it probably has long been published and that I may have eaven read it somewhere, though I don't remeber that. I did in fact look through some of Ramon Prasad's work where I thought it might be and did not find it. In any case, the critical thing I think is dealing with the implications and resolving the implied issues. It is a much bigger step to deal with the consequences of imaginary charges and fields. I feel the real breakthrough for me was realizing that virtual photons must not carry any gravitational mass. That happend as I was doing income tax, so the quality of the document that was immediately thrown together ended up being very poor. I have not had the time to consider the full ramifications or even to thoroughly look for simple flaws which may well exist. It may be all a lot of hooey, but at the moment, from my limited amateur perspective, I feel a sense of better understanding of a lot of things that have bothered me since being exposed to the issues here on vortex. (Thank you Chris Tinsley and others!) Other than what is in the "GR, QM, and Field Unification" and related threads, I don't really know much else to say on the subject of the choice of expressing mass (and thus gravitational fields) as imaginary terms. There is clearly a lot more to be said on the consequences though. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 06:38:43 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UDcc0c004075; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:38:38 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UDcVWf004026; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:38:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:38:31 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: MWI AND COPENHAGEN FALSIFYIED??????? (fwd) 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/54299 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hmmmm. IN-ter-REST-ing! (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:08:29 -0400 From: Robert B Zannelli Reply-To: Forum for Physics Educators To: PHYS-L lists.nau.edu Subject: MWI AND COPENHAGEN FALSIFYIED??????? Dear List Members: A recent experiment claims to falsify both the Copenhagen and the Many Worlds interoperation of Quantum Mechanics but provides results which conform to the Transactional Interpretation developed by Dr. Cramer of the University of Washington. This idea is based on the Wheeler Feynman absorber theory. Below is a helpful link which explains this experiment though no paper has been published on this yet. There has been a flurry of emails on this today and I have a reply from Dr. Cramer. I will send his reply in a different post in an attempt to avoid scrambling this. I will also forward his reply to anyone on request if it is unreadable after being posted. Bob Zannelli Google cache, HTML version: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:AN9UxmCda50J:faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt+Boskone_0402&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Original: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 06:46:33 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UDkRqe004279; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:46:27 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UDkOP6004265; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:46:24 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:46:24 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:46:18 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Communication with Dr Cramer (fwd) 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/54300 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A More... (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:11:00 -0400 From: Robert B Zannelli Reply-To: Forum for Physics Educators To: PHYS-L lists.nau.edu Subject: Communication with Dr Cramer If this become too scrambled I will forward Dr. Cramer's email to an= yone on=20 request. Bob Zannelli=20 Dear Bob, In my opinion, the Afshar Experiment falsifies both the= =20 Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds Interpretation by demon= strating in a=20 two-pinhole setup the presence of complete wave interference in an un= ambiguous =E2=80=9C which way=E2=80=9D measurement. My Transactional Interpretation (see= =20 http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/theory.html ) has no problem in= explaining what Afshar=20 observes. Afshar is a Visiting Scientist in the Harvard Physics Department. He= was=20 planning to submit a paper about his experiment to Physical Review Le= tters last=20 week, but I haven=E2=80=99t heard for sure that he in fact did this. = He has the=20 experiment set up in the old High Energy Physics Lab building at Harv= ard and I have=20 seen it in operation. Last February I gave a talk that, with his permission, de= scribed=20 his experiment. You can find the PowerPoint slides from my talk at= =20 http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/talks.html . Regards, John Cramer = =20 = =20 -----Original Message----- =46rom: RBZannelli aol.com [mailto:RBZannelli@aol.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:48 AM To: cramer phys.washington.edu Subject: Afshar's Experiment=20 Dear Dr. Cramer: There seems to be quite a stir about an experiment conducted = by Dr.=20 Afshar which makes the claim that it falsifies both Copenhagen and th= e many=20 worlds interpretations of QM. However, there seems to be no informati= on available=20 about the details of this experiment.=20 In all honesty I am highly skeptical of these claims. Nevertheless= , if=20 true, this would be very big news. Could you provide any clarificatio= n on this? .=20 Is there a paper available on this?=20 Regards, Bob Zannelli From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 08:06:04 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UF5dqe003449; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:05:40 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UF5aMa003386; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:05:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:05:36 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430110459.01dfa408 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:05:29 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: LENR-CANR handy new indexes 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/54301 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: See: http://lenr-canr.org/LibraryGuide.html#SimpleIndexes - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 10:39:28 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UHdKqe020658; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:39:21 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UHdGmD020615; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:39:16 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:39:16 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Authentication-Warning: eskimo.com: billb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:39:17 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Communication with Dr Cramer (fwd) 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/54302 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: We just missed this lecture at TAMU: Tuesday, April 27, ENPH 207, 4 PM Shahriar S. Afshar, Harvard University Violation of Bohr's principle of complementarity in an optical "which-way" experiment Seminar schedules: http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/belyanin/amoseminars.html Mentioned on K. Cramer's BLOG: http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/ Hope a transcript will be available! http://www.eps.org/aps/meet/CENT99/BAPS/abs/S7560012.html (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb eskimo.com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 14:35:08 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3ULZ20c021841; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:35:03 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3ULYjUl021784; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:34:45 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:34:45 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430172617.01e22078 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:29:08 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org 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/54303 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Lots of people are visiting LENR-CANR.org today. I do not know where they are coming from. They are not coming from a hyperlink on another page. I suppose they are typing the address directly. Here are some numbers from the last 6 days. Report Date: 04/30/2004 Latest data: 4/30/2004 5:08:00 PM Date Hits Downld Visits 04/25/2004 1,913 1,074 1,113 04/26/2004 2,203 1,171 1,416 04/27/2004 2,921 739 1,373 04/28/2004 1,818 600 1,383 04/29/2004 2,220 1,236 2,570 04/30/2004 953 418 15,973 "Downld" means Acrobat file download. The number of downloads is not particularly high today, but the number of visitors and hits is unprecedented. There have been 63,256 hits today. The Log file is 12 MB; it is normally 1 or 2 MB. At least from where I sit, the site is running very slow, and I could not reach it about an hour ago. I just called the ISP and they reported no problem. I hope this is not what happens when we get 1000 visitors per hour. Please let me know if you experience difficulty accessing the site. On another subject -- possibly related -- when you do a Google search for "cold fusion," the third sponsored link on the right is for Physics Today, advertising their recent article about cold fusion. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 14:37:43 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3ULbXqe020900; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:37:33 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3ULbSQ3020851; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:37:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:37:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:44:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: test Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54304 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 15:00:37 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UM0T0c028851; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:00:29 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UM0SBp028836; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:00:28 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:00:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <410-22004453022059310 ix.netcom.com> X-Priority: 3 Reply-To: aki ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: EarthLink MailBox 2004.1.42.0 (Windows) From: "Akira Kawasaki" To: "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: FW: WHAT'S NEW Friday, April 30, 2004 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:00:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-ELNK-Trace: c4cc7f5f697e8746f66dc3a06d5924d821fc767559608d19a0256a2cfc6b8f11a2d4e88014a4647c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54305 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > [Original Message] > From: What's New > To: Akira Kawasaki Date: 4/30/2004 2:37:04 PM Subject: WHAT'S NEW Friday, April 30, 2004 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 30 Apr 04 Washington, DC 1. NASA SCIENCE: IS THE SPACE AGENCY BECOMING JUST A THEME PARK? For a million years our species was confronted with a world we could not hope to understand. Now, almost within the span of a single human lifetime, the book of nature has been thrown open. We aspire to solve the great mysteries: dark matter, dark energy, why there is mass, the big bang, and the origin of life. We long to know. Instead, according to the New York Times, experiments to unravel these great mysteries have been assigned low priority, along with anything that has to do with global warming. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/science/space/27NASA.html . This will allow NASA to focus its resources on human exploration, pandering to a public weaned on Star Trek. NASA's priorities will delay real exploration by decades, vastly increase costs, and put lives at risk. You might suppose NASA would hold off until the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond makes its report in June http://www.aps.org/WN/WN04/wn041604.cfm . The Moon/Mars Commission, was apparently mere window dressing. The only appeal open to scientists is to members of Congress. 2. MISSILE DEFENSE: GAO REPORT SAYS TESTS HAVE BEEN UNREALISTIC. We started to use interviews with our usual fictitious experts from the Missile Defense Agency, Puff Panegyric and General Persiflage, to tell this story. But we could not invent dialogue that measured up to quotes in the Washington Post from General Kadish, Missile Defense Agency director. Explaining why tests don't affect plans to deploy: "You can't operationally test the system, until you put it in place." We have extensive computer modeling based on test results, he says. But How do we know the models are valid? "Because they accurately predict the test results." Maybe there's a better way. Why not test the system against the ISS? If it works, we immediately free up some of the $11B promised when ISS and the shuttles are retired. 3. NUCLEAR WEAPONS: NORTH KOREA NOW REPORTED TO HAVE EIGHT BOMBS. How many would you like? When justification was needed to invade Iraq, the intelligence consensus was that the country bristled with weapons of mass destruction. Now, with the Pentagon getting ready to deploy a missile defense in Alaska, the Washington Post reports that the intelligence estimate of nuclear weapons held by North Korea is about to jump from two to eight. How do they get eight. Well, they know how many fuel rods N. Korea has, so they calculate how much Pu that could breed. It's easy, we can calculate the number of bombs in every country with a reactor. 4. DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: CONSUMER REPORTS LISTS THE "DIRTY DOZEN." A cover story in the May issue of Consumer Reports identifies 12 supplements that should be banned, increasing pressure to amend or repeal the obscene 1994 Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act http://www.aps.org/WN/WN02/wn010204.cfm . THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, 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-47101V lists.apsmsgs.org To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 15:07:41 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UM7Z0c031703; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:07:36 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UM7ZwI031683; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:07:35 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:07:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <4092CF17.7040505 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:11:35 -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: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430172617.01e22078 mail.lenr-canr.org> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430172617.01e22078 mail.lenr-canr.org> 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/54306 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > At least from where I sit, the site is running very slow, and I could > not reach it about an hour ago. I just called the ISP and they > reported no problem. I hope this is not what happens when we get 1000 > visitors per hour Contrary to what your ISP is telling you, they have a problem. The server is acknowledging my request (my browser does not time out), but I get the "Waiting for LENR-CANR.org . . ." message and it takes 2 to 3 minutes to get data from the site. Once the data comes, it comes fast. This could be a problem with their internal DNS server. BTW, this could also be the cause of your unusually high number of hits depending on how they are measured. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 15:21:11 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UML1qe031725; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:21:01 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UMKwGP031695; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:20:58 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:20:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:28:10 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3, Part 3) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54307 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #3, Part 3) RATIO OF INERTIAL MASS TO GRAVITATIONAL MASS It sometimes is noted as strange that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal. The EM_GK Isomorphic Theory shows that this coincidence is one of our own making, and thus an illusion. The kg weight and kgf force unit are related so nicely only by the fact that we live on earth, and that earth is fairly spherical, so g_earth is fairly constant at the surface. If our physicist ancestors lived on a planet where g was 3 times that of earth, the kgf would be 3 times as large and after setting that standard, i.e a kg weight being 3 times ours, the G they would subsequently discover or determine would be larger by a factor of 9 (than the G we earthlings "discovered") in order to compensate for that choice of definition of units of weight, i.e. gravitational mass. What is actually constant in our comparatively low gravity environment is the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass. Our perception that the two masses (actually mass and weight) are equal then is flawed, but our earthling determined value of G compensates for this. Under the isomorphic theory of gravity proposed, what is important is that some particles, like the photon, consist of quantized chunks of gravitational mass and quantized chunks of inertial mass which are bound together. If there is only one chunk of each, or a fixed ratio of such chunks, then the ratio of the two kinds of mass must always be constant, unless changed by relativistic effects involving differing messenger particle velocities. An increase in the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass would appear to be a slowing of time, because all physical clocks, having higher inertial mass, would appear to be slow. ANTI-MASS RADIATING BLACK HOLES If both positive charge mass (units of +i kg) and negative charge mass (units of -i kg), i.e. anti-mass, exist, and two particles carrying opposite mass charges are matter and antimatter to each other, then an amazing phenomenon can possibly happen if and when a black hole singularity becomes massive enough. The black hole can radiate mass having the opposite mass charge from that which the black holes has. In other words, when a black hole gets large enough it should spew forth at near light speed large amounts of matter that is anti-mass to the mass of which the black hole is made. As the gravitational field strength in a locality grows, so then does the probability that a mass-anti-mass pair fluctuating in and out of the vacuum can be permanently separated by that gravitational field. The particle having the same mass charge as the black hole quickly disappears into the singularity, or some approximation thereof. The anti-mass particle, however, is immediately blown out of the black hole with enormous energy. The event horizon for the anti-mass particle does not exist. Such an event does not just happen at an event horizon, but rather throughout a spherical volume about the singularity. The larger the singularity, the more anti-mass flow that can be expected out of the black hole, because the flow grows as the 3/2 power of the mass of the black hole. This is a fairly scary concept, because it means that once a critical mass is formed, a black hole can explode continuously in size without boundaries. It can suck up all the matter the vacuum can feed it. Its event horizon then grows at an exponential rate, as does its mass and rate of anti-mass radiation. Fortunately, this is not a likely possibility, because the gravicharge of the photon is very small, thus the quantum of gravitational charge must correspond to a small energy. Anti-gravitational matter it seems should be more commonplace. One possibility (other than denial of the proposed EM-GK isomorphism) that precludes this scenario is that matter and antimatter particles must all have identical mass charges. This is a very reasonable possibility. If mass-anti-mass pairs formed from the vacuum, they would not need a black hole to proliferate. They would self-repel. So, a more logical possibility then is that if anti-mass particle pairs exist, then, when they are created by vacuum fluctuations, their matter-anti-matter particles have differing electrostatic charges, but the same gravitational mass-charge. Such particles could thus have very large energies. In this way such particles can quickly annihilate and return to the vacuum from which they spring with far less frequency than electron-positron pairs. This also gets us around the problem of the exponentially exploding event horizon radius. It does not eliminate the possibility that black holes above some limit in mass will radiate near light-speed anti-mass particles. The reason for this is that when a particle pair separates within a fixed radius shell, and thus separate in a direction along a tangent to that shell, both particles are accelerated outward away from the black hole, and indefinitely separate, provided the tidal force that separates them (they each lie on separate diverging radii) is large enough. We thus see that the neighborhood in the locality of huge black holes could be filled with objects made of anti-mass, including anti-mass black holes (anti-mass attracts itself). Such a neighborhood would appear to gradually take on an increasingly weaker gravitational constant. Some visible (or even invisible) bodies consisting a mostly anti-mass would take on maverick motional characteristics. All highly speculative, yet all a direct and immediate consequence of the EM-GK Isomorphism Theory. Various particles are suggested by the resulting symmetries, including gravimonopoles. POSSIBLE FUTURE RESEARCH If gravitational charge m*i exists as posited here, it is reasonable to expect it to be quantized. Such a quantization might be detected via the lensing effect. The rate of the curvature of photons around heavy masses may exhibit quantum jumps as the spectrum is scanned. This is because the photon wavelengths can exist in a continuum of energy levels, while the photon gravitational mass may be quantized, and not affected relativistically the same as inertial mass, thus distinct "curvature lines" may develop when images are produced for only a specific wavelength if photons can carry multiple gravitational charges. Under this theory, the proven lack of gravitational mass in electromagnetic fields, the lack of interaction between gravitons and virtual photons, resolves long standing issues regarding the theory of the zero point field (ZPF). It has been a matter of controversy (see papers by Puthoff and Ibbotson referring the the SED theory) as to whether the ZPF is carried by virtual or real photons. Further, a long standing objection to the ZPF concept has been that, to maintain an energy/mass ratio of c^2 the density rho of the ZPF in the vacuum would be astronomical in size if the cutoff frequency of the cubic energy distribution occurs at a Plank wavelength. This theory clearly resolves these issues by showing that no such high rho is required provided the ZPF is carried by virtual photons. Further, if a means can be found to interact with the colossal ZPF virtual photon flow, enormous amounts of inertial reaction mass is available from the vacuum. Also of immediate interest is that existing determinations of G may be off due to a failure to consider the effects of the gravimagnetic field K, which is a dipole field and thus diminishes as 1/r^3. Satellites in polar orbits, or better, in orbits contrary to the earth's rotation, though in exactly the same orbits altitude wise, should experience slightly differing values of g, thus their orbital times should differ slightly. A true value of G can be determined by careful direct measurement of orbital parameters and times (without using G in the calculation), and then back computing G with corrections for the effects of the co-gravitational field K. Since nearby celestial bodies, lunar and solar orbits, and even galaxies tend to rotate in the same direction, close range G and long range G values should vary fairly consistently with distance, giving the entirely wrong impression of a super-gravitational repelling force and limiting the accuracy with which we can know G and the actual gravitational masses of celestial bodies. Further, due to orbits having eccentricity, a failure to correct for the apparent change of G with distance is a failure to properly account for the resulting orbital precession. Also of possible interest is determination of the magnitude of the gravimagnetic field of the Milky Way galaxy. Since much of the mass of the galaxy is located at the center, much of it in black holes and neutron stars, it is not possible to estimate the gravimagnetic dipole moment of the galaxy center. This quantity must be directly measured. Such a field, if significant in size, may be of use in interstellar or even interplanetary journeys. CONCLUSION There remains much work to do to consider the ramifications of the EM-GK isomorphism presented here, and its logical consequences. Inconsistencies with reality are likely. However, the mathematical nature of the isomorphism of fields that can be formed is provable based on various palatable premises, and a natural consequence of the nature of space and time, thus this gives some credence to deduced consequences. Innumerable electromagnetic equations can now be directly applied to gravitational calculations. Each of Maxwell's laws, for example, have a precisely defined gravitational equivalent. The practical consequences of this could be significant. Also important is the fact that many attempts to fully unify gravity and electromagnetism may be in vain, as their domains do not fully intersect. The theory indicates the principle available paths to obtaining powerful space drives and heavy lifters via electromagnetic means is via the electromagnetic modification of inertial mass or (by some unknown means) gaining a purchase on the vacuum. The gravimagnetic field might be of practical use, but its use appears very limited as a primary locomotion means compared to possible uses of the vacuum, the zero point field. The proposed isomorphism is indeed a very simple and minor advance, if that, and yet it seems strangely powerful. The proposed EM-GK isomorphic theory was built on the retardation theory published by Jefimenko. However, he did not establish a true isomorphism, so had to manually tweak the signs of various formulae to get things right. Further, Jefimenko had no means from his theory to discover that virtual photons carry no gravitational charge, and that photons do carry gravitational charge, nor a means to recognize that additional unfolded dimensions are required to describe gravity. He had no means of discovering an answer to the old problem as to why the zero point field is not massive in a gravitational sense. Jefimenko had no means to instantly recognize that Newton's F = m*a describes something principally in the world of electromagnetism, that inertia is principally electromagnetic, or at least not gravity related. The symmetries provided by the proposed EM-GK isomorphism suggest the possibilities of many new particles, and possibly a great expansion to the field of relativity, which Jefimenko's work does not fully embrace. Further suggested are implications to the mechanics of black holes, the possible existence of negative gravitational charge matter spewing forth from large black holes. The theory also suggests possible errors in our determination of G, and possible explanations for inconsistent results in some co-gravitation experiments. Possibly most importantly, theoretically speaking, if the subject theory has any veracity, it in large part *dis-unifies* electromagnetism and gravity. It demonstrates why true field unification may be so elusive. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 15:21:54 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UMLm0c003738; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:21:48 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UMLlbt003721; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:21:47 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:21:47 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Sender: hheffner mail.mtaonline.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:29:29 -0800 To: From: hheffner mtaonline.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: Speed of gravity and diminishing gravity Resent-Message-ID: <1GclbB.A.D6.7FtkAB ultra6.eskimo.com> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54308 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >>The above is a quote of Keith Nagel who appears at that point to either not >>have read what I wrote or to be confused as to both the nature of the >>isomorphism I proposed and its significance. Keith is also at that point >>apparently focused more on terminology instead of the principles. At 6:02 PM 4/28/4, Keith Nagel wrote: > >Most certainly not on the first two points, but correct on the third. OK, I withdraw my either-or assertion above. I was apparently under the false impression that you said or implied that I did not know the difference between the magnetic and gravimagnetic fields. I didn't see how you could possibly believe that given the effort I had just made to distinguish the two. Apparently we both shared the goal of distinguishing between the two clearly in terminology. At 6:02 PM 4/28/4, Keith Nagel wrote: > >Rather than respond to rubbish, why not take a few moments to >write about how you're using i in the context of mass. Well, I figured your request might in effect be a bit open ended. I have posted "GR, QM, and Field Unification" (DRAFT #3) in order to correct some mistakes and to clarify some of the issues related to the above request. It realy needs a major rewrite and is still full of mistakes and unclear and bad writing. I don't regret posting it though as I may never get back to it. >It's the >one element of your isomorphism which seems different to me than >what's been described by so many other authors on the subject. I first suggested the isomorphism in posts here on vortex in 2003 under the thread "Jefimenko and Field Isomorphism" and related threads. Jefimenko clearly had sign problems with force direction, etc. His solution was to make epsilon_g_0 and mu_g_0 negative values. He then had to manually adjust the sign in various equations as the need arose. The use of the imaginary number i in the mass quantity seemed to me a natuaral way around the problems from a purely computational point of view. I then wondered about the possible interpretaion of gravitational mass being both an imaginary quantity and distinct from inertial mass, which is a real quantity. There was no i in F = m*a, but the interpretation of m as a purely inertial mass, and the implied distinction betwen inertial and gravitational mass was easy, as that possibility has been discussed often. The major flaw and a crisis to the theory was the quantity of mass implied to exist in the mass halo. I posted the nature of that crisis in early August, 2003, I believe. Possibly no one read it, but at minimum no one suggested any remedy to the problem. I don't know that the idea of an imaginary gravitational mass (i.e. gravitational charge) or field is in fact original. It is so obvious as to make me think it probably has long been published and that I may have eaven read it somewhere, though I don't remeber that. I did in fact look through some of Ramon Prasad's work where I thought it might be and did not find it. In any case, the critical thing I think is dealing with the implications and resolving the implied issues. It is a much bigger step to deal with the consequences of imaginary charges and fields. I feel the real breakthrough for me was realizing that virtual photons must not carry any gravitational mass. That happend as I was doing income tax, so the quality of the document that was immediately thrown together ended up being very poor. I have not had the time to consider the full ramifications or even to thoroughly look for simple flaws which may well exist. It may be all a lot of hooey, but at the moment, from my limited amateur perspective, I feel a sense of better understanding of a lot of things that have bothered me since being exposed to the issues here on vortex. (Thank you Chris Tinsley and others!) Other than what is in the "GR, QM, and Field Unification" and related threads, I don't really know much else to say on the subject of the choice of expressing mass (and thus gravitational fields) as imaginary terms. There is clearly a lot more to be said on the consequences though. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 15:25:25 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UMPG0c004750; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:25:16 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UMPEBu004726; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:25:14 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:25:14 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040430182744.045ed030 mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:29:53 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430172617.01e22078 mail.lenr-canr.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_25515068==.ALT" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54309 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --=====================_25515068==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Jed - Could be TV IS Cold Fusion Heating Up? KMGH - Denver,CO,USA Fifteen years after the first controversial claims hit the headlines, cold fusion refuses to die. A small cadre of die-hard advocates ... Or it could be the asrtology .. 26 April, Los Angeles Times "....After Watergate, John Dean gladly dropped off the pulsing public radar screen. ... I could come up with cold fusion and I'd still be remembered for [my involvement with] Richard Nixon.". 26 April, Motley Fool "... Although it's contracted to get some coal-to-diesel action in China (coal liquefaction has historically been the cold fusion of the energy world) and is " 26 April, Review Appeal "..But while cars of the future might be powered by methanol or hydrogen or maybe cold fusion, good old-fashioned gasoline will remain the dominant automotive ... " 28 April Leo: Listen to the whispering of the cosmos. You could find the answer, trisect the angle in your sleep, even make cold fusion in an old beer bottle. But you'll have to put your back into it if you want the kind of stellar results that you intuit may be possible. Dream. http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=997 Steve --=====================_25515068==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Jed -

Could be TV
IS Cold Fusion Heating Up?
KMGH - Denver,CO,USA
Fifteen years after the first controversial claims hit the headlines, cold
fusion refuses to die. A small cadre of die-hard advocates ...
<http://www.thedenverchannel.com/technology/3037068/detail.html>

Or it could be the asrtology ..

26 April, Los Angeles Times
"....After Watergate, John Dean gladly dropped off the pulsing public radar screen. ... I could come up with cold fusion and I'd still be remembered for [my involvement with] Richard Nixon.".

26 April, Motley Fool
"... Although it's contracted to get some coal-to-diesel action in China (coal liquefaction has historically been the cold fusion of the energy world) and is "
26 April, Review Appeal
"..But while cars of the future might be powered by methanol or hydrogen or maybe cold fusion, good old-fashioned gasoline will remain the dominant automotive ... "

28 April
Leo: Listen to the whispering of the cosmos. You could find the answer, trisect the angle in your sleep, even make cold fusion in an old beer bottle. But you'll have to put your back into it if you want the kind of stellar results that you intuit may be possible. Dream.
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=997

Steve --=====================_25515068==.ALT-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 15:34:01 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UMXqqe003772; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:33:52 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UMXnCV003750; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:33:49 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:33:49 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430182135.01e271e0 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:33:45 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org 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/54310 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton writes: > Contrary to what your ISP is telling you, they have a problem. The > server is acknowledging my request (my browser does not time out), but I > get the "Waiting for LENR-CANR.org . . ." message and it takes 2 to 3 > minutes to get data from the site. Once the data comes, it comes fast. > This could be a problem with their internal DNS server. Geez Louise. It has not taken me that long. I will call them again. > BTW, this could also be the cause of your unusually high number of hits > depending on how they are measured. I am measuring them myself, by counting the number of records in the log files. I also count the number of different "visits" with a simple method. I count how many different IP addresses are show up in a given day. If you visit twice in one day, I count that as only one visit. (With other methods you look for a gap of some number of minutes between accesses, and you may count the same IP address as two or more visits per day. I tried that and found it increased the number of visits by less than 5%, so I do not bother with it.) So far, today 17,833 different IP addresses have appeared, so I am sure traffic is high. It is much higher than ever before, in fact. For the highest previous week we had 24,000 visitors (over 7 days). I suppose the extra "hits" might be an artifact of a server problem, but I do not think many different IP addresses could be generated by a faulty internal DNS server. A Ping using "tracert lenr-canr.org" does not show particularly slow connections. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 15:37:18 2004 Received: from ultra6.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst ultra6.eskimo.com [127.0.0.1]) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UMbB0c008220; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:37:11 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra6.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UMb9kp008205; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:37:09 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:37:09 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra6.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040430183719.045d0d80 mail.dlsi.net> X-Sender: stevek mail.dlsi.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:41:47 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Steve Krivit Subject: Re: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430172617.01e22078 mail.lenr-canr.org> 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/54311 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed: >Please let me know if you experience difficulty accessing the site. >Ditto. >120 s to load home page from browser. Tracing route to lenr-canr.org [66.84.50.220] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 30 ms 20 ms 30 ms dsl-64-30-199-254.lcinet.net [64.30.199.254] 2 20 ms 30 ms 20 ms f0-0-1-core.lcinet.net [64.30.215.30] 3 20 ms 20 ms 30 ms lax-edge-08.inet.qwest.net [63.145.160.69] 4 20 ms 30 ms 31 ms lax-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.19.141] 5 30 ms 40 ms 40 ms svl-core-03.inet.qwest.net [205.171.5.5] 6 81 ms 90 ms 90 ms chi-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.8.194] 7 80 ms 90 ms 91 ms chi-core-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.20.170] 8 80 ms 80 ms 80 ms cer-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.205.34] 9 90 ms 100 ms 90 ms osu-cntr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.139.130] 10 90 ms 90 ms 90 ms msfc-01.osu.qwest.net [63.146.160.2] 11 90 ms 90 ms 100 ms s220.n50.vds2000.com [66.84.50.220] 12 90 ms 100 ms 110 ms s220.n50.vds2000.com [66.84.50.220] Trace complete. Thanks, Steve From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 16:10:12 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3UNA3qe013196; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:10:03 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3UNA1fO013173; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:10:01 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:10:01 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430185906.01e49d50 mail.lenr-canr.org> X-Sender: logs lenr-canr.org@mail.lenr-canr.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:09:54 -0400 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org 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/54312 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Okay, traffic has fallen somewhat and access to the page now appears to be normal. From 6:00 p.m. until 6:53 there were 3,186 hits. There were around 5,000 per hour the rest of the day. This could be the result of the upcoming television show Steve Krivit mentioned. I cannot tell if these IP addresses are coming from a concentrated geographic area such a Denver, CO -- because I am a cheapskate. I should probably pay $35 for something like this program, to do a batch lookup of the IP addresses: http://www.w3.easynet.co.uk/unitel/products/smartwhois.html These could be accesses from Google. I just did a lookup of a paper I found via Google, and there is nothing in the "referral" field. (In other words, a Google search is not a hyperlink jump.) But if these are Google searches you would think they would hit different files, whereas these are all coming into the main screen, index.html. If this much traffic is triggered by one television program in Denver, I will be in serious trouble if the Great Turn Around (GTA) ever comes. Next year in Jerusalem! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 17:07:47 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4107bqe029309; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:07:37 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i4107aCX029290; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:07:36 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:07:36 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f X-Titankey-e_id: Message-ID: <006701c42f10$46f09290$487accd1 MIKEBY3NR533HT> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Mills, electrolysis, xs-heat, hydrinos Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:47:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0053_01C42EEB.F7ADEEE0" 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/54313 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0053_01C42EEB.F7ADEEE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A new paper at www.blacklightpower.com should be of interest to many: = "New States of Hydrogen from K2CO3 Electrolysis Gases". In one way, = Mills is revisiting his starting point, but with significant = enhancements. There are two cells, the control with Na2CO3, both with = nickel cathodes. Excess heat with K2CO3, none with NaCO3. In a second = experiment, the cathodes are again nickel, but a helix of thin walled = nickel tubing, one end sealed, the other connected to a gas collection = system. This is also a return to an old experiment. I think I have the = paper somewhere. Hydrinos created at the cathode where both K+ and H are = released together diffuse through the nickel and are collected to be = analyzed by NMR. Evidence for hydrinos from H(1/2) to H(1/7) is seen, = with excess heat. Controls and other analysis given in the paper = eliminate chemical reactions, etc. Cell calibration method is described. = What is interesting here is direct evidence of the BLP reaction in = Mill's 'classical' electrolytic cell. What is even more interesting is = that deuterium is chemically identical to hydrogen, and in other BLP = experiments particiapes inthe BLP reactions with BLP catalysts, emitting = measurably different spectra in plasma cells.=20 One might conclude that LENR investigators using potassium-bearing = electrolytes and heavy water, and seeing excess heat, may be seeing = energy release from the BLP reaction, instead of, or with, LENR = reactions. This does not support that notion that BLP is "really" LENR, = or vice versa. There is ample evidence for LENR under conditions that do = not promote BLP reactions, and vice versa again.=20 But it is interesting to contemplate how close these two realms become: = the radius of a D(1/7) deutrino.=20 Mike Carrell ------=_NextPart_000_0053_01C42EEB.F7ADEEE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A new paper at www.blacklightpower.com = should be of=20 interest to many: "New States of Hydrogen from K2CO3 Electrolysis = Gases". In one=20 way, Mills is revisiting his starting point, but with significant = enhancements.=20 There are two cells, the control with Na2CO3, both with nickel cathodes. = Excess=20 heat with K2CO3, none with NaCO3. In a second experiment, the cathodes = are again=20 nickel, but a helix of thin walled nickel tubing, one end sealed, the = other=20 connected to a gas collection system. This is also a return to an old=20 experiment. I think I have the paper somewhere. Hydrinos created = at the=20 cathode where both K+ and H are released together diffuse through the = nickel and=20 are collected to be analyzed by NMR. Evidence for hydrinos from H(1/2) = to H(1/7)=20 is seen, with excess heat. Controls and other analysis given in the = paper=20 eliminate chemical reactions, etc. Cell calibration method is described. =

What is interesting here is direct = evidence of the=20 BLP reaction in Mill's 'classical' electrolytic cell. What is even more=20 interesting is that deuterium is chemically identical to hydrogen, and = in other=20 BLP experiments particiapes inthe BLP reactions with BLP catalysts, = emitting=20 measurably different spectra in plasma cells.

One might conclude that LENR = investigators using=20 potassium-bearing electrolytes and heavy water, and seeing excess heat, = may be=20 seeing energy release from the BLP reaction, instead of, or with, LENR=20 reactions. This does not support that notion that BLP is "really" LENR, = or vice=20 versa. There is ample evidence for LENR under conditions that do not = promote BLP=20 reactions, and vice versa again.

But it is interesting to contemplate = how close=20 these two realms become: the radius of a D(1/7) deutrino.

Mike Carrell
------=_NextPart_000_0053_01C42EEB.F7ADEEE0-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 18:17:33 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i411HOqe009900; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:17:24 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i411HM5K009870; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:17:22 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:17:22 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <4092FB7A.8080909 rtpatlanta.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:20:58 -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: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430185906.01e49d50 mail.lenr-canr.org> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040430185906.01e49d50 mail.lenr-canr.org> 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/54314 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > This could be the result of the upcoming television show Steve Krivit > mentioned. I truly hope you are right. Certainly, high traffic will give the results I observed. But there was no web ref. in the article. If indeed this spike comes from Denver, one city, imagine the hits that would result from coverage by a national network, your "GTA". It would be a pity if huge numbers aborted. How does your ISP deal with such success, say, a Drudge Report hyperlink? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Apr 30 18:19:59 2004 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smartlst localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i411Jiqe010409; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:19:44 -0700 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i411JgN6010387; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:19:42 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:19:42 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-request eskimo.com using -f Message-ID: <001501c42f1a$6d635ca0$c864a8c0 win98> From: To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20040430182744.045ed030 mail.dlsi.net> Subject: Re: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 04:19:20 +0300 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 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/54315 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Maybe http://news.google.com/news?q=%22cold+fusion%22&num=100. There are many links to lenr.org from these news articles. A good article I noticed is http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/04/26/ColdFusionDogma.html I think success of CF will depend directly to gas prices. OTOH, while US govt trying to rule Middle East with cost of lives, I dont expect they will consider CF as cheap energy source in near future. Regards, hamdi ucar ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Krivit To: vortex-l eskimo.com Sent: 01 May 2004 04:29 Subject: Re: Lots of activity at LENR-CANR.org Jed - Could be TV IS Cold Fusion Heating Up? KMGH - Denver,CO,USA Fifteen years after the first controversial claims hit the headlines, cold fusion refuses to die. A small cadre of die-hard advocates ... Or it could be the asrtology .. 26 April, Los Angeles Times "....After Watergate, John Dean gladly dropped off the pulsing public radar screen. ... I could come up with cold fusion and I'd still be remembered for [my involvement with] Richard Nixon.". 26 April, Motley Fool "... Although it's contracted to get some coal-to-diesel action in China (coal liquefaction has historically been the cold fusion of the energy world) and is " 26 April, Review Appeal "..But while cars of the future might be powered by methanol or hydrogen or maybe cold fusion, good old-fashioned gasoline will remain the dominant automotive ... " 28 April Leo: Listen to the whispering of the cosmos. You could find the answer, trisect the angle in your sleep, even make cold fusion in an old beer bottle. But you'll have to put your back into it if you want the kind of stellar results that you intuit may be possible. Dream. http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=997 Steve