From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 05:27:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA07936; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:17:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:17:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:19:25 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Fine lines..... Resent-Message-ID: <"yQAoI2.0.wx1.y9qyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3810 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Stefan Hartmann wrote: >> >> >My primary purpose in this is to counter a Joe Newman/Evan Soule >> >"press release" (ultimately intended to round up investors, I imagine), >> >with a little pro-bono scientific and historical analysis to the >> >effect that >> > >> >(a) Newman has a long, discredited history, including failure >> > of his devices under careful scientific experimental >> > investiagtion. >> >> Hey buddy, don=B4t spread these lies here ! > >Mr. Merriman is stating his opinion, which can be supported with >evidence. > >This is a quite different thing than spreading lies. Dear Bob, I believe we are "cutting some fine lines" here about "opinions" vs "lies" but I would not argue the importance of so doing. The point I would take issue with in Merriman's above statement are the words "long, discredited history" -- this implies to me a long series of discredited examples where the technology did not perform as expected. Aside from the discredited NBS test, I would be interested in know what other tests (presumably numerous, since Merriman uses the word "long") are involved. [Per my other post I requested copies of same from you.] Perhaps Merriman can also supply the copies of the tests he appears to mention. Back to point of "cutting some fine lines" --- If I were to say: "Larry Doe has a long, discrediting history of writing bad checks" --- is this my "opinion" or is this a "lie"? I would say that the above statement regarding Larry Doe is my "opinion" since __I__ uttered the words --- unless I explicitly stated at the time (or somehow indicated) that it was the opinion of someone else. Now, it could be a "lie" or it could be "true" --- this depends upon endeavoring to ascertain the facts. If I present a stack of bank records indicating multiple bad checks written by Larry Doe over a historical period of time, then it's a reasonably safe bet that the opinion I state is true. [Of course, bank records can be forged, etc. but that's another question.] If I fail to be able to present such records --- records which would in fact indicate that Larry Doe had written bad checks --- then my opinion is a false one. Am I lying? Not necessarily. I may be simply misinformed. I may have mixed up two given Larry Does [after all, this is a pretty common name! :-)] So then we could also consider the issue of "intent" --- if it is a case of simple misinformation, then there was no intent to lie. However, if it can be ascertained that my failure to produce such records is based upon an intent to deceive others with respect to Larry Doe's credit, then IMO, my opinion would be a "lie" and I would be a "liar." With reference to Merriman, as stated above, I would be interested in viewing the "long, discredited history of evidence." >> You have absolutely no understanding of Newman machines >> which all your other postings prove ! >> It is just not true ! Newman machines have been proven >> by many tests to be overunity. >> The problem is, you don=B4t care to study these tests... > >There are also a number of tests which do not support Mr. Newman's >claims, so we can claim evidence for, and against Mr. Newman's case. >While you may chose to accept that Mr. Newman has proven his claims, >others disagree, and find issues with the supporting tests. > >Several experiments show only conventional effects where Mr. Newman >claims unconventional effects. Newman Energy Products has not yet >addressed these points in a satisfactory manner, and as a result, the >discussion was removed from freenrg-l. > >> >(b) Application of known principles to Newmans inventions clearly >> > suggest they will not work, so investors beware. >> >> Another lie again here... >> >> If you continue this over here I suggest you will be not just kicked >> off your chair but also out of Vortex ! > >Careful Stefan, > >The statement above is an opinion, not a lie. An opinion you do not >share does not become a lie. We are all entitled to our own opinions, >and the free expression of them. > >Newman was 'kicked off' freenrg-l for not addressing technical points >raised in an objective manner. As Mr. Merriman has not lied as you >state, but has stated his opinions with which you disagree. Your >flirting with lible here. Bob, I detect a bit of bias in your words 'kicked off' --- but then, we all have our biases -- including myself and Stefan. While you are certainly welcome to use the words "kicked off" -- my admitted bias would be "transferred to" .... in this case the discussion at that time was transferred to the VORTCOR-LIST. But as in science, as in all aspects of life, things change. Since almost 9 months ago, there have been new developments, new postings, and new insights. This is fortunate, because if it were not so in science, we'd be in a serious 'mess.' As you may know, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis REALLY WAS "kicked out" of a major hospital in Austria for practicing unorthodox methods. Fortunately for us, for science, and for medicine, Dr. Semmelweis was persistent. His ideas slowly, painfully, but eventually, triumphed and now his Pioneering (and previously rejected by the scientific establishment of his time) work is the basis of modern clinical antisepsis. And this is a most interesting point: Dr. Semmelweis was _unable to successfully communicate_ with a number of other doctors about his innovation in a way that they could understand --- yet, in the long run, HE was _right_ and they were _wrong_. snip--- > >This is a case where as Mr. Merriman states "Application of known >principles to Newmans inventions clearly suggest they will not work", >which shows that Mr. Merriman was not telling a lie at all, but stating >his opinion, which can be supported by facts. Well Bob, here we arrive where we started in this post... "lies" vs "opinion= s". And now there is interjected a third component ... "facts". Mr. Merriman has posted his "mathematical" analysis. Let me state that I am not a mathematician .... I was not fortunate enough to inherit the particular genes of my great-great-grandfather (Col. George Soule') who WAS considered by his peers at the time to be a mathematical genius. [He published a number of book on mathematics and accounting -- see Soule's Philosophical & Practical Mathematics -- yes, this is a bit of a "biased" plug for (g)(g)grandpa! :-) ... but he was a pretty nifty fellow!!! -- sorry for the digression] .... Anyway, in the _standard sense_ of the term Joseph Newman is also NOT a mathematician. Of course, in the sense that Michael Faraday was a mathematican of high order, I would also say that Joseph Newman is a mathematician.....but then again, this is my "bias." Well, back to my meandering effort to reach my point: Were I to take the time, effort, and possibly money, I could probably find a mathematician out there who could have a very different interpretation from that of Mr. Merriman. If I get lucky, one may come forth on his own --- if not, so be it. This "other" mathematician could present an analysis that would be slightly, somewhat, or very different from that of Mr. Merriman's. The other mathematician's analysis could end up still 'disproving' a few, some, or all of Dr. Hasting's Analysis in a still different way, or it could present a partial or total refutation of Mr. Merriman's presentation. I made earlier mention of the mathematician Dr. Simon Newcomb. While he WAS a mathematician --- he obviously was not the fountain of all mathematical knowledge even though he was highly esteemed in his day. He had a few flaws. Fortunately for us, those small-town bicycle mechanics were not so scholarly inclined to seek out mathematical writings such as those of Professor Newcomb. If so, they might have been inclined to think more than twice about 'rolling up their sleeves' and creating a heavier-than-air machine. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html P.S. It really does seem to take all types (the Semmelweises, the Wrights, and yes, even the Newcombs --- to "make this world go'round!" :-) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 06:07:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA12427; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:57:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:57:44 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:59:12 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Newman on Fredinburg's radio show Cc: bshannon tiac.net Resent-Message-ID: <"5ko311.0.123.Jlqyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3811 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: > >> Dear Bob, snip--- >> The point that I am making is that when one is sincere and has demonstrated >> a genuine interest in his technology, Joe is very receptive and open. If >> one endeavors to communicate in a manner which may be interpreted by Joe as >> being something other than sincere and genuinely interested in the >> technology, Joe will be less than receptive ....if not hostile. > >I think its a bit more complex than that Evan. I called Mr. Newman, and >told him that the two coil experiment had captured my interest to such a >degree that I was compeled to reproduce the experiment myself. I >further stated that I had observed the sort of behavior Mr. Newman had >described. > >This appeared to please Mr. Newman, which is perfectly natural. > >Then I stated that it appears that the behavior of the experiment >appears to be fully described by conventional, if somewhat unusual >phenomena. My intent was to find if these phenomena had been ruled out >my Mr. Newman, as I might have missed something. > >Before I completed the sentance, Mr. Newman began his personal attacks, >with foul language and threats of violence directed against me. > >At the very second something that might not fit into his view entered >the discussion, any receptivity totally disappeard, along with all >objectivity. I have no doubt that Mr. Newman's reaction would be quite >different had I not raised any questions against his theory. Mr. Newman >was steadfast in his conclusions, and saw no need to revisit the test in >question. _________________________________________________ For the sake of this discussion, I am going to assume that your report of the conversation between you and Joe (which occurred apr. 7 months ago) is correct. I have no factual evidence either way since I was not a party to the conversation. Now in all of this discussion I am not implying that either "you" or lying or that "Joe" is lying --- IMO, I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the domain of respective subjective interpretations of the discussion. If Joe did become emotional with you, it certainly would not come as a shock to me. The days of the seemingly always calm, happy Joe (when I first knew him) gave way to someone who became increasingly less calm and happy as a result of years of ridicule, attacks, insults, and _massive_ injustice at the hands of such technical incompetents like my good PTO buddy, Donovan F. Duggan. [I always endeavor to give Don the personal credit he is due for his incompetence. It is _quite_ possible, IMO, that if it Joe had been fortunate enough to interact with another PTO examiner instead of Don, you and I might not be having this discussion.] As a result of these (and many other) similar events, Joe's tolerance and patience level may be a bit more sensitively tuned than was the case 14 years ago. IMO this has absolutely no bearing on the rightness or lack of rightness of his ideas. Such sensitivity in someone may speak of their changing level of emotional sensitivity to various stimuli and input, but IMO this can be considered separately from the question of the rightness of their work. Classic case in point: Take Isaac Newton. He had a few ideas on gravitation. (To put it mildly.) It has been said by some (paraphrasing) that "Isaac Newton could be a horse's ass." When Isaac was in charge of scientific society meetings, I understand that there were occasions where, if someone made a presentation which was not particularly to Isaac's liking, he would endeavor to shout them down. The very fact that at one point Edmund Halley had to practically plead with Isaac to assemble his Principia data for publication by Halley was due in part to the low respect which Isaac had for some of his fellow species members --- especially those who would quibble, nitpick, and ridicule him which tended to make him reluctant to even publish. But none of the emotional issues surrounding Isaac's life were determinants of the rightness of his fundamental work. That stood on it own merits. _________________________________________________ > >To this date, Newman Energy Products has not addressed this technical >issue. _________________________________________________ If Joe feels -- from his subjective perspective (which is admittedly different from yours) that your point is appropriate to his time to respond to, he may respond. If not, he won't. From the possible tenor of how you describe your interaction with Joe, it is possible that his addressing your point is not a high point on his to-do list. I did email you a transcribed copy (several weeks ago) of that private letter which I received regarding your two-coil test point. I thought that letter raised some rather interesting questions about your point. I never did receive a reply from you to that email. I don't know if Joe would agree or disagree (or somewhere in between) with the points raised in that letter, but I did find them interesting. _________________________________________________ > >Mr. Soule, I find your work ethic highly commendable. Our country would >be in a far better position if this degree of work ethic were more >common. Were I Joe Newman, I'd give you a raise in a heartbeat, whatever >your current compensation might be. It's been more than earned in my >opinion. _________________________________________________ Sincere thanks for the kudos. I know you honestly mean them and I deeply appreciate it. While you and I may disagree, I nevertheless have sincere respect for the manner in which you present your case. _________________________________________________ snip--- > >I did learn quite a lot from the exchange however. Having benifited >from the experiance, I shall stand aside, and observe. Should Newman >Energy Products choose to revisit the tests in question, and integrate >the total energy over time delivered to both coils, my opinion of Mr. >Newman's objectivity would have to change. > >Respectfuly, > >Bob Shannon. With best regards, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 06:07:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA12477; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:57:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:57:59 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:59:26 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Clarification Resent-Message-ID: <"IzCDS.0.p23.alqyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3812 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Explicitly directed to the attention of Mr. Horace Heffner: Dear Horace Heffner, I believe I have repeated an earlier point at least twice, so I will try once more. "If you have any question about the nature, content, extent, or intent of Joseph Newman's statement, then I would invite you to directly contact Joseph Newman as I have indicated before." I will fax your comments above to Joseph Newman. Whether he chooses to respond will obviously be up to him. I would invite you to bear this in mind: if there are those who are attempting to plunder his technology, it could be said that it would not be in Joseph Newman's best legal interests to presently publicly disclose any appropriate legal/patent considerations which would possibly indicate in advance to the plunderer the nature of the legal strategies which Joseph Newman will pursue relative to the plunderer's actions. Whether Joseph Newman would be willing to privately and directly discuss this with anyone would be at his option. I have previously provided the means whereby one may contact him privately and directly. Regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 06:07:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA12511; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:58:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:58:10 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:59:40 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Magnetic Fields Resent-Message-ID: <"E4-Gj.0.O33.llqyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3813 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: newman-l emachine.com (Newman-l) Subject: Re: Analysis of Newman's Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 02:53:00 GMT Organization: The Energy Machine Information System 504-734-0526 To: josephnewman earthlink.net N>Barry Merriman wrote: N>> N>> As for JN toy demo: it definitely _does not_ lift N>> itself via the magnetic field of the earth. It certainly N>> can rotate, just as does a compass needle. But as noted, N>> the lift force will produce motions roughly 10^8 times N>> slower than the rotational ones. I think my mailer burped and ate the original message posted about this, but I can tell you from personal observation that his device does work. I videotaped the demo when he gave it in Mobile, Alabama some time ago. What he had at that time was a helium filled balloon with the coils wound around the outside of the gas bag. The buoyancy of the helium was insufficient to lift the device, so when it was released, it descended rapidly to the ground. When direct current was applied to the coils, the unit rotated itself so as to align itself with the Earth's magnetic field and then rapidly rose off the floor until it bumped into the ceiling. By varying the current applied to the coils the unit was able to float at any altitude between the floor and the ceiling. Obviously this device depended to a great extent on the lift provided by the helium to counterbalance much of the craft's weight. Nevertheless, the device only lifted free of the Earth when the electric power was applied to the coils. Ralph Hartwell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 06:25:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16745; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:15:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:15:41 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:15:28 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702011415.IAA26141 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Griggs of Hydrodynamics Resent-Message-ID: <"a5Ywh.0.954.A0ryo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3814 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:16 PM 1/31/97 -0800, AK wrote about Griggs: AK, did he happen to mention anything about the evaluation that NASA was doing on his pump? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 06:35:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA19542; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:25:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:25:54 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:25:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970201092532_-1944659015 emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Newman Messages Off-Charter Resent-Message-ID: <"Q3y0Q.0.Fn4.m9ryo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3815 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For our moderator, William Beaty: Bill, I agree with Horace Heffner, Kurt Johmann, Barry Merriman, and Robert Stirniman that messages about Joseph Newman's electromagnetic work don't belong on Vortex-L. They erode its distinctive value. I hope that you will consider asking devotees of Newman to post their messages elsewhere, perhaps on Freenrg-L. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 07:43:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA28930; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:20:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:20:33 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:19:51 -0800 Message-Id: <199702011519.HAA01361 dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Griggs of Hydrodynamics To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Cc: griggs mindspring.com Resent-Message-ID: <"HBfVv1.0.y37.-yryo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3816 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: February 1, 1997 Scott, you wrote: > >AK, did he happen to mention anything about the evaluation that NASA >was doing on his pump? Whoops! slipped my mind to ask him. I had something else on my mind so it did not come up. I received a promo video along with his sales brochures which I requested and he was kind enough to send. In the video, without any explanations except background narration, Hydrodynamics has a brief shot of a NASA emblazoned structure (broadcast footage). The video (10 minutes) is a collage of old footage combined with animation illustration of what the whole system looks and operates. Griggs will tell you he has O/U but it is nowwhere memntioned in his literature or video. The closest to it is his claim that it is the most economical system than any competitors'. I guess with O/U working for you, it is. Griggs is pushing the material handling capabilities of his "Shock Wave" steam generating pump. He is making a point that it produces steam or hot water on demand without bulk combustion heating. For bulk use of hot water, a resevoir hot water tank is used and the water is recirculated through the pump to raise it to the desired temperature. Currently, he has FIVE different sized models, small to large. It was easy to get in touch with Hydrodynamics. You can catch him early in the morning (8-9) at his plant and he can talk to you if he is not really tied up. Remember he has business to attend to, meaning no offense. His telephone: 706-234-4111 fax: 706-234-0702 email: griggs mindspring.com . Earth Tech has contacted him before, I believe, so it should be easy. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 07:57:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA31333; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:34:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:34:51 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:34:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970201103451_376717806 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Poliakov sending Resent-Message-ID: <"zA4uI2.0.Uf7.QAsyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3817 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: What envelope? I would like to hear from Poliakov. I have some stuff to send him. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 08:14:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA02047; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:52:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:52:22 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:52:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970201105200_376726532 emout11.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: right idea wrong question Resent-Message-ID: <"N96L_3.0.qV.pQsyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3818 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "Focus" is the wrong concept. The repulsive force by Meissner flux exclusion depends on geometry, of course. If the superconductor is a disk, the repulsion of a magnet would be greatest when the latter is over the center of the disk. .............................................................................. ................................ Look again at the Meissner effect. Magnetic lines are expelled from the material. They become longer, they have to go around the superconductor. The only electric field that exists within a superconductor is an induced one. Induced electric fields (induced by magnetic acceleration) do not diverge. No isolated diverging point charges can exist within a superconductor. The the range of the electric field is smaller within a superconductor. It has a dipole formulation. It saturates. |------->+e -e<-----------| |--------> <-----------| The induced electric field of a superconductor. .............................................................................. ................................ Can you see this? The RANGE of the interaction has changed. .............................................................................. ................................ The same effect happens to all of the forces. Multi-body nuclear effects are observed within electron clusters. The range of the nuclear force has become longer. .............................................................................. ...................................... Local gravitomagnetic fields have been observed. The range of the gravitational force has become shorter. Once again, same trend different force. .............................................................................. ............................... Do the electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces directly interact. I don't think so, but if they interact on the same particle through similar distances who could tell them apart. .............................................................................. Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 09:38:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA18984; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:16:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:16:08 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:15:52 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702011715.LAA06529 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Meissner effect Resent-Message-ID: <"cCYI4.0.Ve4.Kftyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3819 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A probably technically incorrect but nonetheless useful (to me anyway) way of looking at the Meissner effect is that the SC acts like a mirror for magnetic fields. When the magnet and SC are juxtaposed, a supercurrent flows in the SC which serves to generate an equal and opposite flux to that imposed by the magnet. This cancels out the field in the interior of the SC and the magnet reacts as if it were next to an identical mirror-imaged magnet. If you point the N pole of the magnet at the SC, the SC creates a N pole pointing back at the magnet....i.e. repulsion. Unlike the situation in which two magnets are placed N to N, which is terribly unstable, the N pole image in the SC moves with the magnet that is causing it. Also, if the magnet rotates to bring its S pole to bear, the SC responds by generating a S pole to repel it. The result is stable levitation....something that cannot be achieved with magnets alone...unless part of the apparatus is constrained in some way (i.e. by spinning). - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 12:04:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA23637; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:41:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:41:07 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:43:00 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Magnetic Fields Resent-Message-ID: <"6ORJF1.0.Fn5.Gnvyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3820 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 8:59 AM 2/1/97, Evan Soule wrote: [snip] > > When direct current was applied to the coils, the unit rotated itself >so as to align itself with the Earth's magnetic field and then rapidly >rose off the floor until it bumped into the ceiling. By varying the >current applied to the coils the unit was able to float at any altitude >between the floor and the ceiling. > > Obviously this device depended to a great extent on the lift provided >by the helium to counterbalance much of the craft's weight. Nevertheless, >the device only lifted free of the Earth when the electric power was >applied to the coils. > > Ralph Hartwell It sounds like the current supply conductors may have been in two separate segments as opposed to a twisted pair or parallel conductors. Is this true? If so, this might create a significant "ground loop" and thus an opposing ground "stator" coil. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 12:22:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA28273; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:59:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:59:13 -0800 Message-ID: <32F35A2D.2C96 tiac.net> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 14:58:53 +0000 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon tiac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clarification References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DheOG2.0.gv6.F2wyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3821 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Again I repeat the now further clarified specific questions which remain > completely unanswered: > > (1) Could you please indicate the basis upon which you could sue, since you > have not been issued a patent on "any electromagnetic technology having > greater output energy than energy externally inputted into the system?" > > (2) Do you not have to have a patent in order to sue for infringement? > > (3) Further, how is it that you expect a patent to be issued for a generic > idea like "technology having greater output energy than energy externally > inputted into the system," as opposed to a specific device or method? > > (4) Isn't this expectation completely against current patent law and > procedures? > > (5) As to your argument: "From the widest to the narrowest interpretation > of the patent claims, such claims will be upheld in the __language of the > Applicant.__", does this not refer to *issued patents* not patent > applications? My experience is that one can not write anything he choses > for claims and have them accepted. > > Whoever is making the threat of suit please answer the questions or > publically withdraw the threat. Very well stated indeed! For if Mr. Newman held such a patent, and I were to make any substacial improvement, I would be free to secure my own patent for that improvement, and conduct business accordingly. If such a patent was indeed held, it would not give any rights to claim that any or all such technology was the intellectual property of the holder. Clearly the same is true for gravitational technology, or any invention. Hollow threats of baseless suits will impead the work being done on this list, and to the hope of improving the lot of mankind. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 12:22:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA28315; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:59:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:59:31 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:57:29 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Poliakov sending In-Reply-To: <970201103451_376717806 emout12.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"J6pyC1.0.Hw6.V2wyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3822 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Who is Poliakov and what does or did he do? On Sat, 1 Feb 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > What envelope? I would like to hear from Poliakov. I have some stuff to > send him. > > Frank Znidarsic > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 12:54:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA00772; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:31:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:31:17 -0800 Message-ID: <32F361B4.1ED5 tiac.net> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 15:31:00 +0000 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon tiac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic Fields References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"k9Dlz2.0.zB.JWwyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3823 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > Obviously this device depended to a great extent on the lift provided > by the helium to counterbalance much of the craft's weight. Nevertheless, > the device only lifted free of the Earth when the electric power was > applied to the coils. > > Ralph Hartwell Mr. Hartwell, Being that displacement lift from the helium is 'depended to a great extent' in this device, does this not place a maximum altitude limit on the design? Further, is it clear in your opinion that heating of the helium was not the process by which the device lifted from the floor? Has this device ever lifted it's own power supply? If not, how could it ever be scaled up to a practical aircraft? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 13:34:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA11181; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:11:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:11:32 -0800 Message-Id: <199702012111.QAA04737 mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:21:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Announce: Lectures on Vacuum-Field Energy and Quantum Biology Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"vTDBW.0.Zk2.16xyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3824 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University (Philadelphia, PA) invites you to attend the (free) Spring '97 Lectures on topics of Quantum Biology, Vacuum-Field Energy, and Alternative/Complementary Medicine: February 24, 1997 (Monday) 2:00 pm Cyril W. Smith, Ph.D., Department of Engineering, University of Salford, Salford, UK "Is a Biological System a Macroscopic Quantum System?" Evidence in support of quantum effects in living systems will be presented in relation to developments in the theory of water that predict the existence of coherence domains in the ground state within chaotic water. March 17, 1997 (Monday) 2:00 pm Dr. Hans A Nieper, FAPM, President of the German Association of Vacuum Field Energy and Past-President of the German Society of Oncology, Hannover, Germany "Conversions of Vacuum Field Energy: Its Significance for Medicine, Medical Therapy, and Energy Technology in the Forthcoming Century." The space between particles of atomic matter is filled with an energy field, called a vacuum field. This field shows an extremely high energy density and vital interactions with biological systems. The prospects for developments in medicine and energy technology are presented, including the conversion of vacuum-field energy into usable forms. March 18, 1997 (Tuesday) 2:00 pm George Weissmann, Ph.D., Berkeley, CA "The Quantum and I: Implications of the Emerging Quantum Paradigm" Seventy years after its development, quantum theory still poses challenges to the foundations of science. Its implications are not only scientific and philosophical, but also, if we allow them to penetrate us deeply, existential. For quantum theory appears to offer us the opportunity to reenvision ourselves and our universe in a fundamentally interconnected way, opening the path for a new synergistic relationship between science and spirituality. April 3, 1997 (Thursday) 2:00 pm William J. Walsh, Ph.D., Founder and Director of the Carl Pfeiffer Treatment Center and Health Research Institute, Naperville, IL "Biochemical Treatments: Health for the Next Century" Biochemical treatment aims to alleviate chemical imbalances through the use of neurotransmitter building blocks: amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. Chemical classifications and syndromes for behavior disorders, depression, and schizophrenia and described. Outcome studies measuring the efficacy of biochemical treatments for these disorders are presented. ------------------------- Place: Temple University Kiva Auditorium, Ritter Hall Annex 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave. (NE corner of North Broad St. & Cecil B. Moore Ave.) Philadelphia, PA Time: 2:00 - 3:30 p.m. Refreshments served at 1:30 p.m. Lectures are free; the academic community and public are invited. ------------------------- For further information, please contact: Nancy Kolenda, Coordinator Phone: 215-204-8487 Fax: 215-204-5553 E-mail: v2058a vm.temple.edu Website: http://www.temple.edu/CFS ------------------------- Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University Ritter Hall (003-00), Room 478 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA ------------------------- About the Center for Frontier Sciences: The goal of the Center is to facilitate scientific study in areas such as bioelectromagnetics, the mind-matter interrelationship, complementary and alternative medicine, unresolved issues in quantum physics, and new energy technologies. As an integral part of a major university, the Center maintains high standards in reviewing new claims, while remaining open to ideas that may go beyond currently dominant paradigms. Frontier Perspectives, the Center's semi-annual journal, publishes peer-reviewed scientific papers, along with Invited Opinions, Book Reviews, and news of organizations, meetings, and other publications of interest. A cumulative index is posted on the Center's website at URL http://www.temple.edu/CFS. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 14:37:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA24572; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:12:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:12:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:13:41 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Reply regarding Bob Shannon's comments Resent-Message-ID: <"7aICB3.0.s_5.4_xyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3825 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: _________________________________________ Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from submissions by other individuals interested in the technology _________________________________________ January 7, 1997 Dear Mr. Soule', This is written in response to the earlier letters of Bob Shannon. I apologize for taking my time to respond, but I like to digest things slowly and carefully. I have read Joseph Newman's most interesting book and I viewed the "Two Coil" videotape several months ago. After reading a copy of Bob Shannon's earlier comments, I decided to review the videotape yet again. I have discovered what I believe are some serious discrepancies in Bob's understanding of the demonstration presented by Joseph Newman. But, please do not construe anything I'm writing as a personal attack upon Bob. It certainly is not. On the contrary: although I believe Bob may have overlooked some important points, I do wish to thank him for his taking the time to provide his comments about this important issue. His comments have enabled me to think on my own about Mr. Newman's work with more understanding. I'll begin by stating that Bob may wish to consider a more comprehensive review of the Two Coil Video and especially Joseph Newman's book. Although I am far from "mastering" his book --- I do believe that Joseph Newman has a truly remarkable understanding of electromagnetism/and many other related subjects that may someday earn him an important place in the annals of historic scientific achievements. To Bob: the copy of your letters I saw from December 17th & 18th do not describe the conditions or parameters of Joe's original test. Several times in your letters you mention that the "inductance" is the _same_ for both coils. Where did you obtain this information? This information is certainly not in the Video nor in Joe's book. You also refer to a vacuum demonstration verses a conductor demonstration and your statement that there is _no_ difference. Had you read Chapter Four of Joe's book, this aspect of the discussion would have been self-explanatory. Also, in the Video, Joe stated that a conductor is not "dormant like a water pipe" as is presently taught --- but, in fact, is so highly magnetic that it "deceives the observer." In the Video, Joe measures the current of both coils with the same input. The current reading in both cases was more than what the source was capable of providing. Joe was quite clear about this point. December 17th, Bob Shannon wrote: "Mr. Newman has developed the understanding that some special advantage may be had by using more copper and less current than in conventional designs." December 18th, Bob Shannon wrote: "Simply pointing to original data when faced with contradictory data is not an intellectually honest, nor scientific approach." I have read where Joe states throughout his book that "you should stand upon the shoulders of others to see further than they" and to "master what I teach." In the Video he specifically encourages one not to unnecessarily hold on to "biases" and "prejudices." He has never claimed that his new technology "violates" the First Law of Thermodynamics, for example, or our present understanding of nature --- but he stresses that his work shows our prior understanding to be incomplete. [Actually, I believe that his technology more deeply reaffirms the First Law of Thermodynamics and demonstrates the total conservation of Matter and Energy as applied to electromagnetism.] Joseph Newman uses ohm's law to calculate his answers --- and if you, Bob, are also using ohm's law to calculate your answers --- then what is really the essence of the question? Joe teaches that a mass --- in this case a copper conductor --- is a source of energy .... not a "dormant water pipe" as some have been taught. You have brought up the fact that the energy in a magnetic field is equivalent to its source. Joe could not agree more. His Two Coil Experiment --- a very simple experiment --- demonstrated that there was more current being measured than what the source was capable of providing. This result caused Joe to examine the mass (of the copper conductor) as a possible source of the extra current. You wrote: "Because the total energy to reach full field intensity was not measured, it appeared that some advantage was present...." The "total energy" as you put it, was the same two (2) 9-volt DC batteries connected in series bought off-the-shelf from any store. Thus, the current and the voltage was the same for both coils. The "full field intensity" is not needed --- but, for your information, Joe also addressed that point. The question then becomes, from where did the extra current (amp meter reading to limited battery current capabilities) come? The answer was stated in the Video and echoes throughout his book. If one is "intellectually honest" (to employ the words you use above), the answer would be easily understandable: the _mass_ (of the copper conductor) is the _source_. In the Video demonstration, for varying lengths of time, Joe connected the batteries to each coil. Each time he demonstrated that the current was greater than what the batteries could provide. For the purpose of the demonstration a longer "on-time" was unnecessary since maximum atom alignment with the conductor only takes a fraction of a second. This was demonstrated in the video as well, when Joe would connect the batteries for various times while the amp meter showed a consistent reading, time after time. Thus, this also demonstrated a maximum current capability and is not a violation of our present understanding in this area. Therefore, one may again ask, from where did the extra current come? Answer: the MASS (of the copper conductor)! This demonstrated that the conductor is not a dormant water pipe as had been previously believed. To repeat: as Joe states in his book: the conductor(copper) is "so magnetic that it deceives the observer." Again, I encourage you to reread Chapter Four of Joe's book since it addresses this issue. If you are interested in "full field intensity," then I would suggest his well-documented 1,800 lb automobile that operated on 1.5 volt transistor batteries connected in series. This automobile operated inside the Atlanta Domed Convention Center and ran non-stop, continuously for 30 HOURS. Since the batteries were connected in series, this automobile utilized the current equivalent to that of one 1.5 volt transistor battery. Oh, by the way --- as the automobile operated, the voltage level in the batteries INCREASED. Question: on what then did the automobile operate? Answer: the MASS of the copper conductor utilized in the Newman Motor/Generator. You wrote: "...but careful measurements show something quite different...." Oops! You have already stated that the inductances for the two coils were the same. Joe specifically stated that they were not. Either you did not observe and/or perform the same test, or your measurements may not have been as careful as they should have been. You wrote: "....also inductors of the same value...." Oops again. For your information as stated on the video, the coils are not of the same "inductance." I would suggest that you are still adhering to "biases" and "prejudices" and may not be choosing to understand the technology more fully by a willingness to be "intellectually honest." You also wrote: "....but widely different masses have identical energy storage capability for the same total energy input." What! Oops again. Joe specifically states that the coils are of the same gauge but different resistance (mass). What gave you the idea that the "masses have identical energy storage capability?" Joe certainly never said this nor did he ever imply it. The coils used in the experiment are not what you have described. They were the same gauge wire with differing numbers of turns on identically-sized spools. In other words, he bought two identical 80-lb, 10-gauge coils of copper wire and removed approximately 75-lbs of wire from one of the coils. He then applied a voltage source (the two, 9-volt DC transistor batteries). As stated previously, the two coils demonstrated different current readings. What were we reading if not what the batteries are capable of delivering? As Joe teaches in his book, the additional current is provided from the MASS (copper coil conductor). In your December 18th letter you wrote: "When we conduct actual tests to see if there is any extra energy stored in the magnetic field of a more massive inductor, we must be very careful in measuring the total energy input. The larger coil's higher inductance will take additional time to reach maximum intensity for a given (fixed) supply voltage." To emphasize my point below: let me repeat your exact words: "THE LARGER COIL'S HIGHER INDUCTANCE WILL TAKE ADDITIONAL TIME TO REACH MAXIMUM INTENSITY FOR A GIVEN (FIXED) SUPPLY VOLTAGE." There is one very important problem with your words: In Joe's video demonstration, the larger coil took **___LESS___** TIME than the smaller coil to reach maximum magnetic field intensity for the given (fixed) supply voltage __AND__ had GREATER TORQUE demonstrated by the swing armature than the smaller coil! The word LESS is the important word here. In your December 17th letter you wrote: "Truth is only found by direct experimentation, not by anyone's words alone." Bob, from what I've read and seen, I believe Joseph Newman could not agree with you more. I would sincerely suggest that you consider accepting some of your own advice. In Joe's original letter of December 14, 1996, he stated that what he writes in his book is from _experimentation_ --- not from looking over someone else's shoulders. I can tell from his writings that Joe is very dedicated to extensive experimentation and intellectual honesty. Based upon his writings, I believe I could say that it would be Joe's hope that people will examine his technology with open, unprejudiced minds. I suggest that you fully realize the implications of the fact that the conductor is not "dormant" like a "water pipe carrying water." When one has understood this, then I believe one may be able to set aside "biases" and "prejudices" and stand on the shoulders of others. Sincerely, L. R. Parker P.S. You are welcome to forward my comments to Bob Shannon, etc. I wanted you to have the opportunity to read it over first and then forward it if you so choose. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 14:46:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA26659; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:22:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:22:49 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702012214.OAA02331 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Poliakov sending To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:14:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "John Schnurer" at Feb 1, 97 02:57:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_yGa11.0.TW6.s8yyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3826 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer writes: > Who is Poliakov and what does or did he do? Spartak M. Poliakov and Oleg S. Poliakov are a Russian father and son, and authors of a book which was published in 1991 called "Experimental Gravitonics". The book is in Russian and about 130 pages long. It contains a variety of equations, as well as pictures and diagrams of interesting looking experiments. I have a copy made from the original Russian, but do not have an English translation. Alex Frolov was at one time getting a translation done for publication in English. Also Gene Mallove was getting a translation done by a Russian physicist friend who lives in New Hampshire. I don't know what became of these efforts -- apparently nothing. Mallove's friend may have passed, and I haven't seen anything lately about this from Frolov. An abstract of the book and translation of the table of contents was provided about a year ago by Alex Frolov (copied below). The latest address I have for the Poliakovs is: Moscow area, 141120, FRIAZINO, 60-let str., 1-167. Phone 7-095-4658822. Regards, Robert Stirniman =================================================================== INTRODUCTION TO EXPERIMENTAL GRAVITONICS Abstract of book by S.M.Poliakov and O.S.Poliakov The experiments part covers the following subjects: 1. Light-beam curvature and optical-radiation frequency shift is created and investigated in an artificial nonhomogeneous gravitational field. A new gravitational effect, named "quadrature" frequency shift in the curved light beam is predicted and calculated. 2. Magnetostriction is at last explained as a secondary gravitational effect. An equation derived for magnetostriction permits to calculate the magnetostriction curve. 3. The propagation velocity of gravitational radiation (generated by a laboratory source) was measured for "quadrupole" - 9x10E20 cm/s or squared light velocity. 4. It was demonstrated that gravitation is only one of NONLINEAR- MECHANICS EFFECT, that can be created in mechanical system or in ferromagnetic. The book was published at the author's expense in 1991. Most powerful experimental result described in this book is more than 1200 gramms of pulsed G-force. Several mechanical systems and systems using ferrites are detailed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 New notions of things forgotten long ago 1 Is the "light barrier" penetrable? p.7 2 Energy relations and the mechanism of "C-barrier" penetration. p.10 Chapter 2 Microstructural models of the photon and electron 1 What do we know about the photon, an electromagnetic-radiation quantum? p.21 2 Uniquanta parameters p.23 1. Uniquanta spin ( postulated ) p.23 a. Linear polarization Fig.8a p.25 b. Circularly polarized nonrotating photon Fig.8b. p.26 c. Circularly polarized rotating photon. P.26 2. Magnetic moment of a uniquantum (postulated) p.27 3. Uniquantum gravitational mass ( postulated ) p.27 4. Equivalent charge and radius of a uniquantum. p.27 5. Tangential velocity of uniquantum rotation p.29 6. Uniquantum magnetic field p.30 7. Gravitational constant of the uniquantum p.30 8. Gravitational field of the uniquantum p.31 3 Photon model p.32 4 Phenomenological microstructural model of the electron p.35 5 Derivation of approximate gravitational equations of practical interest p.45 part 2 Experimental verification of new gravitational equations p.55 Chapter 1 Experimental verification of mechanical gravitational equations 1 Problems pertaining to the velocity of gravitational-radiation propagation p.56 2 Principles of determining the propagation velocity of the unknow radiation from the measured momentum of recoil. p.59 3 Description of the experimental set-up p.64 4 Gyroscopic multipole "Buket" (Bouget) p.68 5 Investigation of the effects of dummy shock rotation p.77 6 The effect of shock braking of the rotating gyroscope p.79 7 Quadrupole generator of directional gravitational radiation "Yoilka" (Fir) p.80 1. Swing of dummies p.82 2. Swing of gyroscopes p.83 3. Precession of dummies p.84 4. Precession of gyroscopes p.85 8 Experimental results for the quadrupole generator p.86 9 Mathematical model of the quadrypole generator p.89 10 Questions of practical application of the results p.107 Chapter 2 Experimental verification of the natural relation between magnetism and gravitation, corollaries from the microstructural model of electron p.111 1 Gravitational interpretation of magnetostriction p.114 Experimental results p.117 2 Magnetostrictive curvature of optical beam p.118 Choice of the material for magnetogravioptical investigations p.121 Magnetic-gap parameters p.123 Experimental methods p.123 3 Gravioptical effects in GRT p.126 4 Gravitational frequency shift of optical relation in a nonhomogeneously-magnetized ferromagnetic material p.128 5 Quadratic gravioptical effect p.130 6 Some fantastic possibilities opening for modern fundamental science p131 7 Generator of short gravitational pulses (by ferromagnetics) p.134 8 Problem of gravitational receiver p.137 Conclusion p.139 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 16:29:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16655; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:05:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:05:45 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:07:16 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Clarification Specifically to Mr. Horace Heffner Resent-Message-ID: <"09c3M2.0.944.Mfzyo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3827 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: February 1, 1997 To: Mr. Horace Heffner This post is specifically directed to Mr. Horace Heffner. It is only publicly posted since I am respecting Mr. Heffner's wishes that this is his preferred method for discussing this subject. If you (Horace Heffner) wish to receive Joseph Newman's six sentence response to your last posting, you can send me a private email to that effect. Beyond this point, I do not wish to continue this thread on the List. If you do not wish to send me a private email, then we have nothing further to communicate on this subject as far as I am concerned. If you do send a private email (per above) and if you (Horace Heffner) choose to later publicly post my private email to you containing Joseph Newman's personal reply specifically to you, that will be your choice and beyond this point you, not me, will have continued this thread publicly. Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 18:19:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA09329; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:09:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:09:12 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:09:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199702020209.SAA14385 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Shut up all of you, get BS off this list Resent-Message-ID: <"9RgLT2.0.cH2.6T_yo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3828 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This Newman BS has no business on this vortex list. It is absurd and wasting my time deleting dozens of vortex messages unread. Horace, just drop it. Barry, drop it. Evan, go somewhere else with the legaleze BS. All of you knock it off and get back to work this is a waste of time and energy. I have tried to keep quite throughout but you idiots, all, keep on responding. Just drop this stupid shit and let the Newman crap die on the vine or do whatever it will. If you want to discuss the performance characteristics fine, but the other insinuations have no business here. Regarding the call for moderation, I would recomend that anyone continuing this thread in this group for any reason just be dropped. This is not some private podium for any of about a hundred posts on this garbage now. If there are some design characteristics and some lift and work parameters, then post them and discuss OU or not OU. Beyond that, if you keep on bantering back and forth then the rest of us must wade through your crap. And for the ones who must pay to receive their email messages, you are actually costing money. So DROP IT, DROP IT, DROP IT. If you drop it and agree to never write another letter, then Evan Soule or whomever fails to drop it will just banter in the wind alone and get bored. If anyone, including Evan, have some measurements to discuss fine, then post, Newman device measurements or something as a thread. Otherwise, shut the ---- up. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 21:13:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05818; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:02:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:02:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:12:15 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Tom Resent-Message-ID: <"Nd5Zn1.0.dP1.C_1zo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3832 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >For our moderator, William Beaty: > >Bill, > >I agree with Horace Heffner, Kurt Johmann, Barry Merriman, and Robert >Stirniman that messages about Joseph Newman's electromagnetic work don't >belong on Vortex-L. They erode its distinctive value. > >I hope that you will consider asking devotees of Newman to post their >messages elsewhere, perhaps on Freenrg-L. > >Tom Stolper Dear Tom, (FZNIDARSIC aol.com)'s recent post entitled, "right idea wrong question" included a number of comments relative to electromagnetism, e.g.: "...the repulsion of a magnet..." "Magnetic lines are expelled..." "The only electric field..." "The the range of the electric field..." "The induced electric field..." "Do the electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces directly interact?" Is one to assume that such messages containing a discussion of electromagnetism as posted by FZNIDARSIC aol.com should be posted elsewhere? Sincerely, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 1 21:37:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA13384; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:27:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:27:28 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Feb 97 18:55:32 PST From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9702020255.AA03586 joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Correction to my comment on Newman Cc: josephnewman earthlink.com Resent-Message-ID: <"fHgA51.0.NG3.uM2zo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3833 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I agreee we should refrain from discussing Newman further on this list, but I must make a public correction to the statements I have made here about Nwman. After Evan Soule's clear denial that Newman was ever jailed or had sex with underage girls, I was inspired to revisit my source for this supposed information, and refresh my memory. I returned to my source, which is printed in the book The Return of the Straight Dope, by Cecil Adams. It is a compilation of columns that answer questions sent in by readers, often about scientific matters. On pages 409-410 is the Newman column I was trying to rember. Indeed, it turns out Evan Soule' was correct, and I was wrong when I said newman had served a couple years in jail for sex with a minor. In summary, what the column does say is this: Cecil Adams gives and article in the Mississippi Press newspaper as his source. It said that Newman had issued a 12 page press release announcing his marriage to his secretary *and* here eight year old daughter, and that god had instructed him to do this and overseen the seromony.The press release was sent to Ayatollah Khomeine, among others. However, Newman was also married to another woman at the same time. The authorities had the eight year old girl removed from Newmans home, but he specifically said (thankfully) that he had not consumated the marriage with her. Adams further reports that god had previously ordered Newman to run for the president of the united states. Adams concludes with a quote from Newman where he says god will visit misery upon the state of Mis. for the wrongs it has done to him. So, as you can clearly see, I was wrong and Evan Soule' was right. If Evan wants to further refute the above story, I welcome him to do so. I would also like to see a copy of the 12 page pres release mentioned above, if Evan would provide one. I apologize to Soule and Newman for generating a false rumor, and hope others will also correct this if need be. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 00:12:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA05473; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 00:02:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 00:02:32 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:02:48 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Shut up all of you, get BS off this list Resent-Message-ID: <"CtF7d.0.qI1.ud4zo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3834 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >This Newman BS has no business on this vortex list. It is absurd and >wasting my time deleting dozens of vortex messages unread. > Gee, Ross, if you haven't read the postings, how do you know their relevance (irrelevance) to the list? > Otherwise, shut >the ---- up. > >Ross Tessien Well, there *have* been numerous calls for moderator, mine included, but no response. Maybe they should have been addressed to you. 8^) You'll be happy to hear that I don't expect to continue any further because if Newman's (etc.) threat to sue anyone producing "any electromagnetic technology having greater output energy than energy externally inputted into the system" is as baseless as it appears we shall not ever publically hear direct answers to my questions. Now, about data, Ross, perhaps you have some to discuss? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 02:39:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA23882; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:29:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:29:50 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 05:31:24 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Barry's thread .... Resent-Message-ID: <"lyfkN.0.4r5.So6zo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3840 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Barry, Setting aside, for just a moment, your "social" commentaries, I would invite whomever would wish to step aside from this and take a careful look at the way in which you have approached this subject: Rather than originally respond from a scientific perspective regarding Joseph Newman's statements about his electromagnetic lift device (ELD), your principal thrust as a "refutation" was "sex" and "jail." Your second difficulty was that you stated your "facts" before you checked your sources. My take on this: You were so anxious, in my opinion, to 'smear' someone whom you regard as a "crackpot" and a "nut" that "facts be damned" --- FULL SPEED AHEAD! This may be appropriate in a naval battle where facts are torpedoes --- but, I believe, inappropriate in this context. As a result, your original, now unsubstantiated post in terms of "sex" and "jail", caused needless uproar about such "social subjects" which were inappropriate for this List. But rather than simply post an apology (which I would certainly accept and respect), you publicly continue on with the "social" commentaries. This gives me no alternative to publicly respond in kind, and so this thread continues.... As an operational suggestion: you might have considered correcting your error with a simple public apology and then privately emailing me with your additional social commentaries in search of clarification. >I agreee we should refrain from discussing Newman further >on this list, but I must make a public correction to the >statements I have made here about Nwman. > >After Evan Soule's clear denial that Newman was ever jailed or >had sex with underage girls, I was inspired to revisit my source for >this supposed information, and refresh my memory. > >I returned to my source, which is >printed in the book The Return of the Straight Dope, by Cecil Adams. >It is a compilation of columns that answer questions sent in by >readers, often about scientific matters. > >On pages 409-410 is the Newman column I was trying to rember. Indeed, it >turns out Evan Soule' was correct, and I was wrong when I said newman >had served a couple years in jail for sex with a minor. > >In summary, what the column does say is this: Cecil Adams gives >and article in the Mississippi Press newspaper as his source. >It said that Newman had issued a 12 page press release announcing >his marriage to his secretary *and* here eight year old daughter, and that >god had instructed him to do this and overseen the seromony.The >press release was sent to Ayatollah Khomeine, among others. >However, Newman was also married to another woman at the same >time. The authorities had the eight year old girl removed from Newmans >home, but he specifically said >(thankfully) that he had not consumated the marriage with her. >Adams further reports that god had previously ordered Newman to run >for the president of the united states. Adams concludes with a quote from >Newman where he says god will visit misery >upon the state of Mis. for the wrongs it has done to him. > >So, as you can clearly see, I was wrong and Evan Soule' >was right. If Evan wants to further refute the above >story, I welcome him to do so. I would also >like to see a copy of the 12 page pres release mentioned >above, if Evan would provide one. I don't have a copy of the original release -- you can contact Joseph Newman directly regarding obtaining one. He can be reached at: (601) 947-7147. > >I apologize to Soule' and Newman for generating >a false rumor, and hope others will also correct this >if need be. Your apology is accepted. I hope in the future that everyone (including myself) will endeavor to be sensitive to ascertaining one's facts prior to launching an inappropriate 'attack.' I will respond in an ideological and personal way to your comments: I had assumed that this was a forum for Science and Technology, but since you appear, in my opinion, to have a private fascination with the personal life of Joseph Newman which you have chosen to publicly share on this scientific list, then I am assuming that one can reply in kind -- especially since you have publicly "welcomed" me to do so. I have known Joseph Newman for nearly 14 years. During this time I have found him to be a human being of impeccable integrity, honesty, sincerity and dedication to his principles and innovative technology. I will also be so bold as to state that it is my opinion that Joseph Newman has a deeper and more fundamental *mechanical* understanding of (electro)magnetism that any other person currently alive on this planet. (While I obviously haven't 'interviewed all living persons' -- this is an opinionated extrapolation which I am making at this time.) [I will conclude this ideological and personal statement with quotations from three other individuals who also have respect for Joseph Newman's scientific work.] Back to Barry's thread.... Yes, over nine years ago he did symbolically (non-physically/non-legally) "marry" his 30-year old secretary and symbolically (non-physically/non-legally) "marry" her 8-year old daughter. And he made no secret of this. He mailed out: 1) a press release announcing this very fact and 2) a long, detailed booklet explaining why he did this to SEVERAL HUNDRED MEMBERS OF THE PRESS. Neither came as a surprise to myself -- I knew about each well in advance. I also correctly anticipated the public responses. Without going into a long --- very long --- explanation of Joe's personal religious beliefs (I am assuming that this is _not_ the FORUM for this) suffice to say that for a number of reasons (via, in part, contact with religious individuals throughout the Middle East) Joseph Newman wanted to demonstrate his religious allegiance with the people and followers of the Mohammedan religion (as well as with every other major religion [in different ways]) by following a procedure that has been historically CUSTOMARY in the Middle East. [Mohammed himself married a very young girl...and not, I believe, just symbolically!] Now this may be UNcustomary with Westerners --- and if so, Joe could care less. Joe has NEVER been one to follow any one set of customs --- he follows his principles FIRST be they religious or scientific. I would say that Joe is definitely a Man of Principle --- whether you agree with, or regard some/all of his principles as eccentric/uncustomary or not. And with respect to this discussion, those who DO KNOW his principles in detail understand EXACTLY what Joe is saying, and DOING. ************************************************************** If one pursued an interest in Joe's scientific theories with the same level of interest in his personal religious beliefs, one might learn some very interesting scientific discoveries --- *especially* with regard to the fact that the PHYSICAL lines of force represent kinetic energy --- and that the energy in electromagnetic phenomena consists of MATTER IN MOTION. ************************************************************** And speaking of eccentric or "uncustomary" behavior: if eccentricity alone or a willingness to stand alone on one's principles is any measure of genius, then on this basis, Joseph Newman is an innovator of the first order. I once knew of an uncustomary, twenty-year-old "whacko" that got himself killed in a duel. He was a real emotional hot-head, but a man of principle. He expected he would die in the forthcoming duel. He didn't give a damn. He would still duel to the death! He did, however, stay up all night before the duel and write down everything he knew about mathematics in c. sixty pages. The next day he was killed. Those sixty pages of algebraic equations have made him one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. His name was Evariste Galois. I once knew of an insane man that called himself a "doctor." For years he agonizingly and helplessly watched the wombs of women rot with gangrene -- a horribly painful disease called puerperal fever. He tried for years while he worked at a hospital to find a cure. After much careful observation, he concluded that the doctors THEMSELVES were killing the women! After dissecting cadavers, the doctors would then proceed to deliver a baby or make gynecological inspections. They were spreading disease with their hands! He announced this discovery to a world of doctors whom he thought would welcome his CURE: TO WASH YOUR HANDS!!! Did the other doctors welcome this "uncustomary" announcement with open arms? Hardly. First them ignored him. This did not stop him. He would rush up to another doctor with unwashed hands about to deliver a baby and literally attempt to grab and plunge the other doctor's hands into a carbolic acid solution. This made the other doctors furious with him. They continued to try to ignore him. He would not go away. So they fired him from the hospital. Then they ostracized him. Then they attacked, ridiculed, and persecuted him. He would not give up. Eventually he was committed to an insane asylum. I understand that one day he obtained access to a surgical knife and sliced his finger. He then apparently stuck his finger inside a cadaver. Within several weeks he was dead of puerperal fever. Was he insane? By the CUSTOMARY standards of the other doctors, he WAS insane. I would say he used all he had left --- his very life --- to prove his point. And I would say he was quite sane -- albeit desperate --- at the time. Who was this "uncustomary 'insane' doctor"? His name was Ignaz Semmelweis, one of the greatest medical doctors of all time. Yes, the science and technology stands by itself. I don't care if a given "uncustomary" innovator runs "naked through the streets" --- his technology speaks for itself. Funny, I seem to remember some eccentric crackpot doing that once a few years back --- that is, running naked through the streets yelling "eureka! eureka!" I think the crackpot's name was Archimedes. Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- These quotations are from scientists who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work: "The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale, commercial development of this invention." -- Dr. Roger Hastings, Principal Physicist, UNISYS CORPORATION "If the manner in which Joseph Newman conducted his experiments and the results were made known to the industrial or engineering community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or individuals possess the expertise and capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the apparent capability of his new concepts." -- Dr. Robert E. Smith Chief, Orbital and Space Environment Branch, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA "You have opened an area in Astrophysics which may revolutionize the magnetic energy problems which is now the most paramount problem in future energy and space travel. I do believe with proper research funds, the results would not only be a great financial boom to your financiers, but would lead to developments that will be practical and beneficial to all mankind and develop a new step in science." -- Dr. E. L. Moragne, MORAGNE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. [Dr. Moragne was an electromagnetic pioneer in the development of the first atomic bomb.] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 02:48:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA25155; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:39:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:39:02 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 05:40:38 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Magnetic fields Resent-Message-ID: <"fXoAU3.0.x86.4x6zo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3841 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: J>It sounds like the current supply conductors may have been in two separate J>segments as opposed to a twisted pair or parallel conductors. Is this J>true? If so, this might create a significant "ground loop" and thus an J>opposing ground "stator" coil. J>Regards, J>Horace Heffner The wires were twisted tightly closely together for convenience in handling, but that also served to cancel the magnetic field from each wire, much as a parallel wire transmission line behaves. Ralph J>(from Bob Shannon) Mr. Hartwell, J>Being that displacement lift from the helium is 'depended to a great J>extent' in this device, does this not place a maximum altitude limit on J>the design? Yes, it certainly will. J>Further, is it clear in your opinion that heating of the helium was not J>the process by which the device lifted from the floor? The upward movement of the device occurred as soon as the power was switched on, and stopped as soon as the power was cut off. The device descended immediately on power shutoff, even though the power had been on for 10 minutes or so. This indicates to me that the gas heating was minimal, at best. J>Has this device ever lifted it's own power supply? If not, how could it J>ever be scaled up to a practical aircraft? Not as far as I am aware. The device I saw (years ago) had a lift capability of a few ounces, at best. Still, the battery weighed only a couple of pounds, and I would imagine that with a bigger gas bag and larger coils it might lift the power source, but there's little doubt, IMO, that most of the lift would be handled by the gas, with the control and balance between lift / descent being done by the electricity. Ralph From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 06:42:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA21852; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 06:28:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 06:28:41 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:28:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702021428.IAA29292 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: is Evan Soule o-u? Resent-Message-ID: <"xhUtN2.0.IL5.NIAzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3842 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have never before seen such a prodigious flow of hot air! This performance can hardly be considered ordinary. I therefore propose a group project to perform a calorimetric measurement on Evan Soule writing email. We could place him and his computer in an insulated box whose exterior is maintained at a constant temperature. Feed him intravenously with a known flow rate of glucose solution, measure the electrical power consumed by his computer and then observe the steady-state delta-T that develops across the walls of the box. The test might take days or even weeks to perform properly. Of course, in the interest of scientific objectivity, it would be necessary to have him disconnected from the Internet with a trained psychologist receiving all his emails and responding with the carefully gauged needling that stimulates his spectacular performance. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 08:11:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA00540; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:02:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:02:22 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:02:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970202110205_1346458968 emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: update Resent-Message-ID: <"8F7u_1.0.G8.BgBzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3843 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I called Joe Newman once. He told me about some fisherman who was using his motor on his small fishing boat and how much the fisherman liked it. I didn't quite understand everything that Joe told me. I would have rather had it in Puthoff's lab with Little telling me how much he liked it. He told me about his law suit. At that point I was sort of glad that the technologies that I had explored didn't work. Miley is to give a talk at Wright Patterson in Dayton Ohio within 30 days. Any vortex members in that area. I may be able to you an invite. Peter tells me that Yury has good news. I'm still planning to go and see. Recruters are calling me with many jobs now..sort of driving me nuts. I have decided to take some time off..maybe even a year..and I am now in college studying nuclear physics. I currently trying to figure out how far a 5 Mev alpha particle will penetrate into a piece of lead...Maybe I should just go back to work. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 08:11:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA00596; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:02:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:02:27 -0800 Message-Id: <199702021602.JAA01694 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Cc: "Dan York" Subject: IMPORTANT ==> WORDS OF WARNING!!!!!! Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:01:26 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1F1Lg1.0.m8.GgBzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3844 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Later today, a 16 year old high school student is going to join Vortex to answer questions that many of you were kind enough to submit to her for her science fair. It deals with an obscured topic of transmutation and if anyone, in anyway gives her a ration of harassment at any level, or this topic, or if any flippant statements are made outside the realm of scientific protocol -- the person doing so will not be verbally abused, nor threatened with law suit. However, if anyone goes outside the line on this one -- I guarantee that the situation will be dealt with. If one makes a new discovery, observation by peers is necessary to make the discovery accepted by main stream science. I personally have been accused of placing gold in my cigarettes and under my finger nails to Prove My Case. Furthermore, after research was completed at Texas A&M it was declared that only four experiments were successful. Of course, those were the ones which were accomplished in my presence. However, Bockris had to take a position from the harassment he was receiving. The reality is (with my proof being the original laboratory notes from Bockris' laboratory), there were several anomalies observed after my departure from the campus. At the last conference at Texas A&M, Guan Lin a post doc physicist assigned to Bockris made a presentation reporting a ~20 hour half life beta decay observed from experiments. Of course, everyone involved with this experience knew that this observation was from my research, but due to politics I was not given credit. The point to this is simple -- if Newman, Mr. or Ms "X", or Joe Champion have something that they believe in to be real, it is required that proper recording of data, external observation and independent replication be accomplished. I have been attempting this for seven years and have not given up, for I believe in my research. This high school student went to prove, or disprove, a point. This being, were the experiments accomplished at Texas A&M real, or false. Her science teacher being a graduate from Texas A&M almost disallowed her project in the beginning due to the fiasco which occurred in 1992. However, she was allowed to proceed and will be presenting her project in one week. Taking this a step further, to eliminate ridicule, she had independent observation of the occurrence. Two highly skeptical Ph.D.'s were present during the preparation, demonstration and determination of results from this experiment. These were -- Barry Merriman and his lovely wife Susan. It was Barry, who without influence from others, determined by replication of tests that 3.7 grams of new precious metals was produced from the experiment. Further validation came from Bill Stehl (a member of this forum) who has a multi-million dollar facility capable of testing this material and 20+ years of experience. Another validator (after the fact) was Roberto Monti. Of course, my close friend Dan York was present, but even though his observation is valid, he is to close to circumstances surrounding this experiment to be considered unbiased. My point being, as of this transmission this student has no knowledge of the crap that has appeared on this forum. But later today she will be entering a forum which in her mind is a great honor. A group which challenges the outer limits of science. What occurs may affect the future of not only this girl, but any other student which may be observing this forum who has any interest in science. This is not a post that requires discussion, nor reply. However, if this new thread becomes tainted outside the realm of normal challenge and debate, allow me to interject that when I was seven years old I went to Disneyland in California. Multitudes of pictures were taken and have been converted to millions of bytes of *.jpg files. These pictures could become the main subject thread, that is if everyone has the hours required to download them!! Look, my hands are not clean in poking at this Newman fiasco, but when I was notified that this student was about to join our mist, the reality hit me that there could be other inspiring kids observing this list in an attempt to understand the basis of how researchers think and interact. I guess we have set a great example! With respect, ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 08:38:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA05619; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:28:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:28:52 -0800 Message-ID: <32F4C0D2.178E interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 11:29:06 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: is Evan Soule o-u? References: <199702021428.IAA29292 natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cZpHw3.0.iN1.23Czo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3845 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > (snip) with a trained > psychologist receiving all his emails and responding with the carefully > gauged needling that stimulates his spectacular performance. Scott, I suggest we NEVER delete Horace's needle AND Evan's retort AT THE SAME TIME! I think we would induce a pure WORD - ANTI WORD conversion to energy! I'm rushing to position my Geiger counter near my computer in case there is a spontaneous conversion. Cowering in fear -------- Frank Stenger P.S. (Don't get mad guys - I'm in awe of you both for your word power!) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 09:59:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA20810; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:50:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:50:03 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:49:52 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Where is the Newman list? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"_Z6f_2.0.455.9FDzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3846 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan, When the Newman Motor discussion grew too big for freenrg-L, it was eventually moved to your new listserv. The current discussion is far too big for vortex-L, it takes over everything. Please post address/instructions for subscribing to your list. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 10:18:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23993; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:05:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:05:57 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:07:25 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: o-u comment.... Resent-Message-ID: <"4wSwJ3.0.ps5.4UDzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3847 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To Scott Little: Fascinating proposal, Scott! Perhaps one could term your proposal, "Scott's Little Study to Observe the Energy Dynamics of Combined Negentropic/Computer Systems" Tell you what, give me a call and we can set up the parameters of the test. Anything for science! :-) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 10:22:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25220; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:12:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:12:31 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970202181606.002dd9f8 atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 13:16:06 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: IMPORTANT ==> WORDS OF WARNING!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"vbg-31.0.v96.DaDzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3848 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Joe Champion wrote: >Later today, a 16 year old high school student is going to join Vortex to >answer questions that many of you were kind enough to submit to her for her >science fair. It deals with an obscured topic of transmutation and if [snip] >Taking this a step further, to eliminate ridicule, she had independent >observation of the occurrence. Two highly skeptical Ph.D.'s were present >during the preparation, demonstration and determination of results from >this experiment. These were -- Barry Merriman and his lovely wife Susan. >It was Barry, who without influence from others, determined by replication >of tests that 3.7 grams of new precious metals was produced from the >experiment. Barry, is this true? If so, what can you tell us about your observations and/or independent replication? >My point being, as of this transmission this student has no knowledge of >the crap that has appeared on this forum. But later today she will be >entering a forum which in her mind is a great honor. A group which >challenges the outer limits of science. What occurs may affect the future >of not only this girl, but any other student which may be observing this >forum who has any interest in science. The "crap" was due to the invasion of vortex-l by, IMO, a noisy, belligerant con man looking for fresh suckers to buy his books and videos. In response, heroes such as Horace Heffner and Barry Merriman battled against the infection by using Truth, Justice, and the American Way. :-) Unless your 16-year-old is another Newman/Soule, she has nothing to worry about. Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 10:26:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA26442; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:16:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:16:47 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:16:06 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702021816.MAA03672 dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: IMPORTANT ==> WORDS OF WARNING!!!!!! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"xfr7H.0._S6.CeDzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3849 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 2/2/96 JC wrote: snip >This is not a post that requires discussion, nor reply. However, if >this new thread becomes tainted outside the realm of normal challenge >and debate, allow me to interject that when I was seven years old I >went to Disneyland in California. Multitudes of pictures were taken >and have been converted to millions of bytes of *.jpg files. These >pictures could become the main subject thread, that is if everyone has >the hours required to download them!! snip So, Joe you are now the self appointed sole arbiter and judge of what's tainted on this list serve? You, of all people, are now issuing a threat to bring this whole list serve down. Judge Joe Champion have you ever heard of Bill Beaty and the rules of this list? I might also point out that the internet is also governed by a set of rules and there are federal laws that deal with this sort of activity. If you do carry out your threat, remember you too have an internet address. Not that it is suggested that retaliation in kind be directed at you, but there are many on this list that would urge both internet and federal authorities to agressively prosecute you to the letter of the law. Sincerely, RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 10:35:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA28746; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:26:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:26:27 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:26:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970202132557_617690070 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Scott & Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"CxaQB2.0.217.InDzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3850 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I would like to see Scott and Puthoff test Newman's machine. I do, however, worry about Scott and Puthoff. I know Puthoff has sacrificed much income to run the Institute sometimes with little of no funding coming in. In 1990 Puthoff even had to move his family back with his mother. Things are going a bit better for them now but they certainly cannot afford a lawsuit. My advice is do not sign anything especially a letter of non-disclosure. It could be corrupted at a later date in a malicious law suit. I trust Scott and Puthoff to the nth degree. If I had a technology I would work with them. I know that their dealings would be honest. Many have doen this and did not like what they had to say because they have shown that many technologies just do not work. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 10:58:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA01519; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:49:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:49:23 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:50:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199702021950.LAA13415 netserve.kfalls.net> X-Sender: me2 kfalls.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: ME2 KFALLS.NET (Don Evans) Subject: Re: right idea wrong question Resent-Message-ID: <"rQTs_2.0.fN.n6Ezo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3851 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: thank you it helps clear up a couple things for me however, any ideas as to just what the miessner effect is, and why it has to be present to get the shielding effect, does it have to do with the coupled pairs of electrons, or am i missing the boat, i will say i dont understand the miessner effect and just what it is. don >"Focus" is the wrong concept. The repulsive force by Meissner flux >exclusion depends on geometry, of course. If the superconductor is a disk, >the repulsion of a magnet would be greatest when the latter is over the >center of the disk. >.............................................................................. >................................ > >Look again at the Meissner effect. Magnetic lines are expelled from the >material. They become longer, they have to go around the superconductor. > The only electric field that exists within a superconductor is an induced >one. Induced electric fields (induced by magnetic acceleration) do not >diverge. No isolated diverging point charges can exist within a >superconductor. The the range of the electric field is smaller within a >superconductor. It has a dipole formulation. It saturates. > > |------->+e -e<-----------| > |--------> <-----------| > > The induced electric field of a superconductor. >.............................................................................. >................................ >Can you see this? The RANGE of the interaction has changed. >.............................................................................. >................................ >The same effect happens to all of the forces. Multi-body nuclear effects are >observed within electron clusters. >The range of the nuclear force has become longer. >.............................................................................. >...................................... >Local gravitomagnetic fields have been observed. The range of the >gravitational force has become shorter. Once again, same trend different >force. >.............................................................................. >............................... >Do the electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces directly interact. > I don't think so, but if they interact on the same particle through similar >distances who could tell them apart. >.............................................................................. > >Frank Z > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 11:03:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA02372; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:54:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:54:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:55:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199702021955.LAA13696 netserve.kfalls.net> X-Sender: me2 kfalls.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: ME2 KFALLS.NET (Don Evans) Subject: Re: Meissner effect Resent-Message-ID: <"bN-C-.0.ma.ABEzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3852 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: thank you , your explanation helps me a little. however the changeing of repultion is near instantaneous, (n to n and s to s) i understand this but is this the miessner effect or just the magnetic effect don >A probably technically incorrect but nonetheless useful (to me anyway) way >of looking at the Meissner effect is that the SC acts like a mirror for >magnetic fields. When the magnet and SC are juxtaposed, a supercurrent >flows in the SC which serves to generate an equal and opposite flux to that >imposed by the magnet. This cancels out the field in the interior of the SC >and the magnet reacts as if it were next to an identical mirror-imaged >magnet. If you point the N pole of the magnet at the SC, the SC creates a N >pole pointing back at the magnet....i.e. repulsion. > >Unlike the situation in which two magnets are placed N to N, which is >terribly unstable, the N pole image in the SC moves with the magnet that is >causing it. Also, if the magnet rotates to bring its S pole to bear, the SC >responds by generating a S pole to repel it. The result is stable >levitation....something that cannot be achieved with magnets alone...unless >part of the apparatus is constrained in some way (i.e. by spinning). > > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) > http://www.eden.com/~little > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 11:05:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA03041; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:56:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:56:40 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:58:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199702021958.LAA13899 netserve.kfalls.net> X-Sender: me2 kfalls.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: ME2 KFALLS.NET (Don Evans) Subject: Re: misner effect Resent-Message-ID: <"POu1B3.0.Pl.dDEzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3853 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: thank you for your post it helps me understand a little more of what is going on don >You seem pretty confused about the Meissner (not misner) effect. I'm not >at all an expert, but I'll try to help a a bit where I can. > >The Meissner effect is the expulsion of all magnetic flux (except from a >very thin surface "skin" layer) by a superconductor. Therefore, a >superconductor behaves as a perfectly diamagnetic material, and therefore, >it always repels ANY source of magnetic flux. > >>>1. when using the misner effect to levitate a magnet is the effect actually >>a magnetic effect? (repultion of simalr forces) > >See above. > >>>2. are there any lines of force plotted for this force(misner), i know what >>the lines of force look like for a magnet and these(misner), seem to be not >>pole specific for the magnet ie. you can spin the magnet and both n and s >>pole repell equally, therefor misner is simalar to a monopole that repels >>equally all magnetic forces. > >Magnetic lines are excluded from a type-I superconductor and from type-II >superconductor at low field strength. Thus, field lines must always go >around the superconductor and never penetrate it. This is true, whether >the magnet rotates or is static. > >(At higher fields, magnetic flux penetrates type-II, and the Meissner >effect no longer applies. At sufficiently high field, both kinds of >superconductivity are destroyed.) > >There is no magnetic monopole; at least no one has found experimental >evidence for one, despite some serious searching. > >>>3. does a magnet seem to focus the misner effect to itself ? example the >>greatest force seems to consentrate towards the center on a disk shaped htsc. >>> >>>if anyone has some answers to these question and has graphs or charts i >>would gladly pay for them. > >"Focus" is the wrong concept. The repulsive force by Meissner flux >exclusion depends on geometry, of course. If the superconductor is a disk, >the repulsion of a magnet would be greatest when the latter is over the >center of the disk. > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 11:13:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA04835; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:04:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:04:51 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:04:42 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: No, REALLY stop it. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"rgc9-.0.PB1.HLEzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3854 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I've been following my intuition and applying minimal control over the current Newman threads because the events struck me as being a valuable learning situation. Flamewars suck, and while I could always jump in and stamp every single one out, this particular one seemed to be generated by vortex-L members themselves in interactions with Evan Soule. What if I continue to say nothing? How will you handle it? Will the hostilities continue forever? Will you always blame the *other* person for continuing the fight? I see the situation thus: many subscribers feel that it is normal and right to give a hostile response when they are unfairly attacked. When paired with email dynamics, this always creates increasingly hostile exchanges. The typical exchange goes like this: You say something mildly insulting about me, I defend myself with an unmistakably angry attack, you feel wronged because you believe your insult was not insulting because it was the truth, so you respond with hostility, and both of us continue fighting. Each side feels wronged and believes that the other side started it. Both of us feel in the right, and feel that our hostile response is entirely justified in light of the other's unfair attack. The solution is NOT to choose a scapegoat to expel. The problem is within us all. If we believe that it is right to meet an attack with hostility, and believe that the OTHER side must cease hostility first, then we are no better than children who whine "well HE started it," or no better than nations which go to war over ridiculous misunderstandings. The preferred solution is, when attacked, that we put aside our self-importance. Be Jesus, Buddah, Ghandi, (chose a religious leader) and respond totally without anger, totally at a kindly and intellectual level. Apologize for accidental insults. Listen to the other side's story, and take it seriously. Calmly figure out the source of the problem. Do this not to be a better person, but simply because there is no way to vanquish the other side via email, and the alternative is to fight endlessly. Another alternative is to respond to attacks VIA PRIVATE EMAIL. DON'T make vortex-L the audience for your anger. DON'T try to win others over to your side of the battle against unwarranted attacks. If you want to meet insult with insult, anger with anger, go fight elsewhere. The other alternative is for me to create stronger rules, shut vortex-L down temporarily, then have each member read and agree to religiously follow the new rules, then re-subscribe each member. Note: if you now think to yourself "I hope the others are listening to this", then the message fell on deaf ears, because it was aimed at YOU. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 11:18:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA06049; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:08:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:08:41 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:06:34 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: Vortex-L , Dan York Subject: Welcome to Student In-Reply-To: <199702021602.JAA01694 nz1.netzone.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-93oN2.0.QU1.tOEzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3855 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We are all students. I personally extend welcome to the student who will be joining. The student my, if they so desire communicate with me directly, or in formum. I will endeavor to answer to the extent I am capable. I commend such action of any student to stnad, learn and tech, for we can all learn from the contributions of others, of any age or background. John Herman Schnurer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 11:32:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA13159; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:23:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:23:16 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: William Beaty Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 11:22:20 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Subject: Re: No, REALLY stop it. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"h6hbQ1.0.TD3.XcEzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3857 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 02-Feb-97, William Beaty wrote: >Note: if you now think to yourself "I hope the others are listening to >this", then the message fell on deaf ears, because it was aimed at YOU. "If I can learn to leave others alone *THEY* will be alright" -Lao Tsu- -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 11:35:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA07086; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:10:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:10:40 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:08:24 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: update In-Reply-To: <970202110205_1346458968 emout02.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"NPWed1.0.Vj1.hQEzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3856 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am in the WPAFB [Wright Pattrson US Air Force Base] area and visit the base on a regular basis. Please let us know when Miley speaks. JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 12:04:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22260; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:54:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:54:35 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:54:25 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: postings of other's private messages Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"muh4B.0.gR5.u3Fzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3858 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Not a vortex-L rule, but a wise policy: If you want to angrily respond to attacks, don't do it on Vortex-L, handle it via private email. And also: If someone comes after you via private email, they are not harassing you in secret, they are probably just following the above policy. And so: If someone responds privately with objections to your public vortex-L mail, DO NOT POST THEIR PRIVATE MAIL ON VORTEX-L!!!! This subverts their attempt to take the fight to private mail. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 12:21:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25446; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:12:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:12:01 -0800 Message-ID: <32F4AEAA.AB3 tiac.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 15:11:38 +0000 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon tiac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman Messages Off-Charter References: <970201092532_-1944659015 emout15.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"f26XL1.0.WD6.GKFzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3859 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > For our moderator, William Beaty: > > Bill, > > I agree with Horace Heffner, Kurt Johmann, Barry Merriman, and Robert > Stirniman that messages about Joseph Newman's electromagnetic work don't > belong on Vortex-L. They erode its distinctive value. > > I hope that you will consider asking devotees of Newman to post their > messages elsewhere, perhaps on Freenrg-L. > > Tom Stolper But the Newman discussion had already been removed from freenrg-l to vortcor-l. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 13:51:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA22917; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:41:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:41:00 -0800 Message-ID: <32F4C37B.73FF tiac.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 16:40:27 +0000 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon tiac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tom References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"CZcBo.0.xb5.cdGzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3861 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > Is one to assume that such messages containing a discussion of > electromagnetism as posted by FZNIDARSIC aol.com should be posted > elsewhere? There is a world of difference here Mr. Soule, FZNIDARSIC aol.com asked a series of questions. This is acceptable. If you were to ask questions, you would get answers and far fewer flames. But this has not been a significant proportion of your posts. It's not that we ban the discussion of EM theory and technology at all. We do object to unaddressed questions on claims, and legal threats, etc. If you were posting hard data, and addresseing any questions raised in a manner satisfactory to the list members, it would be a quite different matter. Newman Energy Products has a simple was to reverse the attatudes it has engendered here, by a change in behavior. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 13:52:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23290; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:42:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:42:14 -0800 Message-ID: <32F4FB84.6863 compassnet.com> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 14:39:32 -0600 From: Ronald Stiffler Reply-To: stiffler compassnet.com Organization: Advanced Technology Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex Mail List Subject: Distilled Water Not All The Same Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"P-gjG2.0.0h5.feGzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3862 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Two questions. 1) Would filtering water through Activated Carbon change the basic ion balance of water ? 2) What is the process of Ozonating of distilled water ? Current experiments in BG generation show a marked difference in non-filtered distilled water and water treated with the above processes. Any help would be of great value. -- Ones willingness to digress from the main stream offers a clearness of thought and perspective which is required to visualize and obtain a true insight of the workings of nature. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 14:00:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA25245; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:50:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:50:33 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:52:02 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Where is the Newman list? Resent-Message-ID: <"cXFnL1.0.FA6.bmGzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3863 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Per your request -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****The Newman-L Mailing List (Forum/Archives) A mailing list about inventor Joseph Newman and his energy invention. This list is maintained on The Energy Machine Information System, Sysop, Ralph Hartwell. List Managers - Evan Soule' and Ralph Hartwell * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Why are we starting another mailing list about Joseph Newman? Well, we like to think of this list as being the "official" list for information about Mr. Newman and his inventions. Here's why... Mr. Evan Soule', has worked with Mr. Newman for many years handling public relations and fielding many questions from folks all over the world about Mr. Newman's work, both from the technical and non technical aspects. He is in an excellent position to be able to get answers to specific technical questions directly from Mr. Newman. Mr. Ralph Hartwell, has spent considerable time over the years working with Mr. Newman in the technical area. He has had the opportunity to run some personal tests on Newman's devices, and oversaw the complete reconstruction of the 15,000 pound machine after it was damaged during high-power testing. Both of these gentlemen have had personal contact with most or all of the people mentioned in Newman's book, and have also had extensive conversations, discussion and arguments with Mr. Newman over the years since he first developed his energy invention. They are uniquely poised to give you the "real stuff" in answer to your questions. This list will also allow serious experimenters a place to discuss their projects with other like-minded folks and hopefully solve their design and construction problems with accuracy. We feel that Newman-L will be of great interest to those who are genuinely interested in Joseph Newman and his inventions. We invite you to join us. WHAT'S ALLOWED ON THE LIST ? First of all, everyone's welcome aboard: "true believers", skeptics, the inquisitive, and everyone else as well. We welcome open and free discussion of Newman and his inventions, and this generally includes almost anything that relates even peripherally to Newman's work. Discussions of applications of his inventions are encouraged, as are discussions of his theory. It should be stated, however, that the subscriber is at a serious disadvantage if he/she has not read the fundamental book written by Mr. Newman. Over the past 20 years, Mr. Newman has grown a bit impatient with individuals asking him the same questions --- over and over again --- especially when these questions are specifically addressed in his 475 page book. He does honestly ask that the reader master the material within his book before addressing additional questions to him. Although this is an unmoderated list, if things should happen to get too far off topic, Evan or Ralph may request that a particular topic be taken to private Email or dropped from the ongoing discussion. WHAT'S NOT ALLOWED ? Flaming and personal attacks are verbotten. The list rules are pretty specific - you'll get a copy in the welcome message when you subscribe. Remember, this is primarily a list of folks who are pretty much in Newman's corner, so raving attacks and flames will get you yelled at pretty quick. Healthy skepticism (tempered with honest curiosity) is quite acceptable ---- after all, what Newman is saying is quite a bit unusual to anyone schooled in standard physics and engineering. Subscribing to Newman-L ----------------------- Send e-mail to LISTSERV EMACHINE.COM. In the body of the message, put your subscription requests as SUBSCRIBE NEWMAN-L Examples: subscribe NEWMAN-L subscribe NEWMAN-L Pete Nelson <-- your real name [optional] You will be sent a subscription confirmation message with instructions on posting to the list and other helpful information, including a list of all archived materials available from The Energy Machine Information System via Email FTP or by dialing direct at 504-734-0526. UPDATES: Check out websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 14:00:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA25304; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:50:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:50:44 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:52:05 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Comment Resent-Message-ID: <"Weimh.0.7B6.lmGzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3864 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Joe Champion wrote: > >>Later today, a 16 year old high school student is going to join Vortex to >>answer questions that many of you were kind enough to submit to her for her >>science fair. It deals with an obscured topic of transmutation and if > >[snip] > >>Taking this a step further, to eliminate ridicule, she had independent >>observation of the occurrence. Two highly skeptical Ph.D.'s were present >>during the preparation, demonstration and determination of results from >>this experiment. These were -- Barry Merriman and his lovely wife Susan. >>It was Barry, who without influence from others, determined by replication >>of tests that 3.7 grams of new precious metals was produced from the >>experiment. > >Barry, is this true? If so, what can you tell us about your observations >and/or independent replication? > >>My point being, as of this transmission this student has no knowledge of >>the crap that has appeared on this forum. But later today she will be >>entering a forum which in her mind is a great honor. A group which >>challenges the outer limits of science. What occurs may affect the future >>of not only this girl, but any other student which may be observing this >>forum who has any interest in science. > >The "crap" was due to the invasion of vortex-l by, IMO, a noisy, belligerant >con man looking for fresh suckers to buy his books and videos. > >In response, heroes such as Horace Heffner and Barry Merriman battled against >the infection by using Truth, Justice, and the American Way. :-) > >Unless your 16-year-old is another Newman/Soule, she has nothing to worry >about. > > >Kurt Johmann >-- Dear Kurt, Speaking only for myself, I would never have written what you have written above on a public forum. I am truly sorry this is your opinion of myself and Joseph Newman. With our moderator's recent post in mind, Sincerely, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html Copy of my letter sent to Mr. Champion: Dear Joe, I am very sensitive to the stimulation of young minds to an interest in scientific endeavors. This is one reason why I was so pleased when an 11 year old girl independently constructed a small version of Joseph Nemwan's technology and won first place in her science fair. [Of course, the fact that her father was an electrical engineer may have contributed to an extent!] Joseph Newman also knows the importance of stimulating an interest in science in young minds. Only months ago did he address 250 high school students in Mobile, Alabama with a presentation of his technology. His technology is essentially intended for the future generation(s) since many in the present generation have a mind-set which is apparently hostile to new paradigms. As Max Planck said, ""A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I would hope that Max Planck is wrong on this point ... only time will tell. Very sincerely, Evan Soule' From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 14:46:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA03732; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:34:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:34:54 -0800 Date: 02 Feb 97 17:33:00 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Matter in Motion Message-ID: <970202223259_100433.1541_BHG125-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"YuMxl1.0.Bv.3QHzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3867 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm not happy to see this debate continue, so once more - in an effort at raising the tone: > But Michael Faraday --- essentially a self-educated individual who > was a _mechanical genius_ was, in fact, a mathematician of HIGH > ORDER. I think you will find that Faraday (my big hero, by the way) was mostly educated by Davy - he has been called called "Davy's greatest discovery." Sir Humphrey Davy lived in the odium Of having discovered sodium. Faraday was also generally not regarded as a good mathematician. He was perhaps the greatest of all experimental scientists, and was also one of the finest (possibly the finest) popularisers of science. He once kept a "society" audience spellbound for hours with his lecture on the science of the candle flame. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 14:47:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA03666; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:34:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:34:44 -0800 Date: 02 Feb 97 17:33:02 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Frank & Goddard Message-ID: <970202223301_100433.1541_BHG125-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UU7MZ1.0.6v.2QHzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3866 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > It was the "mass media" who referred to the "Flying Brothers" > (Wilbur and Orville Wright) as the "Lying Brothers." And it was Scientific American who called them frauds. See also Jed Rothwell's Infinite Energy article on the Wrights. Brilliant practical scientists, sufferers from inventors' disease too. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 15:03:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA09611; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:53:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:53:01 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:54:27 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Question Resent-Message-ID: <"ba4lR1.0._L2.BhHzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3868 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: > >> Is one to assume that such messages containing a discussion of >> electromagnetism as posted by FZNIDARSIC aol.com should be posted >> elsewhere? Bob Shannon wrote: >There is a world of difference here Mr. Soule', > >FZNIDARSIC aol.com asked a series of questions. This is acceptable. > >If you were to ask questions, you would get answers and far fewer >flames. > >But this has not been a significant proportion of your posts. It's not >that we ban the discussion of EM theory and technology at all. > >We do object to unaddressed questions on claims, and legal threats, etc. >If you were posting hard data, and addresseing any questions raised in a >manner satisfactory to the list members, it would be a quite different >matter. > >Newman Energy Products has a simple was to reverse the attatudes it has >engendered here, by a change in behavior. With all due respect, Bob, my original post, which appeared to launch a volitional 'divergent oscillation,' was the announcement of an upcoming event. It was my hope that interested members could attend the free event if they wished. By the demonstration they observe, such an attendance could indeed generate new answers (and questions). IMO, I believe that the progress of science does not operate on anyone's absolute subjective (Eddington) "time line" --- neither yours, nor mine, nor anyone else's. I have seen many different posts on many different threads where an "answer" to everyone's satisfaction is not forthcoming --- sometimes a appropriate response may occur in hours, days, weeks, months, or even years. Since you bring up questions, one question I would ask is (since such energy as described below may have a relationship to many different energy generation systems), does anyone have any comments with respect to the view that "the PHYSICAL lines of force represent kinetic energy --- and that the energy in electromagnetic phenomena consists of MATTER IN MOTION" ? Regards, Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 13:32:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA16413; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:17:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:17:18 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:43:49 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"CZ1m51.0.F04.RNbzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3889 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:51 AM 2/3/97, Larry Wharton wrote: > I have done an electrostatic balloon levitation experiment with an >interesting result. The experiment consists of a Helium filled mylar >balloon connected through a fine copper wire to a high voltage power >supply. Bizarre and cool! Is this one of those aluminized baloons? >The power supply is from an old monitor and I estimate the voltage >at about +50,000 V. I hung a weight from the balloon so that the entire >system would sink to the ground and then cut off sections of the weight >until the balloon would almost but not quite start to rise. When I turned >on the voltage the balloon rose upward until the slack in the wire was >taken up. Now the electrostatic attraction to the walls, floor, or ceiling >would be approximately a 1/(distance)^2 force. When the initial balloon >position is closer to the floor than to the ceiling the net attraction >should be downward but it still rises. The repulsion would be from the charge in the wire below, which is in a lower energy configuration when fully extented than coiled, true? Also, what about the hot air drafts from the power supply? Where is it located in relation to the ballon? If the effect is just drafts then once the power supply warmed up you would get the same effect even with the supply turned off. >With the initial balloon position >about 1 foot from the wall and about 4 feet from the ceiling the attraction >to the wall is about 16 times greater than the attraction to the ceiling >but the balloon rises straight up with very little indication of the effect >of the wall attraction. When the balloon gets a bit closer to the wall the >1/(distance)^2 force takes over and it is sucked in and stuck to the wall. >As the balloon approaches the ceiling the distance decreased about a factor >of 5 and hence the attraction should have increased by a factor of 25. The >balloon rises at the terminal velocity from Stokes law and therefore the >velocity should be proportional to the force. However the velocity seems >constant with no apparent increase as it approaches the ceiling. As the ballon rises doesn't it lift more of the supply wire? > Of course the standard explanation of this kind of thing is that an ion >jet is providing thrust. I don't think that there is any significant ion >jet forces but I will next check for that. >Anyone out there willing to buy >a helium filled mylar balloon with an old TV or monitor can try this out. >Just take the high voltage lead off of the picture tube, drill a hole >through the top of the case, and pull the lead through the case. Then >attache the balloon and you are ready to go. Of course you must not touch >the balloon of the connecting wire when the high voltage is on. Sometimes >when the balloon is rising it drags the wire past the monitor and there is >quite a bit of arcing through the air vent holes. This doesn't hurt >anything but it gives you an idea of what you will get if you touch it. > >Lawrence E. Wharton I think if my family saw me trying this it would be the last straw! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 13:32:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA05770; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:53:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:53:48 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Larry Wharton Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:13:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NfPgD.0.-P1.O1bzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3888 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Do you have grounded metal walls? I would think that you would have an electrostatic "image" of your balloon an equidistance behind your walls, to the distance the balloon is in front of them. If the walls are dielectric, I don't know what you would have. Hank ---------- From: Larry Wharton To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Balloon Levitation Date: Monday, February 03, 1997 7:51AM From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 14:04:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA21925; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:33:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:33:28 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:28:41 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970203100456.006bb5ec aa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KAvqp.0.wL5.Vcbzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3890 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Michael Mandeville wrote: > > Bravo, Larry. Weird, what not? But fun! gotta be some kind of flow is > setup, some progressive pattern of displacement of air molecules, > > I have done an electrostatic balloon levitation experiment with an > >interesting result. The experiment consists of a Helium filled mylar > >balloon connected through a fine copper wire to a high voltage power > >supply. ........... > > >would be approximately a 1/(distance)^2 force. When the initial > balloon position is closer to the floor than to the ceiling the net attraction > >should be downward but it still rises....... > >Lawrence E. Wharton > >NASA/GSFC code 913 > >Greenbelt MD 20771 > >(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Short of ion pro/pre/pullsion jeting, have you considered aether shielding effects in a 360 field effect? ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2 diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2 freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 15:31:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA16214; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:18:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:18:11 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32F67220.15FB7483 math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 15:17:52 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"E_pLR1.0.Ez3.n8dzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3891 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > > I have done an electrostatic balloon levitation experiment with an > interesting result. The experiment consists of a Helium filled mylar > balloon connected through a fine copper wire to a high voltage power > supply. Larry: it seems you are saying that no DC curret flows through the wire---i.e. you are not wrapping a solenoid around the balloon, but rather simply raising it to a high potential. Is this correct? If so, it would seem you are not duplicating the newman device. What relation are you suggesting between your device and newmans? -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 17:05:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA09054; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:51:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:51:11 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:52:41 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: PieRsquared of the distance? Resent-Message-ID: <"kjl-P.0.ID2.yVezo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3892 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: snip-- >I believe there is a formula for this type of practice: > >god + country + applepie = righteous destiny > >In the Newman/Soule innovative approach to the solution set, country is a >negative number which is overwhelmed by the large size of the positive >applepie. And there are rumors that the god portion of the equation is an >exponential power which sneaks back around to the right side of applepie as >a hidden multiplier when exclaimed in large meetings or radio shows, >causing an anomalous sudden phase shift change in righteous destiny. >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm Dear Mike, But you must remember that the magnetic attraction of the applepie to god falls off with the square of distance ..... oooopppsss ... I mean the cube of the distance (minor point). As you yourself put it so simply, "Oh well, squares and cubes are kinda similar looking, depending on the angle of the dangle." god knows it's all relative anyway ..... :-) Very sincerely, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html P.S. I still say it's hard to beat a good Southern Pecan Pie! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 17:10:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA09415; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:52:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:52:45 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:54:13 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Matter in Motion Resent-Message-ID: <"VUBNf3.0._I2.RXezo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3893 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I'm not happy to see this debate continue, so once more - in an effort >at raising the tone: > > > But Michael Faraday --- essentially a self-educated individual who > > was a _mechanical genius_ was, in fact, a mathematician of HIGH > > ORDER. > >I think you will find that Faraday (my big hero, by the way) was mostly >educated by Davy - he has been called called "Davy's greatest >discovery." > >Sir Humphrey Davy lived in the odium >Of having discovered sodium. > >Faraday was also generally not regarded as a good mathematician. He was >perhaps the greatest of all experimental scientists, and was also one of >the finest (possibly the finest) popularisers of science. He once kept >a "society" audience spellbound for hours with his lecture on the >science of the candle flame. > >Chris Dear Chris, Thanks for your post about Davy! Here's one of my favorite quotes --- "The way in which Faraday made use of his lines of force in co-ordinating the phenomena of electric induction shows him to have been a mathematician of high order, and one from whom the mathematicians of the future may derive valuable and fertile methods." ---- James Clerk Maxwell Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 18:14:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA24529; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:01:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:01:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:01:43 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Vortex CF device site Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"QVfJN2.0.7_5.FYfzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3894 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:59:21 -0500 From: "Warren L. Cooley" To: billb eskimo.com Subject: Re American Pure Fusion Web site http://www.coolwar.com/index1.htm You can get a good idea of the technology we are developing. Probably will see how we have used unique materials to engineer a system that includes the main phenomena of a cold fusion reaction. I would welcome being include on your page. We would like more people to learn about our work. I would also be interested in your comments as they relate to the technology or the web site. Thanks. Warren L. Cooley ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INLINE] How the Technology Works... The Fullerene Fusion Technology is more easily understood by using the drawing as a guide to an explanation of how Fullerene Fusion Fuel energizes a Fusion Engine. Beginning with an aerosol fuel mixture of fullerene molecules highly concentrated with hydrogen isotopes in liquid argon, a portion of the fuel is injected at cycled intervals, into the ignition cone of the fusion engine. Inside the ignition cone three components come together at the smallest cross section of a plane: an electromagnetic field, the tip of an electrode for making a spark, and the interior apex of a hyperbolic passage. This is the ignition system. The fuel mixture is injected into the ignition cone and a rapid phase change takes place. Liquid argon warms and expands to a gas producing a homogenized mixture containing the smallest possible clusters of fullerene molecules. This aerosol fuel mixture is pulled through the engine by negative pressure in the reaction chamber. Several simultaneous phenomena occur in a time frequency on the order of micro-seconds. The electrode arcs a spark that is repelled by the boundary of the magnetic field and rotates, counter clock-wise, in the plane of the passage. The clusters of fullerene fuel molecules are ionized by the energy from the spark as they pass through the plane. The magnetic field is energized and pulsed generating an isotropic compression in the passage. The inherent spin of individual fullerene molecules are energized to a higher frequency of rotation. The heat of ionization and the compression from the pulsed magnetic field sublime and collapse the clusters of fullerene fuel molecules into a plasma vortex. In the concentration of energy at the center of the vortex, hydrogen atoms fuse, producing energy in the form of heat radiation, and the by-products, helium and clusters of diamond. The theories that support this device reflect through the spectrum of natural science. They are demonstrated mathematically in the latest "chaos theory." Where it is well established that patterns of nature when described mathematically, can be shown to repeat themselves on different scales. The tornado is the most powerfully concentrated natural force that man can perceive with the five senses. On the nano scale this powerful concentration of energy, is uniquely represented by what has been called the most beautiful molecule, "The Fullerene". It is configured like a soccer ball. It is spherical, hollow and naturally spinning billions of times a second. In the fullerene nature has stored the potential for creating a micro fusion device. This scale down of existing technology is the same natural reiteration that has been demonstrated in the development of computers. It solves the problems that have plagued hot fusion research for more than thirty-five years. Fullerene Fusion Fuel is pulled through a passage and imploded with high frequency electromagnetic compression in harmonic resolution with a spark of electricity. In a split instant of time, the hollow spherical cage is flattened like a pancake. As the molecules collapse into a gas they are energized with a spark at the scale of the speed of light. The tremendous angular momentum, natural spin, of the fullerene is conserved as an ionized gas plasma of carbon atoms pulling hydrogen fuel into a swirling central fusion vortex tornado of released energy. Our technology allows for the development of very small light weight Fullerene Fusion Engines of tremendous power and fuel tanks the size of a pocket lighter. The raw materials can be derived from candle soot and water. In mass production the fuel would be environmentally benign and could be manufactured at a fraction of the cost of producing an energy equivalent amount of gasoline. The Fullerene engine and fuel concept is an alternative that has the potential to make hydrocarbons and the internal combustion engine obsolete. [INLINE] Table of Contents * How the Technology Works * Fullerene Fusion Engine Illustration * Investors and the Environment * Research and Development Budget * A Challenging Future, You Can Help * A Brief History and The Consortium of People * Your Comments From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 19:04:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA26664; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:54:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:54:44 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:54:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970202215401_242471174 emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: electron cluster signature Resent-Message-ID: <"947_c2.0.YW6.pDLzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3869 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If I'm correct and electron condensations are at work in cold fusion we should have a signature. The signature will be the same as that of superconductivity. The electron clusters should be diamagetic. They expell flux lines and push out of a magnetic field. The problem is nickel is magnetic and draws into a magnetic field. The effect may the superposition of the two effects and may be difficult to detect. Never the less, the bulk magnetic properties of the beads should change once they become active. Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 19:28:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA31670; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:18:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:18:34 -0800 Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:16:37 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron cluster signature In-Reply-To: <970202215401_242471174 emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5xYiv.0.mk7.8aLzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3870 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This can be simply measured with either a high quality common compass or with an inexpensive solidstate device such as the linear Hall effect devices mfg by Texas Instruments. Slightly more complex and expensive - at about 15 per sensor, less electronics, are the excellent peramalloy magnetic bridges mafg by Phillips, the KMZ series easily capablr, with proper conditioning of exhibiting 1 volt/gauss. Construction of electronics and biasing for the Phillips KMZ sensors is possible by skilled ham radio operator builder level of expertise. A few steps above hobby level. Equivalent to bulding a precision pH meter front end. JHS On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > If I'm correct and electron condensations are at work in cold fusion we > should have a signature. The signature will be the same as that of > superconductivity. The electron clusters should be diamagetic. They expell > flux lines and push out of a magnetic field. The problem is nickel is > magnetic and draws into a magnetic field. The effect may the superposition > of the two effects and may be difficult to detect. Never the less, the bulk > magnetic properties of the beads should change once they become active. > > Frank Z > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 21:38:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA22385; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:28:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:28:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:30:01 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: electron cluster signature Resent-Message-ID: <"QWOso1.0.gT5.eTNzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3871 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >If I'm correct and electron condensations are at work in cold fusion we >should have a signature. The signature will be the same as that of >superconductivity. The electron clusters should be diamagetic. They expell >flux lines and push out of a magnetic field. The problem is nickel is >magnetic and draws into a magnetic field. The effect may the superposition >of the two effects and may be difficult to detect. Never the less, the bulk >magnetic properties of the beads should change once they become active. > >Frank Z This is an interresting observation Frank. Somewhere in the catacombs of my very bad memory is a recollection of reading that (1) a magnetic field much above 1 gauss suppressed Ken Shoulder's condensed charges and (2) that magnetic fields had a null or negative effect on excess heat in D-Pd experiments. However, even if this is true, there is still reason to proceed. I have been playing around with EV generators attempting to get o-u behavior. I just went to the bench and tried placing a strong magnet near a xenon tube in which I had what was characterized by Ken as an EV discharge (thick white strokes, noisy discharge). Further evidence of EV generation in my test is that there are normal gas spark discarges in subsequent xenon tubes in series with the active tube. The magnet had *no visible effect* on the supposed EV discharge, other that warping the sparks. Could just mean I have been doing a lot of tinkering for nothing. Could mean I have a more (magnetically) stable configuration than Ken was using. I definitely have a very bad and unstable power supply, and the inconsistancy of my results are giving me fits. However, the power supply characteristics my be part of what is making this all work like it is. I am using a higher voltage and much higher impedence than Ken which gives very good low impendence lateral coupling (including EV multiplication, something for nothing) on occasion. Sometimes *looks* o-u but I do not have any measurements that can confirm that. I have not achieved reliable enough results for posting yet so I am jumping the gun here, but want you to know there is a basis for your proposed test. Frank, I think one possible test of your theory might be to use a very sensitve EM probe with much amplification connected to the Ni or Pd electrode to pick up the signature of condensed charge EM radiation. When the EV dissipates it releases an EM pulse which should transmit through the metal electrode. The background white noise should get louder when transmutation begins if it is EV driven. After establishing a basline it would then be be necessary to look at the effects of a magnetic field on the electrode white noise while the electrode is active. A hollow electrode (coax) with EM probe in the interior might work well for such a study. One problem is that noise is also exhibited from crystal fractures, which may even be the very source of the EV's you hypothesize. It would be interresting if you got a gross diamagnetic effect correlated with the white noise background. Lots of stuff to think about there. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 21:38:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA22465; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:28:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:28:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:30:05 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: electron cluster signature Resent-Message-ID: <"QbmMp3.0.sU5.rTNzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3872 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > This can be simply measured with either a high quality common >compass or with an inexpensive solidstate device such as the linear Hall >effect devices mfg by Texas Instruments. Slightly more complex and >expensive - at about 15 per sensor, less electronics, are the excellent >peramalloy magnetic bridges mafg by Phillips, the KMZ series easily >capablr, with proper conditioning of exhibiting 1 volt/gauss. > Construction of electronics and biasing for the Phillips KMZ >sensors is possible by skilled ham radio operator builder level of >expertise. A few steps above hobby level. Equivalent to bulding a >precision pH meter front end. > > JHS > Funny you should mention that John. I just was looking at building just such a widget. The new McGraw Hill (TAB Books) Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Volume 6 just arrived. (See p 523) VOls I and II also have circuits for ph meters. It is comprized of an AD795 op-amp, 1k and 19.6k resistors, and 100k pot. Takes +15V, -15V and ground supply, which is also in the book. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 22:16:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA27959; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:07:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:07:11 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 00:06:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970203000948.31c7fb34 mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: danyork mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Re: To: 16 yr old Student Cc: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ), discpub@netzone.com Resent-Message-ID: <"1zoE_2.0.nq6.C2Ozo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3873 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:16 PM 1/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >January 11, 1997 > >Dear student, > >Congratulations on a successful experiment which seems to replicate a >1992 Joe Chanpion experiment on precious metal transformation. > >After validation of your results, do you feel confident that a >replication of the results can be performed in front of perhaps even >more critical observers, if requested? Yes I do believe that I can replicate this project and get the same results as long as every step was performed exactly the same. >What were your convictions of the results before you performed the >experiment? I believed that transformation was possible at low energy and by the fact that it was done previously by A&M made me even more certain that my results would be as they are. >What did the supervising instructor feel about about the project prior >to the results? That depends on which one of my supervising instructors you are asking about. Two of the observers were skeptical, while the three others believed that it was very possible. >I know Joe Champion is proud of your results. It helps validate his >contention these past years. Congratulations again. > >Sincerely, > >Akira Kawasaki (Posted on the list without her name per her mothers request) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 22:17:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA28031; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:07:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:07:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 00:07:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970203000944.31c7046e mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: danyork mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Cc: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner), discpub@netzone.com Resent-Message-ID: <"zFtid.0.pr6.b2Ozo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3874 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 11:31 AM 1/10/97 -0900, you wrote: >Student, > >Various metals are present in the can used for your burn. One would expect >iron, zinc, copper and tin in or on the surface of the can. Various >hydrocarbons and other compounds might be present in the can lining. The >solder may include antimony, tin, lead, and possibly silver. Have you >done any kind of control burn or taken other measures to assure the >resulting detected metals are not contamination from the can? > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner Au, Ir, Cu, Ba, Sn, and Fe were the elements of which were detected that were not initially put in the can. It is a possibility that the traces of Cu, Sn, and Fe could have been contamination from the can, and we have taken that into consideration. We have not done any addition burns to test this, but we are hoping that we will be able to answere thais question when our quantitative tests come in. At the moment we only have the results of a x-ray fluoresence test. I do still need to analyze the can, but I know for certain Au was not in the can, or put in it, so that is proof tranformation did take place and it is possible that other elements were created. The Ag present at the conclusion of the experiment was nearly double the amount put in, which is no way a possibility of comming from the can itself. I know the amount of Ag fron the fire assays I have performed. (Posted on the list without her name per her mothers request) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 22:37:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA31183; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:28:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:28:15 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:30:03 -0900 To: Dan York , vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Resent-Message-ID: <"T5CFd.0.1d7.xLOzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3875 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 11:31 AM 1/10/97 -0900, you wrote: >>Student, >> >>Various metals are present in the can used for your burn. One would expect >>iron, zinc, copper and tin in or on the surface of the can. Various >>hydrocarbons and other compounds might be present in the can lining. The >>solder may include antimony, tin, lead, and possibly silver. Have you >>done any kind of control burn or taken other measures to assure the >>resulting detected metals are not contamination from the can? >> >>Regards, >> >>Horace Heffner > > Au, Ir, Cu, Ba, Sn, and Fe were the elements of which were >detected that >were not initially put in the can. It is a possibility that the traces of >Cu, Sn, and Fe could have been contamination from the can, and we have taken >that into consideration. We have not done any addition burns to test this, >but we are hoping that we will be able to answere thais question when our >quantitative tests come in. At the moment we only have the results of a >x-ray fluoresence test. I do still need to analyze the can, but I know for >certain Au was not in the can, or put in it, so that is proof tranformation >did take place and it is possible that other elements were created. The Ag >present at the conclusion of the experiment was nearly double the amount put >in, which is no way a possibility of comming from the can itself. I know >the amount of Ag fron the fire assays I have performed. > >(Posted on the list without her name per her mothers request) This is very interesting about the predominance of silver. If you look at the curve of energy released upon nulear fission (the curve of binding energy), atomic weight on the x axis, nulcear binding energy released upon fission on the y axis, you see that hydrogen is slightly negative, oxygen is more negative, the curve goes more negative to about atomic weight 50, where it increases back up to atomic weight 108, where it crosses the zero point at silver. The curve continues upward from there toward uranium or plutonium. There is a nice example and description of this curve in "Relativity for the Layman", James A Coleman, MacMillan, 1954. This means the elements prior to silver give off energy upon fusion, those afterwards, upon fission. Silver seems to be some kind of natural ground state or resting point for matter given a free reign to shuffle stuff about between nucleii. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 22:37:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA31183; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:28:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:28:15 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:30:03 -0900 To: Dan York , vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Resent-Message-ID: <"T5CFd.0.1d7.xLOzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3875 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 11:31 AM 1/10/97 -0900, you wrote: >>Student, >> >>Various metals are present in the can used for your burn. One would expect >>iron, zinc, copper and tin in or on the surface of the can. Various >>hydrocarbons and other compounds might be present in the can lining. The >>solder may include antimony, tin, lead, and possibly silver. Have you >>done any kind of control burn or taken other measures to assure the >>resulting detected metals are not contamination from the can? >> >>Regards, >> >>Horace Heffner > > Au, Ir, Cu, Ba, Sn, and Fe were the elements of which were >detected that >were not initially put in the can. It is a possibility that the traces of >Cu, Sn, and Fe could have been contamination from the can, and we have taken >that into consideration. We have not done any addition burns to test this, >but we are hoping that we will be able to answere thais question when our >quantitative tests come in. At the moment we only have the results of a >x-ray fluoresence test. I do still need to analyze the can, but I know for >certain Au was not in the can, or put in it, so that is proof tranformation >did take place and it is possible that other elements were created. The Ag >present at the conclusion of the experiment was nearly double the amount put >in, which is no way a possibility of comming from the can itself. I know >the amount of Ag fron the fire assays I have performed. > >(Posted on the list without her name per her mothers request) This is very interesting about the predominance of silver. If you look at the curve of energy released upon nulear fission (the curve of binding energy), atomic weight on the x axis, nulcear binding energy released upon fission on the y axis, you see that hydrogen is slightly negative, oxygen is more negative, the curve goes more negative to about atomic weight 50, where it increases back up to atomic weight 108, where it crosses the zero point at silver. The curve continues upward from there toward uranium or plutonium. There is a nice example and description of this curve in "Relativity for the Layman", James A Coleman, MacMillan, 1954. This means the elements prior to silver give off energy upon fusion, those afterwards, upon fission. Silver seems to be some kind of natural ground state or resting point for matter given a free reign to shuffle stuff about between nucleii. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 22:56:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA01170; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:46:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:46:54 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:48:25 -0900 To: Dan York , vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Cc: discpub netzone.com Resent-Message-ID: <"1aLSU2.0.CI.SdOzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3876 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:07 AM 2/3/97, Dan York wrote: >At 11:31 AM 1/10/97 -0900, you wrote: >>Student, >> >>Various metals are present in the can used for your burn. One would expect >>iron, zinc, copper and tin in or on the surface of the can. Various >>hydrocarbons and other compounds might be present in the can lining. The >>solder may include antimony, tin, lead, and possibly silver. Have you >>done any kind of control burn or taken other measures to assure the >>resulting detected metals are not contamination from the can? >> >>Regards, >> >>Horace Heffner > > Au, Ir, Cu, Ba, Sn, and Fe were the elements of which were >detected that >were not initially put in the can. It is a possibility that the traces of >Cu, Sn, and Fe could have been contamination from the can, and we have taken >that into consideration. We have not done any addition burns to test this, >but we are hoping that we will be able to answere thais question when our >quantitative tests come in. At the moment we only have the results of a >x-ray fluoresence test. I do still need to analyze the can, but I know for >certain Au was not in the can, or put in it, so that is proof tranformation >did take place and it is possible that other elements were created. The Ag >present at the conclusion of the experiment was nearly double the amount put >in, which is no way a possibility of comming from the can itself. I know >the amount of Ag fron the fire assays I have performed. > >(Posted on the list without her name per her mothers request) This is very interesting about the predominance of silver. If you look at the curve of energy released upon nulear fission (the curve of binding energy), atomic weight on the x axis, nulcear binding energy released upon fission on the y axis, you see that hydrogen is slightly negative, oxygen is more negative, the curve goes more negative to about atomic weight 50, where it increases back up to atomic weight 108, where it crosses the zero point at silver. The curve continues upward from there toward uranium or plutonium. There is a nice example and description of this curve in "Relativity for the Layman", James A Coleman, MacMillan, 1954, p. 85. This means the elements prior to silver give off energy upon fusion, those afterwards, upon fission. Silver seems to be some kind of natural ground state or resting point for matter given a free reign to shuffle stuff about between nucleii. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 2 23:17:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA03369; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 23:08:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 23:08:20 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 01:08:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970203011105.317f5560 mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: danyork mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Reply to: Student Resent-Message-ID: <"zydfT2.0.Zq.ZxOzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3877 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:22 PM 1/10/97 -0600, you wrote: >How did you determine that a nuclear transmutation occurred in your >experiment? Please explain all the steps that you took in making this >determination. > >Thank you > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. I know that transmutation occurred because of the simple fact that elements were present after the burn that was not initially put in the can. A x-ray fluorescent test showed appearances of gold and iridium. At this point the amounts are unknown.(Mr. Bill Stehl performed the x-ray fluorescence test.) Another reason is that there was more silver present after the burn than we put in the can. All of the ingredients used were carefully measured. (Posted on the list without her name per her mothers request) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 05:47:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA17649; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 05:25:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 05:25:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:23:31 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electron cluster signature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Zi1vu1.0.aJ4.BTUzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3878 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: HH, Be sure to get Jung's Op Amp cook book. And get Lancaster's CMOS cookbook, On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Horace Heffner wrote: > > This can be simply measured with either a high quality common > >compass or with an inexpensive solidstate device such as the linear Hall > >effect devices mfg by Texas Instruments. Slightly more complex and > >expensive - at about 15 per sensor, less electronics, are the excellent > >peramalloy magnetic bridges mafg by Phillips, the KMZ series easily > >capablr, with proper conditioning of exhibiting 1 volt/gauss. > > Construction of electronics and biasing for the Phillips KMZ > >sensors is possible by skilled ham radio operator builder level of > >expertise. A few steps above hobby level. Equivalent to bulding a > >precision pH meter front end. > > > > JHS > > > > Funny you should mention that John. I just was looking at building just > such a widget. The new McGraw Hill (TAB Books) Encyclopedia of Electronic > Circuits, Volume 6 just arrived. (See p 523) VOls I and II also have > circuits for ph meters. It is comprized of an AD795 op-amp, 1k and 19.6k > resistors, and 100k pot. Takes +15V, -15V and ground supply, which is also > in the book. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 05:54:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA10271; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 05:44:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 05:44:02 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:41:41 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, Horace Heffner , discpub netzone.com Subject: Re: Science Fair Project In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970203000944.31c7046e mail.airmail.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"yiARY1.0.oV2.OkUzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3879 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Congratulations to Student. May we please ask the protocol of the experiment? Thank you for you king consideration in this matter. May we please ask the contacts will to speak at Texas A and M? Again thank you for your kind consideration. JHS On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Dan York wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/10/97 -0900, you wrote: > >Student, > > > >Various metals are present in the can used for your burn. One would expect > >iron, zinc, copper and tin in or on the surface of the can. Various > >hydrocarbons and other compounds might be present in the can lining. The > >solder may include antimony, tin, lead, and possibly silver. Have you > >done any kind of control burn or taken other measures to assure the > >resulting detected metals are not contamination from the can? > > > >Regards, > > > >Horace Heffner > > Au, Ir, Cu, Ba, Sn, and Fe were the elements of which were detected that > were not initially put in the can. It is a possibility that the traces of > Cu, Sn, and Fe could have been contamination from the can, and we have taken > that into consideration. We have not done any addition burns to test this, > but we are hoping that we will be able to answere thais question when our > quantitative tests come in. At the moment we only have the results of a > x-ray fluoresence test. I do still need to analyze the can, but I know for > certain Au was not in the can, or put in it, so that is proof tranformation > did take place and it is possible that other elements were created. The Ag > present at the conclusion of the experiment was nearly double the amount put > in, which is no way a possibility of comming from the can itself. I know > the amount of Ag fron the fire assays I have performed. > > (Posted on the list without her name per her mothers request) > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 07:07:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26780; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:35:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:35:30 -0800 Message-Id: <199702031433.AA08944 gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 09:11:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: RE: Distilled Water Not All The Same To: Private_User srs.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 09:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"Vejcm3.0.LY6.nUVzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3880 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ronald Stiffler ( stiffler compassnet.com) wrote: >Two questions. >1) Would filtering water through Activated Carbon change the basic >ion balance of water ? Most probably. Activated carbon is a filtration medium, meaning it can and does absorb ions and organics out of solution. Conversly, it can ADD things if the carbon is already partially loaded and then you pass water over it, and leach out the carbon's contaminants. >2) What is the process of Ozonating of distilled water ? Not sure, but I'll guess that it is the addition of ozone to the water. Ozone is a good oxidizing agent and it will react with ions and/or organics in the water. The organics will be converted to oxygenated species of various types, with the end state being CO2 (depending on relative amounts you may not reach full oxidation). I believe this is one method of municipal waste treatment. The ions in solution could be oxidized as well. All-in-all this process would also result in the nature of the water's contaminants changing. This is all off the top of my head, so I have been a little vague. Sorry 'bout that... Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 07:26:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA31973; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:05:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:05:02 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702030901.ZM27844 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:01:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: Dan York "Reply to: Student" (Feb 3, 1:06am) References: <2.2.16.19970203011105.317f5560 mail.airmail.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Question for the Student Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"_Q9tH1.0.Vp7.TwVzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3881 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Student's Reply: > I know that transmutation occurred because of the simple fact that elements > were present after the burn that was not initially put in the can. A x-ray > fluorescent test showed appearances of gold and iridium. At this point the > amounts are unknown.(Mr. Bill Stehl performed the x-ray fluorescence test.) Are there plans to determine exact composition and compare before/after elements and ratios? -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 19:20:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08128; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:09:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:09:27 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:09:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970203202318_1579895637 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"85LjJ1.0.u-1.bXgzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3895 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Try blowing some bubbles near a van-de-graff they travel to the globe, touch it, and travel away. It's fun but it's not anything new. Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 08:10:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA09620; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:52:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:52:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199702031549.AA10063 gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 10:41:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: Distilled Water Not All the Same To: Private_User srs.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 10:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"ylyL_.0.9M2.YcWzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3883 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RE: Distilled Water Not All The Same Ronald Stiffler ( stiffler compassnet.com) wrote: >Two questions. >1) Would filtering water through Activated Carbon change the basic >ion balance of water ? Most probably. Activated carbon is a filtration medium, meaning it can and does absorb ions and organics out of solution. Conversly, it can ADD things if the carbon is already partially loaded and then you pass water over it, and leach out the carbon's contaminants. >2) What is the process of Ozonating of distilled water ? Not sure, but I'll guess that it is the addition of ozone to the water. Ozone is a good oxidizing agent and it will react with ions and/or organics in the water. The organics will be converted to oxygenated species of various types, with the end state being CO2 (depending on relative amounts you may not reach full oxidation). I believe this is one method of municipal waste treatment. The ions in solution could be oxidized as well. All-in-all this process would also result in the nature of the water's contaminants changing. This is all off the top of my head, so I have been a little vague. Sorry 'bout that... Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} P.S. This may be a double post...sorry if it is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 08:13:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA09389; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:51:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:51:16 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.251.148 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:51:01 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"Hob93.0.ZI2.obWzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3882 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have done an electrostatic balloon levitation experiment with an interesting result. The experiment consists of a Helium filled mylar balloon connected through a fine copper wire to a high voltage power supply. The power supply is from an old monitor and I estimate the voltage at about +50,000 V. I hung a weight from the balloon so that the entire system would sink to the ground and then cut off sections of the weight until the balloon would almost but not quite start to rise. When I turned on the voltage the balloon rose upward until the slack in the wire was taken up. Now the electrostatic attraction to the walls, floor, or ceiling would be approximately a 1/(distance)^2 force. When the initial balloon position is closer to the floor than to the ceiling the net attraction should be downward but it still rises. With the initial balloon position about 1 foot from the wall and about 4 feet from the ceiling the attraction to the wall is about 16 times greater than the attraction to the ceiling but the balloon rises straight up with very little indication of the effect of the wall attraction. When the balloon gets a bit closer to the wall the 1/(distance)^2 force takes over and it is sucked in and stuck to the wall. As the balloon approaches the ceiling the distance decreased about a factor of 5 and hence the attraction should have increased by a factor of 25. The balloon rises at the terminal velocity from Stokes law and therefore the velocity should be proportional to the force. However the velocity seems constant with no apparent increase as it approaches the ceiling. Of course the standard explanation of this kind of thing is that an ion jet is providing thrust. I don't think that there is any significant ion jet forces but I will next check for that. Anyone out there willing to buy a helium filled mylar balloon with an old TV or monitor can try this out. Just take the high voltage lead off of the picture tube, drill a hole through the top of the case, and pull the lead through the case. Then attache the balloon and you are ready to go. Of course you must not touch the balloon of the connecting wire when the high voltage is on. Sometimes when the balloon is rising it drags the wire past the monitor and there is quite a bit of arcing through the air vent holes. This doesn't hurt anything but it gives you an idea of what you will get if you touch it. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 08:13:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA09389; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:51:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:51:16 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.251.148 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:51:01 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"Hob93.0.ZI2.obWzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3882 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have done an electrostatic balloon levitation experiment with an interesting result. The experiment consists of a Helium filled mylar balloon connected through a fine copper wire to a high voltage power supply. The power supply is from an old monitor and I estimate the voltage at about +50,000 V. I hung a weight from the balloon so that the entire system would sink to the ground and then cut off sections of the weight until the balloon would almost but not quite start to rise. When I turned on the voltage the balloon rose upward until the slack in the wire was taken up. Now the electrostatic attraction to the walls, floor, or ceiling would be approximately a 1/(distance)^2 force. When the initial balloon position is closer to the floor than to the ceiling the net attraction should be downward but it still rises. With the initial balloon position about 1 foot from the wall and about 4 feet from the ceiling the attraction to the wall is about 16 times greater than the attraction to the ceiling but the balloon rises straight up with very little indication of the effect of the wall attraction. When the balloon gets a bit closer to the wall the 1/(distance)^2 force takes over and it is sucked in and stuck to the wall. As the balloon approaches the ceiling the distance decreased about a factor of 5 and hence the attraction should have increased by a factor of 25. The balloon rises at the terminal velocity from Stokes law and therefore the velocity should be proportional to the force. However the velocity seems constant with no apparent increase as it approaches the ceiling. Of course the standard explanation of this kind of thing is that an ion jet is providing thrust. I don't think that there is any significant ion jet forces but I will next check for that. Anyone out there willing to buy a helium filled mylar balloon with an old TV or monitor can try this out. Just take the high voltage lead off of the picture tube, drill a hole through the top of the case, and pull the lead through the case. Then attache the balloon and you are ready to go. Of course you must not touch the balloon of the connecting wire when the high voltage is on. Sometimes when the balloon is rising it drags the wire past the monitor and there is quite a bit of arcing through the air vent holes. This doesn't hurt anything but it gives you an idea of what you will get if you touch it. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 09:30:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA27198; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:15:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:15:24 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702031707.JAA00274 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: is Evan Soule o-u? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:07:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199702021428.IAA29292 natashya.eden.com> from "Scott Little" at Feb 2, 97 08:28:33 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"HUwcn2.0.pe6.gqXzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3884 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little writes: > responding with the carefully gauged needling that stimulates his > spectacular performance. Yes, it might work, but not with the Lorentz gauge. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 09:57:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA00103; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:38:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:38:03 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970130112909.006a008c aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 09:37:20 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ir2zZ2.0.W1.v9Yzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3885 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:50 AM 1/30/97 EST, you wrote: >>> What say Vortex? << > >Mike, > >What fascinates me is the parallel with Meyer - the whole JN thing is so similar >one wonders if they are related or members of the same club > >Its a pity that these people have to drag God into their PR - I suppose they >think that that will add force to their project > >Norman > > I believe there is a formula for this type of practice: god + country + applepie = righteous destiny In the Newman/Soule innovative approach to the solution set, country is a negative number which is overwhelmed by the large size of the positive applepie. And there are rumors that the god portion of the equation is an exponential power which sneaks back around to the right side of applepie as a hidden multiplier when exclaimed in large meetings or radio shows, causing an anomalous sudden phase shift change in righteous destiny. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 10:18:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA07936; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:06:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:06:57 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970203100456.006bb5ec aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 10:04:58 +0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"FSAO3.0.nx1.-aYzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3886 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bravo, Larry. Weird, what not? But fun! gotta be some kind of flow is setup, some progressive pattern of displacement of air molecules, though maybe very slow and very shallow, maybe even tricky, like the pollution in the air has a role in it? Like I said, somebody in the shows and fairs and carney adv could make some money with it. Everybody should encourage Evan and Newman to do that route for some nice honest, real money. What is the lowest voltage, I wonder, that the effect will be produced? At 10:51 AM 2/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > I have done an electrostatic balloon levitation experiment with an >interesting result. The experiment consists of a Helium filled mylar >balloon connected through a fine copper wire to a high voltage power >supply. The power supply is from an old monitor and I estimate the voltage >at about +50,000 V. I hung a weight from the balloon so that the entire >system would sink to the ground and then cut off sections of the weight >until the balloon would almost but not quite start to rise. When I turned >on the voltage the balloon rose upward until the slack in the wire was >taken up. Now the electrostatic attraction to the walls, floor, or ceiling >would be approximately a 1/(distance)^2 force. When the initial balloon >position is closer to the floor than to the ceiling the net attraction >should be downward but it still rises. With the initial balloon position >about 1 foot from the wall and about 4 feet from the ceiling the attraction >to the wall is about 16 times greater than the attraction to the ceiling >but the balloon rises straight up with very little indication of the effect >of the wall attraction. When the balloon gets a bit closer to the wall the >1/(distance)^2 force takes over and it is sucked in and stuck to the wall. >As the balloon approaches the ceiling the distance decreased about a factor >of 5 and hence the attraction should have increased by a factor of 25. The >balloon rises at the terminal velocity from Stokes law and therefore the >velocity should be proportional to the force. However the velocity seems >constant with no apparent increase as it approaches the ceiling. > Of course the standard explanation of this kind of thing is that an ion >jet is providing thrust. I don't think that there is any significant ion >jet forces but I will next check for that. Anyone out there willing to buy >a helium filled mylar balloon with an old TV or monitor can try this out. >Just take the high voltage lead off of the picture tube, drill a hole >through the top of the case, and pull the lead through the case. Then >attache the balloon and you are ready to go. Of course you must not touch >the balloon of the connecting wire when the high voltage is on. Sometimes >when the balloon is rising it drags the wire past the monitor and there is >quite a bit of arcing through the air vent holes. This doesn't hurt >anything but it gives you an idea of what you will get if you touch it. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 10:57:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17014; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:44:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:44:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Larry Wharton Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:43:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wCqji3.0.i94.p7Zzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3887 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Most monitors and TV sets these days have a high voltage about 25KV or less, to avoid producing X-rays with enough energy to pass through the glass tube walls. I suggest you get a voltmeter with a high voltage probe, and check your setup. You obviously are aware of the dangers of High Voltage, so I don't need to warn you. It might be possible to check on the Stokes velocity limit by releasing just the balloon from the floor, and using a stop watch. I glad to see someone checking some of this stuff experimentally Regards Hank Scudder ---------- From: Larry Wharton To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Balloon Levitation Date: Monday, February 03, 1997 7:51AM I have done an electrostatic balloon levitation experiment with an interesting result. The experiment consists of a Helium filled mylar From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 20:16:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA20638; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:50:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:50:53 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32F6B20B.1CFBAE39 math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 19:50:35 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: coolwar transport.com Subject: Re: Vortex CF device site References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FKT4i2.0.O25.R8hzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3896 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Warren L. Cooley wrote (to Bill Beatty & vortex mailing list) > It [fullerene] solves the problems > that have plagued hot fusion research for more than thirty-five years. >From the description at your web site, it is not clear to me that the fullerene solves any problems at all regarding fusion. Reading the info there, I don;t get the felling of any unique advantage over conventional means. > > Fullerene Fusion Fuel is pulled through a passage and imploded with > high frequency electromagnetic compression in harmonic > resolution with > a spark of electricity. In a split instant of time, the hollow > spherical cage is flattened like a pancake. > As the molecules collapse > into a gas they are energized with a spark at > the scale of the speed > of light. The tremendous angular momentum, natural spin, of the > fullerene is conserved as an ionized gas plasma of carbon atoms > pulling hydrogen fuel into a swirling central fusion > vortex tornado of > released energy. > What you are basically describing is fusion by magnetic compression. Its not clear to me why the rotation helps you---rotation normally works against you, since it tends to fling the particles apart and thus things don't stay confined long enough to fuse. Nor do I see any special value to a fullerene molecule, since it is destroyed early on in the the heating process (at about 10 eV, while fusion does not occur until 10,000's of eV are reached). Its a little like worrying about whether your hydrogen starts out in atomic or diatomic (H2) form. Do you have any more detailed calculations that show why an imploding, rotating fullerene filled with hydrogen is a particularly favorable design? I can't see it. A few tangential comments: (1)This situation is also not really comparable to edison searching for a good filament for his light bulb. Your device has not even been proven in principle---at least by the evidence on your web page---so it is not simply an engineering issue. (2) If you want to interest scientists, you would be well to bring the jargon on your page more in line with meaningful technical descriptions of physical phenomena. For one among many examples, calling something a "vortex tornado" sounds, to the trained ear, sounds about as redundant as calling something "light white". -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 20:33:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25711; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:20:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:20:27 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:20:17 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Larry Wharton" at Feb 3, 97 10:51:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"J42R-2.0.eH6.9ahzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3897 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: > Of course the standard explanation of this kind of thing is that an ion > jet is providing thrust. I don't think that there is any significant ion > jet forces but I will next check for that. I used to play with a 200,000 volt van de graff, and you could feel the ion wind from needle points. You don't need a mirror smooth surface to minimize ion leaks, but when conductive protuberances get to be a significant fraction of the radius of curvature, then the gradient can get locally steep and ionization can occur. This would be likely to occur near the "stem" of the mylar ballon. Since this excess material tends to make it the heavy side, it typically hangs down, and ion currents would repell and push the balloon upward. One simple way to minimize this would be to tape the excess against the curvature of the ballon. I forgot if someone else mentioned this, but of course charging the balloon will cause the sides to repulse each other, slightly expanding the volume of the balloon, and thus lowering its density and increasing its boyancy. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 03:13:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA21020; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:04:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:04:37 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970203022930.009e3120 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 02:06:21 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: IMPORTANT ==> WORDS OF WARNING!!!!!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Sy4IP2.0.985.2Vnzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3898 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:01 AM 2/2/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >Look, my hands are not clean in poking at this Newman fiasco, but when I >was notified that this student was about to join our mist, the reality hit >me that there could be other inspiring kids observing this list in an >attempt to understand the basis of how researchers think and interact. I >guess we have set a great example! > >With respect, > > >___________________________ >Joe Champion >JChampion transmutation.com >http://www.transmutation.com >___________________________ Mea culpa! ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 03:45:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA25468; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:36:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:36:21 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 11:36:32 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32ffd313.33017835 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PMeSz1.0.sD6.pynzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3900 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:30:03 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >This is very interesting about the predominance of silver. If you look at >the curve of energy released upon nulear fission (the curve of binding >energy), atomic weight on the x axis, nulcear binding energy released upon >fission on the y axis, you see that hydrogen is slightly negative, oxygen >is more negative, the curve goes more negative to about atomic weight 50, >where it increases back up to atomic weight 108, where it crosses the zero >point at silver. The curve continues upward from there toward uranium or >plutonium. There is a nice example and description of this curve in >"Relativity for the Layman", James A Coleman, MacMillan, 1954. This means >the elements prior to silver give off energy upon fusion, those afterwards, >upon fission. Silver seems to be some kind of natural ground state or Horace, As far as I know, the binding energy per nucleon reaches a peak at around Fe-Ni. I was under the impression that this meant that these metals formed the border line between fission and fusion, at least when we are talking about fusion between two identical nuclei. Even then not all nuclei < Fe yield energy upon fusion. E.g. V51 + V51 -> Pd102 -16.5 MeV (note the minus sign!) While even stable nuclei less than silver would yield energy upon fission. E.g. Mo94 -> Ni64 + Si30 + 3 MeV (Though for other reasons this doesn't happen). >resting point for matter given a free reign to shuffle stuff about between >nucleii. > [snip] This makes me curious about exactly what it is that is zero in the neighbourhood of silver. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 03:45:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA25447; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:36:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:36:14 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 11:36:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32fed295.32892079 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <32F67220.15FB7483@math.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <32F67220.15FB7483 math.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DE_4b3.0.WD6.iynzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3899 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 15:17:52 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: [snip] >Larry: it seems you are saying that no DC curret flows through the >wire---i.e. you are not wrapping a solenoid around the balloon, but >rather simply raising it to a high potential. Is this correct? If >so, it would seem you are not duplicating the newman device. What >relation are you suggesting between your device and newmans? [snip] In fact it sounds more reminiscent of T.T. Brown. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 07:41:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA22232; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:30:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:30:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:32:08 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Resent-Message-ID: <"f8Ovn3.0.GR5.0Orzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3901 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 2:36 AM 2/4/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: [snip] >As far as I know, the binding energy per nucleon reaches a peak at around >Fe-Ni. I was under the impression that this meant that these metals formed >the border line between fission and fusion, at least when we are talking >about fusion between two identical nuclei. Even then not all nuclei < Fe >yield energy upon fusion. E.g. [snip] >This makes me curious about exactly what it is that is zero in the >neighbourhood of silver. It is not explicitly stated but implied by Coleman that it is the *average* energy released upon fissioning nuclei. Just prior to the graph there is a discussion of the Cockroft Walton experiment where Li is fissioned by bombardment with protons and the energy released is compared with the resulting mass of the products. There is a negative peak in the curve around iron or nickel, showing it to require the largest amount of kinetic energy to fission on average. That does imply the largest total binding energy. To me this curve implies that if you employ a fissioning process using neutrons or other kinetic fissioning you will tend to get iron, but if you have some zero energy means to let matter jump around between nuclei, e.g. quantum waveform collapse of a Bose condensate, you would tend to get silver. In other words, the deviation of the binding energies available from fissioning of the products resulting from the quantum waveform collapse process would tend to diminish and eventually would approach zero as the silver concentration increased. The binding energy requirement of elements like oxygen and iron would match in a total way the energy from heavier elements like antimony and lead in such a zero energy exchange. Such a process I think would eventually tend to produce an element with zero energy upon fissioning, i.e. silver. Does this make sense? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 07:43:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA22555; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:32:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:32:27 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:31:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199702041531.HAA26277 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Status of NASA testing of Griggs' Pump To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: little eden.com Cc: 72240.1256 compuserve.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Cc: griggs mindspring.com Resent-Message-ID: <"AhHD23.0.HW5.9Qrzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3902 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: February 4, 1997, Following Scott's query of the NASA tests on Griggs' pump, I called Hydrodynamics again this morning to check on the status along with some other questions. Mr. Griggs kindly returned my call after an appointed meeting. I thanked him for receipt of the video and brochures. NASA's testing of the Griggs' Hydrodynamic pump is under a FIVE year testing agreement and is still moving apace. It is under a (for NASA) low priority, low budget program. (sounds just like how they treated the Yusmar at LANL except much longer) So far testing has proceeded where NASA has not expressed any desire to terminate the program. But they are very tight lipped about the testing and has not kept Griggs up to date on any details of their testing. And it seems to be not all free, for there are items of cost handling that Griggs has to deal (haggle) with. Jed Rothwell, whom Griggs have come to know since his early (first) coverage of Hydrodynamics, has been promised to be kept informed (not exclusively I think) of any results out of NASA. I mentioned it was Scott Little that asked about the NASA results. One of the promotional brochures from Hydrodynamics illustrated a drying process where oil was the fluid medium heated rather than water. I asked whether the "shock-wave" heating of the oil caused any decomposition of the oil (molecules) or whether the pump was modified to use oil for heating. Both questionns were no. Along with this line of questioning, I asked was whether the pump design itself was amenable to be used (with proper fuel-oxidant mixture) as a diesel-effect motor using the "shock-wave" effect for ignition. I do not think he quite grasped what was trying to be said but he said no. If it works, it could be a self cleaning engine. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 08:25:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA30797; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:13:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:13:07 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32F67220.15FB7483 math.ucla.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:12:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"4MkK12.0.7X7.I0szo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3903 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To answer a few of the questions: There is no heat convection currents coming from the power supply. The power supply is an old monitor and it is only turned on for 3 seconds at most and it does not have time to heat up. The walls appear conducting enough so that an image charge seems to be induced. That is how I guessed that there should be a 1/r^2 attraction to the walls, floor, or ceiling. At about a foot or more away from the walls this attractive force is overcome by the buoyancy and the balloon rises straight up. This is a charging experiment and is not directly related to the Newman magnetic experiment except perhaps that the electrostatic force and the magnetic force could both produce an outward pressure that would increase the balloon buoyancy. The magnetic experiment will be done next. This is not like the repulsion of a bubble charged up by a Van-De-Graf generator where there would be an electrostatic repulsion radially away from the generator head. The monitor has the positive voltage in proximity to grounded surfaces just a few inches away. This would induce a weak electric dipole moment that would both attract and repel the balloon at various different spatial orientations with respect the monitor. However the balloon always rises straight up from any starting position and the apparent force is constant as opposed to the 1/r^3 force from a dipole. Taping the exposed edges would reduce the ion discharge jets and I did that. The balloon just rose faster and it stayed up much longer after the power was turned off instead of sinking in about 2 seconds. I guess that this is because the charge doesn't leak off as fast and a higher charge is achieved. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 09:38:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA13339; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:17:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:17:50 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:15:49 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Up balloon Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"wLaWN2.0.HG3.yyszo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3904 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., How is this: 1] Balloon at 30 to 40 kV plus. [positive] 2] Earth at ~ 100 to 150 V sferic 'fair weather current' [positive] 3] Gentle repulsion ..... 4] According to B. Beatty, and correctly so, as I recall, such potentials valid is no big odd electrical storm conditions prevail. JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 09:43:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA16104; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:28:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:28:09 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:26:07 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Open letter to 16 year old Science Fair student Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VRfr.0.Xx3.d6tzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3905 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Student, Again you are to be commended for your experiment. Often work which others with vested interest may have fear of never see the light. Can you please describe the experimental protocol for us? So far all that I know is that there is a "burn" and maybe a "tin can", which might be a zinc plated or galvanized as it is sometimes called can of the type maybe food comes in. Are a mixture of chemicals placed in the can and ignited? With respectful curiousity, John Herman Schnurer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 11:14:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA31469; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:30:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:30:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:31:32 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Up balloon Resent-Message-ID: <"VRAg7.0.dh7.m0uzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3907 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Dear Vo., > > > How is this: > > > 1] Balloon at 30 to 40 kV plus. [positive] > > 2] Earth at ~ 100 to 150 V sferic 'fair weather current' > [positive] > > 3] Gentle repulsion ..... > > 4] According to B. Beatty, and correctly so, as I recall, >such potentials valid is no big odd electrical storm conditions prevail. > > > JHS Good point John! There is a natural atmospheric gradient. Sometimes reverses though. I just dont think about the gradient continuing inside a closed structure, but maybe it could/does. This points to a good experiment doesn't it? Try it outside. Some other questions: Is the ballon made of aluminized plastic like you typically (in Alaska anyway) find at grocery stores? Is there conduit or other grounded metal, like plumbing, light fixtures, drop ceiling panel supports, HVAC ducts, etc., in the ceiling? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 11:34:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA30711; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:25:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:25:41 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Up balloon To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:22:18 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "John Schnurer" at Feb 4, 97 12:15:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uJrAa1.0.mV7.aytzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3906 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > 1] Balloon at 30 to 40 kV plus. [positive] > > 2] Earth at ~ 100 to 150 V sferic 'fair weather current' > [positive] > > 3] Gentle repulsion ..... Ah, reverse the charging polarity on the balloon and see what happens. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 11:52:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA10215; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:17:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:17:30 -0800 Date: 04 Feb 97 14:15:34 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Up balloon Message-ID: <970204191534_76016.2701_JHC114-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xqxCl3.0.RV2.7juzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3908 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer opines: >> Dear Vo., How is this: 1] Balloon at 30 to 40 kV plus. [positive] 2] Earth at ~ 100 to 150 V sferic 'fair weather current' [positive] 3] Gentle repulsion ..... 4] According to B. Beatty, and correctly so, as I recall, such potentials valid is no big odd electrical storm conditions prevail. JHS<< Interesting! Is this also the force which drives the thunderclouds into the stratosphere? Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 12:28:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA16144; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:39:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:39:31 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:37:11 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Balloon up Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"do8rJ.0.9y3.l1vzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3909 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I guess you folks know a little about how I think now ..... eclectic. J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 12:36:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25373; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:12:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:12:28 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:14:01 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Follow-up Statement Resent-Message-ID: <"uoGec1.0.NC6.gWvzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3910 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Joseph Newman asked me to post the following regarding his forthcoming Demonstration on February 7th: Follow-up Statement: NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 * josephnewman earthlink.net * (504) 524-3063 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "To any person who does not believe that Joseph Newman will prove and demonstrate during his forthcoming demonstration at the Holiday Inn Southwest in St. Louis, Missouri, at 11am on February 7, 1997 that space travel can quickly become an everyday reality: Such a person is totally wrong! On February 7th it will be clearly proven that the entire Earth is *held electromagnetically at a particular tilt* in its orbit relative to the Sun. This angle of tilt is _not_ a mere "chance" or "coincidental result" of gravitational forces! Because our entire Earth is so moved electromagnetically in its travels around the Sun and, likewise, the entire Solar System is moved electromagnetically through the massive electromagnetic field that prevails throughout our Galaxy, therefore, A MERE SPACE VEHICLE BUILT BY OUR SPECIES SO TRAVELING THOUGH SPACE IS FRIVOLOUS IN COMPARISON TO THE GRANDEUR AND SIMPLICITY OF THE UNIVERSE. To exemplify what I state: Dr. Robert E. Smith, Chief, Orbital and Space Environment Branch, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, specifically arranged for NASA statisticians to study the facts presented by myself regarding the Earth's particular tilt relative to the Sun. The explicit conclusion of these statisticians: "The chances of Mr. Newman being wrong were almost totally impossible." Our future descendants will laugh at our obliviousness to this simple recognition. Come observe the demonstration for yourself on February 7th. Joseph W. Newman" ____________________________________________ Posted by, Evan Soule', Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS, josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063, P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html Anyone wishing to receive a gif file graphically depicting how the Earth is *held electromagnetically at a particular tilt* in its orbit relative to the Sun, please contact me via email and I will be happy to forward same. Evan Soule' josephnewman earthlink.net From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 12:44:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA27911; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:26:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:26:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 97 14:26:32 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970204142920.28df6ea2 mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: danyork mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Science Fair Project Resent-Message-ID: <"AcIad.0._p6.6kvzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3911 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:46 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Bill Beaty wrote: >Dan, did you post a report about the project? All I received were the >lists of questions/answers. For example, the experiment is not described. The science fair experiment is a replication of one of the transmutation experiments performed at Texas A&M University in 1992. Joe Champion and a benefactor gave Dr. Bockris at TAMU a grant to perform the transmutation experiments. Dr. Bockris then brought in Dr. Roberto Monti to do the hands on work. The series of experiments conducted at TAMU were designated as "Thermal 0" thru "Thermal XVI". The experiment replicated was designated as "Thermal II". The ingredients used in this experiment were: 300 g of Carbon, (C) 900 g of Potassium Nitrate, (KNO3) 80 g of Sulfur, (S) 100 g of Iron Sulphate, (FeSo4) 30 g of Cadmium, (Cd) 100 g of Mercury Chloride, (HgCl2) 50 g of Litharge, (PbO) 5 g of Silver, (Ag) 30 g of Calcium Oxide, (CaO) The ingredients were thoroughly mixed and placed in a 3lb. coffee can and ignited with a torch. Dr. Barry Merriman was present through the entire experiment and has validated the results. Barry has provided the student a signed statement attesting to the fact that the amount of silver increased from 5 grams to 8.7 grams and that there was a small amount of gold produced. Dr. Roberto Monti has also provided a signed statement verifying two additional fire assays that were done on the residue material a few weeks following the initial experimental burn. The results of these fire assays were essentially the same as those done by Barry but showing slightly more silver. An XRF on the burned material was done by Mr. Bill Stehl which also verified the presence of gold as well as some iridium. A mass spectrometry analysis has also been done on the before and after material. This was just completed yesterday so there has not been time to complete an analysis of the result. One major problem the student faces is the fact that her science teacher was a student at TAMU in 1992 when the original series of experiments were done. She was aware of the experiments but not the true results. Because of the political situation there on campus at the time instead of the actual results being reported the students were informed that there were no positive results at all. Joe Champion has posted a transcription of the lab notes for the entire series of thermal burns conducted at TAMU in 1992. You can get to them from his WEB page at www.transmutation.com. Partial results of the original experiments were also presented at the first and second Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference at College Station. Dan York From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 12:58:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA30362; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:36:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:36:34 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:36:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970204145354_1421917228 emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: right energy wrong direction Resent-Message-ID: <"KYn8z2.0.AQ7.Gtvzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3912 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Berry Merryman writes: Nor do I see any special value to a fullerene molecule, since it is destroyed early on in the the heating process (at about 10 eV, while fusion does not occur until 10,000's of eV are reached). .............................................................................. ....................... Ten electron volts is in the energy range produced in the process of cold fusion. As stated by Berry 10 Kev of energy is required in hot fusion. Berry you got the correct energy but applied it in the wrong direction. About 10 ev of energy must be REMOVED (not added!) from the electrons to form an electron cluster. This can be done by cooling, but how then do you get heat energy out of something cold. The same result can be obtained with pressure. The osmotic pressure of an electrochemical cell seems to work. The same result can be obtained by organizing the thermal velocities of the electron distribution. The process of shock is intrinsic to all cold fusion reactions. .............................................................................. .......................... Once 10 ev of energy is removed from the free electrons a macro particle is formed. The mechanical operations of pressure, rubbing, and spinning of the macro-particle produce the results seen at Tempere and in the CETI cell. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 12:58:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA32082; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:44:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:44:48 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702041440.ZM5655 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:40:43 -0600 In-Reply-To: Dan York "Science Fair Project" (Feb 4, 2:25pm) References: <2.2.16.19970204142920.28df6ea2 mail.airmail.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"iPbUX.0.Br7._-vzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3913 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Feb 4, 2:25pm, Dan York wrote: > A mass spectrometry analysis > has also been done on the before and after material. This was just completed > yesterday so there has not been time to complete an analysis of the result. Could you post the results when you're done? -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 13:24:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA05099; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:09:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:09:31 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:07:48 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: Evan Soule cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Follow-up Statement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"tSnbV3.0.FF1.7Mwzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3914 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Evan Soule wrote: > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Follow-up Statement > ---[snip]----- > Anyone wishing to receive a gif file graphically depicting how the Earth is > *held electromagnetically at a particular tilt* in its orbit relative to > the Sun, please contact me via email and I will be happy to forward same. > > Evan Soule' > josephnewman earthlink.net > ---[end snip]--- > Yes, please send gif to ekwall2 diac.com [THANK YOU] ------------------oOOOo---( 0 0 )---oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2 diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2 freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 14:24:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA12053; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:43:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:43:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Barry Merriman Cc: Vortex-L Subject: Students experiment - Dan York Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:43:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OTYwO3.0.9y2.brwzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3915 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Have you described this experiment that you observed anywhere? I would be interested in seeing your comments. You seem to have a nice way with words, and a good scientific sense. Regards Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 14:29:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA17392; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:07:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:07:01 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 17:06:35 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199702042206.RAA29355 spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. Resent-Message-ID: <"3lp-u3.0.gF4.3Cxzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3916 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bear with me a moment while I set the (economic) stage... What do we have if "cold" fusion provides cheap non-polluting power? A paradise on earth. What if cold fusion is nothing but storing energy in the form of mono-atomic hydrogen? We get all of the heavens, even if it doesn't make a very useful battery! Okay, now some science... I've been thinking about the "catastrophic" events where the hydrogen (or deuterium) loading of an electrode drops rapidly. As I understand the theory, what we are seeing is hydrogen in the form of ions (H+) converting to H by electron capture, then binding into H2 molecules. This particular reaction is one of the best ways to propel a spaceship, due to the high Isp. (Of ourse, it would be nice to replace the palladium with something lighter like, say, beryllium if you want to use this for earth to orbit operations. Isp, or specific impulse is measured in seconds. One way to look at it is the amount of time that one kilo of fuel can produce one kilo of thrust. With rockets the Isp goes up linearly with temperature, but also scales as the inverse square root of the average molecular weight of the exhaust. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) get an Isp around 400 seconds by burning hydrogen and oxygen to get water. What you may not have known is that the mix is hydrogen rich--the benefit from the lower average molecular weight is more valuable than the added average velocity from higher temperatures. In fact, there has been some consideration of running SSMEs on H2 and Ozone or an Ozone/Oxygen mixture. They would keep the nozzle temperature and pressure the same, but get a higher Isp from a lower average molecular weight. Nerva was aiming for an Isp of 800 with hydrogen heated by a nuclear reactor. Combining monatomic hydrogen to form H2 gives you an Isp in the 5000 range. Hot stuff. How does it get so high? The SSMEs exhaust has a molecular weight around nine, with single-H it is under two. Even run at the same exhaust temperature, a space shuttle fueled with single-H would reverse the mass fraction: most of the take-off weight would be cargo. So why isn't anyone working on this? Mono-propellants have their own safety hazards, and a "little" single-H is more explosive than several times its weight in nitroglycerin, and nowhere near as stable. Want to go sit on a hundred tons or so? But if single-H can be "put in a bottle" in a metal storage matrix, it won't react until and unless it escapes from the metal. Even if it takes several kilos of metal to store one kilo of hydrogen, you could be ahead of the Isp game for earth based launchers. But for flying around the solar system, you would want to use solar or nuclear power to "refuel" the storage matrix, then use the engines in short bursts. You would get near the original Isp of 5000 in such a role. Now for the brutal reality. Even loading ratios several times over unity wouldn't help with palladium. It is too damn heavy (and expensive). What are the alternatives? Lithium would be real nice, but then start climbing the periodic table: Lithium (6.941), Beryllium (9.012), Boron (10.81), Sodium (22.99), Magnesium (24.31), Aluminum (26.98), etc. Titanium (47.88) is probably too heavy by itself, but it would be a place to start looking. Any alloy of Lithium, Beryllium, and/or Boron with a loading over unity would be hot stuff. We think we know the magic crystalline properties needed, but I'm not a metallurgist or a crystallographer. Anyone want to take the next step? Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 15:01:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA24249; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:39:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:39:56 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 17:37:49 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science Fair Project In-Reply-To: <9702041440.ZM5655 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DN7T73.0.nw5.xgxzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3917 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Will you be doing a straight Q and Q analysis? What were the reagent suppliers and purities of the starting materials? JHS On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, John Steck wrote: > On Feb 4, 2:25pm, Dan York wrote: > > > A mass spectrometry analysis > > has also been done on the before and after material. This was just completed > > yesterday so there has not been time to complete an analysis of the result. > > Could you post the results when you're done? > > -john > > -- > John E. Steck > Motorola CSS > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 15:09:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA28061; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:52:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:52:07 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702042244.OAA00861 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Podkletnov Paper To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:44:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199702042206.RAA29355 spectre.mitre.org> from "Robert I. Eachus" at Feb 4, 97 05:06:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1h7d21.0.Js6.Lsxzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3918 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The Podkletnov paper about the Tampere experiment which was withdrawn from Physica C last year, has been posted to the Los Alamos physics preprint server (http://xxx.lanl.gov). There is also a new paper by Modanese and Schnurer which contains theoretical discussion by Modanese, and a description of Schnurer's replication of the Tampere experiment. Condensed Matter -- #97011074 "Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor Below 70K under EM Field." E.E. Podkletnov, Moscow Scientific Research Centre, 10 Jan 97 (Back in the Motherland). General Relativity and Quantum Gravity -- #9612022 "Possible Quantum Gravity Effects in a Charged Bose Condensate Under Variable EM Field." By Giovanni Modanese and John Schnurer, 12 Jan 97 The Podkletnov paper contains substantially more information than his early articles, including: descriptions of the structure and process used in making the composite HTC disk, and greater detail about the experimental setup, procedure, and findings. The first part of the Modanese/Schnurer paper consists of incomprehensible, but probably insightful, mathematics. The second half of the paper includes a practical description of Schnurer's experiment, including some information that was posted here last month and some additional interesting discussion about non-conservation of the field and the energy balance problem. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 15:53:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA03834; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:40:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:40:54 -0800 Message-ID: <32F7D80C.1AE9 gorge.net> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 16:45:00 -0800 From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science Fair Project. References: <199702042124.NAA08194 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MKrjZ1.0.px.5ayzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3920 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Experimenter: 1. Have you determined the amounts of the other metals remaining after the experiment? 2. Have all the non-metal atoms of the various compounds "burned off" in the reaction? 3. Do you have a theory which explains which atoms have mutated, and what the mechanism might be? 4. Can the various metals be segregated from the final reaction product? In other words, can at least the precious metals be refined out, or will further chemical reactions or heating cause further transformations? Thanks, Tom Miller From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 16:27:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11987; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:13:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:13:19 -0800 Message-Id: <199702050013.TAA23608 mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: Robert Stirniman , vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:24:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702042244.OAA00861 shell.skylink.net> References: <199702042206.RAA29355 spectre.mitre.org> from "Robert I. Eachus" at Feb 4, 97 05:06:35 pm X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"MtUzE3.0.9x2.U2zzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3922 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 4 Feb 97 at 14:44, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > The Podkletnov paper about the Tampere experiment which > was withdrawn from Physica C last year, has been posted to > > Condensed Matter -- #97011074 > "Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk There's a slight typo in ## above. The full URL is: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9701074 The paper's nine figures seem to be missing from the PostScript version at http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/cond-mat/9701074 and I couldn't find the LaTeX version (which supposedly contains figures) at Spires HEP http://www-slac.slac.stanford.edu/find/spires.html Also, there's an earlier Modanese paper at http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/cond-mat/1/Modanese/0/1/0/96/1/0 which might also be worthwhile. 1. supr-con/9601001 [abs, src, ps, other] : Title: Updating the theoretical analysis of the weak gravitational shielding experiment Author(s): G. Modanese (INFN, Trento) Comments: LaTex, 6 pages. Only formal changes in title and abstract Subj-class: Superconductivity Best regards, Bob Flower ======================================================= Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Quality Control Engineering Instrumentation Systems - Technology Transfer ======================================================= From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 16:36:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11689; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:12:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:12:28 -0800 Date: 04 Feb 97 19:07:41 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper Message-ID: <970205000741_100433.1541_BHG76-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4E-vz1.0.Ys2.g1zzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3921 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert, > The Podkletnov paper about the Tampere experiment which was > withdrawn from Physica C last year, has been posted to the Los > Alamos physics preprint server (http://xxx.lanl.gov). Thanks for the information. One small point is that while the earlier (1991-ish) Podkletnov paper was in Physica C, the journal from which a later paper was withdrawn (last year) was Journal of Physics D:- Applied Physics. I should add that a Rob Irving (who is something of a scourge of the whackier end of the ufo/crop-circle thing, not to mention an excellent fraud-buster) will have an article on Podkletnov and Tampere in "Fortean Times" shortly, maybe in two weeks' time. Since he has little physics background, he asked me for advice before going to Finland. A case of the blind leading the blind, but I made a few suggestions. He tells me that he was not impressed by Tampere, but was impressed by Podkletnov. An interesting switch for Rob, who spent the remainder of his visit being not terribly welcome at a UFO meeting. He seems to have solved the problem of the missing co-author, by the way. Funny how universities go into frantic retreat (and even into downright lies) the moment an anomaly is reported on their territory. Wasn't science once about investigating anomalies? Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 16:55:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA18942; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:44:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:44:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:43:54 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper In-Reply-To: <199702042244.OAA00861 shell.skylink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FnTNb3.0.ud4.NVzzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3923 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Robert Stirniman wrote: > The Podkletnov paper about the Tampere experiment which > was withdrawn from Physica C last year, has been posted to > the Los Alamos physics preprint server (http://xxx.lanl.gov). > There is also a new paper by Modanese and Schnurer which > contains theoretical discussion by Modanese, and a description > of Schnurer's replication of the Tampere experiment. > > Condensed Matter -- #97011074 > "Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk > YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor Below 70K under EM Field." > E.E. Podkletnov, Moscow Scientific Research Centre, 10 Jan 97 > (Back in the Motherland). > > General Relativity and Quantum Gravity -- #9612022 > "Possible Quantum Gravity Effects in a Charged Bose > Condensate Under Variable EM Field." > By Giovanni Modanese and John Schnurer, 12 Jan 97 > Got both of these, except for tables and figures from the Podkletnov paper. Very interesting reading! Posting the papers there was a great idea. I've got a good friend who specializes in General Rel. I'll ask him about the Modanese and Schnurer paper. The maths is beyond me. By the way, for all those frustrated Cold Fusion Scientists who can't get published - just post your papers to the http://xxx.lanl.gov bulletin board. All they ask is that you submit in Latex, Tex, PDF and encapsulated postscript for figures. Read the instructions at the Web site. You'll get a larger audience from that database than for almost any Journal too. Martin Sevior. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 17:59:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA28781; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:55:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:55:16 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702042247.OAA00879 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Podkletnov Paper (Correction) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:47:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199702042206.RAA29355 spectre.mitre.org> from "Robert I. Eachus" at Feb 4, 97 05:06:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rUP0s.0.a17.Hvxzo" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3919 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry. The correct number for the Podkletnov paper is: Condensed Matter #0701074 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 20:46:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01562; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:32:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:32:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:30:23 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex cc: John Schnurer Subject: Gravity Society USA Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UtkV01.0.FO.Rr0-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3924 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Latest run; 63 gram glass target weigh. Neg 4 percent. 6 foot beam, scale 6 feet away, interposed grounded aluminum and brass screen and 3/16" glass plate. Mettler scale, resolution 0.01 gram. Photographs taken. Effect still difficult to obtain, not for the faint hearted. YBCO, liquid nitrogen, magnetic fields. JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 21:27:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA12101; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:12:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:12:50 -0800 Message-ID: <32F82625.68EB rt66.com> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:18:13 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rmforall rt66.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, davidk@suba.com Subject: Cold Fusion Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6CA35F053010" Resent-Message-ID: <"EjO9r.0.qy2.GR1-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3925 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6CA35F053010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://zombie.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/ --------------6CA35F053010 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Base: "http://zombie.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/" Cold Fusion

Cold Fusion

What it does is impossible by any science I understand now.
--Mr. Spock, City on the Edge of Forever
``Cold fusion'' has come to mean the release of nuclear energy as heat in a metal loaded with hydrogen. Whether such phenomena exist remains controversial, scientifically unproven, and indeed seems quite unlikely by current atomic theory. Still, research continues and the verdict is not in yet.

My Cold Fusion Projects

Cold Fusion Information

Home

--------------6CA35F053010-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 00:38:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA22128; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:27:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:27:02 -0800 Message-ID: <32F853A3.7198 rt66.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 01:32:19 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, davidk@suba.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, 74750.1231 compuserve.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, bssimon helix.ucsd.edu, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, drom@vxcem.cern.ch, mica world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, ine@padrak.com, little@eden.com, jonesse plasma.byu.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, discpub@netzone.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp, ceti@onramp.net, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu Subject: David S. Kestenbaum article on recent CF research Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------1E0A11097871" Resent-Message-ID: <"-ezRY.0.gP5.LH4-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3926 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1E0A11097871 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tuesday, February 4, 1997 Dear CF "Network", I was very impressed that Dr. George Miley (g-miley uiuc.edu) indicated to writer David S. Kestenbaum that I would be a good person to comment critically on his work with CETI beads, reported in his two recent Preprints with evidence for excess power and transmutation products. I am forwarding Kestenbaum's request for critical information to a wide range of players, who may help him appreciate various viewpoints. He is writing an article on recent cold fusion research for R&D Magazine: David S. Kestenbaum, (davidk suba.com), 1056 N. Leavitt St., Chicago, IL 60622, 773-395-8294. To summarize some of the picture in 1996: Scott Little (little eden.com) and Barry Merriman (barry@math.ucla.edu) each tried making their own CETI-type beads but were unable to find excess power. Dr. Edmund Storms has extensively reviewed the whole field, and, having no e-mail address, is at 270 Hyde Park Estates, Santa Fe, NM 87501, 505-988-3673. Thomas N. Claytor (claytor_t_n lanl.gov) at LANL has been running CETI beads, as well as other beads, and may report on this soon, in addition to his main work for years, which seems to be incontrovertible production of tritium from deuterium in a 2-Kev glow discharge on palladium. Scott Little is now finishing a very careful experiment with a CETI Kit, so we all are very eagerly waiting to hear from him soon. According to Little, at least two other labs may be now testing CETI kits. According to Frank Znidarsic (fznidarsic aol.com), Miley may give a talk within a month at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. The overall debate is badly polarized between the so-called "True Believers" and "Pathological Skeptics". However, the barrier between the two camps is permeable. Eugene Mallove's (76570.2270 compuserve.com) "Infinite Energy" magazine, 603-228-4516, has published negative results by Little and others on careful tests of well publicized "over-unity" devices by Potapov, Takahashi, and others. John Logajan's (jlogajan skypoint.com) fine web page includes two long critiques, pointed and wide-ranging, by Douglas R. O. Morrison (drom vxcern.cern.ch), which I reccommend should be published in "Infinite Energy". George H. Miley, editor of "Fusion Technology", published an important critical report by Zvi Shkedi et. al., "Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells," Vol. 28, Nov., 1995, 1720-1731, which compliments two careful, devastating critical studies by a former cold fusion exponent, Steven E. Jones (jonesse plasma.byu.edu), and co-workers, "Examination of Claims of Miles et. al. in Pons--Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments," "J. Physical Chemistry, 1995, 6966-6972, and, "Faradic Efficiencies Less than 100% during Electrolysis of Water Can Account for Reports of Excess Heat in "Cold Fusion" Cells", 6973-6979. In my ideal scientific world , these three papers would also be in "Infinite Energy", to ensue adaquate evaluation of many often-quoted claims and stimulate the focusing of time and energy on research methodologies that can prove things conclusively. Otherwise, the field is in danger of the type of endless circulation of groundless claims that are seen in the circles that spin yarns about the 1947 Roswell Incident. I am naturally very pleased that Wayne Green (design73 aol.com), 603-525-4747, in his 92-page issue # 20, December, 1996, "Cold Fusion" magazine, now $ 50/12 issues, has published in entirity my four Miley Critiques, 12 pages, which I wrote in early December and posted on Vortex-L Discussion Group after a painstaking, tedious examination of Miley's two Preprints. He also published Miley's ("Second") Preprint, 14 pages, "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occurring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis." The magazine is much easier to read if zeroxed to 130 % larger. I've been busy moving for six weeks, and now have time to compose some more Critiques, not only a Fifth on Miley's Preprints, but some on the equally startling reports by Mizuno, by Dash and Kopecek, by Ohmori and Enyo, and by Vysotskii et. al. ("Nuclear Transmutation of Isotopes in Growing Biological Cultures"). The next issue of "Fusion Technology", March, 1997, is scheduled to publish "Transmutation in the Electrolysis of Light Water--Excess Energy and Iron Production in a Gold Electrode," by Ohmori, Enyo, Mizuno, Nodasake, and Minagawa. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 rmforall rt66.com --------------1E0A11097871 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: davidk suba.com Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA08182 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:17:27 -0700 (MST) Received: from davidk (dial21.suba.com [198.87.202.148]) by suba01.suba.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA03011 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:15:54 -0600 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970205011315.006dbe30 suba.com> X-Sender: davidk suba.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 19:13:15 -0600 To: rmforall rt66.com From: "David S. Kestenbaum" Subject: R&D magazine article on cold fusion Hello, I am writing an article for R&D magazine on recent "cold fusion" related research. George Miley indicated that you would be a good person to comment critically on his work. I would appreciate hearing your impressions. I can be reached at this email address or by phone at (773) 395 8294, or if you will give me a phone # and time I can call you. Thanks in advance for your time David Kestenbaum R&D Magazine =========================================== D a v i d K e s t e n b a u m 1 0 5 6 N L e a v i t t S t C h i c a g o I L 6 0 6 2 2 ( 7 7 3 ) 3 9 5 8 2 9 4 davidk suba.com --------------1E0A11097871-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 01:02:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA25485; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:53:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:53:11 -0800 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 10:35:44 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32f84666.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: hydrogen storage. Resent-Message-ID: <"amuSD3.0.7E6.rf4-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3927 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday, after reading the very interesting info re. the developments at American Pure Fusion Inc., I have found a related information about a potential breakthrough, the paper "Boston team claims development of 5,000 mile range onboard hydrogen storage method" published in the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter, Feb 1997 see: http://www.mhv.net/~hfcletter/letter/feb-1997.html. It is about a carbonaceus material with a very high capacity of hydrogen storage. Interesting for fuel cells, for American Pure Fusion and for cold fusion per se. Has somebody first hand data? Thanks in advance, Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 05:45:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA22682; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:35:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:35:15 -0800 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 15:20:57 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32f88942.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: CF publication. Resent-Message-ID: <"-SpL12.0.KY5.Io8-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3929 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One journal publishing explicit CF papers is International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, see vol 22, no 1, Jan 1997 pp 23-25: T. Mizuno et al: "Anomalous gamma peak evolution from SrCe solid state electrolyte charged in D2 gas". Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 09:29:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA02562; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:50:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:50:52 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702051642.IAA00332 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Gravity Society USA To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:42:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "John Schnurer" at Feb 4, 97 11:30:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qUiXH1.0.yd.gfB-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3930 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer writes: > 63 gram glass target weigh. Neg 4 percent. 6 foot beam, scale > 6 feet away, interposed grounded aluminum and brass screen and 3/16" > glass plate. Mettler scale, resolution 0.01 gram. John, this is very exciting. Thanks. Have you made any tests to determine if there is an electric field present? Maybe a motional/unshieldable electric field as in Hooper and Edwards? If it were there, you could might be able to detect it with a suitable capacitor via electrostatic induction. Anyhow, an electric field should cause an attraction to a neutral dielectric -- a weight gain rather than loss. But what of canceling some of the ambient (motional?) electric field which is developed naturally, who knows how, by our planet. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 09:41:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07075; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:08:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:08:42 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702051700.JAA00374 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:00:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <970205000741_100433.1541_BHG76-1 CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Feb 4, 97 07:07:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"SYvfn3.0.Tk1.OwB-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3931 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley writes: > Funny how universities go into frantic retreat (and even into downright > lies) the moment an anomaly is reported on their territory. Wasn't > science once about investigating anomalies? Of course we know by now, that it has everything to do with purse strings and little to do with science. And one might begin to wonder, who is pulling the strings. It occurs to me on occasion, that stagnancy in some areas of science results from something other than natural foolishness in the human condition. Regards, Robert Stirniman -- Too much coffee this morning. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 11:03:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23229; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:11:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:11:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199702051811.KAA23184 mx1.eskimo.com> Date: 05 Feb 1997 12:50 EST Sender: "Gene Batten" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Gene Batten" Subject: New Technology into a Product Resent-Message-ID: <"XBnQZ1.0.pg5.xqC-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3932 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Vortex, I am looking for a new technology from which I can develop products to sell, and around which I can build a business. I would welcome input and suggestions. I am posting this request here because I believe that the ultimate extension of theory and technology development is to apply knowledge in the form of products or services for the benefit of mankind, and some reasonable rewards for the inventor/developer. So, I see that this an extension of the on-going discussions held here. I also recognize that members of this list may have, or know, new and emerging technologies that are ready for product development. I am not looking for ideas and concepts that are still in the discussion and experimentation stage. What I am looking for is a new or undeveloped technology that is fairly well understood and is yet to be fully developed for the marketplace. I am also interested in new applications of old or conventional technology. Partnerships or some other form of shared development is fine with we. Post responses here or e-mail me privately at mdleb nortel.com. I will maintain confidentiality of all private messages. I am not asking for something for free. Any serious proposals that are adopted will be compensated appropriately. Thanks in advance, Gene Batten mdleb nortel.ca From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 11:19:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA31895; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:46:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:46:44 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:44:40 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Society USA In-Reply-To: <199702051642.IAA00332 shell.skylink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"eli5u2.0.Go7.IMD-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3933 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: All of my replies will be brief at this time, due to other duties On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Robert Stirniman wrote: > John Schnurer writes: > > 63 gram glass target weigh. Neg 4 percent. 6 foot beam, scale > > 6 feet away, interposed grounded aluminum and brass screen and 3/16" > > glass plate. Mettler scale, resolution 0.01 gram. > > John, this is very exciting. Thanks. > > Have you made any tests to determine if > there is an electric field present? Maybe a > motional/unshieldable electric field as in Hooper > and Edwards? If it were there, you could might be > able to detect it with a suitable capacitor via > electrostatic induction. > > Anyhow, an electric field should cause an > attraction to a neutral dielectric -- a weight > gain rather than loss. But what of canceling some > of the ambient (motional?) electric field which is > developed naturally, who knows how, by our planet. > > Regards, > Robert Stirniman > > No electric fields effects noted at present. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 13:48:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA28286; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:35:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:35:49 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:34:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970205134826_-2044787584 emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. Resent-Message-ID: <"MUgRi1.0.pv6.ZyE-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3934 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Next step? Lay it on me. As you may know, I'm involved with the NASA "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" initiative, so this is right up my alley. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 14:11:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA01877; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:03:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:03:55 -0800 Message-ID: <32F8F5C7.2AD2 interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 16:04:07 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: hydrogen storage. References: <32f84666.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5PYV41.0.DT.vMF-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3935 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter Glueck wrote: > (snip) > > Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter, Feb 1997 see: > > http://www.mhv.net/~hfcletter/letter/feb-1997.html. > > It is about a carbonaceus material with a very high capacity > of hydrogen storage. If this is valid, Peter, it would be BIG news! About 2.7 gm H2 per gm C claimed. Even if the H2 would not come off the carbon, you could just burn the carbon with the H2 and STILL have a very clean fuel! Wow, this would be like a fuel with formula CH_32! CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ! Hydrogen economy - here we come! Too-good-to-be-true-? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 16:29:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA15552; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:24:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:24:47 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32F916B0.2781E494 math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 15:24:32 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Science Fair Project References: <2.2.16.19970204142920.28df6ea2 mail.airmail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VQetz2.0.oo3.yQH-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3936 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dan York wrote: > > > Dr. Barry Merriman was present through the entire experiment and has > validated the results. Barry has provided the student a > signed statement attesting to the fact that the amount of > silver increased from 5 grams to 8.7 grams and that there was > a small amount of gold produced. > In response to those who have asked, yes, it is true that I and my wife (who is an electrical engineer with a background in fission reactor control systems) were there closely monitoring this experiment. I don't have much to say until all the analysis is complete, and even then replication would be necessary as a follow up, but based one what has been observed so far there would "seem" to have been about a 4 gram increase in the amount of silver present. However, it should be cautioned that this is an extrapolation based on fire assays (two performed by me immediately after the experiment, plus 3 other subsequent ones done by others) and *not* full colection---i.e. we put 5.0 grams of silver in, but we have not got in hand 9.0 grams of silver after. In hand we have about 1.7 grams from the various assays done. The rest will be collected in the near future. This will thus be much more definitive. Also, I will have a mass spectrometry done on the collected silver itself by next week, which should also be telling. As for the small amounts (roughly a few ppm) of gold, it was definitely present in the products, and it was not present in some intial ingredient I assayed (like the silver and Cadmium) but we are still determining whether it was present in any of the initial ingredients (particularly suspicious are the carbon and CaO (lime) which were not reagent grade (charcoal brickets and fertilizer-grade lime). These can and will be assayed shortly, and we are analyzing a mass spec of the initial ingredients now, and XRF shortly. But, as cautioned above, no matter what the outcome of this particular experiment, it will require several more stringent replications to reach a high level of confidence---and replicability has not been a hallmark of this general field of inquiry. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 17:13:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA31386; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:58:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:58:29 -0800 Date: 05 Feb 97 18:54:51 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper Message-ID: <970205235450_100433.1541_BHG33-4 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wmt0S.0.Hg7.WwH-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3937 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert, > Of course we know by now, that it has everything to do with purse > strings and little to do with science. And one might begin to > wonder, who is pulling the strings. It occurs to me on occasion, > that stagnancy in some areas of science results from something > other than natural foolishness in the human condition. You don't mean ... (hush ma mouf) conspiracies? Nah. I reckon sheer stupidity is enough to explain everything. By the way, I note with deep regret the passing of the US Ambassador to France, Pamela Harriman. Truly one of the Stately Whores of England, and I am not deriding her. We produce few really great courtesans, but those few are rather special. Charles II on his deathbed said of Nell Gwynne, "Let not poor Nellie starve." And earlier when the crowd attacked her carriage, shouting for the "Catholic Whore," she leaned out and said, "Let me through, I am the Protestant Whore." Everyone loved her, and everyone loved Pamela - even the French. A fine woman, mourned by all. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 17:36:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA07557; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:30:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:30:51 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:30:40 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper In-Reply-To: <970205235450_100433.1541_BHG33-4 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UV9VI3.0.wr1.vOI-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3938 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 5 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Robert, > > > Of course we know by now, that it has everything to do with purse > > strings and little to do with science. And one might begin to > > wonder, who is pulling the strings. It occurs to me on occasion, > > that stagnancy in some areas of science results from something > > other than natural foolishness in the human condition. > > You don't mean ... (hush ma mouf) conspiracies? > > Nah. I reckon sheer stupidity is enough to explain everything. > I fully agree Chris. The level of coordination required to accomplish almost any of the various conspiracy theories ranging from the assination of JFK to supression of UFO investigations is beyond human organizational structures. Just look at any government agency or large corporation anywhere in the world. They all screw up. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 20:16:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA22994; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:53:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:53:53 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:53:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970205223632_-1677050524 emout11.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper Resent-Message-ID: <"9fi2O.0.4d5.DNL-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3939 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I try to read this paper and all that I get is greek. Its says its in latex. What's that, some kind of plastic? Need advice on reading the lanl files. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 20:44:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA28294; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:20:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:20:28 -0800 Date: 05 Feb 97 23:18:20 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Science Fair Project Message-ID: <970206041820_76570.2270_FHU22-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"yb_e72.0.-v6.AmL-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3940 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am glad to see that Barry is being so forthcoming with his observations. Please, Barry, let us continue to hear more! Let me mention that in 1992 I tried the Champion thermal transmutation experiment a few times. In a few cases, using a $200, brand-new Geiger counter, I was able to determine an increase of ionizing radiation counts near the surface of the burned carbon residues that were about 2X the pre-burn levels of any of hte ingredients. These counts perisisted for days, as I recall. It was a hectic time and I wish I had time to do more careful study. Some observation at MIT health physics lab and at Tufts was done. We were looking for the 18-hour decay of the counts. No such decay was seen. The counts were, indeed, above background on the order of 2X, but this could well have been the infamous concentration effect. Who knows, maybe there was gold produced in those samples. Maybe it will be a good time to start again if Barry produces more interesting results. Let me also note that fine work by a colleague is coming along with carbon arc experiments -- in air, with 99.9995% pure carbon. The signature of ferromagnetic materials is getting very convincing, but further analsysis is required to be certain. These will be done and protocols will be published. Another month or so. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 5 21:31:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA06367; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:06:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:06:18 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:06:02 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper In-Reply-To: <970205223632_-1677050524 emout11.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"9xgCz.0.PZ1.7RM-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3941 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > I try to read this paper and all that I get is greek. Its says its in latex. > What's that, some kind of plastic? Need advice on reading the lanl files. > Latex is the international standard for academic publications. It's a text formatting language. The whole system is overwhemly more Unix friendly compared to Windows or Macs since it evolved from an archive for High Energy Physicists, who being true computer geeks, much prefer Unix to anything else. To set up your system to read the archives, you'll need Tex and Latex, GNU's guzip, dvips a dvi to postscript converter and postscript viewer. You can get these from: gzip and gunzip from http://www.gnu.ai.mit/pub/gnu Tex, Latex, dvips etc can be found at numerous sites, one is http://www.cdrom.com/pub/tex Postscript viewers and converters are found at ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/ Note that these are all free public domain programs. They work nicely but they may require some effort install nicely. Maybe a lot of effort. All this info came from the "Professional Help" part of the LANL archive. Good luck! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 00:26:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07983; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:50:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:50:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199702060750.AAA03853 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: 1992 Texas A&M Test Results Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:49:53 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-fyKy1.0.by1.JrO-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3942 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In 1992 there were many people dodging bullets as stories spread around the campus at A&M. One of the most common, even supported by Bockris from time to time was nothing was observed after I left the laboratory. However, in an attempt to set the record straight, I have posted verbatum the laboratory notes of Guang Lin, R. Bhradwaj (post doc's assigned to Bockris) with the lab notes endorsed by John himself. I placed the text in a form that would load quickly, but if needbe, I can post the originals in a *.jpg file to support the signatures. At anyrate, if interested you may view them at http://www.transmutation.com ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 03:28:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA03357; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 03:04:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 03:04:29 -0800 Message-ID: <32F9C9BB.3A06 gorge.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:08:27 -0800 From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. References: <199702051053.CAA04270 mx1.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yGXIw.0.Nq.xgR-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3943 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: LITHIUM: Lithium would "load" itself, just add water. Li reacts violently with water, turning into LiH. Byproducts are heat, and LiOH. (maybe the Li could be "plated out" of the LiOH/Water byproduct, in effect making a new Li "container" with the electrode as its core. LiH is said to "store" more H than equal mass of liquid H2.(??) To get the single H back out, just add a little heat. Maybe use bleed gases from the combustion chamber. LiH should be as easy, and safe, to store as liquid H2. Tom Miller From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 07:15:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA28354; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:52:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:52:21 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206155006.006fa164 bahnhof.se> X-Sender: david bahnhof.se X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:52:01 +0100 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: David Jonsson Subject: Piezoelectricity and gravitational polarisation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"zZtal.0.pw6.a0V-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3945 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: There was some talk awhile ago about polarisation caused by gravity. According to Einstens principle of equivalence the same rule should be valid for acceleration as well as gravity. This rises a question about piezoelectricity in which a material causes high voltage if compressed. Is the voltage due to acceleration or compression? Another similar phenomena is triboluminisence where a material is emitting light when compressed (or accelerated). Please agree that compression can be difficult to distinguish from acceleration. David David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-8-681 20 66 Uppsala Cellular GSM +46-706-339487 E-mail david bahnhof.se Sweden Web: http://bahnhof.se/~david/ Postgiro 499 40 54-7 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 07:59:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03097; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:34:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:34:37 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:34:23 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199702061534.KAA07611 spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-reply-to: <32F9C9BB.3A06 gorge.net> (tom@gorge.net) Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. Resent-Message-ID: <"lv9kz.0.Im.BeV-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3946 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tom Miller (tom gorge.net) said: > LITHIUM: Lithium would "load" itself, just add water. Li reacts > violently with water, turning into LiH. Byproducts are heat, and > LiOH. (maybe the Li could be "plated out" of the LiOH/Water > byproduct, in effect making a new Li "container" with the > electrode as its core. LiH is said to "store" more H than equal > mass of liquid H2.(??) To get the single H back out, just add a > little heat. Maybe use bleed gases from the combustion > chamber. LiH should be as easy, and safe, to store as liquid H2. Actually Lithium is quite civilized when it reacts with water-- unlike Sodium. But this is missing the point. I want to use the reaction H + H --> H2 + energy as an energy source. But single H is tough to store. (Yes it can be stored cryogenicly, because at low energies there is no place for the released energy to go, other than reversing the reaction. But once you have impurities or H- ions around watch it! The problem with using it as rocket fuel is that you have to worry about it getting warm too soon.) I thought about this some more yesterday... I think that getting H+ ions into Lithium would be possible, but it might be more risky than storing single-H: Li + H+ + e- --> LiH. However, Beryllium or a Beryllium-Boron alloy might work well with only a small weight penalty. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 09:25:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17684; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:46:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:46:00 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:40:23 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199702061640.LAA08012 spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: Private_User srs.gov In-reply-to: <199702061436.AA22063 gateway1.srs.gov> (message from Kirk L Shanahan on Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:20:00 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. Resent-Message-ID: <"H6aHH2.0.CK4.5hW-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3947 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > When I consider producing H2 from a hydride, I envision basically > what you described, except that the H2 molecule is formed ON the > hydride surface, and it is a fully complete H2 molecule that > leaves the solid and moves into the gas phase. Hmmm... The hope is that this is only technically a hydride. The hydrogen is actually "stored" as H+ not H- ions. But that is a detail. > Is there some reason why my picture is incorrect? Or is my fine > point immaterial to your concept? If correct, what does my > 'modification' of your picture do to your proposed propulsion > system? Picture a solid rocket containing hydrated metal. The idea would be that some/most of the metal would get vaporized and show up in the exhaust--that is why I am talking low atomic weight species. But yes, the recombination would occur as the hydrogen left the metal. A solid rocket booster with even Isp 500 would drastically reduce cost to orbit. Once on orbit, you are interested in a different mode. Now refractory metals can be re(used) over and over. Use solar panels, reactors, whatever you want to load the hydrogen, and expell it at a very high Isp. Over 1000 shouldn't be difficult at low thrust. It would depend on how hot you could run the engine for long periods. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 10:44:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA06646; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:04:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:04:00 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:05:55 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. Resent-Message-ID: <"R7wrp3.0.id1.EqX-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3948 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > > Actually Lithium is quite civilized when it reacts with water-- >unlike Sodium. [snip] > Robert I. Eachus Li may seem somewhat civilized, but LiH is far from it - at least in the rain. A teaspooon of LiH powder dumped into a sink of water sounds like a high powered rifle going off. You also tend to get wet. (Personal observation.) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 14:28:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA25157; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:56:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:56:46 -0800 Message-Id: <199702062156.NAA25112 mx1.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: Don't srew around with Li or LiH! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 6 Feb 97 14:57:15 MST Cc: mcfee lanl.gov, mcfee@concentric.net Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"LHaLs1.0.z86.TEb-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3949 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:08:27 -0800 >From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) >Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. > >LITHIUM: Lithium would "load" itself, just add water. Li reacts >violently with water, turning into LiH. Byproducts are heat, and LiOH. >(maybe the Li could be "plated out" of the LiOH/Water byproduct, in >effect making a new Li "container" with the electrode as its core. >LiH is said to "store" more H than equal mass of liquid H2.(??) To get >the >single H back out, just add a little heat. Maybe use bleed gases from >the >combustion chamber. LiH should be as easy, and safe, to store as liquid >H2. > >Tom Miller *** NO, NO, NO!**** > >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:05:55 -0900 >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) >Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. > > > >Li may seem somewhat civilized, but LiH is far from it - at least in the >rain. A teaspoon of LiH powder dumped into a sink of water sounds like a >high powered rifle going off. You also tend to get wet. (Personal >observation.) > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > ***YES, YES, YES!*** Li reacts with water to produce Li hydroxide plus hydrogen gas in about the same way as sodium metal reacts with water. It generally produces a flame or explosion since it is a fairly exothermic reaction. And the hydrogen mixed with air can burn or explode from the heat of the reaction. LiH, lithium hydride, is produced from elemental Li and H2. This reaction is also exothermic and the LiH that is produced is a gray powder which can be pressed into a reasonable ceramic material. This also reacts violently with water to produce LiOH and H2. As in diluting sulfuric acid, add the water slowly to the Li or LiH, drop by small drop. Do not throw the metal or ceramic into even a small amount of water. These materials are for professionals. DON'T DO THEM AT HOME. If you really wish to pursue your death wish, at least screw around with them outside away from other people. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 15:21:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA09003; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:59:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:59:21 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:57:10 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Computer Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"6Cj1H1.0.bC2.79c-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3951 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am computer dummy. Please, Q: How do I get NT to mount and dismount a volume? Schnurer From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 15:21:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA26957; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:03:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:03:42 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:01:35 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Piezoelectricity and gravitational polarisation In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970206155006.006fa164 bahnhof.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"x5L_L3.0.7b6.zKb-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3950 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear David, Q: polarizations of what? See notes below; On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, David Jonsson wrote: > There was some talk awhile ago about polarisation caused by gravity. > According to Einstens principle of equivalence the same rule should be > valid for acceleration as well as gravity. This rises a question about > piezoelectricity in which a material causes high voltage if compressed. Charge redistribution, ..... Is > the voltage due to acceleration or compression? > Mechanical effects. > Another similar phenomena is triboluminisence where a material is emitting > light when compressed (or accelerated). > Tribo = [loosley] friction or rubbing. Thr whole topic of luminescence, from manifold effects, is a wondrous and varied areas of study. > Please agree that compression can be difficult to distinguish from > acceleration. > > David > > > David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-8-681 20 66 > Uppsala Cellular GSM +46-706-339487 E-mail david bahnhof.se > Sweden Web: http://bahnhof.se/~david/ Postgiro 499 40 54-7 > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 15:42:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA10940; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:08:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:08:38 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970206230713.008d8894 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:07:13 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Don't srew around with Li or LiH! Resent-Message-ID: <"ZYQgH2.0.og2.qHc-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3952 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:57 PM 2/6/97 MST, Ron McFee wrote: water to produce LiOH and H2. As in diluting sulfuric acid, add the water > slowly to the Li or LiH, drop by small drop. Do not throw the metal or > ceramic into even a small amount of water. > > These materials are for professionals. DON'T DO THEM AT HOME. If you really > Regards, Ron > You have that reversed Ron; you add sulfuric acid very slowly to water and add small pieces of lithium metal to water. Lithium is not nearly as reactive as sodium or potassium, these latter two will react violently with water to produce flames and splattering of water. I make LiOD by cautiously adding lithium metal to deuterium oxide. I get a vigorous reaction but yet have to observe any flame. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 18:53:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA22329; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:27:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:27:18 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:28:41 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: A Specific Impulse Resent-Message-ID: <"Bc-g21.0.nS5.4Cf-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3953 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts Vortexians! I have a specific impulse to treat some of the rocketry discussions here with gravity. 8^) An interesting question: does light bend toward large masses because space is warped or because photons have mass and are attracted? Photons carry both momentum and energy (at least according to Plank: E=(h)(nu)). How can this be if photons have no mass? It is theorized that photons have no rest mass, but have mass at light speed. If photons have momentum and velocity, shouldn't they exhibit mass and gravity? Now, one thing interesting about this is maybe there's $10,000 to be made by disproving SR, i.e. by disproving the consequence that E=mc^2. The proof lies in consideration of rest mass verses light speed mass of the photon. Consider an energized hydrogen atom. The electron in an energized orbital will spontaneously drop to a lower level or ground state orbital. This releases energy E. If photons have no rest mass then the atom should have the same mass with or without the photon, i.e. at ground state or excited. However, when the photon is emitted it carries away energy according to the frequency of light emitted, i.e. E=(h)(nu). But energy is equivalent to mass, so the photon must carry away a mass of m=(E/(c^2))^-2, not zero as hypothesized. This makes the SR theory self inconsistent because the mass carried away from the atom must be zero if the rest mass of a photon is zero, otherwise mass/energy is not conserved. Lets assume the rest mass of a photon is not zero. Now we have an entirely different and much nicer kettle of fish to fry - conservation of energy. That is because, due to the relativistic increase in mass of the photon upon acceleration, any photon traveling at the speed of light must carry infinite energy, that is infinite energy would have been required to accelerate the photon's infinite mass to light velocity C. So there you have it: SR, which includes conservation of energy as one of its tenants, is logically inconsistent. There must be a problem with one of the assumptions implicit in the above thinking. Perhaps an answer is that you can not increase energy without increasing mass and vice versa. If you accelerate an object it gains mass. An object that radiates loses mass. Photons have mass because they have momentum and energy, and their energy determines their mass. Mass and energy are equivalent, the speed of light is constant. That *is* special relativity. If you shoot an electron through a wiggler it loses kinetic energy (mass) in proportion to the energy (mass) of the photons emitted. I think in the above example, the hydrogen atom, that the excited electron loses mass upon change of orbital angular momentum when it decays to a lower energy or ground state. That mass is carried by the photon to some other charged particle where it couples and converts back to kinetic energy (mass) in some form. Is there a concrete numeric example of a closed system where the mass or energy changes? "Converting mass to energy" is a misnomer. In SR the equivalency of mass and energy is the equivalence of *kinetic* energy and mass. True, kinetic energy can be converted into other kinds of energy, like potential energy, but that is another topic (and maybe therein lies a key to free energy, or at least a disproof of conservation of mass/energy, via the potential energy created from nothing by a gravitational field.) E=mc^2 is derived from the fact that as mass accelerates it increases in mass. Additional mass is added to the accelerated mass in correspondence to the energy added. This, to me, under SR, means you can not add *either* mass or energy to a closed system, only convert one type of mass to another and one type of energy to another. For example, when you explode an atom bomb, you convert the mass of nuclear kinetic energy (angular momentum) and mass of the nuclear EM field to kinetic energy of fragment particles plus the mass and kinetic energy of photons. The total mass remains invariant in an atomic bomb blast as does the energy. Each is simply converted from one of its respective forms to another. In the atom bomb blast the mass loss of the atoms is offset by the created mass in the form of photons and fragment kinetic energy (i.e. the relativistic mass increase of the fragments due to linear velocity.) The kinetic energy and potential energy of the EM field of the nucleus is converted onto the kinetic energy of the photons and fragments. The energy was *already there* in the bomb's atom's nuclei - and it had the corresponding mass. *Both* mass and energy are conserved by SR. One is not converted to the other - they are paired, inseparable except by mater-anti-matter annihilation. This, if true, has implications for gravity, space travel, and inertial drives. It means that mass and it's associated energy, or vice versa, since they are inseparable, *must* exhibit gravity. The energy locked up in the lead balls used for determining G made their contribution to G. It implies that the only way to approach, or possibly even exceed light speed, is to borrow *both* mass and energy, and thus also momentum, from the vacuum. An electromagnetic field, the force of which is carried by photons, has momentum and thus mass. The compression of electrostatic particles into the nucleus creates a dense electrostatic field with enormous density and thus photon exchange rates. Magnetic fields, like the electrostatic fields, are also carried by photons, and thus have momentum and mass. The energy put into building any EM field carries with it the corresponding mass in the form of photons, and thus also must exhibit corresponding gravity. The color force is also an interesting animal. It's messenger particle is the gluon. The strong force gets *larger* with distance until it finally snaps. One proposed mechanism for this is that a connected virtual gluon chain is built (from the vacuum) between quarks as they separate. If the chain breaks the gluons are returned to the vacuum, and kinetic energy is given to the resulting fragment. This results in a limitation on the distance of the strong force and implies that the higher the angular momentum trapped in the nucleus, the greater the mass required to support the gluon chain. It also implies that forging excited strong force bonds is a good way to borrow mass from the vacuum. This could lead to a method of building an inertial drive. If heavy nuclei can be fused, or excited by adding angular momentum, this increases their mass by borrowing gluons from the vacuum, as well as adding mass to the speedy quarks. These heavier nuclei could then be accelerated in a beam. If the nuclei break apart or can be de-excited prior to de-acceleration a net momentum is provided to the ship. A similar method might be provided by the electron. If electrons can be bound in a condensed charge, or electrum validum (EV), as Ken Shoulders has stated in his US patent 5,123,039, then the resulting vicinity about the charge would necessarily exhibit increased mass borrowed from the vacuum to support the electrostatic field. Of significance to this is the recent finding that the electrostatic field of the electron increases faster than 1/R^2 as the electron is approached. In fact so much energy is available from the resulting field that electron-positron pairs may be created from the vacuum in the vicinity of electrons. If a condensed charge cluster is repeatedly formed, accelerated, and then "popped apart" via EM pulse or other mechanism, then a ship doing this would gain momentum borrowed from the vacuum, as well as energy. The energy would be manifest to an outside observer as increased kinetic energy and mass, mass borrowed from the vacuum. The interesting part of this to me is the concept that momentum, as well as energy, can be borrowed from the vacuum. By borrowing momentum we borrow energy, and vice versa. By accelerating sprightly short-lived virtual mass we can semi-permanently borrow momentum for a trip, but by semi-permanently borrowing the momentum we have borrowed energy, and thus mass in the ship. Of course it all has to be paid back at the end of the trip, if we ever want to stop! It is true that the energy to do the accelerating would be greater than the energy retrieved from decelerating, due to the reduced mass, and that energy that would be lost would need to be supplied by the ship. The excess energy and the faster than light possibility comes from the fact the ship does not have to carry inertial fuel like a rocket. The specific impulse of such a ship would be infinite. Vacuum fluctuations create photons and e-/e+ pairs. These exhibit gravity, so matter/antimatter reactions create gravity in empty space. Creating mass is creating energy. Borrowing mass is borrowing energy. A means of increasing the borrowing time significantly is a source of free energy. With that free energy comes increased "free" mass, to the distant observer, but not to the observer on board the ship using such means. Traveling through space requires no energy, per Newton's laws. Traveling faster than light, to an outside observer, though, requires borrowing energy. It can all be returned to the universe upon slowing down, so the loan extension time need only be for the duration of the trip. For this reason borrowing energy from the vacuum is equivalent to warping space, because it makes the journey faster without limit other, than the limiting rate at which the energy can be borrowed from the vacuum. If we can not tell if space is warped or if photons have gravity, how can we make similar observations on a ship capable of borrowing momentum from the vacuum? Perhaps the limits of relativity are the limits of observation and not real limits at all. As to the energy to accelerate the momentarily heavier mass in the inertial drive, perhaps all the above reasoning can be applied. Perhaps the energy can also be borrowed from the vacuum to do generate energy from the viewpoint of the ships reference frame. One means of doing so was suggested in the Atomic Expansion Hypothesis, namely supplying the roughly 5eV, possibly via x-ray stimulation, to H2 molecules formed in Ni causing a vacuum fed orbital expansion and thus borrow energy from the vacuum. There is no shortage of other suggestions available for generating such energy on this list. Well, there you have it. Infinite momentum, and an infinite specific impulse. Is all this just circular and befuddled reasoning? If it doesn't work at least it should provide enough boyancy to lift a good sized hot air ballon. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 18:58:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA23409; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:34:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:34:04 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:33:57 -0800 Message-Id: <199702070233.SAA27155 li.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Don't srew around with Li or LiH! Resent-Message-ID: <"7Jd8P1.0.dj5.RIf-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3954 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The problem with alkali metals and water is that they evolve hydrogen gas. They also get white hot as they do so. So the H2 has an ignition source and the H2 will accumulate in a little cloud above the Li that is evolving it on the surface of the water. So what happens is that a cloud of H2 forms, and then the white hot metal ignites it because there is also oxygen mixing in with it from the air. I used to have some Na, and we would flood our patio with water and toss the Na on the surface of the water. It would buzz and boil and sizzle around. Now and then, when it would sit in a location, the H2 would build up and ignite and explode. Then you had a bunch of little balls of molten Na sizzling around on the surface. This was so much fun that we tossed little clumps of grass on top of the balls in order to help the H2 gas build up and induce the "explosions" intentionally. In any case, my point is that if you are going to try to make your own LiOH, that you could greatly reduce the danger of explosion if you place a fan over the metal as it evolves the H2 gas so that it cannot accumulate. With a good breeze, the Na never did explode. But be certain to have your eye protection on anyway. The explosions sent the balls of molten Na about three feet away from the original location of the explosion. But if you had a greater amount of H2 because you were indoors with still air, the explosion could be bigger. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 19:39:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA00309; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:25:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:25:34 -0800 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:24:54 PST8PDT Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Priority: urgent X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-Id: <88B4022132 hickory.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"z7OkE3.0.j4.j2g-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3955 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > If heavy nuclei can be fused, or excited by > adding angular momentum, this increases their mass by borrowing gluons from > the vacuum, as well as adding mass to the speedy quarks. These heavier > nuclei could then be accelerated in a beam. If the nuclei break apart or > can be de-excited prior to de-acceleration a net momentum is provided to > the ship. Hmm... Interesting. Or, would it also be possible to simply use a circular particle accelerator? We could accelerate the particles to near-light tangental velocity, and thus increase the mass to a high percentage of the ship. Then the whole accelerator, heavy particles and all, could be accelerated down the axis of the ship, causing acceleration of the ship in the opposite direction. Before the accelerator reaches the end of the ship, the particles could be brought down to low tangental velocity, and when the accelerator (now less massive) is decelerated at the end of the ship, net acceleration of the ship is not zero. The accelerator could then be returned to the front of the ship (in low-mass mode) and the process could be repeated. I suggested this possibility to one of my physics professors, and was told it was impossible (as a physics problem, not even considering the near-impossible engineering difficulties). I couldn't quite understand his reasoning though. Perhaps I didn't get my idea accross well, and he didn't understand what I meant. It seems perfectly logical to me though, as does Heffner's idea. Jay Olson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 07:07:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26330; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:39:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:39:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199702061436.AA22063 gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:20:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: Palladium, Hydrogen, and energy storage. To: Private_User srs.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"AMt5I3.0.HR6.jqU-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3944 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert I. Eachus wrote: {snip} > I've been thinking about the "catastrophic" events where the >hydrogen (or deuterium) loading of an electrode drops rapidly. As I >understand the theory, what we are seeing is hydrogen in the form of >ions (H+) converting to H by electron capture, then binding into H2 >molecules. This particular reaction is one of the best ways to propel >a spaceship, due to the high Isp. (Of ourse, it would be nice to >replace the palladium with something lighter like, say, beryllium if >you want to use this for earth to orbit operations. {snip} > Nerva was aiming for an Isp of 800 with hydrogen heated by a >nuclear reactor. Combining monatomic hydrogen to form H2 gives you an >Isp in the 5000 range. Hot stuff. How does it get so high? The >SSMEs exhaust has a molecular weight around nine, with single-H it is >under two. Even run at the same exhaust temperature, a space shuttle >fueled with single-H would reverse the mass fraction: most of the >take-off weight would be cargo. {snip} > But if single-H can be "put in a bottle" in a metal storage >matrix, it won't react until and unless it escapes from the metal. >Even if it takes several kilos of metal to store one kilo of hydrogen, >you could be ahead of the Isp game for earth based launchers. But for >flying around the solar system, you would want to use solar or nuclear >power to "refuel" the storage matrix, then use the engines in short >bursts. You would get near the original Isp of 5000 in such a role. {snip} Robert, When I consider producing H2 from a hydride, I envision basically what you described, except that the H2 molecule is formed ON the hydride surface, and it is a fully complete H2 molecule that leaves the solid and moves into the gas phase. Is there some reason why my picture is incorrect? Or is my fine point immaterial to your concept? If correct, what does my 'modification' of your picture do to your proposed propulsion system? Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone elses'} From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 20:08:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA00904; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:28:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:28:45 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970107193005.0099be80 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 19:30:07 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Computer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"H7m5m3.0.2E.i5g-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3956 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:57 PM 2/6/97 -0500, you wrote: > > I am computer dummy. Please, Q: How do I get NT to mount and >dismount a volume? > > > Schnurer > > NT has this vast labyrinth, I am beginning to discover, after 1.5 week of hacking through its underbrush. Many t hings are most inscrutable. What the hell is a "volume"? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 6 20:43:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA12238; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:27:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:27:15 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:24:53 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Computer In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970107193005.0099be80 aa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-IuT_2.0.8_2.Xyg-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3957 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A volume is a drive.... like, say, C: On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Michael Mandeville wrote: > At 05:57 PM 2/6/97 -0500, you wrote: > > > > I am computer dummy. Please, Q: How do I get NT to mount and > >dismount a volume? > > > > > > Schnurer > > > > > > NT has this vast labyrinth, I am beginning to discover, after 1.5 week of > hacking through its underbrush. Many t hings are most inscrutable. What > the hell is a "volume"? > ____________________________________ > MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing > Michael Mandeville, publisher > mwm aa.net > http://www.aa.net/~mwm > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 02:14:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA23232; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:50:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:50:49 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:50:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970206224508_1761420823 emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Piezoelectricity and gravitational polarisation Resent-Message-ID: <"EY4nH.0.tg5.uhl-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3958 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 2/6/97 7:30:18 PM, you wrote: < acceleration.>> I don't see it. I can compress something arbitrarily slowly and the amount of acceleration associated with the compression would be miniscule. And compressing something mechanically does not involve a change in the metric as does gravity, so the equivalence principle would not seem to apply. Am I missing something? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 06:21:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA18426; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:07:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:07:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:09:41 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Resent-Message-ID: <"jCoXe1.0.pV4.pSp-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3959 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:24 AM 2/6/97, Jay Olson wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> If heavy nuclei can be fused, or excited by >> adding angular momentum, this increases their mass by borrowing gluons from >> the vacuum, as well as adding mass to the speedy quarks. These heavier >> nuclei could then be accelerated in a beam. If the nuclei break apart or >> can be de-excited prior to de-acceleration a net momentum is provided to >> the ship. > >Hmm... Interesting. Or, would it also be possible to simply use a >circular particle accelerator? We could accelerate the particles to >near-light tangental velocity, and thus increase the mass to a high >percentage of the ship. [snip] >I suggested this possibility to one of my physics professors, and was >told it was impossible [snip] > Jay Olson Thanks for your support, but maybe your physics professor was right. This specfic example of mine, nuclear mass added by rotation or momentary fusion, is perhaps not good because of my own statement, that mass and energy are inseperable. The mass derived from spinning up the nuclei comes from energy from the ship carrying the same mass. That process will only transfer mass/energy from the ship to the particle. When the particle breaks apart kinetic energy should maintain the excess mass/energy until the fragments strike the ship - or at least are reversed in their path and thus transmit their momentum back to the ship. The trick is to find a process that borrows (or returns) mass from the vacuum and returns is to the vacuum during the acceleration process without energy from the ship. The other part of the trick is to repeat or recycle the process as fast as possible because each cycle produces a fixed amount of momentum. A mechanical method, such as a giant moving accelerator, does not sound like it will get the repetition rate way up there, so may also be a bit impractical even if the princile were OK. Specific impulse, Isp, is defined as Isp = F/w, where F is force and w here is really w dot, mass flow of fuel per second. In an ideal rocket, where nozzle exhaust is the ambient pressure, the thrust by Newton's laws is F = (w)(Ce)/(g), where Ce is the exhaust velocity, g is the universal gravitational constant. From the above, we get Isp = (Ce)/g. If g can be changed momentarly in an oscillating cycle, you have a means of changing Isp. Perhaps one of the most important experiments to be done with the Podkletnof/Schnurer devices is placing a rotating wheel into the beam to see if the wheel is repelled. If mass is reduced in the beam, even by only a percent, then the rotating wheel will be expelled from the beam with great force if the rpm is high. It is the repitition rate that is important here. If there is repulsion then an infinite Isp space drive is *already* achieved (congratulations John Schnurer). If the beam can be aimed lateraly instead of straight up, then a vertically rotating wheel, with sufficient rpm, with the "momentum changing beam" passing through the bottom, should be able to levitate the device, wheel, and power supply. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 07:00:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA25001; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:47:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:47:00 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:48:56 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Two wheel levitator Resent-Message-ID: <"YC8SO1.0.W66.Y1q-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3961 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If the Podkletnof/Schnurer devices reduce momentum, i.e if a rotating wheel placed partially in the beam tends to throw the wheel out of the beam, then there is possibly a means of levitation even if the beam is vertical only. This is by having two wheels spin on an angle to the beam: \ / \ / M\ /M \ / \/ ==== \ or / - spinning wheel, side view M - motor and shaft attached to spilling wheel ==== - antigravity/antimomentum device This should work provided the force on the wheel is not only in a lateraldirection. Even force in a lateral direction only would be useful in achieving orbit with a single wheel device because most rocket fuel in orbiters is expended achieving lateral motion. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 07:23:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA23959; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:40:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:40:46 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702070836.ZM24247 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:36:41 -0600 In-Reply-To: "Jay Olson" "Re: A Specific Impulse" (Feb 6, 9:23pm) References: <88B4022132 hickory.csrv.uidaho.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"35lOC2.0.Hs5.ixp-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3960 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Feb 6, 9:23pm, Jay Olson wrote: > Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse > Horace Heffner wrote: > > If heavy nuclei can be fused, or excited by > > adding angular momentum, this increases their mass by borrowing gluons from > > the vacuum, as well as adding mass to the speedy quarks. These heavier > > nuclei could then be accelerated in a beam. If the nuclei break apart or > > can be de-excited prior to de-acceleration a net momentum is provided to > > the ship. > > Hmm... Interesting. Or, would it also be possible to simply use a > circular particle accelerator? We could accelerate the particles to > near-light tangental velocity, and thus increase the mass to a high > percentage of the ship. Why keep the application blue sky? Could Jay's or Horace's concept be used to charge a fly wheel with harvested momentum? Not a space drive, but it could be a practical gluon/ZPE/aether harvesting method. Development of such a device would create a nice platform to explore the feasibility and critical elements for a larger momentum drive. Now the hard part, any practical ideas on adding the angular momentum to heavy nuclei? -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 07:31:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA29056; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:17:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:17:23 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:17:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Paper 1 reviews, part 2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Mc-N72.0.w57.0Uq-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3963 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo, Paper 1 reviews, 'The Sequel - the saga continues, this time no more Mr Nice Guy, this time his pissed'. The editor of the said journal in the previous email seems to be an honourable chap and thought I'd probably been badly treated. He sent my response email to the reviewers (this was most unexpected and kind of him) and it arrived out of the blue a few days ago. Once again, there reviews and my response to ed. (Rev. 66 is not a scientist he's a hack and a rectal spincter, what ever happened to polite, constructive discussion) Reviewer 66: Instead of revising this Ms, the author has apparently chosen to resubmit it as is, along with a rebuttal. The latter, however rebuts nothing. Instead, its is essentially an obscure, incoherent rant that fails to address any of the scientific issues raise d in the original reviews. Indeed, without a copy of the original reviews in hand, it would be impossible to reconstruct from the alleged rebuttal what any of the criticisms in fact were. The rebuttal is essentially an outline of the paper in a form even more obscure that the original. The only new things one learns from the rebuttal are: 1) The author thinks his work is something really new, but why he thinks that remains obscure. 2) He would like to be clearer, but patent requirements demand otherwise, so we should trust him in the meantime. 3) His colleagues like this Ms. My comments on these three are: 1) I disagree, and see no reason to change my mind, since none of my concerns have been dealt with. 2) To bad, but how did the author's patent position get to be our problem? 3) He's lucky to have supportive colleagues; why don't they start a journal? Reviewer 67: The starting of a chemical exothermic reaction by a catalyst , whether it involves a change of phase or remain homogeneous is a well known phenomenon. I still do not understand why the author links it to the existence of a 'real Maxwell Demon' that sorts out molecules with high energy from those of low energy. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy among molecules is one thing, the *isothermal* sepration of hot molecules from others, which would frustrate the MW distribution is another. I do not see what possible relation exist between the two or what is gained by attributing the separation of hot molecules from cold ones (e.g. evaporation at a surface of a liquid) to a sorting demon rather than the operation of well understood molecular forces. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My response to the ed. >From remi city.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 13:31:27 1997 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:31:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Cornwall RO X-Sender: remi exeter To: JPC chem.nwu.edu Subject: Thank you ms. JP962756J-11-379 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Dear George C. Schatz, May I thank you for an unexpected response to the long email in reply to the original reviewers comments. I thank you and the reviewers for the time and effort devoted to my review. Reviewer 67 cannot or will not see the thread of the argument which I (and many others now) find blunt: It could be possible to build a first order phase changing catalyst (ms. pg. 2 and 8) and thermodynamic analysis predicts temperature rise. This has nothing to do with enthalpy of solvation as the device was modelled steady state so solvation enthalpy liberation terms would cancel. It is all together something more profound. If reviewer 67 cannot follow the Maxwell Demon argument, keep it simple. Does one refute the phase change device - if so where in the analysis has a mathematical mistake been made? What happens when the device is placed inside the said closed, isolated system? Doesn't a paradox arrive? If not the analysis is faulty, if so where? Rolf Landauer (IBM research fellow) in Science June 1996 talks about heat somehow being reused in his analysis of communications networks. Thermodynamics is used in communications theory. His research is problem specific, I believe I have the general principle - so I am probably not alone on that point about constant entropy systems. I find reviewer 66's manner particularily distasteful as submission to a journal is meant to be a polite conversation amongst professionals. If he feels he is suffering me, he must tell me at what point in my analysis I am wrong and not voice opinion - lest I suffer him. I have at each point in my 'rebuttal' (previous email) attended to his objections. His latest offerrings are:- 1) He thinks that I am trying to present something I think is new but presented in a muddled manner. I refer you to my abstract and introduction. If he doesn't think that a closed, isolated system with a spontaneous temperature difference is new or interesting then I must question his understanding of thermodynamics. 2) Patenting means I pay my own way and do not seek to be subsidised. Why should other people's means pay for my research ends? Paper 1 stressed (and quite rightly so) that disclosure of viable technology could not be done 'but everything in this paper is relevant to its operation in a most general manner'. I am now in a position to disclose the core technology which shows the paradox even more bluntly. I can prepare a new paper should you be interested or even a short letter. Failing this, publication via The PCT Gazette is due in a few months. 3) Yes my colleagues like my ms. The suggestion of starting a journal is a very good one. My view of Science is: no matter how contentious, research must be backed up by models and experiment; then reasoned debate must follow refuting the manuscript - Science is Objective not Opinionated. Ideas make or break indepedently of our whims on how the Universe should work. Overall I am disappointed by the quality of the reviews, I hoped to gain new insight into the analysis by experts. Criticism was meant to be to the point, refuting steps in formulation, conceptual errors etc. and not just proof read for spelling mistakes - but most of all, done in a professional, honest and polite manner. I found the whole exercise time wasting and overly exclusive: I gave your journal full rights to copyright where time should have been spent contacting other journals. I respect your integrity as editor and wish you every future success. Yours, MR Remi Cornwall BEng MSc. A short email with something forgotten sent after original Dear George C. Schatz, ... You resubmitted my ms. to the two reviewers in good faith knowing that in my previous email I attended to their objections. Reviewer 66 seems to have not kept a copy of his original review and has lost the context of the discussion. It is interesting to note how he does not request for the original review and can 'play the symphony' without the score and recant the same theme without development. This is most disturbing. Yours faithfully, Remi Cornwall. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 07:32:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA27810; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:05:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:05:50 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:05:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Heat not dead end. Paper 1 reviews - about 3 months ago Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"eAL2m3.0.Oo6.CJq-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3962 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo, Part 1. Old reviews. You'll need a copy of paper 1 to follow this. If you don't have, email me postal address, email mime it or ftp it (I'll set up the server, let me know if you want this, I'll tell you how). This was submitted to 'The Journal of Physical Chemistry' USA. I believe paper 1 is well founded but was given bad treatment because it upsets the applecart without upsetting it (I don't have to break laws). The editor read my response email and sent the response to the reviewers (next email to vortex). The reviews: Paper reference number: JP962756J, "A Thermodynamic Cycle Based On First Order Phase Changes" First reviewer report sent back. It is stated in the abstract of this paper the "The paradox of the closed system with a spontaneous (author's italics) temperature difference is explained by viewing first order phase transitions as a sorting process and hence as a real case of a Maxwell demon". On reading his description I could not see other than a case of chemical reactions taking place in a closed system at a rate of reaction that exceeds the rate of dissipation of the generated heat, a situation which, as far as I can see has nothing paradoxical about it. The dissolution of NaoH in a small amount of water is just that kind of reaction. The need for endothermal generation of molecules having higher energy content from the average has been recognised since Arrhenius proposed it as an explanation of why reactions do not take place all at once, and to my knowledge nobody has thought, with good reasons, that this has any relation to the Maxwell demon, an entity that in an isothermal environment separates the "hot" molecules by recognizing them as different from the other molecules. It seems inexplicable the author could confuse two such different concepts as the Maxwell demon and the energy of activation of chemical reactions if he read the work of Brillouin and Szilard (not Slizard) that he qu otes in the literature with any attention. Publication of this note does not seem advisable. Second reviewer 'number 66' Thermodynamics is right up there with algebra and calculus as one of the greatest labor-saving devices ever invented. It allows one to by-pass, for certain problems, the complexities and pitfalls of molecular analysis; and, it relieves one of the necessit y of detailed examination of the multifarious steps in a type of cycle that violates its laws. Its is enough to know that the laws are violated to reject the analysis without examining the steps exhaustively. The Ms provides an example of such cycles. Although the Ms proclaims that no thermodynamic laws are violated, it is wrong in this as in other things. However, that is not the sole difficulty with this Ms. It is muddled and obscure; it certainly seems to v iolate the Second Law in several places; and the molecular explanation it presents of some processes is fatally flawed. The presentation of the ideas is so obscure that I was unable, in spite of serious effort, to follows the alleged analysis of the individual steps in some of the cycles proposed. For example, on p.7 if defines d(thi) as a "a transfer of heat and enthalpy" . Does that mean the two are synonymous (odd, since there is no statement that the pressure is constant) or that dO is the sum of the two, or what? Nor is the Ms clear on the meaning of the term "isolated system". Normally, that means both thermal and mec hanical isolation, so the system exchanges neither heat nor work with it surroundings. However, eq. A.4 retains work terms, but not heat terms, suggesting that the Ms means "adiabatic" where it says "isolated". One can't be sure about these points or almo st anything else in the Ms. More importantly, however, is that the Ms gives no reason for being, even if its analyses were correct. One can certainly carry out various cycles of evaporation and condensation and subject them to thermodynamic analysis. However, school exercises aside, there ought to be some scientific purpose. The Ms repeatedly refers to these cycles as "devices" and hints darkly that some practical result can be obtained, but does not share with us what that might be. What's the point? In spite of the Ms's (the reviewer's punctuation) disclaimers, it actually does violate the 2nd Law in more that one place. On p.4, for example, it says after summarizing a cycle: "NO energy has been supplied to the system and NO energy leaves the system or goes into energy storage...so the entropy change must be zero." The emphases in the quote are in the Ms; they have not been added by the reviewer. The quoted statement blatantly violates the 2nd Law, since the cycle referred to has more than one spontaneous process in it, and therefore, in an isolated system, must necessarily result in an entropy increase. In addition, the Ms repeatedly refers to systems that spontaneously generate a temperature difference. The Ms gives the impression that such differences can then be used to run a heat engine. Alas, this kind of thing is well-known and leads nowhere, since the entropy gained in any such spontaneous process out-weighs (that Second Law again!) any advantage that otherwise might accrue. Finally, the Ms's (the reviewer's punctuation) views on the molecular underpinnings of the alleged temperature difference-generating spontaneous process is incorrect. The Ms maintains that when a molecule in a liquid evaporates, the liquid cools and the v apor warms. Its argument is that a molecule that can break away from the intermolecular forces in the liquid, is necessarily especially energetic, so "hot" molecules leave the liquid (cooling it) and join the vapor (warming it). The argument is false on s everal accounts. Molecules indeed must be hot enough to escape, i.e. to surmount the difference in potential energy (pe) between liquid and vapor. However, energy is conserved. As the hot molecule rises from the liquid, its pe goes up, therefore its ke go es down. By the time it escapes the blandishments of the liquid, it's not so hot. A glance at the figure on p.5 shows this. A molecule whose ke just exceeds the barrier when it leaves the liquid will have zero ke once it reaches the vapor. Since most of t he molecules escaping will have ke not too much greater than the barrier (again, look at Fig 5), the vast bulk of them will reach the gas phase with a ke less than, not greater than, the most probable ke in the Maxwell distribution. This is the same as th e problem of the velocity of escape from the earth's (reviewer's lack of capital E) gravity. As the projectile rises, its ke drops; at infinite distance, it is zero, if it began exactly at the escape velocity. However, whatever the temperature difference that may exist, it cannot be permanent. If the escaped molecules are kept in contact with the liquid, they will return and/or pound on the liquid, equilibrating any energy differences that might momentarily exi st. If, on the other hand, the escapees are swept out of contact with the liquid, one must pay the energetic price of pumping them off. Nothing can be gained in this way. The Ms shows no awareness that there are other spontaneous process that can indeed yield temperature differences. For example, if a box of gas is placed in an isolated container and a hole is punched in the gas box, the gas effuses from the hole. It is ea sy to show that faster molecules escape in greater number, and since here there is no barrier to overcome, they retain their ke. Thus, after a short time, the escaped molecules have higher than average ke and higher T, when collected and allowed to equili brate in isolation. Alas, this helps no one. If the escapees are allowed to remain in the larger container, they go back in the hole and also pound on the box of remaining gas, equalizing energy once again. If, instead they are swept away, one must pay th e pump's price. All this is well known. So what? The fancy talk in the Ms about Maxwell's demon is all nonsense. No demon here; or anywhere else (the reviewer's punctuation). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My email (the 'rebuttal') to the editor who resubmitted it to the reviewers ref. JP962756J: "A Thermodynamic Cycle Based on First Order Phase Changes" I'll assume you still have a copy of my manus and the reviews. Dear Senior Editor (Dr. George C. Schatz), I received the reviews for the above paper. I would like to respond to the reviewers and to help clear up any points of confusion. I admit that the paper is contentious but it is my belief that the analysis is well founded and presented and has been subjected to internal reviews by my colleagues. My colleagues understand my approach and analysis they even have privvy to a further confidential paper where I describe a real device, that paper cannot be disclosed at present due to patenting requirements. The device depicted in my second paper shows the problem even more bluntly. We have come to the limit of our knowledge and my colleagues can only sit on the fence and say they don't know. Submission to a journal was meant to air this problem for good discussion as long as I do my homework and present something in the body of science that extends science. I believe that if one can accept the analysis and physically realizablity of the device depicted on page 8 there are only two options:- The analysis is correct and the device realizable, OR There is something odd about the standard analysis approach used (First, then Second Laws or Thermodynamic Identity) in the examination of this particular system and problem. EITHER option would yield new information. Specific points now about the reviews received:- Reviewer 1 The rev. talks of a chemical reaction taken place liberating energy. On page 2 of my manus, I say catalyst (end of first para.) and the diagram depicts an idealised process (no real materials) with a catalyst causing a first order phase change. When the rev. talks of a chemical reaction it implies addition, mixing and reaction of reagents (a system not in thermodynamic eqm. anyway) and hence a 'one shot' system - I use a catalyst in a closed system globally at thermodynamic equilibrium. What the diagram and analysis on page 2/3 depict is that there can be a temperature rise on spontaneous first order phase change - THIS IS WELL KNOWN. The analysis was also simple in leaving out the chemical potential terms but this was developed further in the appendix. The first part of the paper was meant to whet the readers apptite. The reviewer then talks about Arrenhius and activation energy and somehow links that with the chemical reaction he believes is occuring. AT NO POINT in my paper do I talk about CHEMICAL REACTIONS so Arrenhius' work here is not relevant and I haven't brought the subject into my paper at all. The depiction of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution on page 5 of my manus shows how evaporation (or 1st Order Phase change) occurs by having the more energetical particles in the lower energy phase leave it by surmounting the potential energy requirements. Apologies for the miss-spelling of Szilard. Reviewer 2 The first paragraph of the rev's. response perhaps is an entrenched viewpoint not open to reasonable debate. (rev. para 2) Page 4 of my manus talks about DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM in a two phase system. By simple analysis (i.e. without chemical potential) it can be seen that condensation of vapour 'generates' entropy and this is COUPLED to the vapourisation of liquid which is 'negentropic'. Overall there is no generation of entropy since this is a GLOBALLY equilibrated system. The coupling of the two flows (vapourisation and condensation at dynamic equilibrium) is then the THEME of my paper - one can add terms to the entropy sum as long as they cancel so that the sum is zero. HOWEVER to occur processes must be coupled with something 'generating' an excess of entropy to be used by one that 'consumes' it. Thus this couldn't happen: dS(vaporize) + dS(condense) + dS(hot gas) + dS(cool gas) = 0. It's a chicken and egg scenario: what would generate the hot gas just from the vapour alone? - it couldn't come from cooling of gas because there is no hot gas yet. It is the INSERTION of the 'device' (spontaneous state changing 'catalyst') into the dynamic equilibrium system that makes the above possible as the process depicted on page 2/3 doesn't break the laws. This is developed on pages 4 and 5. The reviewer doesn't believe or hence disprove that such cycles are impossible if one starts from dynamic equilibrium and, in a sense, adds self powering bits to it (the phase change device 2/3) such that the total sum is still zero. This somewhat contradicts the statement of rev. para 2 which doesn't appear to be open to debate. --- The rev. believes that my paper is muddled and obscure (para 2) and gives no reason for being (para 4). My paper is structured as follows:- Abstract (page 1): theme of paper abstracted: Spontaneous Phase changes - the 'device', insertion into closed, isolated system, spontaneous temp. difference. The paradox. Possible explanation. This seems to dispel Rev. para 9 (bottom Rev. page 2) comments as other systems didn't fall into the scope of this analysis. Intro: the structure of the paper outlined. Pages 2/3: Spontaneous First Order Phase change depicted and modelled - the 'device' or 'catalyst'. As a phenomenom, this is well known about - perhaps I should have supplied references for the many areas of applied science where this is known. Pages 3,4: Discussion of Dynamic Equilibrium, insertion of 'device' or the state changing process into dynamic eqm. cycle so that GLOBAL entropy sum is still zero (First Law sum is zero too). The dynamic eqm. system is large and CLOSED and ISOLATED (rev's comment para 3 dispelled). Thus the 'device' only LOCALLY affects global thermd. descriptions of system, this dispels rev's. concern about constant pressure (para 3). Note: Rev's concern (para 5) is dispelled if one can proceed from dynamic eqm. case and add self-powering terms so that the entropy sum is still zero (earlier in email). The analysis shows how without breaking the laws. Again the reviewer doesn't see this as a point open to discusion. Note: Rev's concern about temperature difference between two effective reserviors and heat engines (para 6). If one can accept a temperature difference (page 2/3 my manus) then one can run a heat engine. Page 4 of manus models heat conduction in the entropy sum - heat conduction models heat engines at their most inefficient. Pages 4,6: Conclusion and Discussion. View that evaporation occurs by 'top end' of Max-Bltz distribution having energy to surmount potential energy trap to leave lower energy phase. This can be found in any text book on the subject. View that if one has a statistical distribution and takes part of it - this must be sorting. This is axiomatic. Sorting of thermal entities is a Maxwell Demon problem. Analysis of existing schemes and their failings, a common thread (one that I observe and might not be the full explaination - its open to discussion) emerges as to why natural phase changing processes can sort and schemes we devise with machines fail. Appendix a development of the work in first part of paper with chemical potential included. Page 7: Two systems transfering matter and enthalpy are modelled, they form a closed isolated system together. This gives my tool for re-analysing pages 2-4. Heading of page 7 should have said more clearly the need to develop the tool for re-application to problem (page 2,4 manus) to include chemical potential terms. Line saying: 'Imagine we have two systems forming an isolated, closed system' Should say: 'Imagine we have two systems WITHIN an isolated, closed system'. This dispels rev's comment (para 3) about eqn. A.4 whose function he is not sure of. Ammendments will correct this ambiguous presentation. Page 8: A theoretical way of making the device is depicted that acts as a catalyst for state change (page 2 manus). Rev. refers to 'dark hints' (para 4) about device, this is to prevent disclosure of patentable information - I'm sorry, all will hopefully be revealed. The theoretical discussion I believe is valid and worthwhile. The device uses the potential energy of the vapour to affect separation of phase changing agent from working substance of thermd. cycle. The working substance condenses into the phase change agent. The device with the phase changing agent in liquid solution with the working substance affects a separation by means of the device having a considerable head (column height of solution) so that the working substance is squeezed out of the bottom back to the reservior. Page 9. Analysis proceeds to re-model page 3 of manus with chemical potential included and a realistic (or 'theoretically realised' or practicable) device. Five key modelling steps are identified:- Steps 1 and 2 remodel pages 2/3. Steps 4 and 5 show that the device is self regenerating and acts as a catalyst. What remains is to show that steps where entropy is being 'consumed' (Step 2, Step 4) are powered where entropy is 'generated' - or COUPLED (Step 1 and respectively the potential energy of the vapour - which is another sub-system that could be modelled, but this is a trivial eqlibm. environment so chemical potential of the vapour is same at any height). Pages 9,10 (top) show that steps 1 and 2 are coupled. Pages 10,11 show that steps 4,5 are coupled to potential energy of vapour. Page 11 shows a simple result such that vapour will condense as long as the vapour pressure is greater that the hygroscopic substance. A simpler analysis without consideration of temperature rise is possible with only regard to potential energy. This would be developed along the themes that ANY amount of WORK can be done in an eqlbm. system at CONSTANT ENTROPY: Consider a gas in a gravity field in a closed isolated universe, molecules rising are doing work against gravity (internal energy of gas transformed to work), molecules falling are doing work on the gas system. Nowhere does temperature vary more than infinitesimally so this can done - of course this work is NOT AVAILABLE to us without generating a spontaneous temperature difference or some object with potential energy - hence the phase changing device condensing the vapour. Overall I can gain from some of the criticisms and especially make the appendix 'punchier' so that its point is got through rigorously in as few lines as possible. I apologise for the length of this email, thought lengthy I hope every point in the reviews has been logically viewed to close off objectionable/unreasonable avenues in a manner similiar to the presentation of the original manuscript. Yours, Remi Cornwall. P.S. the Universe is probably stranger than we think, an example is the work of people working in Quantum Optics. A good account is given in the current edition of Scientfic American of NON-EVASIVE MEASUREMENT where in the limit (a realisable one) no energy needs to hit (I won't say not interact because it does in a way) the object being measured. To quote the script: 'Its the difference in being a quantum optimist or pessimist'. To paraphrase, one can be optimistic about the laws that govern our strange Universe. Of more relevance to my work is ROLF LANDAUER's work on the ultimate limit of energy expediture by computers and communication devices. He knows the subject of Maxwell demon well and has applied it to this area (Science, June 1996) and believes that somehow heat or internal energy can be reused or reconstitued in certain highly non-linear systems. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 08:13:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01206; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:48:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:48:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:46:41 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199702071546.QAA15760 sunny.bahnhof.se> X-Sender: grappo bahnhof.se X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: gudmund rapp Subject: Addressing of replies Resent-Message-ID: <"eyyFF.0.iI.twq-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3964 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear moderator, >In a message dated 2/6/97 7:30:18 PM, "you" wrote: > ><> acceleration.>> > >I don't see it. I can compress something arbitrarily slowly and the amount> This type of addressing is most of the time very confusing to me. Who is "you" and who is "you". After a few exchanges I get completely lost. I suggest that everybody replying to a message substitute a name for "you". Perhaps I have missed something? So long Gudmund Gudmund Rapp Phone: +4687178913 Vinterbrinksvagen 7 Email: grappo bahnhof.se 133 32 Saltsjobaden Sweden Web "Self-knowledge": http://www.bahnhof.se/~grappo/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 08:39:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA07280; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:14:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:14:00 -0800 Message-ID: <32FB54DB.37C8 interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 11:14:19 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mPEVM1.0.gn1.6Jr-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3965 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Gnorts Vortexians! (snip) It is theorized that photons have no rest > mass, but have mass at light speed. If photons have momentum and velocity, > shouldn't they exhibit mass and gravity? Horace, if you can find some photons at rest, send me a bottle of them to drink - I'll add sugar and wind up all "sweetness and light". Isn't it good to think of photons as energy balls MOVING AT C? A photon without light-speed is a duck without a quack (worse even!). We "know" that energy has mass and momentum - so the problem goes away if we throw out the idea of "photon at rest". Sticking his dumb neck out again ------ Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 08:48:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA11043; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:32:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:32:20 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:34:28 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Resent-Message-ID: <"bKYwy1.0.Ti2.Jar-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3966 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:36 AM 2/7/97, John Steck wrote: [snip] > >Now the hard part, any practical ideas on adding the angular momentum to heavy >nuclei? Don't know how practical, but you could blast them with very high energy electrons. Pass them through a high energy beam of electrons in a superonducting electron accelerating (cavity) waveguide. If the electrons have sufficient energy that they are small relative to the nucleus size, and then penetrate one side of the nucleus, some of the momentum of the electron should be converted to angular momentum of the heavy nucleus, true? This is because the attraction to one side of the nucleus would be much larger than to the other. The process would also tend to stretch the nucleus due to time delay for the electrosatic force being propagated across the nuleus, as well as an electrostatic equivalent of a tidal force due to the gradient. Now, what about converting the momentum back? Photon radiation? Simply use the momentary nature of the electron/nucleus interaction? The interresting thing about infinite Isp, the results don't have to be dramatic to be effective, they simply have to be achieved to be effective. I am a bit sorry I used the angular momemtum example, which was only stated in an attempt to round out the argument, as it appears relatively immaterial and maybe simply incorrect. However, you ever can tell what is going to pop out of discussion here. The practical prospects seem to me to be with the electron, i.e. condensed charge, or with (borrowed) e-/e+ "inertial plus annihilation created photon" drive, or maybe with the Tampere phenomenon. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 09:59:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA24113; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:26:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:26:49 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:25:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207120820_1179914308 emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, noever@webtv.net, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: : A Specific Impulse Resent-Message-ID: <"JD_lv.0.hu5.ONs-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3967 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hal asked a good question. What symmetry does gravity exhibit. Gravity exhibits a symmetry around dp/dt, not acceleration. dp/dt is force or in more relaxed terms pressure. gravity = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) My paper, The "Source of Gravitational and Inertial Mass" shows that force is the exclusive mechanism by which all graviatational and inertial mass are generated. see elektromagnum. Let me quote John Gribbin and Paul Davies from the "The Matter Myth" 1992 Tuchstone Publishing page165. "According to the general theory of relativity, pressure is a source of gravity, in addition to the gravity associated with mass or energy. Under normal circumstances the contribution of pressure to the gravitational field of a material object is negligible. The pressure within the the Sun, for example, contributes less than one millionth of its total gravity. In the excited quantum vacuum, however, the pressure is so great that its gravitational effect..." I dispute the "Negligible" and have shown in my my paper, "The Source of.." that all gravity results from an applied force. The paper is currently at the JOP's the Journal of Mathematical Physics being reviewed at the Univ of Indiana. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 10:23:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28675; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:52:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:52:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:54:45 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Resent-Message-ID: <"KYF82.0.v_6.els-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3968 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:14 AM 2/7/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] > >Horace, if you can find some photons at rest, send me a bottle of them >to drink - I'll add sugar and wind up all "sweetness and light". > >Isn't it good to think of photons as energy balls MOVING AT C? A >photon without light-speed is a duck without a quack (worse even!). > >We "know" that energy has mass and momentum - so the problem goes away >if we throw out the idea of "photon at rest". > >Sticking his dumb neck out again ------ Frank Stenger Well we could throw it out, but is that science? The mass rest mass is measured at less than 3 x 10^-33 MeV, but that is not zero. Could be zero, but is that established? By the way, in looking that up I see the mass of the gluon is given as zero. Hmmm.... wonder what that means? At least one bogus idea. About the photon rest mass, zero or nearly zero, doesn't seem to matter a whole lot for rockets. It seems like the important question is whether the atom that emits the photon decreases in mass by that amount, and whether it recoils from the emission. I think free electrons do decrease in corresponding mass, velocity, and momentum when emitting photons, so why not orbital electrons? "Sweetness and Light" sounds like a good brand name. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 12:15:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA26302; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:59:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:59:40 -0800 Message-ID: <32FB89BD.12FD interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:59:57 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"F26RD2.0.tQ6.hcu-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3969 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > . I think free electrons do decrease in > corresponding mass, velocity, and momentum when emitting photons, so why > not orbital electrons? Yeh, but,but,but - the bremsstrahlung photons from a free accelerated electron change only its velocity and momentum - right? Not its rest mass. I thought orbital electrons only emitted photons when they change their ORBITAL energy state by the photon's energy - maybe modified by some bremsstrahlung energy associated with the orbital change-event. The rest mass of the electron is constant - right? What-do-I-know? -------Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 12:30:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA31452; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:17:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:17:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "hheffner corecom.net" Cc: Vortex-L Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:14:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JNZTb2.0.Kh7.mtu-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3970 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace The electrons in the beam don't know the atoms are stationary. They see them flying at them, nucleus, orbitals and all. It's all relative. It depends on your point of view, where you put your coordinate system axes. Most of the radiation is bremstrallung, coming from the acceleration of the electron near a nucleus. Some of the radiation is "characteristic radiation", where the orbitals are bounced between shells. Hank Scudder ---------- From: hheffner corecom.net To: Scudder,Henry J Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Date: Friday, February 07, 1997 10:02AM >Horace > I think you have just invented an X-ray tube.:>} >Hank Scudder In an x-ray tube the source of x-rays are displaced inner shell electrons and the atoms are stationary. The implied suggestion is "crossing beams". Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 12:32:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA31966; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:20:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:20:28 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702072012.MAA02151 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Piezoelectricity and gravitational polarisation To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:12:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970206155006.006fa164 bahnhof.se> from "David Jonsson" at Feb 6, 97 03:52:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"djofJ2.0.Np7.Awu-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3971 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: David Jonsson writes: > Please agree that compression can be difficult to distinguish from > acceleration. I would seem so to me. Compression being pressure in equal and opposite directions, and acceleration being caused by a force and an equal and opposite inertial resistance to the force. Piezoelectric materials, such as quartz crystals, produce voltage when compressed. The same crystals are also used in accelerometer sensors and/or gravity sensors -- because they exhibit a voltage when accelerating. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 13:24:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA06256; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:54:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:54:55 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970108125531.00982a70 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:55:34 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Computer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"8APIS1.0.bX1.SQv-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3972 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:24 PM 2/6/97 -0500, you wrote: > > Oh, you mean a drive. volume in that context is the drive label or name. easy to name or rename. what was you question again about the drive? > > A volume is a drive.... like, say, C: > >On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Michael Mandeville wrote: > >> At 05:57 PM 2/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> > I am computer dummy. Please, Q: How do I get NT to mount and >> >dismount a volume? >> > >> > >> > Schnurer >> > >> > >> >> NT has this vast labyrinth, I am beginning to discover, after 1.5 week of >> hacking through its underbrush. Many t hings are most inscrutable. What >> the hell is a "volume"? >> ____________________________________ >> MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >> Michael Mandeville, publisher >> mwm aa.net >> http://www.aa.net/~mwm >> >> > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 14:00:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA19831; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:45:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:45:54 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:43:54 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Computer In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970108125531.00982a70 aa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"zIWrp3.0.mr4.FAw-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3973 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Michael Mandeville wrote: > Subject: Re: Computer > > Oh, you mean a drive. volume in that context is the drive label or name. > easy to name or rename. > > what was you question again about the drive? > > A volume is a drive.... like, say, C: > > > >On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Michael Mandeville wrote: > >> > > >> > I am computer dummy. Please, Q: How do I get NT to mount and > >> >dismount a volume? > >> > Schnurer > >> > > >> NT has this vast labyrinth, I am beginning to discover, after 1.5 week of > >> hacking through its underbrush. Many t hings are most inscrutable. What > >> the hell is a "volume"? > >> ____________________________________ > >> MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing > >> Maybe I'm 'Dummy enough also' here, but it sounds like an attempt to re label the 'mounted' disk NAME -- try 'label' or "labelit" ie: labelit [-F FSType] [-V] [current_options] [-o specific_options] special [operands] ..... that is all on one line were: DESCRIPTION FSType = NT? s5? sfs? ufs? vxfs? etc..(determined from /etc/vfstab) -V = echo complee command to verify and validate -o = Specify FSType-specific options. I may be 'way-off-base' here, but have you tried "man label" or "man labelit" at the system prompt? good luck.. -=se=- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 14:23:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA24614; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:09:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:09:36 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702072201.OAA02323 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Two wheel levitator To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:01:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Horace Heffner" at Feb 7, 97 05:48:56 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DjpGJ1.0.Q06.VWw-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3974 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner writes: > If the Podkletnof/Schnurer devices reduce momentum, i.e if a rotating wheel > placed partially in the beam tends to throw the wheel out of the beam, then > there is possibly a means of levitation even if the beam is vertical only. > This is by having two wheels spin on an angle to the beam: > > \ / > \ / > M\ /M > \ / > \/ > ==== Some all-mechanical devices have been developed which operate on a similar principal. Linear propulsion is created by using the gyroscopic property of opposite spinning disks. This is done by somehow exchanging momentum with the aether -- in other words, pushing against the vacuum. US Patent #5024112, Gyroscopic Apparatus, awarded to Alexander Kidd, 18 July 1991. US Patent #4631971, Apparatus for Developing a Propulsion Force, awarded to Brandson Thornson, 30 Dec 1986. US Patent #2886976, System for Converting Rotary Motion Into Unidirectional Motion, awarded to Norman Dean, 13 July 1956, (The Dean Drive). Laithewaite may also have developed some gyroscopic devices which develop linear propulsion. The above inventions are characterized by linear momentum in pulsed form (not sure about Laithewaite). After propulsive momentum has been extracted, it is necessary to use local mechanical forces to reset the position of the rotating disks, to prepare them for extraction of another pulse of linear momentum. Mechanical vibration becomes a major problem. Possibly, Horace's invention also suffers from the need for some kind of mechanical reset? Pushing satellites to higher orbit was a one time thought to be a possible market application for these kind of machines. Unfortunately, shake-rattle-and-roll might be good in pop music, but is not so good in satellites. Curiously, the seeming violation these machines make in principals of known physics, never caused much of a stir. A few dust motes, more or less, under the rug makes no difference. But lately, it seems the carpet has become worn out and lumpy. Anyhow, if it is possible to use macroscopic mechanical devices to exchange angular momentum with the aether for linear momentum, one might conjecture that it could be emminently more practical and efficient to do it on a microscopic basis -- via electromagnetics, or manipulation of quantum spin. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 15:33:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA27452; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:23:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:23:46 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:21:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207103642_683283503 emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, RVargo1062 aol.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com Subject: Yusmar tests to resume this weekend Resent-Message-ID: <"d4Gyo2.0.ni6.mjw-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3975 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Plans are to test the Yusmar with a small amout of hydrogen disolved in the water this week end. All parts; re hydrogen regulator, D cylinder of h2 etc. have been obtained. I should have the results by monday. All air will be vented from the Yusmar before the hydrogen is put in. The tests will be done in a well ventilated area. The danger of explosion should be quite small. The max pressure from the regulator will be limited to about 5 PSI. The D cylinder is filled to 2000 PSI. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 18:11:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA04586; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:23:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:23:13 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending From: Hoyt Stearns Reply-To: hoyt isus.wierius.com Sender: hoyt isus.wierius.com Originator: hoyt isus.wierius.com Transport-Options: /delivery Content-Type: text Date: Fri, 7 Feb 97 16:57:00 GMT Message-ID: <9702071715.aa17746 wierius.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"zMQVR3.0.V71._Lz-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3977 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, Horace wrote: An interesting question: does light bend toward large masses because space is warped or because photons have mass and are attracted? Photons carry both momentum and energy (at least according to Plank: E=(h)(nu)). How can this be if photons have no mass? It is theorized that photons have no rest mass, but have mass at light speed. If photons have momentum and velocity, shouldn't they exhibit mass and gravity?... I'll stick in a plug for Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System, and answer that neither is true. In RS theory, we use an unorthodox reference system in which photons are always stationary, by definition. We postulate that all points in the natural frame of reference move away from all others at c. This is what we observe as the expansion of the universe. Distant galaxies appear close to stationary with respect to this frame because they're outside each other's gravitational limit. We call this "outward scalar motion" because it is a special kind of motion that has no direction, just "outward". From any point, everything just moves "away". The expansion of the universe can be visualized as a 15 femto G repulsion, opposing gravity. That's why globular clusters are stable, and stars don't approach closer than about 3 light years (they're repelling each other). Using this natural reference system, everything becomes so simple. It's like the Ptolemy epicycles: we've usually been using a fixed reference system that is just not appropriate, and calculations get very complicated. Use the universe's natural one and everything just drops out. Gravity is just the inverse of the expansion of the universe. Atoms are quantities of inward scalar motion opposing the expansion, thus move toward all other points, occupied or not, including points occupied by photons. We observe this as the photons bending toward us, because we are mass, so are moving counter to the expansion, and moving toward photons, and toward each other and the earth. The above implies that gravity "propagates" at infinite speed, and explains why it can't be shielded, etc. This is a quantitive theory, and the numerical results (e.g. Mercury perihelion shift) are more accurate than from the conventional theories. Looking back before I heard of RS, I now feel that we were so arrogant as to assume that the entire universe behaves in the way we perceive it from our highly distorted frame of reference, moving inward toward each other at c. Einstein had it backwards. It is we that have the weird perceptions. For a photon, everything is very simple and symmetric. Sincerely, -- Hoyt A. Stearns jr., President, International Society of Unified Science| 4131 E. Cannon Dr. Phoenix AZ 85028 Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal | hoyt isus.wierius.com fax 996 9088 System- a unified physical theory | voice *82 602 996-1717 http://infox.eunet.cz/interpres/sr/ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >From Seth Speaks, Session 512 " The ego is a jealous god, and it wants its interests served. It does not want to admit the reality of any dimensions except those within which it feels comfortable and can understand. It was meant to be an aid but it has been allowed to become a tyrant. Even so, it is much more resilient and eager to learn than is generally supposed. It is not natively as rigid as it seems. Its curiosity can be of great value." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." -- Arthur Schopenhauer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sacred cows make the best hamburger. -- Mark Twain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 18:26:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA07717; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:38:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:38:36 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:40:35 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Two wheel levitator Resent-Message-ID: <"y1UtT3.0.Ou1.Oaz-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3978 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:01 PM 2/7/97, Robert Stirniman wrote: [snip] >Some all-mechanical devices have been developed which >operate on a similar principal. Linear propulsion is >created by using the gyroscopic property of opposite >spinning disks. This is done by somehow exchanging >momentum with the aether -- in other words, pushing >against the vacuum. [snip] That is very different from what I am talking about. The whole idea is based on the premise that "the Podkletnof/Schnurer devices reduce momentum," that a rotating wheel inserted partially into the beam feels a lateral force. The signifiacnt part of the diagram is the "====", which is the Tampere device or similar exhibiting exhibiting momentum reduction: \ / \ / M\ /M \ / \/ ==== \ or / - spinning wheel, side view M - motor and shaft attached to spilling wheel ==== - antigravity/antimomentum device That part of the premise that is a very big "if" is that inertia is affected within the gravity reduction field, the gravity shadow. It is a long stretch of the imagination, but it is very easily tested because careful weighing/measuring is not required. A very small reduction in momentum will result in a very large force for a high rpm wheel. To test simply stick a running motor into the field. Furthermore, we are talking glass smooth Cadillac ride here, no bump and grind. Whats going to make for oscillation, vibrartion, etc? All the wheels do is rotate. You might have a problem if you turned a corner suddenly, but no need to do that to get into orbit. Suppose you have shielded at 4% about half of a 1 meter radius wheel or drum 0.5 m thick runnning at 3000 rpm, or 50 rps. The mass of the wheel is primarily between 0.5 r and r, where r is the radius of the wheel. The wheel is roughly the density of iron (7.86 g/cm^3). The area A of the wheel is (3/4)(pi)(r^2) = 2.4 m^2 = 2.4x10^4 cm^2. The volume of the wheel is 1.2x10^6 cm^3 so the mass is 6x10^7 g or 10,000 kg. The average rotational velocity of the mass is v=2(pi)(r)(50)= 314 m/s. The acceleration is a=4(pi^2)(r)(50s^-1)^2 = 10^5 m/s^2, or about 1000 g's. Every second about 10,000 kg x (50rps) = 50,000 kg/s mass enters the shadowed section of the wheel at 314 m/s and exits at -314 m/sec, for a delta v of 628 m/s per second. The effective (net) mass doing this is 0.04 x 50,000 kg/s = 2000 kg/s. The resultant force is F = (628 m/s)(2000 kg/s) = 1.26x10^5 N. Converting to kg force (kgf) we get F = (1.26x10^5N)(1/9.8 kgf/N) = 12,900 kg. Suppose the supporting framework, underlying Tampere cells, and power supply etc. can be placed using 1,000 kg per wheel. This gives a net force to the wheel of 11,900 kg. This results in theta = (1/1.19) = .84 and the angle from vertical is cos-1(.84) = 32.8 deg. This is all marginal, but achieving an 8% shielding would definitely give you a VTOL SST orbiter. So would being able to run the wheel at 2000 g's. Hope I got all that right. Anyway, all the above is mainly concerned with hovering, etc. *Any* repulsion of a rotating wheel from the beam means you can build an Isp infinty spacecraft. That is the key test, and you probably don't even need an instument to do it. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 18:29:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01198; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:10:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:10:19 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:33:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207102911_1048587803 emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: compression Resent-Message-ID: <"lMOvN3.0.bI.w9z-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3976 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't see it. I can compress something arbitrarily slowly and the amount of acceleration associated with the compression would be miniscule. And compressing something mechanically does not involve a change in the metric as does gravity, so the equivalence principle would not seem to apply. Am I missing something? .............................................................................. ........................................ Compression and acceleration can both be expressed by the same term. dp/dt the change in momentum with respect to time. dp/dt = force Gravity and dp/dt exhibit a symmetry relationship. This symmetry is the one that the equivalance principle is built upon. graitational field = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) dp/dt is also not acceleration it involves the term of mass. This point confuses me at times also. p = mv dp/dt = m dv/dt dp/dt = force = ma It appears that a static force can produce gravity. Indeed the literature states this is so. See the omega point by John Gribben. I hope this helps Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 18:31:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA09059; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:45:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:45:39 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 01:45:35 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330928cf.54969113 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nk1-R1.0.BD2.-gz-o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3979 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:20:17 -0600 (CST), John Logajan wrote: [snip] >I forgot if someone else mentioned this, but of course charging the balloon >will cause the sides to repulse each other, slightly expanding the volume >of the balloon, and thus lowering its density and increasing its boyancy. [snip] This should be fairly easy to bypass. Just increase the pressure of the gas in the balloon to the point where any such repulsion would have a negligible effect. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 18:58:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA16690; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:20:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:20:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:22:35 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Yusmar tests to resume this weekend Resent-Message-ID: <"05ZTD.0.i44.0C--o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3980 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Plans are to test the Yusmar with a small amout of hydrogen disolved in the >water this week end. All parts; re hydrogen regulator, D cylinder of h2 >etc. have been obtained. I should have the results by monday. All air will >be vented from the Yusmar before the hydrogen is put in. The tests will be >done in a well ventilated area. The danger of explosion should be quite >small. The max pressure from the regulator will be limited to about 5 PSI. > The D cylinder is filled to 2000 PSI. > >Frank Znidarsic Some fun but meaningful correlaries to Murphy's law: Leakproof fittings do. Regulators don't. If you can't observe it - it isn't that way, and even you can, maybe it isn't. True risk is inversely related to risk percieved. The worst consequences of a system failure are worse than that. Wishing you much success Frank. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 18:58:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA16810; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:21:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:21:51 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:23:54 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A Specific Impulse Resent-Message-ID: <"a7NoQ.0.a64.-C--o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3981 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> >. I think free electrons do decrease in >> corresponding mass, velocity, and momentum when emitting photons, so why >> not orbital electrons? > >Yeh, but,but,but - the bremsstrahlung photons from a free accelerated >electron change only its velocity and momentum - right? Not its rest >mass. The rest mass is IMHO irrelevent. It was there, and it is still there. The energy according to SR is in the excess mass in the relation E=mc^2. If you add E energy to a mass by acceleraing it you get a mass increase of m = E/c^2. The energy is always there with it's associated mass. The two are inseparable. Both are always conserved. True? >I thought orbital electrons only emitted photons when they >change their ORBITAL energy state by the photon's energy - maybe >modified by some bremsstrahlung energy associated with the orbital >change-event. The rest mass of the electron is constant - right? > >What-do-I-know? -------Frank Stenger This raises the question: "is a non-ground state orbital electron at rest." I am asserting that it is not, that if SR has any merit IMHO again, that the excited electron has angular momentum representing energy that involves a mass increase exactly corresponding to the energy required to excite it. Excited atoms must weigh more than those that are not. Pretty darn difficult to directly measure I would think. Consider helium (He+ and He+*) as candidates. You would have to be able to measure about 50 eV against a 500 keV electron and a nucleus 3600 times heavier than that. One part in 36 million mass spectrometer? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 19:06:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA18166; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:29:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:29:06 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:31:11 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Two wheel levitator Resent-Message-ID: <"hYWp82.0.gR4.nJ--o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3982 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [snip] >Suppose you have shielded at 4% about half of a 1 meter radius wheel or >drum 0.5 m thick runnning at 3000 rpm, or 50 rps. The mass of the wheel is >primarily between 0.5 r and r, where r is the radius of the wheel. The >wheel is roughly the density of iron (7.86 g/cm^3). The area A of the >wheel is (3/4)(pi)(r^2) = 2.4 m^2 = 2.4x10^4 cm^2. The volume of the wheel >is 1.2x10^6 cm^3 so the mass is 6x10^7 g or 10,000 kg. The average >rotational velocity of the mass is v=2(pi)(r)(50)= 314 m/s. [snip] That's wrong. It should be v = 235 m/s. Oh well, pretend it is rotating faster. What the heck, it's only for fun anyway. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 19:33:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA22352; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:55:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:55:42 -0800 Message-ID: <32FBFAA8.4FC6 rt66.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 20:01:44 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Rich Murray Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"VwjDG1.0.8T5.ii--o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3983 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Return-Path: davidk suba.com Received: from suba01.suba.com (suba01.suba.com [198.87.202.2]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA15712 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:35:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from davidk (dial46.suba.com [198.87.202.173]) by suba01.suba.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA04385 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:33:58 -0600 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970205163120.006de2ec suba.com> X-Sender: davidk suba.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 10:31:20 -0600 To: rmforall rt66.com From: "David S. Kestenbaum" Subject: thanks, and a question Richard, Thanks for the voluminous response. Looks like you're having a lot of fun. Could you please give me your title/occupation and training? David Kestenbaum =========================================== D a v i d K e s t e n b a u m 1 0 5 6 N L e a v i t t S t C h i c a g o I L 6 0 6 2 2 ( 7 7 3 ) 3 9 5 8 2 9 4 davidk suba.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 19:34:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA22605; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:57:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:57:15 -0800 Message-ID: <32FBFB08.5C74 rt66.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 20:03:20 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Rich Murray Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"I-kGK.0.3X5.9k--o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3984 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: <32FBFA5E.2BF7 rt66.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 20:00:30 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Kestenbaum" Subject: Re: thanks, and a question References: <1.5.4.32.19970205163120.006de2ec suba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Friday, February 7, 1997 Hi David Kestenbaum, I graduated from M.I.T. in 1964 with a double major in physics and history, and then got a M.A. in Psychology from Boston University Graduate School in 1967. I've led a rather private life, exploring consciousness through a number of traditions. For eight years I've made my living as a hospice worker. All along, I've kept up an interest in science, scanning every issue of Scientific American, Science, Physics Today, and Skeptical Inquirer, and reading on cold fusion at the library at Los Alamos National Laboratory. For a year, I've been on Vortex-L Discussion Group, and attended the Sept. 13-14 Second International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions at College Station, Texas. Since December, I've been reexamining the published research with a more and more skeptical bent. I'll also review several papers from 1913 to 1926 on high voltage spark spectrums that may indicate anomalous production of elements. As you may be aware, cold fusion is only part of the area of new energy, which in the last week or two features many different, startling claims: gross transmutation (Joe Champion method) experiment by a 16-year-old girl in Dallas, antigravity from spinning superconducting disks, excess energy from Griggs turbulent water device, Russian claim of transmutation by bacteria, and on and on. What to say? You see, we're not sure now what's plausible or not. So, I'm trying to raise the level of discourse by writing critical appraisals of published reports, pointing out typos, blind spots, baseless claims, poorly composed tables and graphs, and inadequate data, as a means of establishing the plausibility of their extraordinary claims. I'm finding, to my regretful and resigned fascination, that this brush readily tarnishes every study it touches. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 rmforall rt66.com 505-986-9103 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 7 23:41:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA26262; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 23:02:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 23:02:07 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:04:14 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Light bending Resent-Message-ID: <"O86De1.0.GQ6.kJ2_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3985 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:57 AM 2/7/97, Hoyt Stearns wrote: [snip] >In RS theory, we use an unorthodox reference >system in which photons are always stationary, by definition. We >postulate that all points in the natural frame of reference move away >from all others at c. [snip] If this were true how do you account for orbital motion? How could a child repeatedly swing a rope around his head if it moved away from him at c? Sounds very strange, and mind boggeling. I think it is nearly self evident that electromagnetic fields have both momentum and energy, and therefore mass, and that the enormous electrostatic field density in condensed matter contributes to both matter's weight and mass or inertial effects. Since photons consist of EM fields, and vice versa, it must be at least true that a partial reason light bends around stars is that it is affected by gravity. The portion of mass attraction (the proportion of G) due to the mass of EM fields is already accounted for in the experimental determination of G. An item of interest might be the density of photons in the universe, their frequency distribution, and thus the amount of "dark matter", i.e. photons not coming in our direction, that might be floating around out there. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 05:01:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA28767; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:26:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:26:02 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32FC70D0.ABD322C math.ucla.edu> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 04:25:52 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FBPuR3.0.P17.P37_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3986 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > I think it is nearly self evident that electromagnetic > fields have both momentum and energy, and therefore mass, I haven't been following this closely, but I'm waiting for my furnace to heat back up to 1850F, so I'll go ahead and comment: EM fields definitely have momentum and energy content, as this can be directly measured (photoelectric effect, compton scattering, radiation pressure, etc). But they do not have mass. Specifically, photons do not have mass. There are many basic reasons/observations suggesting this is true...presumably you have heard of many of these, so you must be using mass in some novel way. The fundamental point though is that mass and energy are not identical quantities. Mass is a type of energy, as are kinetic and potential, and conversions between these forms are possible. But precisely because there are differnt types of energy, that means having energy---as photons do---does not neccesarily mean having mass. The photon energy is yet another type, stored in the EM fields. A reasonable analogy is that graphite and diamond are both types of carbon, and one form can be converted to the other. But graphite need not have any diamond in it at all. For a photon to have mass is not the same as it being acted upon by gravity---gravity acts upon all forms of energy, massive or not. That is a basic observation. For a photon to have mass, it would (a) have to exhibit some kind of inertia effect, and (b) upon creation (e.g. from deexcitation of atomic electrons) some of the available energy would have to go into its mass. Neither of these effects are observed. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 07:56:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA10255; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:20:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:20:42 -0800 Message-ID: <32FC99E1.1D09 interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 10:21:05 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending References: <32FC70D0.ABD322C@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"V7hGQ1.0.9W2.9d9_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3987 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > For > a photon to have mass, it would (a) have to exhibit some kind > of inertia effect, and (b) upon creation (e.g. from deexcitation > of atomic electrons) some of the available energy would have to go into > its mass. Neither of these effects are observed. > I think the following are true as far as we know: 1. Photons have no "rest mass" because there is no such thing as a photon "at rest". Its energy, E, may have been at rest prior to its creation. 2. The only mass-energy a photon has is the EM energy associated with the "dual nature of radiation". 3. The photons mass, M, is given by M = E/c^2 = (h x frequency)/c^2 4. The radiation pressure IS an inertial effect because the momentum, p, is M x v (where v = velocity). Since v is ALWAYS c for a photon, p = M x c = ((h x frequency)/c^2) x c = (h x frequency)/c = h/wave length 5. Equal chunks of energy have equal chunks of mass - no matter what form the energy is in. A proton is pure energy - a very special configuration of energy to be sure! When a proton meets an anti-proton, -------> EM radiation = photons = momentum conserved = etc. Photons are EM force transmission particles - they only exist at light speed! They are ALSO free EM waves - they only exist at light speed. Hanging on with his finger tips -------- HELP ------ Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 12:59:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA24416; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:34:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:34:42 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:49:55 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: FCC Internet "tax" Proposal Resent-Message-ID: <"FNLco1.0.Lz5.WDE_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3988 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 3:00 PM 2/7/97, R. Daniel Woolman wrote (or forwarded): >FORARDED VALIDATED MESSAGE >========================== >--------------------------------- >Dear All, > > I am writing you to inform you of a very important matter > currently under review by the FCC. Many local telephone companies have > filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for Internet > service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the > operation of the telephone network. > > Internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay > additional per minute charges. > > The FCC has created an email box for comments regarding this > proposal, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your > comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them >what you think. > > Please forward this email to your friends on the internet so >all our voices may be heard. [snip] Apologies to our non-US friends, but this may be of interest to many of us using internet. Despite the fact that "FORWARDED" is misspelled above and thus suspect, I wrote the following to the FCC at : To our representatives at the FCC, I have heard that "Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network." I also understand public comment is welcome until February 13, 1996. To this I would like to respectfully suggest that the President and Vice President have publically stated a desire to incentivise and subsidize internet use for all segments of the population, including the poor and elderly, and especially the children. I am retired and greatly value the connection to the "real world" that I get from here in Alaska via the internet. The information exchange on internet is a great national resource, a vital part of our infrastructure and should be subsidized just as the superhighways were in the 1950's. It is further an international bridge and has already contributed significantly to peace in the world. It should not be permitted to be monopolized and priced out of reach to the general public, especially when technology is at hand to avoid this. A better approach than taxing or rate structure adjustment is to offer a superior dedicated fixed price service, like ISDN or ATM metropolitan networks, where connect time is not important. If the phone companies can't tax then they'll figure this out for themselves. If the government can help by subsidizing the infrastructure of the next millenium, even better. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 13:20:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA27699; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:56:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:56:43 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:58:48 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Impulse machine for space Resent-Message-ID: <"GYGLx3.0.jm6.9YE_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3989 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In the posting "A Specific Impulse" it was asserted that mass and energy are synonymous, inseperable, and that both are always conserved via normal interactions which are carried by electromagnetic (EM) force interaction which is mediated by the photon. The photon and EM fields have momentum, inertia, and energy, and thus mass and exhibit gravity. Since energy-mass is inseperable the past measurements of the universal gravitational constant G in effect included both the mass and energy contributions since they are indistinguishable and inseperable. This leads to a conclusion about creating free energy, namely that the key to doing so is creating mass from the vacuum. Since energy and mass are inseperable any process which creates energy creates mass, thus a design goal should be to create mass as that is a necessary byproduct and indicator of success in creating energy. It was suggested that a method of doing so is to create momentarily borrowed mass and accelerate it by a force between the mass and the a ship, thus giving momentum to the ship. The fact that the borrowed mass evaporates quickly is actually then a benefit because there is no decelleration that restores the ship's momentum. Such a process would semi-permanently transfer momentum and thus energy to the ship. Since no inirtial fuel is required the specific impulse, Isp, would be infinite, and the ship would not be bound by light speed due to relativistic mass increase. Be all that right or wrong, it leads logically to a device described below that can be evaluated on its own merits without condsideration of the above. The following is an attempt to raise the question of whether the above approach is possible using e+/e- pair generation. Let's assume we have a mechanism for spontaneously generating large numbers of e-/e+ pairs in a specific region of space X within our impulse drive. It is not unreasonable to assume one or more X's exist because the vacuum does this spontaneously, it probably happens to a large degree in the vicinity of an electron, much more in the vicinity of condensed charge, and possibly very much in the vicinity of collided heavy nulcei. The key to increasing the longevity and effect of pair generation is doing it in the presence of a strong electrostatic field which increases the mean distance the particles separate before being re-attracted and self annihilated. The following diagram shows a suggested impulse drive. Assume there is a strong magnetic field N-S out of the page: HV (-) charge ------------------------------------------------------- Annihilation .(+) . . X . . .(-) .(+) Annihilation . . X . . .(-) Annihilation .(+) . . X . . .(-) ------------------------------------------------------- HV (+) charge Pairs ejected from source X tend to live longer and obtain more maximum energy when ejected toward opposite charged plates than when ejected toward like charged plates. This produces a (net) population of e-/e+ pairs tending to follow paths like those shown in the diagram above due to the magnetic field. A net current evolves between the plates as shown, thus there is an energy input to the process. The strategy of the process is to obtain as many central annihilations in proportion to curent producing pairs as possible. Each pair that annihilates by pairing with a distant source imparts some momentum to the ship by virtue of the acceleration induced by the magnetic field. Photons generated by the annihilations can be directed out the rear of the ship for increased momentum or absorbed for generating internal ship energy. The main design principle is separating the sources by (or setting the magnetic field strength so) the electron cyclotron radius for the pairs is typically about half the distance between pair sources. Is there a flaw in this concept? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 13:44:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA31032; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:18:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:18:33 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: Horace Heffner Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 13:17:10 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: FCC Internet "tax" Proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"n-abD.0.oa7.dsE_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3990 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I can see that you liberals out there are still in the tax and spend mode. This is another "foot in the door". Look at your phone bill, damn it. Are aren't there enough taxes and government on it for you, already? I *pay* for my phone lines. The The internet providers *PAYS* for their phone lines! *Stop this $#!+* On 08-Feb-97, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 3:00 PM 2/7/97, R. Daniel Woolman wrote (or forwarded): >>FORWARDED VALIDATED MESSAGE >>========================== >>--------------------------------- >>Dear All, >> >> I am writing you to inform you of a very important matter >> currently under review by the FCC. Many local telephone companies have >> filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for Internet >> service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the >> operation of the telephone network. >> >> Internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay >> additional per minute charges. >> >> The FCC has created an email box for comments regarding this >> proposal, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your >> comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them >>what you think. >> >> Please forward this email to your friends on the internet so >>all our voices may be heard. >[snip] >Apologies to our non-US friends, but this may be of interest to many of us >using internet. Despite the fact that "FORWARDED" is misspelled above and >thus suspect, I wrote the following to the FCC at : >To our representatives at the FCC, >I have heard that "Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal >with the FCC to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They >contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the >telephone network." I also understand public comment is welcome until >February 13, 1996. >To this I would like to respectfully suggest that the President and Vice >President have publically stated a desire to incentivise and subsidize >internet use for all segments of the population, including the poor and >elderly, and especially the children. I am retired and greatly value the >connection to the "real world" that I get from here in Alaska via the >internet. The information exchange on internet is a great national >resource, a vital part of our infrastructure and should be subsidized just >as the superhighways were in the 1950's. It is further an international >bridge and has already contributed significantly to peace in the world. It >should not be permitted to be monopolized and priced out of reach to the >general public, especially when technology is at hand to avoid this. >A better approach than taxing or rate structure adjustment is to offer a >superior dedicated fixed price service, like ISDN or ATM metropolitan >networks, where connect time is not important. If the phone companies >can't tax then they'll figure this out for themselves. If the government >can help by subsidizing the infrastructure of the next millenium, even >better. >Regards, >Horace Heffner -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' Sacred cows make great hamburgers. -Mark Twain- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 14:48:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA10194; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:22:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:22:33 -0800 Message-Id: <199702082224.OAA06730 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:24:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: FCC Internet "tax" Proposal Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"wiqyM.0.CV2.eoF_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3991 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I see the right wing conservatives who pander for business and industry as the ones promoting this idea not the liberals. It's inevitably the conservative right wingers who promote these ideas of giving business the unencumbered right to charge the maximum the market will bear for everything that can be charged for not the liberals. I for one consider it an honor and a privilege to pay taxes to support the common good. I am similarly against letting the business interests gouge us just because they think the right wing republicans controlling congress will let them get away with it. I say virtual space and the electronic superhighway that we use to navigate it is part of the public commons. Take it away from those with greed as thier driving force and have the National Park Service administer it. > From: Chuck Davis > To: Horace Heffner > Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 13:17:10 -0800 > Organization: ROSHI Corporation > Subject: Re: FCC Internet "tax" Proposal > Reply-to: vortex-l eskimo.com > I can see that you liberals out there are still in the tax and spend mode. > This is another "foot in the door". > > Look at your phone bill, damn it. Are aren't there enough taxes and > government on it for you, already? I *pay* for my phone lines. The > The internet providers *PAYS* for their phone lines! *Stop this $#!+* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 16:55:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA27314; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:31:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 16:31:15 -0800 Message-ID: <32FD2994.53A1 rt66.com> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 17:37:17 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, epitaxy@localaccss.com Subject: Ferrite-inductor puzzle Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6AE6F961B9B" Resent-Message-ID: <"4qB1h1.0.dg6.HhH_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3992 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6AE6F961B9B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can anyone help explore this question? Rich Murray Can anyone help with this question? Rich Murray --------------6AE6F961B9B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: epitaxy localaccess.com Received: from orion.Localaccess.com ([206.64.48.2]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA02252 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:39:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from orion.Localaccess.com by orion.Localaccess.com (NTMail 3.02.11) with ESMTP id na594529 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:38:23 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970207203228.00c27670 mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 20:39:59 -0800 To: Richard Thomas Murray From: Epitaxy Subject: ATTN: R.T. Murray Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Wonderful, good critics are hard to find Please explain, WITHOUT quoting conservation of energy, why all of the electrical energy stored in an inductor before a ferrite is attracted, cannot be recovered after the ferrite is attracted (leaving the ferrite with increased mechanical momentum). For the sake of theoretical discussion assume ideal components (ie. No electrical and mechanical resistance, no eddy currents in the ferrite, no ferrite hysteresis, etc) *It has been verified experimentally that the inductor current is decreased by the approach of the ferrite *It is also common knowledge that the inductance of an inductor increases as the ferrite approaches. *The energy stored in an inductor is 0.5LI^2 according to conventional physics After the ferrite is attracted I expect the increased inductance to compensate for the decreased inductor current, maintaining the electrical energy stored in an inductor at the same level as before the ferrite is attracted. I also expect that the unalignment of ferrite domains does not decrease the ferrite's kinetic energy if the ferrite does not travel past the "magnetic attraction equilibrium point" before the domain unalignment is completed. Please do not quote conservation of energy. (ie... the energy needed to accelerate the ferrite "had to" come from the electrical energy stored in the inductor, etc.). A good theoretical reason why all of the electrical energy cannot be RECOVERED from the inductor would be most appreciated. Bruce VandeAyr At 08:03 PM 2/7/97 -0800, you wrote: >You see, we're not sure now what's plausible or not. So, I'm trying to >raise the level of discourse by writing critical appraisals of published >reports, pointing out typos, blind spots, baseless claims, poorly >composed tables and graphs, and inadequate data, as a means of >establishing the plausibility of their extraordinary claims. I'm >finding, to my regretful and resigned fascination, that this brush >readily tarnishes every study it touches. > >Rich Murray >Room For All >1943 Otowi Drive >Santa Fe, NM 87505 >rmforall rt66.com >505-986-9103 --------------6AE6F961B9B-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 17:48:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA04761; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 17:25:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 17:25:17 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: compression Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 01:25:19 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3302213e.10507572 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970207102911_1048587803 emout07.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <970207102911_1048587803 emout07.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Dqnyc.0.IA1.xTI_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3993 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:33:46 -0500 (EST), FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: [snip] >Compression and acceleration can both be expressed by the same term. > >dp/dt the change in momentum with respect to time. > >dp/dt = force > >Gravity and dp/dt exhibit a symmetry relationship. This symmetry is the one >that the equivalance principle is built upon. > >graitational field = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) > >dp/dt is also not acceleration it involves the term of mass. This point >confuses me at times also. > >p = mv > >dp/dt = m dv/dt > >dp/dt = force = ma > >It appears that a static force can produce gravity. Indeed the literature >states this is so. See the omega point by John Gribben. [snip] Sorry Frank, I haven't read the ref.,however perhaps the cause and effect have been reversed. This is very easy to do when working with equations, as no cause and effect are defined. i.e. perhaps all the equations are saying is that gravity produces a force, not that force produces gravity. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 18:49:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA12615; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:26:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:26:08 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:25:57 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending In-Reply-To: <9702071715.aa17746 wierius.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"04XS31.0.y43.-MJ_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3994 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > > Hi, Horace wrote: > > An interesting question: does light bend toward large masses because space > is warped or because photons have mass and are attracted? Photons carry > both momentum and energy (at least according to Plank: E=(h)(nu)). How can > this be if photons have no mass? It is theorized that photons have no rest > mass, but have mass at light speed. If photons have momentum and velocity, > shouldn't they exhibit mass and gravity?... > The conventional physics answer is that the direction of photons DEFINE straight lines (the minimal distance between two points). The apperance of curvature is a result of space-time itself being curved. This is general relativity. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 18:52:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA13888; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:29:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:29:56 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:29:48 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: I thought people here would be interested. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"tE4Yb1.0.wO3.ZQJ_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3995 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I subscribe to this. It's mostly pretty boring funding stuff but occasionally there's something interesting... Martin Sevior WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 7 Feb 97 Washington, DC [Lots snipped] 4. THE PODKLETNOV GRAVITY SHIELD: BUSINESS WEEK LEVITATES AGAIN. It was the light-weight story of 1996: a rotating superconducting disk that reduced the weight of an object placed above it (WN 27 Sep 96). Now Business Week is at it again in the February 17 issue. According to the story, John Schnurer at Antioch College measured a 5% drop in weight with such a shield, and scientists at NASA are eagerly trying to repeat the measurement. Ho Jung Paik, a leading gravity experimentalist at Maryland, said he was aware of the earlier claim, but dismissed it: "gravity is such a weak force that errors are difficult to avoid." When told of the Business Week story, Arthur Komar, head of Gravitational Physics at NSF, said, "I'm speechless." After he stopped laughing, he added: "This is inappropriate for Business Week to report on; Business Week has no standards or criteria by which to evaluate scientific claims. It should be left to scientific journals." THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 20:27:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA29142; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:03:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:03:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 19:05:50 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: compression Resent-Message-ID: <"paydz3.0.G77.RoK_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3996 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:33 PM 2/7/97, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: [snip] > >dp/dt is also not acceleration it involves the term of mass. This point >confuses me at times also. > >p = mv > >dp/dt = m dv/dt > >dp/dt = force = ma > >It appears that a static force can produce gravity. Indeed the literature >states this is so. See the omega point by John Gribben. There is an oversight in the above I think. In the equation f = mA the force must be *maintained while m is in motion*. This is very different from a static force, which transmits no energy. If m doesn't move there is no dx/dt = v, there is thus no dp/dt, thus no ma. The confusion is between a force maintained in motion and a static force. The force in newton's equation is the former. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 20:27:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA29183; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:03:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:03:48 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 19:05:53 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Light bending Resent-Message-ID: <"vrKCr1.0.u77.ZoK_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3997 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:25 AM 2/8/97, Barry Merriman wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> > >> I think it is nearly self evident that electromagnetic >> fields have both momentum and energy, and therefore mass, > >I haven't been following this closely, but I'm waiting for my furnace >to heat back up to 1850F, so I'll go ahead and comment: > >EM fields definitely have momentum and energy content, as >this can be directly measured (photoelectric effect, >compton scattering, radiation pressure, etc). But they >do not have mass. Specifically, photons do not have mass. >There are many basic reasons/observations suggesting this is >true...presumably you have heard of many of these, so you must >be using mass in some novel way. I do not know of any experiment that proves photons have no mass. The fact that photons are bent towards gravitational masses suggests to me they have mass and exhibit gravity. The fact that momentum is transferred from photons to struck atoms implies to me that the photons have momenum, and since they clearly have velocity they must have mass. Since the energy transferred by a photon corresponds to its mass and its momenum, since and it reacts in a gravitational field, and since the energy in EM fields correspond to their mass and momentum, I am at a loss to see what you are saying. The preponderance of evidence seems to point to mass in the photon. Can you suggest an experiment that proved that photons do not have mass? > >The fundamental point though is that mass and energy are >not identical quantities. Mass is a type of energy, as >are kinetic and potential, and conversions between these forms are >possible. But precisely because there are differnt >types of energy, that means having energy---as photons do---does >not neccesarily mean having mass. The photon energy is yet another type, >stored in the EM fields. A reasonable analogy is that >graphite and diamond are both types of carbon, and one form >can be converted to the other. But graphite need not have >any diamond in it at all. This just sounds like double talk. I'd like to see a balance sheet with numbers. > > >For a photon to have mass is not the same as it being >acted upon by gravity---gravity acts upon all forms of >energy, massive or not. That is a basic observation. Proves my point doesn't it? >For >a photon to have mass, it would (a) have to exhibit some kind >of inertia effect, and Try transfer of momentum. >(b) upon creation (e.g. from deexcitation >of atomic electrons) some of the available energy would have to go into >its mass. Neither of these effects are observed. Who weighed the atom? The momentum is transferred. Some of the energy must go into the mass created by the relativistic shift in velocity of the struck atom and electron on absorbtion, and some relativistic mass be released from the excited electron on emission and slowing. Again, I guess a before and after balance sheet is needed. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 22:48:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA20420; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 22:24:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 22:24:59 -0800 Message-ID: <32FD6DC8.4BF6 interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 01:25:12 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending- Horace References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sD5TK1.0.w-4.wsM_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3998 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > (snip) The preponderance of evidence seems to point to mass in the > photon. This is what I get from all my references, Horace. An interesting discussion in Joseph Silk's "The Big Bang" says that early in the life of the Universe, "the radiation density made a larger contribution to the total density than does the matter." Silk continues to talk about the "mass-energy" = (h x c)/wavelength of radiation "that we associate with each photon". If a photon has an energy, then it has to have an equivalent mass. (No rest-mass though - photons never rest as photons!) Frank Stenger (on the verge of being as confused as ever) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 8 23:26:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA25701; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:03:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:03:26 -0800 Message-ID: <32FD857F.514A rt66.com> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 00:08:44 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, design73@aol.com, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, dashj@sbiii.sb2.pdx.edu, rgeorge@hooked.net, wireless rmii.com, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, barry@math.ucla.edu, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@onramp.net, davidk@suba.com, 74750.1231 compuserve.com, rollo@artvark.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, 76570.2270 compuserve.com, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, mica@world.std.com, dennis wazoo.com, ine@padrak.com, little@eden.com, peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au, jchampion@transmutation.com, jlogajan skypoint.com, bockris@chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp, blue@pilot.msu.edu Subject: Fifth Miley Critique Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GnWE-.0.VH6.yQN_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3999 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 8, 1997 Room For All Rich Murray 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 rmforall rt66.com 505-986-9103 Fifth Miley Critique Primarily, I'm still mainly discussing aspects of Prof. George H. Miley's well-publicized "First" Preprint, 37 pages, mailed out to many of us on Sept. 30, 1996, "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis." [g-miley uiuc.edu, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, 214 Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, 103 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2984, 217-333-3772] On 12-16-96 Jed Rothwell posted a rejoiner to Murray from Prof. John Bockris [bockris chemvx.tamu.edu], dated 12-12-96, which made an important point, after listing many recent transmutation reports: "Your attack on Miley would imply these scientists and their teams are all wrong." As I start to review these other reports as carefully as I can, I'm reluctantly finding out that this may indeed be the case. At least it may be that to successfully investigate the tantalizing evidence, we need to give up even our radical preconceptions about low energy nuclear reactions and explore more freely and open-mindedly the various very partially revealed puzzles. What progress in 1896 could have been achieved applying existing paradigms of chemistry and physics in following up the puzzles of invisible radiation and excess energy from uranium ore? On 12-21-96, Russ George [rgeorge hooked.net] wrote me that not everyone receiving my Critiques would use them fairly, and that perhaps I should take the time to have the original researchers answer me privately first. I want reports to be self-critical, and full of enough data and detail so that most questions can be quickly and efficiently settled by studying the report. Authors and the overall flow of research will benefit from responses aroused in many readers by competent critiques. After all, we're all on the same side-- the Inside of God. In a post on 12-11-96, Martin Savior [msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au] explained clearly several points, also made in Miley's First Preprint: Neutron activation analysis (NAA) serves well to determine the absolute quantity of an element, with a rough sensitivity level of about 2 ppm, while Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) can give the relative proportions of an elements isotopes to "...within 1 %-- provided that there is no contamination from some hydride." "I have not read the pre-prints. However, you have not demonstrated that the evidence is not precise enough. Only that you don't understand how NAA and SIMS work." I agree that I have little such understanding, and I have been trying to analyze Miley's data to test these measurements. I'd like to know, for instance, whether SIMS counts of 10s or 100s mean much. I feel much safer with counts in the 1000s to millions! Apparently, each element has its own level of significance, in terms of counts, so I wish all such raw data and its significance level was explicitly given. Also, the writer should always back up graphs with full tables of the data points graphed, as I've spent endless hours deciphering crowded, small, dense murky clouds of graphed data points. In these scientifically radical circles, no reader should be expected to take anything "on faith". As much data about the "before" situation should be given as about the "after". The community of readers may discover things from complete data sets that surprise and help everyone. Don't sell this immense brain power short by supplying inadequate reports! It's taken me three months to decipher what most of Table 3 is about: Column 1: 107, is Mass No., with many isotope families interrupted, and omissions unnoted. Column 2: Ag, Element. Column 3: 0.52, Natural a/o, natural isotopic abundance, 51.839(7) % in the CRC Tables, with the (7) being the variation in the last decimal place, thus, +-.007. Column 4: 1.22E-01, Change (Reacted-Fresh) (in micro-grams), 0.122 mcg, for a set of 10 beads- that's TEN BEADS! MS = Microsphere. That gives 12.2 mcg for the whole 1000 beads, plus 9.9 mcg for the change in Ag-109, giving a total change in Ag of 20.1 mcg for 1000 beads. Fig. 9a [page 27] actually shows this data, and should be labeled Increase in element weight per 10 microspheres: Amount appearing (in micrograms/10 microspheres) versus Mass Number (A). "...total yields per microsphere approaching 0.1-0.2 mcg per high yield element..." [page 28], and, [page 29] "The yield of Fe in present work from Fig. 9a is ~0.22 mcg/microsphere, or ~0.2 mg total for the 1000 microsphere cell..." Both these quotes actually refer to data for 10 beads, so that the actual Fe yield for 1000 beads is .02 mg. However, on page 24 a different chain of claims estimates "...a run total of roughly 1 mg/element." This is 50-fold greater! Now, Table 4a [page 21] "Key element mass balances from NAA on microspheres, electrolyte and filter paper before and after a run," gives "Mass diff (g)/1000MS", for Ag as 1.51E-03 g, which equals 1.51 mg produced by 1000 beads, and, similarly: Fe 1.670 mg produced 1.800 Ag 1.500 mg 1.600 Ni 1.590 mg [Nickel ! What does that MEAN?] ----- Cu 1.110 mg 1.080 Cr .687 mg .690 Zn .289 mg .300 Al .024 mg .014 Co .012 mg .011 V .0015 mg .00105 These values are fairly close to those given in Second Preprint, and listed in the second column here, [page 6] Table 3: "Yield for NAA Elements", micro-grams/microsphere, for Run #8, which is the same run, except that table gives no values for Ni. So the upshot is, now we have three separate tables of element production for this run. Of course, NAA is claimed to only have +- 15 % accuracy. Column 5: 7.32E+15, Fresh MS Atoms, the number of atoms in a set of 1000 beads- that's ONE THOUSAND BEADS! Based on NAA measurement, +- 15 %, on a set of 10 beads. Column 6: 7.61E+16, Reacted MS Atoms, the number of atoms in a set of 1000 reacted beads, based on NAA measurement on a DIFFERENT set of 10 beads. Note: the number of Ni atoms on 1000 beads is 2.09E+19, or 2.04 mcg Ni metal per bead. Column 7: 2.47E+00, Difference % Metal (atomic), the percentage of Ag-107 atoms, Difference = Reacted - Fresh, is 2.47 % of the number of Ni atoms. But in this case, if we consider the 12.2 mcg Ag-107 change in 1000 beads as the equivalent number of Ag-107 atoms, we then have 6.88E+16 Ag-107 beads in 1000 beads, which gives an atomic fraction, 6.88E+16 over 2.09E+19 = 3.3E-03 = .33 % atomic, a factor of 7.5 less than Miley's percentage. I haven't been able to figure out why. Column 8: 5.70E-01, SIMS a/o, 57.0 %, the isotopic abundance from SIMS, with accuracy (...+- 3 % in the difference when high resolution is employed.) [page 29]. Column 9: 5.17, Difference in a/o (SIMS-Natural), 5.17 %, Column 8 minus Column 3, in this case, 57.0 % - 51.83 % (the CRC value) = +5.17 % isotopic shift claimed. Correspondingly, for Ag-109, we end up with -5.17 % isotopic shift. The three-digit accuracy is spurious, since SIMS is credited with only +- 3 % accuracy, so that the isotopic shift might range from 2 to 8 %. The ratio of reacted to fresh atoms is 10.4 for Ag-107 and 9.2 for Ag-109. The CRC isotopic abundance ratio for Ag-107 over Ag-109 is 1.070, while for Miley's Fresh beads, it is 1.10, giving a + 3 % change, and for Reacted beads, 1.24, giving a + 17 % change. But Figure "3b", Typical low resolution SIMS scan after the run (average of microspheres in 3 layers), [page 9], shows only about a 100 counts each for Ag-107 and for Ag-109. Presumably Miley selected this graph as the best evidence for his case, in which case I am hardly impressed. Similarly, the graph shows SIMS counts for the other NAA isotopes, along with the isotopic ratio relative to the most common isotope, comparing CRC values with fresh beads, and giving the percentage ratio change. V-50 ~ 100 counts V-51 ~ 10 399 407 + 2 % Cr-52 ~1200 Cr-53 ~ 130 8.82 8.98 + 2 % Cr-54 ~ 130 35.4 36.8 + 4 % Fe-54 ~ 130 15.2 15.2 0 % Fe-56 ~ 500 Fe-57 ~ 120 42.5 42.5 0 % Co-59 ~ 12 Cu-63 ~ 200 Cu-65 ~ 100 2.24 2.30 + 2.6 % Zn-64 ~ 30 Zn-66 ~ 10 1.74 1.82 + 6.2 % Zn-67 ~ 3 11.9 12.5 + 7.4 % Zn-68 ~ 11 2.64 2.80 + 5.9 % Zn-70 ~ 1 81. 86.6 + 6.9 % These isotopic shifts in fresh beads probably don't mean much, unless the special sputtering process or the SIMS process somehow separates isotopes or induces transmutations. We find more tantalizing hints in Table 4a: We can easily calculate that the 1000 beads contain Ag 76.4 mcg, Fe 131 mcg, and Cu 17 mcg. The 100 ml electrolyte contains Al 210 mcg and Cu 80 mcg. The two Ti electrodes contain V 191 mcg, Cu 107 mcg, and Al 74.6 mcg. The fresh plastic beads contain Al 75 mcg and Cu 39 mcg. How much are these elements being transferred about? But could this transference account for the milligram levels of Ag, Cu, and Fe onto the sets of ten beads taken for measurement by NAA? Are these measurements simply confusion, or are we at the outskirts of meaningful patterns of whatever unknown nature? What about some of the unexplained higher peaks in Figures 3a and 3b, "typical" low resolution SIMS scans before and after the runs, on tiny spots on a few selected different beads: Na-23, Mg-24, Mg-25, Mg-26, Al-27, Si-28, all in a count range ~500 to ~1200? The system is said to comprise LiSO4 in H2O, with Ti and Ni, and air supplies N, Ar, and CO2. There is substantial Al and Cu in the electrolyte, and V, Cu, and Al in the Ti. The H supplies some deuterium. Electrons are moving. Neutrons are available. Large current densities may occur on very tiny points, with high temperatures and, ah, subtle "synergistic" magnetic, chemical, and quantum effects. Complex plastic is present, offering Al and Cu. There may be evanescent gases, H, D, N, O, Ar, CO, CO2, NO, NO2, H2S, O3. If much D, tritium, He-3, or He-4 appeared, would we know? Do we have 2 7-N-14 => 14-Si-28, or CO creating a SIMS peak at 28 ? Could 2 e- + 2 14-Si-28 => 26-Fe-56 ? Could neutrinos be whisking off substantial energy and momentum, leaving us no wiser? A left-over point, about Fig. 3c, [page 10] "High-resolution SIMS scan for Ag(107) after the run": The peak is at 106.93, but Ag-107 has amu 106.905. Also, when we find Excess Power in Second Preprint, [page 2] in round numbers like 2 +- 0.5 or 4 +- 0.5 W, with no framework of data and explanation at all, it just isn't convincing at all. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 00:54:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA01399; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:28:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:28:50 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:30:50 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Light bending Resent-Message-ID: <"pMg_u.0.nL.1hO_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4001 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:25 PM 2/9/97, Martin Sevior wrote: > >The conventional physics answer is that the direction of photons DEFINE >straight lines (the minimal distance between two points). The apperance >of curvature is a result of space-time itself being curved. This is >general relativity. > >Martin Sevior Ah! So that's the trick. Well, if defining is all there is to understanding reality then I define both energy and mass to be conserved in any transaction not with the vacuum and the ratio inseperably in the relationship E=mc^2. This definition seems to me to obtain isomorphic results with the other definitions of standard physics, so why not? At least with that definition accepted it becomes much easier to search for methods of producing free energy, or energy from the vacuum. Any scheme to produce energy which does not result in a corresponding mass increase somewhere is bogus. Am I just being silly from lack of sleep? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 00:54:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA01356; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:28:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:28:43 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:30:53 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Light bending Resent-Message-ID: <"JpTY41.0.6L.vgO_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4000 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:21 AM 2/8/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > >I think the following are true as far as we know: > > 1. Photons have no "rest mass" because there is no such thing > as a photon "at rest". Its energy, E, may have been at rest > prior to its creation. > 2. The only mass-energy a photon has is the EM energy > associated with the "dual nature of radiation". > 3. The photons mass, M, is given by > M = E/c^2 = (h x frequency)/c^2 > 4. The radiation pressure IS an inertial effect because > the momentum, p, is M x v (where v = velocity). > Since v is ALWAYS c for a photon, > p = M x c = ((h x frequency)/c^2) x c > = (h x frequency)/c > = h/wave length > 5. Equal chunks of energy have equal chunks of mass - no > matter what form the energy is in. > A proton is pure energy - a very special configuration > of energy to be sure! When a proton meets an anti-proton, > -------> EM radiation = photons = momentum conserved = etc. > >Photons are EM force transmission particles - they only exist at light >speed! They are ALSO free EM waves - they only exist at light speed. I certainly agree with all the above. I did mindlessly and erroneously write m=(E/c^2)^-2 in the original post, and I do not have a clue what I was thinking about when I wrote that - but obviously it wasn't about what I was writing. I meant M = E/c^2 as you wrote in 3. above. I have a small confession to make. The orginal post, "A Specific Impulse", was patched together from multiple posts I made to the antigravity list in the hopes of seeing some of these issues addressed. There was zip for cogent direct responses like one tends to find here on vortex, so I posted here to see what the response would be, and I think the results are wonderful. There is so much insight and knowledge here. The material in the original post down to "There must be a problem with one of the assumptions implicit in the above thinking." was meant to be an example of unclear thinking - an example of the conceptual problems and fuzzy thinking to be fixed by the notion that mass and energy are not only equivalent, but inseperable. So, please don't get all riled up Frank, I am not advocating a non-zero rest mass photon. It still bothers me, though, that as of the 74th edition of the CRC Handbook that the rest mass was not stated as zero, unless I made a mistake looking it up. The post "A Specific Impulse" was not just an experiment, it asks and implies questions that cut right to the heart of what we are trying to do, and on practical basis, not just theoretical. What I *am* suggesting is that when a photon couples with an atom the electron jumping to an excited state gains momentum. When it gains momentum it gains energy and thus mass through the relativistic shift. In that way, mass gained through relativistic shift in mass, the atom takes on new mass equivalent to the mass of the photon. The mass transfered to the atom is exactly equal to the mass of the captured photon. A similar argument applies to photon emission and corresponding mass loss of the atom. In this manner all EM energy, including chemical, conserves both mass and energy. I don't mean to imply that the photon hangs around in some way carrying some mass. Is this a bogus idea? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 02:41:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA08880; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 02:17:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 02:17:33 -0800 Message-ID: <32FDA24A.72D mail.enternet.com.au> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 20:39:14 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson enternet.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, newman-l@emachine.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Further DNMEC generator test data Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9p_7n3.0.cA2.xGQ_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4002 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, Thanks for the interest in my continuing DNMEC generator development. I use Lviewpro to view these Gifs in a rotary slide show fashion. Lviewpro can be downloaded from shareware.com. The test results are in the file DNMEC.Zip. Just ask and I will send you a copy. The file contains 3 zip files : 1) Edge. This set of 5 Gifs shows the effect of the rotary ferrite flux gate moving into and away from the gap. Coil current has been varied to hold the flux linking the turns of the coil constant. Notice that flux in the C core drops (not a normal effect) and that flux in the rotary flux gate increases. In these examples, pull on the ferrite flux gate increases, as it approaches the gap. I have verified this effect in actual practice (Yes, I have seen motor current decrease as load on the output coil increased). I am working to widen the "sweet spot" and I plan to present a simple to build model for all to verify this DNMEC effect. View these Gifs in the following cyclic order : 0aaaaaf.gif 5aaaaff.gif 10aaafff.gif 25aaffff.gif 39afffff.gif 25aaffff.gif 10aaafff.gif 5aaaaff.gif 2) Buried These 4 Gifs show the effect of moving the coil and magnet from the edge of the gap to buried in the middle of the C core. As the ferrite flux gate approaches the gap, I varied coil current to hold the flux linking the turns constant. As I expected, flux in the C core stayed nearly constant and the opposing coil flux caused gap flux to decrease and ferrite pull to decrease as the flux gate element approached the gap. This example shows why conventional flux gate generator design can never go over unity. You can observe flux in the flux gate decreasing by observing the flux contours in the vertical "wings" of my flux gate design. View these Gifs in the following cyclic order: bur0k.gif bur1k.gif bur2k.gif bur4k.gif bur2k.gif bur1k.gif 3) Current. These 5 Gifs show why the flux gate "wings" are necessary for the DNMEC effect to work. Notice that as coil current increases, flux flow in the wingless flux gate doesn't alter very much. The addition of the wings allows more flux to flow through the flux gate "tooth" as in the "edge" examples and better utilize the increasing flux density of the opposing magnet and coil fields to increase pull as coil current increases. View these Gifs in the following cyclic order: cur00k.gif cur05k.gif cur10k.gif cur20k.gif cur40k.gif cur20k.gif cur10k.gif cur05k.gif PS. The DNMEC.Zip file is around 500k. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson enternet.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 03:32:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA13371; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:10:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:10:29 -0800 From: alansch zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FCC Internet "tax" Proposal Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:12:01 GMT Message-ID: <32fdbe6a.1799397 mail.zip.com.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/16.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"oMB7C1.0.rG3.a2R_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4003 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:49:55 -0900, hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) = wrote: [snip] _>Apologies to our non-US friends, but this may be of interest to many of= us _>using internet. Despite the fact that "FORWARDED" is misspelled above = and _>thus suspect, I wrote the following to the FCC at : [snip] It's an issue in the land down-under as well. Our local telecom monopoly (Telstra) is making the same sort of=20 noises. I wonder if the same is happening in other=20 countries - a "Global Conspiracy" ? Cheers all, Alan =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of. - Michael Sinz =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 06:45:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA25983; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:21:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:21:17 -0800 From: RMCarrell aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:20:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970209092036_-1140683635 emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Internet & Phone expense Resent-Message-ID: <"3pPwo3.0.qL6.SrT_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4004 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Look, guys, the phone companies have a point. The investment in local switches -- the ones your phone is hooked to -- is based on a statistical measure of average time on line, reported as 3 minutes. The long distance phone systems use a variety of methods of compression to minimize investment in hardware. One of these is time sharing, where pauses in a conversation are used to transmit other conversations, so your conversation might be juggled through a dozen circuits without your being aware of it. When you browse the internet for a half hour or more, you are using some fraction of the local switch's capacity and the continuous tone from your modem prevents the time sharing strategies from working. To service large numbers of Internet users and still provide instant dial tones to conversational users, the phone companies will have to make capital investment in additional resources for which they are not getting the usual rate of return. This has nothing to do with left or right policies or conspiracies. Look at what happened to AOL (and I'm a user). They are into a $350 million expansion program to support the additional on-line time precipitated by their unlimited use pricing. All those calls go through local phone switches who get no support for the added capacity needed. If as a matter of national policy, there should be a subsidy, as for the Interstate highway system, well and good. A legitimate topic. Otherwise, it is also legitimate to pay tolls for the use of a special road, like a turnpike. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 08:01:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00537; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:39:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:39:24 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:38:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970209103846_784944648 emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: light bending & induced gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"70CSJ1.0.J8.g-U_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4005 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is very easy to do when working with equations, as no cause and effect are defined. i.e. perhaps all the equations are saying is that gravity produces a force, not that force produces gravity. .............................................................................. ................................ You have missed the idea of symmetry. Yes a force does produce gravity! Take the case of light bending. Light was found to bend at an angle twice that of what would be expected if light had an effective mass of E/cc. Light appears to have twice that gravitational mass (effective gravitational mass for those sticklers in the group) than can be accounted for by its rest energy alone. Where does the additional force (effective gravitational mass) come from? It's an induced component, induced by the force of gravity itself. Yes force does produce gravity. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 08:32:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA04469; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:09:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:09:44 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:08:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970209110826_618554785 emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, 75013.613@compuserve.com, RVargo1062 aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, GeorgeHM@aol.com Subject: Yusmar tests completed 2/8/97 Resent-Message-ID: <"4xvRG3.0.l51.7RV_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4006 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In Feb 97, an additional series of tests were conducted with Yusmar system in Johnstown Pa. These tests were designed to "shock hydrogen" employing the pressure and shock of cavitation. The intent was to culminate electrons into a wave. Electrons within the wave would share the same phase and velocity. It is believed that these culminated electrons can condense into an electron cluster and that these electron clusters are the source of the cold fusion effect. Hydrogen was added to the Yusmar with a D cylinder and pressure regulator. The hydrogen did not dissolve in the water very well and tended to collect rather quickly in a high spot in the system. When the hydrogen pressure was increased above 10 psi in an attempt to force more hydrogen into the system the cavitational effect was destroyed. This was known because the Yusmar became very quiet. The testing went on for 10 hours. The tests were conducted at various operational temperature and pressures. We ran the equipment as high as 200 PSI and 180 deg F. Normally the system is run at 10 PSI reservoir pressure, 150 PSI pump discharge pressure, and (it is believed) 5 PSI absolute pressure within the venturi pinch. No anomalous energy was observed. The tests were accurate to within 8%. Future plans. I would like to introduce hydrogen at the venturi pinch within the Yusmar. Hydrogen may be piped from where it collects at the high spot in the system to the venturi pinch. I am not sure if the addition of non-condensible hydrogen directly to the cavitation bubbles will destroy the cavitational effect. These additional plans are, for the time being, on hold. The Yusmar has been drained and stored for an extended period. The very next thing that we would like to do is to visit Dr. Mallove's Griggs installation, and to visit Yury in Moldova. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 09:20:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA10684; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:58:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:58:03 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970209170157.00b3df80 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 09:01:57 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Light bending Resent-Message-ID: <"mszr32.0.sc2.P8W_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4007 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:25 PM 2/9/97 +1100, you wrote: > >> An interesting question: does light bend toward large masses because space >> is warped or because photons have mass and are attracted? Could be neither, as there would be at least one other possibility: That ether exists, and is more dense around a large mass, thus acts as a lens to light. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 09:24:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA11159; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:00:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:00:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:02:37 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, 75013.613@compuserve.com, RVargo1062 aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, GeorgeHM@aol.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Yusmar tests completed 2/8/97 Resent-Message-ID: <"VA2Es2.0.Dk2.hAW_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4008 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:08 AM 2/9/97, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: [snip] > >Hydrogen was added to the Yusmar with a D cylinder and pressure regulator. > The hydrogen did not dissolve in the water very well and tended to collect >rather quickly in a high spot in the system. When the hydrogen pressure was >increased above 10 psi in an attempt to force more hydrogen into the system >the cavitational effect was destroyed. [snip] >Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com Hey! I don't know much about pumps and such, but doesn't cavitation destroy and limit pumps and plumbing? And noise itself is a nuisance. I wonder if this is a well known effect or if you have hit upon something new Frank. I wonder if some other more benign gas, like helium, would suppress cavitation just as well at 10 psi or so? I know prop cavitation is a big problem well below a depth of 33 feet, which is about 15 psi. Also you get cavitation noise in boilers running at 20 psi, and using air hammer prevention, so these two things add up to just air pressure alone doesn't suppress cavitation like that. Is it possible a little canister of helium pressurizing a HWBB heating system will eliminate cavitation noise in it? Isn't cavitation a problem in nuclear reactors and the like? This could be worth some money if it is new. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 09:28:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA11966; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:04:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:04:35 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970209170822.00b27eb0 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 09:08:22 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Light bending Resent-Message-ID: <"fvOde2.0.tw2.WEW_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4009 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I certainly agree with all the above. I did mindlessly and erroneously >write m=(E/c^2)^-2 in the original post, and I do not have a clue what I >was thinking about when I wrote that - but obviously it wasn't about what I >was writing. I meant M = E/c^2 as you wrote in 3. above. My understanding is that E = Mc^2 is an abbreviation of what the man really wrote, that there is more to it [ + something]. Anyone know? Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 11:05:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA28965; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:36:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:36:18 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:34:12 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, hermnan@college.antioch.edu Subject: Re: I thought people here would be interested. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VIf6J.0.S47.XaX_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4010 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., A photo session came. I had though Murphy Law would take over, because a] I was no where near ready b] I had just moved my lab .... AND: would you believe it? Bus. Wk photo folks came out, real nice folks too. Well, it worked and I had the photogs 'call out the numbers' ... I was figuring a 4% with a glass target of 63 grams. It is ready for 'prime time'? By no means, I am still humbling along with crude equipment, no funding and can only work bits of weekends and some bits of evenings ... BUT: It does do some very hard to ignore stuff. I have been meaning to put out a nice full write up. But time gets in the way, so, breifly, the main points; 1] My only connections, officially, with Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, is that I sometimes volunteer my time, I love the Antioch ethic, and my father, the late Herman Schnurer, is Professor Emeritus, languages, primarily French. It is this community which gave my my head start and a flying leap into the sciences. I have printed a retraction saying I am 'head of physics engineering'. I have a company by that name, but no official title, of any kind at Antioch. I will continure the rest of this in the body of Martin's letter, below, On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Martin Sevior wrote: > > I subscribe to this. It's mostly pretty boring funding stuff but occasionally > there's something interesting... > > Martin Sevior > > 2] I have only read the Business Week electronic article ... but, for about 13 hours, I was a tenured Professor!!! > WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 7 Feb 97 Washington, DC > > [Lots snipped] > 3] I would like to know who R. L. Park is .... who he publishes for and where the article appeared. 4] Some note in body of Martin's Article > > 4. THE PODKLETNOV GRAVITY SHIELD: BUSINESS WEEK LEVITATES AGAIN. > It was the light-weight story of 1996: a rotating superconducting > disk that reduced the weight of an object placed above it (WN 27 > Sep 96). Now Business Week is at it again in the February 17 > issue. According to the story, John Schnurer at Antioch College > measured a 5% drop in weight with such a shield, NOTE: about 4% for this run ..... Friday last. Experimental set up to be described below. and scientists > at NASA are eagerly trying to repeat the measurement. Ho Jung > Paik, a leading gravity experimentalist at Maryland, said he was > aware of the earlier claim, but dismissed it: "gravity is such a > weak force that errors are difficult to avoid." NOTE: Never have spoken to Paik, no idea who he is. When told of the > Business Week story, Arthur Komar, head of Gravitational Physics > at NSF, said, "I'm speechless." After he stopped laughing, he > added: "This is inappropriate for Business Week to report on; > Business Week has no standards or criteria by which to evaluate > scientific claims. It should be left to scientific journals." > Note: We are publishing .... in peer review. > THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's > and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) > > JHS Set up: Now, it is just past noon on Sunday, I do NOT have my real nice electronic calipers, but, approximately,: a] oak balance beam, hole of 1/8" drilled in center. Beam a bout 6 foot plus, and 1 cm by 8 mm. Thin stainless steel pin about 0.85 mm goes through pivot hole and is nothing is on beam, it balances. b] the object of thid part of the exercise is in true Cavendish lab ethic. Wood. And this places scale, which is an old but worthy Mettler model 300, or. 300 gram full scale, 0.01 resolution electronic lab scale, like the type used in science classes at LEAST 6 feet horizontallly from the HTc [high critical temperature superconductor, YBCO 0.80 " little hexagonal pellet supplied by J. R. Gaines a VP of Superconductive Components, Columbus, OH. ..... these pellets ALWAYS work] c] one ned of the beam was a bundle of 7 1/4 inch by roughly 4 inch regular soft glass rods, weiging in at a little over 63 grams, fastented to one another with tape and tied to beam with good old cotton string. They are positioned DIRECTLY over the YBCO pellet, which is in a little dewer. d] between the dewer and the ' proof mass ' is a 'single strength' or about 1/8" sheet of glass 33 cm by 46 cm.... and taped to this by 1" masking tape are both aluminum AND brass window screen sections, about 1 inch less in area. A nice piece of 22 AWG wire is provided to ground the screens. e] now 'way the heck and gone away' ... about 6 foot .... is the other end of the beam and to it, tied with the obligatory cotton string are a couple of blocks of aluminum which rest on the Mettler scale. The idea is if the proff mass gets 'lighter' then the Mettler shows a heavier weight. Which is what happened at a percentage of not less than 4% and not more than 7%. f] The YBCO pellet [thank you gratefully J R Gains] is in a tiny dewar about 6 inches deep, and 1 1/8 inch [inside diameter] and liquid nitrogen is used to cool the whole and the YBCO pellets are handled by the pieces of cotton string tied to them. We used only one pellet for this particular experiment. g] This is crude but is my may of trying to cast out variables. No apology is made. JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 11:58:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA31496; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:49:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:49:59 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:47:56 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Better Description Delete last Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DlbQ41.0.2i7.MnX_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4011 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A photo session came from Business Week. I had though Murphy Law would take over, because a] I was no where near ready b] I had just moved my lab .... AND: would you believe it? SO: Bus. Wk photo folks came out, real nice folks too. Well, it worked and I had the photogs 'call out the numbers' ... I was figuring a 4% with a glass target of 63 grams. It is ready for 'prime time'? By no means, I am still humbling along with crude equipment, no funding and can only work bits of weekends and some bits of evenings ... BUT: It does do some very hard to ignore stuff. I have been meaning to put out a nice full write up. But time gets in the way, so, briefly, the main points; 1] My only connections, officially, with Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, is that I sometimes volunteer my time, I love the Antioch ethic, and my father, the late Herman Schnurer, is Professor Emeritus, languages, primarily French. It is this community which gave me my head start and a flying leap into the sciences. I have printed a retraction saying I am 'head of Applied Sciences at Physics Engineering'. I have a company by that name, but no official title, of any kind at Antioch. I will continue the rest of this in the body of Martin's letter, below, On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Martin Sevior wrote: > > I subscribe to this. It's mostly pretty boring funding stuff but occasionally > there's something interesting... > > Martin Sevior > 2] I have only read the Business Week electronic article ... but, for about 13 hours, I was a tenured Professor!!! > WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 7 Feb 97 Washington, DC > > [Lots snipped] > 3] I would like to know who R. L. Park is .... who he publishes for and where the article appeared. 4] Some note in body of Martin's Article > > 4. THE PODKLETNOV GRAVITY SHIELD: BUSINESS WEEK LEVITATES AGAIN. > It was the light-weight story of 1996: a rotating superconducting > disk that reduced the weight of an object placed above it (WN 27 > Sep 96). Now Business Week is at it again in the February 17 > issue. According to the story, John Schnurer at Antioch College > measured a 5% drop in weight with such a shield,..... NOTE: about 4% for this run ..... Friday last. Experimental set up to be described below. ...... and scientists > at NASA are eagerly trying to repeat the measurement. Ho Jung > Paik, a leading gravity experimentalist at Maryland, said he was > aware of the earlier claim, but dismissed it: "gravity is such a > weak force that errors are difficult to avoid." NOTE: Never have spoken to Paik, no idea who he is. When told of the > Business Week story, Arthur Komar, head of Gravitational Physics > at NSF, said, "I'm speechless." After he stopped laughing, he > added: "This is inappropriate for Business Week to report on; > Business Week has no standards or criteria by which to evaluate > scientific claims. It should be left to scientific journals." > Note: We are publishing .... in peer review. > THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's > and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) > > JHS Set up: Now, it is just past noon on Sunday, I do NOT have my real nice electronic calipers, but, approximately,: a] oak balance beam, hole of 1/8" drilled in center. Beam a bout 6 foot plus, and 1 cm by 8 mm. Thin stainless steel pin about 0.85 mm goes through pivot hole and is nothing is on beam, it balances. b] the object of thid part of the exercise is in true Cavendish lab ethic. Wood. And this places scale, which is an old but worthy Mettler model 300, or. 300 gram full scale, 0.01 resolution electronic lab scale, like the type used in science classes at LEAST 6 feet horizontallly from the HTc [high critical temperature superconductor, YBCO 0.80 " little hexagonal pellet supplied by J. R. Gaines a VP of Superconductive Components, Columbus, OH. ..... these pellets ALWAYS work] c] one ned of the beam was a bundle of 7 1/4 inch by roughly 4 inch regular soft glass rods, weiging in at a little over 63 grams, fastented to one another with tape and tied to beam with good old cotton string. They are positioned DIRECTLY over the YBCO pellet, which is in a little dewer. d] between the dewer and the ' proof mass ' is a 'single strength' or about 1/8" sheet of glass 33 cm by 46 cm.... and taped to this by 1" masking tape are both aluminum AND brass window screen sections, about 1 inch less in area. A nice piece of 22 AWG wire is provided to ground the screens. e] now 'way the heck and gone away' ... about 6 foot .... is the other end of the beam and to it, tied with the obligatory cotton string are a couple of blocks of aluminum which rest on the Mettler scale. The idea is if the proff mass gets 'lighter' then the Mettler shows a heavier weight. Which is what happened at a percentage of not less than 4% and not more than 7%. f] The YBCO pellet [thank you gratefully J R Gains] is in a tiny dewar about 6 inches deep, and 1 1/8 inch [inside diameter] and liquid nitrogen is used to cool the whole and the YBCO pellets are handled by the pieces of cotton string tied to them. We used only one pellet for this particular experiment. g] This is crude but is my may of trying to cast out variables. No apology is made. JHS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 13:10:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA16477; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:36:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:36:49 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:36:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970209153202_2059909760 emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: yusmar test Resent-Message-ID: <"SjCzn1.0.G14.VLZ_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4012 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horrace the cavitation was not killed by hydrogen but rather by pressure. I've updated my web site graph to show the results of the hydrogen tests. The curves all tend toward unity but are not exactly the same. This difference results from the different cooling water flows and different temperature operational points that the various tests were conducted at. The lower curves tend to depict operational runs that reached equilibrium at a higher temperature. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 13:39:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA20287; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:01:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:01:07 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:03:05 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Better Description Delete last Resent-Message-ID: <"lLesn.0.ty4.HiZ_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4013 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, Thanks for the report on your experiment. You left out the most important part - the EM stimulation. Are you keeping this confidential until your are done with patent app.? Looking forward to seeing pictures published. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 14:50:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA01986; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:23:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:23:36 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Piezoelectricity and gravitational polarisation Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 22:23:34 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <33001bd9.9126439 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199702072012.MAA02151 shell.skylink.net> In-Reply-To: <199702072012.MAA02151 shell.skylink.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"g8YAd3.0.sU.bva_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4014 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:12:35 -0800 (PST), Robert Stirniman wrote: [snip] >Piezoelectric materials, such as quartz crystals, produce >voltage when compressed. The same crystals are also used in >accelerometer sensors and/or gravity sensors -- because they >exhibit a voltage when accelerating. [snip] Would it not be more accurate to simply say that acceleration results in compression, as long as the accelerating force is asymmetrically applied? E.g. a quartz crystal in free-fall will not generate a voltage, where one being accelerated by pressure applied to one side will. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From owner-antigravity ftp1.primenet.com Sun Feb 9 15:39:29 1997 Received: from usr02.primenet.com (root usr02.primenet.com [206.165.5.102]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA14934; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:39:24 -0800 Received: from ftp1.primenet.com (root ftp1.primenet.com [206.165.5.50]) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA16890; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:39:20 -0700 (MST) Received: (from root localhost) by ftp1.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id QAA29294 for antigravity-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:39:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr10.primenet.com (root usr10.primenet.com [206.165.5.110]) by ftp1.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA29289 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:39:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from primenet.com (root mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52]) by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA25258 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:39:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from college.antioch.edu (college.antioch.edu [192.131.123.11]) by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09720 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:38:50 -0700 (MST) Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63) id XAA19940; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:36:58 GMT Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:36:51 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , antigravity cc: Don Evans , John Schnurer Subject: [Antigravity] See flagged area ...... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-antigravity ftp1.primenet.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: We are "In Search Of . . ." answers together. Each posting must reflect personal respect, integrity, honesty, and full disclosure of information. ---------- Don, Do not be frustrated, you are maybe 'mapping' a part whih we all wish to see ..... Look for 'FLAG **** Modanese paper ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:01:56 +0200 Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment.} ......The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding produced recently through a levitating and rotating HTC superconducting disk show a very weak dependence of the shielding value ($\sim 1 \%$) on the height above the disk. We show that whilst this behaviour is incompatible with an intuitive vectorial picture of the shielding, it is consistently explained by our theoretical model. FLAG ******* The small expulsive force observed at the border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. END FLAG ***** Note from Schnurer: Use less weight. .......shielding effect \cite{p1,p2} have been repeated several times and under different conditions by that group, with good reproducibility, including results in the vacuum. In the forthcoming months other groups will hopefully be able to confirm the effect independently. While the Tampere group was mainly concerned with obtaining larger values for the shielding, studying its dependence on numerous experimental parameters and testing new materials for the disk, in the future measurements it will be important to obtain more exact data, including detailed spatial field maps. The theoretical model suggested by us \cite{m1} is still evolving, although at a fundamental level; a more detailed account appears elsewhere \cite{m2}. Let us recall in short the main features of the experiment. A HTC superconducting disk or toroid with diameter between 15 and 30 $cm$, made of $YBa_2 Cu_3 O_{7-x}$, is refrigerated by liquid helium in a stainless steel cryostat at a temperature below $70 \ K$. The microscopic structure of the material, which plays an important role in determining the levitation properties and the amount of the effect, is described in details in the cited works. The disk levitates above an electromagnet operated by high-frequency AC currents and rotates by the action of lateral alternating e.m. fields. Samples of different weight and composition are placed over the disk, at a distance which can vary from a few $cm$ to 1 $m$ or more (see below). A weight reduction of about 0.05\% is observed when the disk is levitating but not rotating; the weight loss reaches values about 0.5\% when the disk rotates at a frequency of ca.\ 5000 $rpm$. If at this point the rotating fields are switched off, the sample weight remains decreased till the rotation frequency of the disk decreases. On the other hand, if the rotation frequency is decreased from 5000 to 3500 $rpm$ using the solenoids as braking tools, the shielding effect reaches maximum values from 1.9 to 2.1\%, depending on the position of the sample with respect to the outer edge of the disk. This effect, if confirmed, would represent a very new and spectacular phenomenon in gravity; namely, as well known, there has never been observed any conventional gravitational shielding up till now, up to an accuracy of one part in $10^{10}$, and General Relativity and perturbative Quantum Gravity exclude any measurable shielding \cite{m1,unni}. Our tentative theoretical explanation is based on some properties of non-perturbative quantum gravity. We have shown that the density field $|\phi_0|^2$ of the Cooper pairs inside the superconductor may act as localized positive contribution to the small negative effective gravitational cosmological constant $\Lambda$; if the sum turns out to be positive in a certain four-dimensional region, a local gravitational singularity arises there, affecting the gravitational propagators and thus the interaction potential (between the Earth and the samples, in this case). To sketch our model -- although not rigorously -- we could say that there is an "anomalous coupling" between the mentioned density $|\phi_0|^2$ and the gravitational field, and that the net result is to partly "absorb" the field. We expect that only in some regions of the superconductor the density $|\phi_0|^2$ will be strong enough and that the inhomogeneities of the material and the pinning centers will be crucial in determining such regions. (It is known that the rapid motion of a type II superconductor in a magnetic field causes resistive effects in the superconductor.) Since the gravitational field is attractive, its "absorption" requires energy from the outside. This is provided in the experiment by the action of the levitating rf field. The dependence of the shielding effect on the height, at which the samples are placed above the superconducting disk, has been recently measured up to a height of ca.\ 3 $m$ \cite{p3}. No difference in the shielding value has been noted, with a precision of one part in $10^3$. It is also remarkable that during the measurement at 3 $m$ height the sample was placed in the room which lies above the main laboratory, on the next floor; in this way the effect of air flows on the measurements was greatly reduced. For the used 500 $g$ sample the weight loss was ca. 2.5 $g$. Such an extremely weak height dependence of the shielding is in sharp contrast with the intuitive picture, according to which the gravitational field of the Earth is the vectorial sum of the fields produced by each single "portion" of Earth. In the absence of any shielding, the sum results in a field which is equivalent to the field of a pointlike mass placed in the center of the Earth; this can be checked elementarily by direct integration or invoking Gauss' theorem and the spherical symmetry. But if we admit that the superconducting disk produces a weak shielding, the part of the Earth which is shielded lies behind the projection of the disk as seen from the sample, i.e., within an angle $\theta$ about the vertical direction, such that $\ \tan \theta = h$, where $h$ is the sample height over the disk measured in units of the disk radius. (For simplicity we suppose now the sample to be centered above the disk.) In order to obtain the shielding effect as a function of $h$, taking into account this geometrical factor, one must integrate the Newtonian contribution $\cos \phi /R^2$ over the intersection between the Earth and the cone defined by $\phi<\theta$. We have done this for the values $h=1,2,3,4,6,8,10$, through a Montecarlo algorithm. We took into account the higher density of the Earth's core ($\rho_{core} \sim 2 \rho_{mantle}$; $r_{core} \sim (1/2) r_{Earth}$; it is straightforward to insert more accurate values, but the final results change very little); we also computed analytically the contribution of the tip of the cone, from the Earth's surface to the Earth's core, in order to reduce the fluctuations in the Montecarlo samplings for small $R$. \footnote{For the detailed algorithm and figures please ask the author at the e-mail address above.} The resulting values were the following: \begin{verbatim} h shielding/maximum-shielding ================================= 1 0.62 +/- 0.02 2 0.34 +/- 0.01 3 0.18 +/- 0.01 4 0.102 +/- 0.003 6 0.050 +/- 0.002 8 0.029 +/- 0.001 10 0.018 +/- 0.001 \end{verbatim} This strong height dependence is clearly incompatible with the mentioned experimental data, which instead seem to indicate that in the shielding process all the mass of the Earth behaves effectively as if it would be concentrated in one point. On the basis of an analysis similar to ours, it was argued in \cite{unni} that Podkletnov's data are inconsistent with the hyotesis of a real gravitational shielding. In our theoretical model, however, the weak height dependence arises in a natural way. We employ a quantum formula which expresses the static gravitational interaction energy of two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ in terms of an invariant vacuum expectation value, namely \cite{m3} \begin{eqnarray} E & = & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log \frac{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \left[ S[g] + \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} dt \, \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu}[x_i(t)] \dot{x}_i^\mu(t) \dot{x}_i^\nu(t)} \right] \right\}}{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} S[g] \right\} } \label{ciao} \\ & \equiv & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log \left< \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} ds_i \right\} \right>_S \label{bella} \end{eqnarray} where $g$ has Euclidean signature and $S$ is the gravitational action of general form \begin{equation} S[g] = \int d^4x \, \sqrt{g} \left( \lambda - kR + \frac{1}{4} a R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \right) . \label{azione} \end{equation} The constants $k$ and $\lambda$ are related -- in general as ``bare quantities'' -- to the Newton constant $G$ and to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$: $k$ corresponds to $1/8\pi G$ and $\lambda$ to $\Lambda/8\pi G$. The trajectories $x_i(t)$ of $m_1$ and $m_2$ are parallel with respect to the metric $g$; let $R$ be their distance. In the weak-field approximation, eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) reproduces to lowest order the Newton potential and can be used to find its higher order quantum corrections \cite{muz}, or implemented on a Regge lattice to investigate the non-perturbative behaviour of the potential at small distances \cite{h}. The addition to the gravitational action (\ref{azione}) of a term which represents a localized {\it external} Bose condensate \footnote{This means that the density of the condensate is not included into the functional integration variables.} mimics a shielding effect which is absent from the classical theory and which we take as our candidate model for the observed shielding. The feature of eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) which is of interest here is that if the two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are not pointlike, the trajectories $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ must be those of their centers of mass. (This also makes irrelevant the question -- actually ill-defined in general relativity -- whether they are pointlike or not.) Thus, when applying eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) to the Earth and the sample, we only need to consider the centers of mass of those bodies. In this way we reproduce the observed behaviour for the shielding as well as for the regular interaction. The ensuing apparent failure in the "local transmission" of the gravitational interaction does not contrast with any known property of gravity (compare \cite{m3,j}, and references about the problem of the local energy density in General Relativity and \cite{m3} about the non-localization of virtual gravitons. One should also keep in mind that (\ref{ciao}) holds only in the static case.) Finally, if we describe the shielding effect as a slight diminution of the effective value of the gravitational acceleration $g$, and remember that the gravitational potential energy $U=-\frac{G m_{Earth} }{r_{Earth} }=-g r_{Earth}$ is negative, it follows that the energy of a sample inside the shielded zone is larger than its energy outside. This means in turn that the sample must feel an expulsive force at the border of the shielded region. Such a force has been indeed observed \cite{p3}, although precise data are not available yet. From the theoretical point of view it is however not trivial to do any prevision about the intensity of the force. In fact, the shielding process absorbs energy from the experimental apparatus and thus any transient stage is expected to be highly non-linear, especially for heavy samples. I would like to thank C.S.\ Unnikrishnan for useful discussions. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{p1} E.\ Podkletnov and R.\ Nieminen, Physica {\bf C 203} (1992) 441. \bibitem{p2} E.\ Podkletnov and A.D.\ Levit, {\it Gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk $YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-x}$ superconductor below 70 K under electro-magnetic field}, Tampere University of Technology report MSU-95 chem, January 1995. \bibitem{m1} G.\ Modanese, {\it Theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect}, report MPI-PhT/95-44, hep-th/9505094, May 1995; to appear in Europhys.\ Lett. \bibitem{m2} G.\ Modanese, {\it Role of a "local" cosmological constant in Euclidean quantum gravity}, report UTF-368/96, hep-th xxx.lanl.gov/9601160; to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D}. \bibitem{p3} E.\ Podkletnov, private communication, October 1995. \bibitem{m3} G.\ Modanese, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 325} (1994) 354; Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 434} (1995) 697; Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 17}, n.\ 8 (1994). \bibitem{unni} C.S.\ Unnikrishnan, {\it Does a superconductor shield gravity?}, to appear in Physica {\bf C}. \bibitem{muz} I.J.\ Muzinich and S.\ Vokos, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 52} (1995) 3472. \bibitem{j} D.\ Bak, D.\ Cangemi, R.\ Jackiw, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 49} (1994) 5173. \bibitem{h} H.W.\ Hamber and R.M. Williams, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 435} (1995) 361. \end{thebibliography} \end{document} ---------- TO LEAVE THE LIST, send a message to: majordomo primenet.com with the one line message of: unsubscribe antigravity From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 15:47:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA09868; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:18:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:18:11 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:02:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199702100002.QAA23224 netserve.kfalls.net> X-Sender: me2 kfalls.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: ME2 KFALLS.NET (Don Evans) Subject: gravity shield Resent-Message-ID: <"FsO-g.0._O2.fib_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4015 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: hello vortexians i just spent about eight hours of running test today and am frustrated with the results. i only achieved a slight movement up and down on these runs. i am using about a 12" x 3/4 " wooden dowel suspended over the superconductor vertically by a cotton thread to the balance beam these are quite heavy and make a 1/4 " dowel bend a little. the effect that i kept getting is that the dowel started moving in a circular motion and seemed to circle the edge of the htsc. >any ideas to explain this motion. the top of the dowel seemed to stay centered but the bottom seemed to circle the edge of the htsc. i stacked as many as 4 htsc disks and this seemed to intensify the motion with the addition of each disk. any thoughts on this would be appreciated. > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 15:53:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA12267; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:29:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:29:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:27:02 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Re: gravity shield In-Reply-To: <199702100002.QAA23224 netserve.kfalls.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"PwLfl3.0.b_2.6tb_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4016 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: see note in body of text On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Don Evans wrote: > hello vortexians > > i just spent about eight hours of running test today and am frustrated with > the results. i only achieved a slight movement up and down on these runs. > i am using about a 12" x 3/4 " wooden dowel suspended over the > superconductor vertically by a cotton thread to the balance beam these are > quite heavy and make a 1/4 " dowel bend a little. the effect that i kept > getting is that the dowel started moving in a circular motion and seemed to > circle the edge of the htsc. > >any ideas to explain this motion. Giovanni said yora diong good work. Read his papers.... my be the 'zone of exclusion' he describes.... he is also thinking yu ae using to great a weight. We all need a MUCH more accurate description of set up. the top of the dowel seemed to stay > centered but the bottom seemed to circle the edge of the htsc. i stacked as > many as 4 htsc disks and this seemed to intensify the motion with the > addition of each disk. any thoughts on this would be appreciated. > > > Do you have eaarly Modanes papers? They are on vortex. will re send if you do not.... read carefully..... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 16:04:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14920; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:39:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:39:19 -0800 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:36:51 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , antigravity cc: Don Evans , John Schnurer Subject: See flagged area ...... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xPTsF1.0.2f3.b0c_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4017 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Don, Do not be frustrated, you are maybe 'mapping' a part whih we all wish to see ..... Look for 'FLAG **** Modanese paper ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:01:56 +0200 Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment.} ......The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding produced recently through a levitating and rotating HTC superconducting disk show a very weak dependence of the shielding value ($\sim 1 \%$) on the height above the disk. We show that whilst this behaviour is incompatible with an intuitive vectorial picture of the shielding, it is consistently explained by our theoretical model. FLAG ******* The small expulsive force observed at the border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. END FLAG ***** Note from Schnurer: Use less weight. .......shielding effect \cite{p1,p2} have been repeated several times and under different conditions by that group, with good reproducibility, including results in the vacuum. In the forthcoming months other groups will hopefully be able to confirm the effect independently. While the Tampere group was mainly concerned with obtaining larger values for the shielding, studying its dependence on numerous experimental parameters and testing new materials for the disk, in the future measurements it will be important to obtain more exact data, including detailed spatial field maps. The theoretical model suggested by us \cite{m1} is still evolving, although at a fundamental level; a more detailed account appears elsewhere \cite{m2}. Let us recall in short the main features of the experiment. A HTC superconducting disk or toroid with diameter between 15 and 30 $cm$, made of $YBa_2 Cu_3 O_{7-x}$, is refrigerated by liquid helium in a stainless steel cryostat at a temperature below $70 \ K$. The microscopic structure of the material, which plays an important role in determining the levitation properties and the amount of the effect, is described in details in the cited works. The disk levitates above an electromagnet operated by high-frequency AC currents and rotates by the action of lateral alternating e.m. fields. Samples of different weight and composition are placed over the disk, at a distance which can vary from a few $cm$ to 1 $m$ or more (see below). A weight reduction of about 0.05\% is observed when the disk is levitating but not rotating; the weight loss reaches values about 0.5\% when the disk rotates at a frequency of ca.\ 5000 $rpm$. If at this point the rotating fields are switched off, the sample weight remains decreased till the rotation frequency of the disk decreases. On the other hand, if the rotation frequency is decreased from 5000 to 3500 $rpm$ using the solenoids as braking tools, the shielding effect reaches maximum values from 1.9 to 2.1\%, depending on the position of the sample with respect to the outer edge of the disk. This effect, if confirmed, would represent a very new and spectacular phenomenon in gravity; namely, as well known, there has never been observed any conventional gravitational shielding up till now, up to an accuracy of one part in $10^{10}$, and General Relativity and perturbative Quantum Gravity exclude any measurable shielding \cite{m1,unni}. Our tentative theoretical explanation is based on some properties of non-perturbative quantum gravity. We have shown that the density field $|\phi_0|^2$ of the Cooper pairs inside the superconductor may act as localized positive contribution to the small negative effective gravitational cosmological constant $\Lambda$; if the sum turns out to be positive in a certain four-dimensional region, a local gravitational singularity arises there, affecting the gravitational propagators and thus the interaction potential (between the Earth and the samples, in this case). To sketch our model -- although not rigorously -- we could say that there is an "anomalous coupling" between the mentioned density $|\phi_0|^2$ and the gravitational field, and that the net result is to partly "absorb" the field. We expect that only in some regions of the superconductor the density $|\phi_0|^2$ will be strong enough and that the inhomogeneities of the material and the pinning centers will be crucial in determining such regions. (It is known that the rapid motion of a type II superconductor in a magnetic field causes resistive effects in the superconductor.) Since the gravitational field is attractive, its "absorption" requires energy from the outside. This is provided in the experiment by the action of the levitating rf field. The dependence of the shielding effect on the height, at which the samples are placed above the superconducting disk, has been recently measured up to a height of ca.\ 3 $m$ \cite{p3}. No difference in the shielding value has been noted, with a precision of one part in $10^3$. It is also remarkable that during the measurement at 3 $m$ height the sample was placed in the room which lies above the main laboratory, on the next floor; in this way the effect of air flows on the measurements was greatly reduced. For the used 500 $g$ sample the weight loss was ca. 2.5 $g$. Such an extremely weak height dependence of the shielding is in sharp contrast with the intuitive picture, according to which the gravitational field of the Earth is the vectorial sum of the fields produced by each single "portion" of Earth. In the absence of any shielding, the sum results in a field which is equivalent to the field of a pointlike mass placed in the center of the Earth; this can be checked elementarily by direct integration or invoking Gauss' theorem and the spherical symmetry. But if we admit that the superconducting disk produces a weak shielding, the part of the Earth which is shielded lies behind the projection of the disk as seen from the sample, i.e., within an angle $\theta$ about the vertical direction, such that $\ \tan \theta = h$, where $h$ is the sample height over the disk measured in units of the disk radius. (For simplicity we suppose now the sample to be centered above the disk.) In order to obtain the shielding effect as a function of $h$, taking into account this geometrical factor, one must integrate the Newtonian contribution $\cos \phi /R^2$ over the intersection between the Earth and the cone defined by $\phi<\theta$. We have done this for the values $h=1,2,3,4,6,8,10$, through a Montecarlo algorithm. We took into account the higher density of the Earth's core ($\rho_{core} \sim 2 \rho_{mantle}$; $r_{core} \sim (1/2) r_{Earth}$; it is straightforward to insert more accurate values, but the final results change very little); we also computed analytically the contribution of the tip of the cone, from the Earth's surface to the Earth's core, in order to reduce the fluctuations in the Montecarlo samplings for small $R$. \footnote{For the detailed algorithm and figures please ask the author at the e-mail address above.} The resulting values were the following: \begin{verbatim} h shielding/maximum-shielding ================================= 1 0.62 +/- 0.02 2 0.34 +/- 0.01 3 0.18 +/- 0.01 4 0.102 +/- 0.003 6 0.050 +/- 0.002 8 0.029 +/- 0.001 10 0.018 +/- 0.001 \end{verbatim} This strong height dependence is clearly incompatible with the mentioned experimental data, which instead seem to indicate that in the shielding process all the mass of the Earth behaves effectively as if it would be concentrated in one point. On the basis of an analysis similar to ours, it was argued in \cite{unni} that Podkletnov's data are inconsistent with the hyotesis of a real gravitational shielding. In our theoretical model, however, the weak height dependence arises in a natural way. We employ a quantum formula which expresses the static gravitational interaction energy of two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ in terms of an invariant vacuum expectation value, namely \cite{m3} \begin{eqnarray} E & = & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log \frac{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \left[ S[g] + \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} dt \, \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu}[x_i(t)] \dot{x}_i^\mu(t) \dot{x}_i^\nu(t)} \right] \right\}}{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} S[g] \right\} } \label{ciao} \\ & \equiv & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log \left< \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} ds_i \right\} \right>_S \label{bella} \end{eqnarray} where $g$ has Euclidean signature and $S$ is the gravitational action of general form \begin{equation} S[g] = \int d^4x \, \sqrt{g} \left( \lambda - kR + \frac{1}{4} a R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \right) . \label{azione} \end{equation} The constants $k$ and $\lambda$ are related -- in general as ``bare quantities'' -- to the Newton constant $G$ and to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$: $k$ corresponds to $1/8\pi G$ and $\lambda$ to $\Lambda/8\pi G$. The trajectories $x_i(t)$ of $m_1$ and $m_2$ are parallel with respect to the metric $g$; let $R$ be their distance. In the weak-field approximation, eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) reproduces to lowest order the Newton potential and can be used to find its higher order quantum corrections \cite{muz}, or implemented on a Regge lattice to investigate the non-perturbative behaviour of the potential at small distances \cite{h}. The addition to the gravitational action (\ref{azione}) of a term which represents a localized {\it external} Bose condensate \footnote{This means that the density of the condensate is not included into the functional integration variables.} mimics a shielding effect which is absent from the classical theory and which we take as our candidate model for the observed shielding. The feature of eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) which is of interest here is that if the two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are not pointlike, the trajectories $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ must be those of their centers of mass. (This also makes irrelevant the question -- actually ill-defined in general relativity -- whether they are pointlike or not.) Thus, when applying eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) to the Earth and the sample, we only need to consider the centers of mass of those bodies. In this way we reproduce the observed behaviour for the shielding as well as for the regular interaction. The ensuing apparent failure in the "local transmission" of the gravitational interaction does not contrast with any known property of gravity (compare \cite{m3,j}, and references about the problem of the local energy density in General Relativity and \cite{m3} about the non-localization of virtual gravitons. One should also keep in mind that (\ref{ciao}) holds only in the static case.) Finally, if we describe the shielding effect as a slight diminution of the effective value of the gravitational acceleration $g$, and remember that the gravitational potential energy $U=-\frac{G m_{Earth} }{r_{Earth} }=-g r_{Earth}$ is negative, it follows that the energy of a sample inside the shielded zone is larger than its energy outside. This means in turn that the sample must feel an expulsive force at the border of the shielded region. Such a force has been indeed observed \cite{p3}, although precise data are not available yet. From the theoretical point of view it is however not trivial to do any prevision about the intensity of the force. In fact, the shielding process absorbs energy from the experimental apparatus and thus any transient stage is expected to be highly non-linear, especially for heavy samples. I would like to thank C.S.\ Unnikrishnan for useful discussions. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{p1} E.\ Podkletnov and R.\ Nieminen, Physica {\bf C 203} (1992) 441. \bibitem{p2} E.\ Podkletnov and A.D.\ Levit, {\it Gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk $YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-x}$ superconductor below 70 K under electro-magnetic field}, Tampere University of Technology report MSU-95 chem, January 1995. \bibitem{m1} G.\ Modanese, {\it Theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect}, report MPI-PhT/95-44, hep-th/9505094, May 1995; to appear in Europhys.\ Lett. \bibitem{m2} G.\ Modanese, {\it Role of a "local" cosmological constant in Euclidean quantum gravity}, report UTF-368/96, hep-th xxx.lanl.gov/9601160; to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D}. \bibitem{p3} E.\ Podkletnov, private communication, October 1995. \bibitem{m3} G.\ Modanese, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 325} (1994) 354; Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 434} (1995) 697; Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 17}, n.\ 8 (1994). \bibitem{unni} C.S.\ Unnikrishnan, {\it Does a superconductor shield gravity?}, to appear in Physica {\bf C}. \bibitem{muz} I.J.\ Muzinich and S.\ Vokos, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 52} (1995) 3472. \bibitem{j} D.\ Bak, D.\ Cangemi, R.\ Jackiw, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 49} (1994) 5173. \bibitem{h} H.W.\ Hamber and R.M. Williams, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 435} (1995) 361. \end{thebibliography} \end{document} From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 16:35:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA20477; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:11:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:11:03 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:10:41 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"3OGnT3.0.p_4.LUc_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4018 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Horace Heffner wrote: > At 1:25 PM 2/9/97, Martin Sevior wrote: > > > > >The conventional physics answer is that the direction of photons DEFINE > >straight lines (the minimal distance between two points). The apperance > >of curvature is a result of space-time itself being curved. This is > >general relativity. > > > >Martin Sevior > > Ah! So that's the trick. Well, if defining is all there is to understanding > reality then I define both energy and mass to be conserved in any > transaction not with the vacuum and the ratio inseperably in the > relationship E=mc^2. This definition seems to me to obtain isomorphic > results with the other definitions of standard physics, so why not? > You have to remember that all theoretical physics rests upon some underlying assumptions. In the case of General Relativity, this is one of them. Another assumption is the equivalence principle, that is that the weight of all types of matter is directly proportional to its inertial mass. There was a flurry of activity about this point 6 or more years ago when some people thought they had found a violation of this. There was a round of beautiful and more precise measurments a couple of orders of magnitude more precise than previous ones. These showed that the equivalence principle is correct to about 6 decimal places, the limit of current measurements. So why would the equivalence principle be so right? The explanation of GR is that weight IS the result of an acceleration. Having formulated GR on some interesting and underlying principles, it is possible to explore its ramifications. These are certainly pretty strange to us living on the Earth! Event Horizons, time dilation in a gravitational field, precession of perihelions of orbits and the energy and mass are related by E = mc^2! Actually a much better formula for these pruposes is: E^2 = (PC)^2 + (M0c^2)^2 where: P = particle momentum, M0 = Particle rest mass E = Energy Remember E=Mc^2 comes from Relativity too! The point is that all these strange GR phenomena turn out to be real. In the case of light bending near a large mass, one way of thinking about this is to remember that within GR, time slows down near the object. Consequently the minimum transit time for a photon is no longer a straight line since that would put the photon deeper within the gravitational well and hence a larger time dilation. The photon instead takes a curved trajectory that reduces the amount of time within the time dilating well and hence minimizes the total transit time. Regarding experiments that show photons have zero rest mass.. there's lots of them. My favourite is the process of photon conversion: Take a high energy gamma ray, anything greater than 4 MeV will do but it's more spectaular in high ones (greater than 100 MeV). The reaction Gamma => e+ + e- regularly occurs in these reactions. Using momentum and energy conservation it's easy to show that these e+ e- pairs HAVE to come from a particle of zero rest mass (or at least mass << 0.511 Mev) compared to the particles total energy in excess of 100 MeV. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 19:48:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA22255; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:23:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:23:43 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending From: Hoyt Stearns Reply-To: hoyt isus.wierius.com Sender: hoyt isus.wierius.com Originator: hoyt isus.wierius.com Transport-Options: /delivery Content-Type: text Date: Sun, 9 Feb 97 20:08:00 GMT Message-ID: <9702092009.aa21128 wierius.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"lcynK1.0.fR5.zIf_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4019 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, Horace wrote: I wrote: [snip] >In RS theory, we use an unorthodox reference >system in which photons are always stationary, by definition. We >postulate that all points in the natural frame of reference move away >from all others at c. [snip] If this were true how do you account for orbital motion? How could a child repeatedly swing a rope around his head if it moved away from him at c? Sounds very strange, and mind boggeling. All the points in the natural *reference system* move away from each other, in other words expansion is an inherent property of the universe. Photons are stationary and just ride out the expansion. Mass is a quantity of inward scalar motion, opposing the expansion, so masses can remain fixed distances apart. The reciprocal system of physics degenerates into conventional physics in the terrestrial environment (a gravitationally bound system where there is mass, moving inward) so all the equations are the same, as they would have to be, as they are experimentally verified. RS differs substantially from conventional physics in the domains of the very fast, very small, very large, very hot. I think it is nearly self evident that electromagnetic fields have both momentum and energy, and therefore mass, and that the enormous electrostatic field density in condensed matter contributes to both matter's weight and mass or inertial effects. Since photons consist of EM fields, and vice versa, it must be at least true that a partial reason light bends around stars is that it is affected by gravity. The portion of mass attraction (the proportion of G) due to the mass of EM fields is already accounted for in the experimental determination of G. One can't mix RS and other theories, as RS is very different, for example conventional physics is a universe of matter and energy moving around in space. In RS everything is composed of units of space-time in various combinations, and those *are* the time and the space. They aren't moving in anything. Gravity is 3 dimensional inward scalar motion, Magnetism is 2 dimensional, and Electricity is one dimensional. Only if the space-time units are distributed through 3 dimensions of scalar motion will they exhibit mass, otherwise the can follow the expansion of the univierse in one of the vacant dimensions. One merely has to heat any atom (3D) enough to nullify one of the 3 dimensions, and it will suddenly lose its mass and take off as photons from our perspective. That's how direct conversion of mass to energy works, and is what happens inside the sun. It certainly isn't fusion! An item of interest might be the density of photons in the universe, their frequency distribution, and thus the amount of "dark matter", i.e. photons not coming in our direction, that might be floating around out there. That has all been worked out by Dewey Larson. The universe is steady state, therefore no Big Bang, and dark matter becomes irrelevant. There is a whole other half of the universe (superluminal half) where gravity attracts in time instead of space. Stars in that half appear localized in time and distributed randomly in space. When they go supernova, we see those as gamma ray bursts. The light from the superluminal stars, their atoms being distributed evenly in space, appear only as a 3.7 degree K background radiation to us. A person living in that half of the universe would appear to us to have a lifetime of 6 nsec and be 80 light-years tall! Sincerely, -- Hoyt A. Stearns jr., President, International Society of Unified Science| 4131 E. Cannon Dr. Phoenix AZ 85028 Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal | hoyt isus.wierius.com fax 996 9088 System- a unified physical theory | voice *82 602 996-1717 http://infox.eunet.cz/interpres/sr/ | "You can observe a lot just by watching." -- Yogi Berra Just as the introduction of the irrational numbers ... is a convenient myth [which] simplifies the laws of arithmetic ... so physical objects are postulated entities which round out and simplify our account of the flux of existence... The conceptional scheme of physical objects is [likewise] a convenient myth, simpler than the literal truth and yet containing that literal truth as a scattered part. -Quine, Willard Van Orman In J. Koenderink Solid Shape, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1990. ******************************************************* "When ID's are mandatory, its time to leave the planet." - Lazarus Long (a.k.a. R. Heinlein) ******************************************************* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 20:49:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA00641; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:25:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:25:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:27:23 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Two wheel levitator (corrected) Resent-Message-ID: <"fqoEf.0.m9.uCg_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4020 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If the Podkletnof/Schnurer devices reduce momentum, i.e if a rotating wheel placed partially in the beam tends to throw the wheel out of the beam by a force proportional to centrepital force, then there is possibly a means of levitation even if the beam is only vertical, and even if the effect is only about 4% of mass. Vertical lift is achieved by having two wheels spin on an angle to the beam: \ / \ / M\ /M \ / \/ ==== \ or / - spinning wheel, side view (2) wheels shown M - motor and shaft attached to spinning wheel ==== - antigravity/anti-inertia device The signifiacnt part of the diagram is the "====", which is the Tampere device or similar device exhibiting exhibiting inertia reduction in a beam or corridor above itself: That part of the premise that is a very big "if" is that inertia is affected within the gravity reduction field, the gravity shadow of the Tampere device. It is a long stretch of the imagination, but it is very easily tested because careful weighing/measuring is not required. A very small reduction in momentum will result in a very large force for a high rpm wheel. To test simply stick a running motor into the field. The above should provide a Cadillac smooth ride, no bump and grind. Nothing to make for oscillation, vibrartion, etc, All the two wheels do is rotate. There might have a problem if it turned a corner suddenly, but no need to do that to get into orbit. Suppose you have shielded at 4% about half of each of the 1 meter radius wheels or drums whcih are each at an angle theta from the vertical, 0.5 m thick runnning at 3600 rpm, or 60 rps. The mass of each wheel is primarily between 0.5r and r, where r is the radius of the wheel. Assume each wheel is roughly the density of iron (7.9 g/cm^3). The area A of a wheel is (3/4)(pi)(r^2) = 2.4 m^2 = 2.4x10^4 cm^2. The volume of a wheel is 1.2x10^6 cm^3 so the mass is 9.5x10^7 g or about 10,000 kg. The average rotational velocity of the mass of a wheel is v=(3/4)(2)(pi)(r)(50)= 283 m/s. The outer (max) acceleration is a=4(pi^2)(r)(60s^-1)^2 = 1.4x10^5 m/s^2, or about 1400 g's. Every second about 10,000 kg x (60rps) = 60,000 kg/s mass enters the non shadowed section of the wheel at 283 m/s and exits at -283 m/sec, for a delta v of 566 m/s per second. The effective (net) mass doing this is 0.04 x 60,000 kg/s = 2400 kg/s. The resultant force is F = (566 m/s)(2400 kg/s) = 1.35x10^6 N. Converting to kg force (kgf) we get F = (1.26x10^6N)(1/9.8 kgf/N) = 13,900 kgf. Suppose the supporting framework, underlying Tampere cells, and power supply etc. can be placed using 1,000 kg per wheel. This give a total vehicle weight of 22,000 kg. The lifing force L = (13,900 kg)*2(cos(theta)) = (27,800)cos(theta). To hover we have the lifting force L equal to the craft weight of 22,000 kg, which results in cos(theta) = (22000/27800) = .791 and the angle from vertical is cos-1(.791) = 37.7 deg. This is all marginal, but achieving an 8% shielding would definitely give you a VTOL SST orbiter. So would being able to run the wheel at 2800 g's. The above is mainly concerned with hovering, etc. Any repulsion of a rotating wheel from the beam proportional to the wheel rpm means maybe you can build an Isp infinty spacecraft. That is an important test. A better test would be to rotate a heavy wheel horizontally through the beam and support the entire appartus on a wheeled platform and see if the platform and all can be made to move laterally. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 21:07:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA03952; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:44:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:44:07 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:43:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970209234324_618622404 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: theroretical heat up curve for Yusmar verses actual curve. Resent-Message-ID: <"4ecYL2.0.cz.LUg_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4021 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Yusmar theoretical heat up calculation T = Temp deg F t = time h = specific heat E = energy in KW T1 = initial temperature deg F dT/dt = (delta E)h dT/dt = (power in - power out)h dT/dt = (5KW - KT)h dT/dt = 5h -KhT KhT = the heat carried away by the heat exchanger. Measured flow .357 GPM KhT= (flow GPM)hT = (.357)hT dT/dt = 5h - .357hT rearranging terms dT/dt + .357hT = 5h The solution of this differential equation requires an integrating factor e**.357ht Note ** means raised to power of. multiplying by the integrating factor dT/dt e**.357 ht + .357hT e**.357ht = 5h e**.357ht dT e**.357ht + T .357ht e**.357ht dt = 5h e**.357ht dt reducing the left side of the above equation by parts d(T e**.357ht) = 5h e**.357htdt setting up to integrate / / |d(T e**.357ht) = 5h(.357h/.357h)|e**.357ht dt / / integrating T e**.357ht = (5h/.357h) e**.357t + C1 simplifying T = 5/.357h + C1/e**.357t h = .145 kw/deg F GPM T = 5/(.357 .145) + C1/e**.357ht T = 97 + C1/e**.357ht At t = 0, T = 0 therefore. C1 = -97 T = 97[1 - 1/e**.357ht] The time constant is about 40 minutes T1 = 60 deg F, h yusmar = .025 degF/KW min T = 97[1 - 1/e**.025t] + 60 Equation final The graph obtained from the Yumsar was a simple heat in heat out calc. The graph is approx by Equation Final equation above. The actual curve may be obtained from my home page. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 22:44:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA19923; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:21:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:21:27 -0800 Message-ID: <32FEBE76.79D0 interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 01:21:42 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Two wheel levitator (corrected) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NgTun3.0.9t4.cvh_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4022 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > (SNIP) > That part of the premise that is a very big "if" is that inertia is > affected within the gravity reduction field, the gravity shadow of the > Tampere device. It is a long stretch of the imagination, but it is very > easily tested because careful weighing/measuring is not required. A very > small reduction in momentum will result in a very large force for a high > rpm wheel. If inertia is reduced, Horace, another good way to test for it is to stick a tuning fork or a quartz crystal in the beam. Frequency can measured very accurately and a very tiny change in the inertia of the crystal could be measured. The crystal oscillator could be placed in various closed containers to rule out other effects (?) and its frequency could be "beat" against that of a standard crystal nearby - or referenced to a radio time signal perhaps. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 22:47:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA20257; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:24:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:24:38 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970210062447.0066d618 sparc1> X-Sender: kennel sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:24:47 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Re: Don't srew around with Li or LiH! Resent-Message-ID: <"5N-Wt3.0.Qy4.byh_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4023 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Common sense is that you should not hand out protocols involving flammable or explosive materials in a public forum. These are better handled by notes to individuals, especially since it is known that our humble forum is visited by young people from time to time. Little typos involving (for instance, whether it is better to add water to acids or acids to water) may not seem significant, but could contribute to injury or even death. Therefore it's best not to throw such information around casually. BTW, I have made lithium fires in my time (humid air is enough to ignite it; you don't even need water), so I know it does indeed burn. I'm told that lithium will eat right through flesh, but fortunately I've not done that experiment. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 9 23:22:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA24328; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:00:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:00:02 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:02:12 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Two wheel levitator (corrected) Resent-Message-ID: <"1--qQ.0.wx5.nTi_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4024 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:21 AM 2/10/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > >If inertia is reduced, Horace, another good way to test for it is to >stick a tuning fork or a quartz crystal in the beam. Frequency can >measured very accurately and a very tiny change in the inertia of the >crystal could be measured. The crystal oscillator could be placed in >various closed containers to rule out other effects (?) and its >frequency could be "beat" against that of a standard crystal nearby - >or referenced to a radio time signal perhaps. > >Frank Stenger What a great idea! Realy accurate determination! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 00:23:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA30868; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:00:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:00:31 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:02:39 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: gravity shield Resent-Message-ID: <"-0_G91.0.EY7.UMj_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4025 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > hello vortexians > >i just spent about eight hours of running test today and am frustrated with >the results. i only achieved a slight movement up and down on these runs. >i am using about a 12" x 3/4 " wooden dowel suspended over the >superconductor vertically by a cotton thread to the balance beam these are >quite heavy and make a 1/4 " dowel bend a little. the effect that i kept >getting is that the dowel started moving in a circular motion and seemed to >circle the edge of the htsc. >>any ideas to explain this motion. the top of the dowel seemed to stay >centered but the bottom seemed to circle the edge of the htsc. i stacked as >many as 4 htsc disks and this seemed to intensify the motion with the >addition of each disk. any thoughts on this would be appreciated. >> Here's a wild guess: Maybe you have some kind of standing EM wave above the disks that slowly rotates. The wood is a dielectric so periodially an electrostatic charge would be induced by the E field longer on the leading surface of the wood than on the trailing edge by the standing wave as it rotates. The wood would be pushed around in a circle just like a piece of driftwood can be pushed by water wave action. The larger effect toward the bottom of the wood indicates a field that falls off rapidly above the superconductor (probably becomes horizontal as it flares out and then back down). One way to check this hypothesis is to (slowly) stick a loop of wire attached to an oscilloscope probe and ground into the space to see what you can see. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 01:17:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04692; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:55:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:55:16 -0800 Date: 10 Feb 97 03:52:04 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Message-ID: <970210085204_100060.173_JHB98-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"tzlq13.0.E91.o9k_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4026 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike, The different policies in different countries regarding the method of payment for telecom usage also distorts to cost factors in the usage of the internet. Its not only the capacity of the subscriber telecom facilities, but also the internet network itself which are severely overloaded by inappropriate "nerd" usage, primarily by those at educational centres who seem to have free and unmonitored access. If the inet was up to the demand imposed and delivered its potential data transmission rate more of the time, then the public systems would be less overloaded. I think that there should be a dis-incentive to the greedy usage by those who are currently not charged anything, by the imposition of some charge for the time on-line to the net, or a monitored restriction on the time allowed per log-on at educational establishments, possibly controlled by seniority. Otherwise I see no alternative to increased charges for all users to pay for the additional capacity of the public service. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 01:18:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04786; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:55:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:55:26 -0800 Date: 10 Feb 97 03:52:06 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Yusmar tests completed 2/8/97 Message-ID: <970210085206_100060.173_JHB98-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"QlfeX2.0.GA1.w9k_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4027 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank, >> Future plans. << Surely you should cease any further expensive experiments until you have validated the basic Yusmar claims by testing a "standard" production version, purchased from the original supplier - if he is still free to circulate in public!!! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 03:28:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA15883; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:05:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:05:54 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970210025952.006c4a70 mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:07:21 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Two wheel levitator (corrected) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"jPDLN2.0.2u3.H4m_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4028 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: (snip from somwhere else> An oscillator crystal is typically a thin quartz disk with electrodes plated on each surface, and they range in frequency from about 200KHz to tens of MHz. However, 32KHz digital watch crystals have an entirely different structure. They are a small "tuning fork" about 4mm long and and 1mm across, with thin electrodes plated onto the tines of the fork. This gives interesting possibilities. If you open the crystal's metal enclosure, you can immerse the crystal in gases of various densities, and this should affect the frequency. Maybe make a CO2 or mercury vapor detector? If you reflect a laser off the tines, the beam should be scanned back and forth at the crystal's frequency. Rotation of the crystal should produce tiny frequency deviations, so these crystals could possibly be used to construct some sort of gyroscope. The crystals produce ultrasound (they really *are* tuning forks, after all) and perhaps this effect can be used. Use them as microphones, and build grids of them for a sound camera image sensor? If two bare crystals are held near, they probably will lock in synch through audio coupling. If one crystal is held near an object while oscillating, there will probably be voltage changes because of sound echoes from the object's surface. At 10:02 PM 2/9/97 -0900, you wrote: >At 1:21 AM 2/10/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >> >>If inertia is reduced, Horace, another good way to test for it is to >>stick a tuning fork or a quartz crystal in the beam. Frequency can >>measured very accurately and a very tiny change in the inertia of the >>crystal could be measured. The crystal oscillator could be placed in >>various closed containers to rule out other effects (?) and its >>frequency could be "beat" against that of a standard crystal nearby - >>or referenced to a radio time signal perhaps. >> >>Frank Stenger > > >What a great idea! Realy accurate determination! > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 05:59:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA25980; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 05:21:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 05:21:01 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970210131924.008dd190 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 08:19:24 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Don't srew around with Li or LiH! Resent-Message-ID: <"swLKO2.0.sL6.x2o_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4029 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:24 PM 2/10/97 +0900, you wrote: > Common sense is that you should not hand out protocols involving >flammable or explosive materials in a public forum. These are better >handled by notes to individuals, especially since it is known that our >humble forum is visited by young people from time to time. > Little typos involving (for instance, whether it is better to add >water to acids or acids to water) may not seem significant, but could >contribute to injury or even death. Therefore it's best not to throw such >information around casually. BTW, I have made lithium fires in my >time (humid air is enough to ignite it; you don't even need water), so I >know it does indeed burn. I'm told that lithium will eat right through >flesh, but fortunately I've not done that experiment. > >Best regards, >Elliot Kennel >Sapporo Japan > Always wear safety goggles and full face protection. Gloves are a must. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 08:46:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA21524; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 08:19:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 08:19:31 -0800 Date: 10 Feb 97 11:16:34 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Internet & Phone expense Message-ID: <970210161634_72240.1256_EHB126-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"nZQOS.0.EG5.Hgq_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4030 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This subject is irrelevant to Vortex, but it is something I know a lot about, so I cannot resist commenting. The local phone network was designed for short analog voice calls. When everyone in your neighborhood or office building goes off hook and tries to place a call, only a fraction will get a dial tone, and the whole shebang will likely crash. That happens during major emergencies. During normal operations, at peak hours (11 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon) the phone system is intended to handle voice business voice calls, which usually last 3 to 5 minutes. Suddenly, in the last five years, millions of people are making modem connections. These calls are much longer on average: 15 to 30 minutes, and with flat-rate services like AOL some people leave the phone off-hook, connected all day long. This is your phone company engineer's worst nightmare! The equipment was never intended to handle this kind of traffic. It would cost a fortune to make an analog network capable of handling continuous connections. It would be a terrific waste of money too, I think. The long term solution is a "digital party line" arrangement. That is, a new class of service like a shared TIE line; an ISDN type connection in which many subscribers share a channel, and service degrades if they all begin transmitting simultaneously. It would work like a LAN. You share resources, but you only see the messages with your address. Obviously, the phone companies must charge much more for this kind of service than they do for an occasional voice connection. That would take years and billions of dollars. Any solution will, which is why the regulators, local and long distance TELCOs have to get together and iron out the financial details. We tend to think of the Internet a long-distance, computer server technology, but the real hardware impact (and the big money) is what you see hanging from those old wood poles in your neighborhood. In the near term, I think the only reasonable solution is for more U.S. phone companies charge by the minute for local phone service. They used to do that in the old days, and some smaller ones still do. In Japan and many European countries they still do. It seem fair to me, but who knows what the FCC and the TELCOs will come up with. Telephone tariffs are not known for simplicity, rationality, or fairness. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 09:43:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA00656; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:15:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:15:02 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:14:43 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199702101714.MAA18318 spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-reply-to: <970209092036_-1140683635 emout17.mail.aol.com> (RMCarrell@aol.com) Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Resent-Message-ID: <"9acqo2.0.r9.IUr_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4031 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I don't know what this has to do with vortex-l but... > The investment in local switches -- the ones your phone is hooked > to -- is based on a statistical measure of average time on line, > reported as 3 minutes. The long distance phone systems use a > variety of methods of compression to minimize investment in > hardware. One of these is time sharing, where pauses in a > conversation are used to transmit other conversations, so your > conversation might be juggled through a dozen circuits without your > being aware of it. Uh, first switches do the switching for a call, then disengage. Modems require less switch capacity, but more (potentially) trunk lines. However, most ISPs try to get lines in all local exchanges, so more intra-exchange trunks (very cheap) are required and potentially fewer inter-exchange trunks. If people are using modem lines to connect long distance, this is an issue for the local telcos to work with the long distance carriers. However, and this is where the greed starts showing. The real reason the telcos are screaming is that modem usage has been shifting from long distance to local. > When you browse the internet for a half hour or more, you are using some > fraction of the local switch's capacity and the continuous tone from your > modem prevents the time sharing strategies from working. To service large > numbers of Internet users and still provide instant dial tones to > conversational users, the phone companies will have to make capital > investment in additional resources for which they are not getting the usual > rate of return. Circut sharing is used a lot on LONG-DISTANCE lines. If there are insufficient lines in a local cable, the local telco may use circut sharing until the cable can be replaced or additional capacity installed. But it is always a temporary expedient--the increased maintenance costs ensure this. I don't think I have ever seen it for more than a few months. (And they usually do it a different way. Instead of swapping in band, they put multiple channels on one wire--you can get in a lot of 4K channels before parasitic capacitance is a problem.) > This has nothing to do with left or right policies or conspiracies. > Look at what happened to AOL (and I'm a user). They are into a $350 > million expansion program to support the additional on-line time > precipitated by their unlimited use pricing. All those calls go > through local phone switches who get no support for the added > capacity needed. Uh, lets see. AOLs pricing policy was a big mistake, but I don't see anyone saying that the users are at fault for that mistake. The local phone companies have been selling second lines for computer use for over a decade--my first second line modem ran at 300 baud. The drop in the cost of commercial services may be creating more load, but in my case I certainly know I use my modem line much less than I used to--faster modems, and the use of POP3 instead of reading mail while on-line. (I have both a commercial account--eachus empire.net--and can log into MITRE on their nickel via Compu$erve. But why connect for hours when I don't need to?) > If as a matter of national policy, there should be a subsidy, as > for the Interstate highway system, well and good. A legitimate > topic. Otherwise, it is also legitimate to pay tolls for the use of > a special road, like a turnpike. If the phone industry wasn't being greedy, fine. But most commercial accounts pay line charges even for local connections. So you may not be paying extra for your modem connections, but the ISP on the other end is paying for you. If the rates are insufficient the state utilities commissions would approve increases, etc. However, federal taxes bypass the state PUCs... Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 10:11:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02056; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:21:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:21:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199702101723.JAA22500 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:22:48 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"YTcgu2.0.zV.Aar_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4032 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Charging for phone use by the minute is not the answer. The answer is making this public highway a true public highway and not a franchise where the prime motive is profit. Profit motives are fine in most places but not where the public travels with great frequency. In France where charges are made by the minute there are very few people who use the internet from home. The information superhighway is the exclusive realm of the well connected, let the rest eat cake. Of course charging for each minute of phone use will make a lot of money for those who make their fortunes helping manage phone line use and charges. Hey if we are going to award franchises to print money I'll take a franchise on the use of the letter A. I won't charge much just a tiny fraction of a cent for each use, I'll even give Sesame Street a free use license. Anyone wanting to buy an eaarly discount license for unlimited free use of the letter A can just send me one dollar. Thanks. This message was brought to you by the letter A. Russ George From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 10:16:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03184; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:26:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:26:04 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970210092708.006c4eac mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:27:10 -0800 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Telephone network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Qta0B2.0.Xn.fer_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4033 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: TELEPHONE NETWORK All of this is not necessary IF self switching decentralized wireless telephone networks were allowed. No need for telephone companies at all and the whole world is covered with very high bandwidth communication network wherever there are people with these self switching (relaying) wireless (or wired, fibered if you must) transceivers. Need more bandwidth - make more "phones"... The whole idea of central switching office and subscribers is ancient. All this junk belongs in G. Bell era. Today we have FH/SS transmission methods and self routing networks. Why not use them ? I wish all of the engineers got out of the mental rut and abandon the whole central office idea. IT IS NOT necessary. (I bet telco CEOs would disagree here :-) LET EVERY "phone" SWITCH TRAFFIC FOR ALL ITS NEIGHBORS. No central office necessary. I've seen it done in military. Instantly deplorable, no infrastructure necessary. It routs itself just like Internet, it is all digital 10Mbps data rate, 0.5ms latency per 1 hop, it is very fast and very robust... If the GIs have it why can't we...worldwide ? C'mon it's almost 21 century At 11:16 AM 2/10/97 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >This subject is irrelevant to Vortex, but it is something I know a lot about, >so I cannot resist commenting. > >The local phone network was designed for short analog voice calls. When >everyone in your neighborhood or office building goes off hook and tries to >place a call, only a fraction will get a dial tone, and the whole shebang will >likely crash. That happens during major emergencies. During normal operations, >at peak hours (11 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon) the phone system is >intended to handle voice business voice calls, which usually last 3 to 5 >minutes. Suddenly, in the last five years, millions of people are making modem >connections. These calls are much longer on average: 15 to 30 minutes, and >with flat-rate services like AOL some people leave the phone off-hook, >connected all day long. This is your phone company engineer's worst nightmare! >The equipment was never intended to handle this kind of traffic. It would cost >a fortune to make an analog network capable of handling continuous >connections. It would be a terrific waste of money too, I think. The long term >solution is a "digital party line" arrangement. That is, a new class of >service like a shared TIE line; an ISDN type connection in which many >subscribers share a channel, and service degrades if they all begin >transmitting simultaneously. It would work like a LAN. You share resources, >but you only see the messages with your address. Obviously, the phone >companies must charge much more for this kind of service than they do for an >occasional voice connection. > >That would take years and billions of dollars. Any solution will, which is why >the regulators, local and long distance TELCOs have to get together and iron >out the financial details. We tend to think of the Internet a long-distance, >computer server technology, but the real hardware impact (and the big money) >is what you see hanging from those old wood poles in your neighborhood. > >In the near term, I think the only reasonable solution is for more U.S. phone >companies charge by the minute for local phone service. They used to do that >in the old days, and some smaller ones still do. In Japan and many European >countries they still do. It seem fair to me, but who knows what the FCC and >the TELCOs will come up with. Telephone tariffs are not known for simplicity, >rationality, or fairness. > >- Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 11:09:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA22167; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:49:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:49:42 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: Jed Rothwell Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:38:09 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <970210161634_72240.1256_EHB126-1 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"_ubS31.0.GQ5.5ts_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4035 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It appears to me that AOL, with all the `problems' they've created for themselves, are forking out $350,000 of _their_ profits to provide a lower cost service. I don't care about the phone company's nightmare. AOL, too, is *paying them* for the service. On 10-Feb-97, Jed Rothwell wrote: >In the near term, I think the only reasonable solution is for more U.S. phone >companies charge by the minute for local phone service. >- Jed Typical elitist solution; penalize the masses for the comforts of the few. There are lot of internet folks that *pay* for an extra line to their homes. And blaa blaa blaa.... -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 11:41:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA28585; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:18:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:18:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:18:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NXbNL.0.W-6.oHt_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4036 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vortexans I subscribe to the internet through Pacbell from my home. They have an optional charge for unlimited service, above their basic service charge. They also are charging me $20 per month for the internet service. They limit usage by not having many answering facilities, so most of the time you try you don't connect, and also their software version of Netscape hangs you up if you don't keep typing once every two minutes or so. Now on top of all these charges, and lousy service, the damn polititians want to charge me a tax. The result will be probably I will go back to snail mail. Remains to be seen. Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 11:51:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA20421; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:41:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:41:34 -0800 Message-Id: <199702101840.LAA14422 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: 600 kW Plasma Torch Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:39:56 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1z8ej3.0.w-4.Sls_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4034 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have received complete technical control of a 600 kW plasma torch located near Pittsburg. A full picture of the system is available at www.transmutation.com. Since the sole focus of my research is in low energy nuclear transmutation, I would entertain requests for future experiments from members of this forum. The first request from my wife was for me to stand inside the plasma stream. Her desire was for me to transmute into something useful. This was considered, but finally rejected due to possible permanent contamination of the system. You may address me personally, or through the forum. Thanks ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 13:20:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA09596; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:19:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:19:39 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:17:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970210150117_1962285557 emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending Resent-Message-ID: <"vjBOv3.0.qL2.PBu_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4037 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins offerred: <> This approach has been given a quantitative analysis, by Wilson, Dicke and others. One can reproduce General Relativity in most of its essentials by assuming that the index of refraction of the vacuum varies near mass. In particular, the light bending phenomenon is reproduced by assuming a refractive index n = exp (2GM/rc^2). The phase velocity of that part of the wavefront of a wave near the body is somewhat slower than that part of the wave further away, and the wavefront "wheels about" the body. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 13:21:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA19872; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:00:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:00:44 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:00:32 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: SC disk needs to vibrate? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ZrFrB1.0.As4.wnu_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4038 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Something occurred to me. If the Podkletnov effect depends on *motion* of the SC disk, then perhaps the effect will appear when the 60hz coil pushes and pulls on a suspended disk, but the effect will vanish if the SC disk is not free to move. So, if it is suspended by string, it might work, but if it lays upon a surface, it may not. I'm visualizing a lead/lag phase between moving the disk up and down, and switching the disk in and out of SC threshold by applying a strong DC b-field to the disk, then modulating the field at 60hz to produce on/off switching of SC effect in some part of the disk. Misc other ideas below: .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page Podkletnov Gravity Device Bill Beaty, 1/97 ------------------------- (Spinning, levitated superconductor disk creates a vertical column of reduced weight above itself) SUGGESTED TESTING: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Suspend the SC disk loosly, measure the strength of the effect, clamp the disk solidly to a tabletop, measure again. If there is a large change, it suggests that mechanical vibration (120hz) is important. If force is a percent of the object's weight, then the force upon a massive object will be large. Instead of applying force to a plastic paddle, apply it to a vertical glass rod. Use steel or lead for greater effect. Hang two vertical rods rods from both ends of a horizontal beam having a fulcrum in the center. Place the device under one rod. Even a tiny percentage difference in weight will result in a large vertical force. Place the device beneath a jar full of alcohol and aluminum powder. Are currents visible in the alcohol? Place it below a pan of water. Bounce sunlight from the water's surface at a small, glancing angle, aim it onto a screen. Is a "dimple" observed in the expanse of reflected light shining on the screen? For a sharper image, use true pointsource light such as a spread-out beam from a laser. Fill the room with incense smoke. Are air currents observed over the device? Quantitative measurements of the effect. Use a solid state accelerometer to measure the decrease in gravity above the device. Convert the vertical gravity beam to AC to make certain measurements easier: place the entire apparatus on the edge of a horizontal disk such as a record player turntable, then spin the turntable. The gravity beam might affect a microphone diaphragm then. Hold a microphone above the spinning turntable, amplify output and apply to headphones, probe the beam with microphone high above the disk. Maybe look for phase lag in the beam high above the spinning disk, to detect whether the "gravity beam" propagates slowly. Run the turntable at 500RPM. Measure the gravity field versus AC drive frequency, AC drive current, magnetic field direction through the HTSC disk, etc. Stack several thin disks, measure the gravity field versus net thickness of the superconductor. Are there any unexpected biological effects? Grow bacteria cultures in the beam, compare to controls. Maintain mice in the beam, look for health effects. Use plants as probes: monitor O2 output in small tissue samples, place the tissue in the beam, observe changes. How fast is onset of the effect? Measure the force with a solid state accelerometer, turn the AC drive on and off, inspect the leading and trailing edges from the accelerometer. Does the effect appear and vanish rapidly or slowly? Does any of the AC drive signal get into the accelerometer output? Map the beam profile. Mechanically raster-scan a tiny accelerometer through the beam, record and plot data. Check out the Hodowanec gravity detector on http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/const.html He claims that its output varies on a 24hr cycle, as if there was a *vertical beam* of sensitivity extending vertically from his device! Map the vertical beam profile. Place the device at the bottom of a stairwell in a tall building. Measure the gravity field over many hundreds of feet of vertical distance above the device. Are non-superconductors usable? Use numerous materials in place of the HTSC disk, search for tiny gravity fields above the device. Use the accelerometer to observe the beam strength while the disk is heated and cooled through superconductive transistion. Any odd effects? Make a delicately balanced "waterwheel", place the device under one side, does the wheel turn? Do objects above the device couple to the device? Place vibrating mass above the device, search for vibrations in the device or in the currents in the coils driving it. Allow the device to spin a wheel connected to a brake, search for resulting changes in the drive currents to the coil. Place a massive weight above the device, manually jerk upwards on the weight. If results are positive, it implies that the device can be used for 2-way communications with distant objects in the vertical beam. Does AC magnet frequency make a difference? Try from 0Hz to audio to RF to microwave, etc. Can a continuous non-moving version be built, rather than the present version requiring exposure to a PM? Vary a superposed DC and an AC b-field applied to an HTSC disk and measure the gravity field above the device, look for good settings of the b-fields. Try rotating the b-field at various orientations and frequencies using crossed coils and multiple-phase coil drive currents. Any cosmic ray effects? Check background count with the device on and with it off. Does the effect involve magnetism? Explore the "beam" with a compass. Does it involve e-fields? Test for their presence with an electrometer. Is time affected? Beat two crystal oscillators against each other, place one of them in the beam, look for changes in the difference frequency. Changes in "c"? Pass a laser beam horizontally above the device and look for tiny deflections. Set up an interferometer, place the device beneath one beam path, observe the fringes on the screen, then activate the device and look for shifts in fringe phase. Continuously measure the characteristics of various electronic components, place them in the beam, note changes. Could geomagnetism cause a similar effect in rock layers? If weight of objects changes constantly at a low level, how to measure? Is this the source of "Taos Hum?" Can hum-sensitive people stick their head in the beam and hear the 60hz modulation? What happens when astronomical objects pass through the beam? E.g., if the sun or moon crosses the local zenith, does it alter the weight decrease magnitude, or does it bend or spread the beam shape? The vertical beam is confusing. If the disk is a gravity shield, it should create a penumbra, an image of the earth & iron core, not a vertical beam (unless earth has a black hole in the center!) For example, will there be a separate beam from the disk associated with each planet and the sun, or do all the masses add together and simply cause deflection of the one vertical beam. Use an accelerometer to search for secondary beams below the device, one associated with the shadow of the sun, moon, etc. Or, search for slight deflection of the beam on a 24hr cycle, as the relative position of sun and moon are changed. If there are multiple beams below the disk (image of "gravity sky"), then mechanically scan the device in a raster (mount it on the rim of a spinning disk, move the disk along.) Place a microphone or accelerometer below, record the output and paint a graphics screen with the raster, synched to the spinning disk. Gravity telescope! Try the toroid experiment: poke a hole in the disk, see if it creates a beam of *non* reduced weight. Make a big plate with a small hole? Gravity-force pinhole camera? Make a big plate with small AC coil, see how it affects the force profile of the beam. Does waving a small coil under a large plate cause a small moving beam above the plate? ************************************************************************* Other Ideas: Free energy: place the device under a vertical wheel, off center from the location of the axle, and the wheel should start to spin. Connect the wheel to a generator. Water pump: Make a "U"-shaped pipe, position it upright, fill it with water, place the device under one side of the "U". Weather mod: the effect is essentially a beam of upwards vertical force. It should create a vertical atmospheric fountain and tornado, like "cavorite" in Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon" story. Interfere with aircraft: If a large plane flies through the beam, the sudden change in weight might be destructive. Giant loudspeaker: If the effect can be modulated, then pipe audio to the device, and an enormous vertical column of the earth's atmosphere will vary in pressure and will function as a public address system. Place the device in a tall building and vibrate the structure to produce sound. Knock down geosync satellites. A large device precisely positioned at the equator can apply a continuous force to a particular satellite. Fountain: place the device at the bottom of a large body of water, and the water above the device will thrust upwards. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/gravidea.txt http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/antigrav.txt From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 15:32:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA04270; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:05:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:05:58 -0800 Date: 10 Feb 97 18:02:43 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Internet & Phone expense Message-ID: <970210230242_72240.1256_EHB36-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ND7x-3.0.e21.Ldw_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4040 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Many interesting comments were posting in response to this message, so I guess the readers do not mind if we digress a little more. Robert I. Eachus wrote: I don't know what this has to do with vortex-l but... Nothing! It's a diversion. I am writing about Trypanosomiasis and Intestinal Helminth Infections, I need a diversion. Uh, first switches do the switching for a call, then disengage. Modems require less switch capacity, but more (potentially) trunk lines. Well . . . the switches are swamped when everyone goes off hook. The calls are only switched for a second, but the talk paths within the switch are tied up throughout the conversation. That is why the engineers in California and Seattle are tearing their hair out. However, most ISPs try to get lines in all local exchanges, so more intra-exchange trunks (very cheap) are required and potentially fewer inter-exchange trunks. They are very cheap because they were not designed to be used all day by one subscriber. They are time shared, each customer to take up, oh, 1% of capacity. When you buy your own local trunk (a TIE line), it costs you a fortune. When you stay off hook all day the phone company loses money. It is like scarfing down 20 lbs of shrimp in an All You Can Eat restaurant. They never counted on that happening, except with teenaged daughters. Russ George writes: Charging for phone use by the minute is not the answer. The answer is making this public highway a true public highway and not a franchise where the prime motive is profit. Whether the network is public or private, someone will have to pay for that new gear! If the phone company goes public tomorrow, it will still lose money when customers go off hook all day. Historically, publicly owned telephone companies and monopolies like the old AT&T system, Japan's NTT, and other forms of "public highway" phone service has always cost far more than competitive private service. Since the AT&T breakup, U.S. phone costs have fallen 70%. The profit motive is the best method of ensuring low costs and good service. However, it does leave some customers in the lurch, like people unprofitable, isolated rural communities. A little government regulation can fix the problem. Profit motives are fine in most places but not where the public travels with great frequency. In France where charges are made by the minute there are very few people who use the internet from home. Very few French people use Internet because the rates are outrageously high, because the French telephone system has not yet been deregulated and privatized. It will be in a few months. Then rates will plummet, and Internet use will soar. At the moment the phone company execs are using their months before they go out of business in a final effort to gouge French customers who call around the world by tandeming through the U.S. (with callback services.) Yup, our rates are so cheap, it is better to call from Paris to London via Omaha, Nebraska. Of course charging for each minute of phone use will make a lot of money for those who make their fortunes helping manage phone line use and charges. Ah, but remember: accountants come first. Civilization depends on 'em. Before there were markets, armies, empires, pyramid buiders, universities, corporations, railroads and phone networks . . . first came accountants. Some of the oldest Mesopotamian cuniform tablets are records of profit and loss. Whether an enterprise is public or private, capitalist or communist, it must first be accountable, or nobody will know how to run it. You end up with a Russian-style phone or railroad network. Hardware galore, tons of aluminium and steel lying around, and no service because nobody knows where the phone calls are coming from, where they want to go, or how much it costs to get them there. Lawyers also make the world go round. People love to hate 'em, but MCI used to be called "a law firm with an satellite antenna on the roof." And you can thank those lawyers for breaking up the monopoly and saving the consumers billions of dollars. Epitaxy comments: All of this is not necessary IF self switching decentralized wireless telephone networks were allowed. No need for telephone companies at all and the whole world is covered with very high bandwidth communication network wherever there are people with these self switching (relaying) wireless (or wired, fibered if you must) transceivers. Need more bandwidth - make more "phones"... That's a promising approach in some locations, but it would not work in Atlanta, New York, or other high population density areas. Not with today's technology. And who would be in charge of the wires and fibers? I've seen it done in military. Instantly deplorable . . . Yet, utterly deplorable. And deployable. (Don't you love spell check programs?) . . . no infrastructure necessary. Say what?!? Radio connections could not begin to replace the traffic that goes through Atlanta's fiber optics. Even if every house had cell phone station. And we already have them every half mile or so, two within sight of my house. It routs itself just like Internet . . . And talks that way too, I'll bet. Have you tried using an Internet telephone? Do you like waiting? Chuck Davis writes: It appears to me that AOL, with all the `problems' they've created for themselves, are forking out $350,000 of _their_ profits to provide a lower cost service. I don't care about the phone company's nightmare. AOL, too, is *paying them* for the service. But AOL is not paying enough for the phone company to make a profit. That's the problem. Okay, enough about telephones. Back to water-borne disease. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 16:39:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA13467; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:48:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:48:12 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702101744.ZM12015 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:44:03 -0600 In-Reply-To: Epitaxy "Re: Telephone network" (Feb 10, 4:23pm) References: <3.0.32.19970210142606.00c3fa4c mail.localaccess.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Telephone network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"JH7d_1.0.LI3.wEx_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4041 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Feb 10, 4:23pm, Epitaxy wrote: > All of this is not necessary IF self switching decentralized wireless > telephone networks were allowed. No need for telephone companies at all, > and the whole world is covered with very high bandwidth communication > network wherever there are people with these self switching (relaying) > wireless (or wired, fibered if you must) transceivers. Need more bandwidth > - make more "phones"... > I've seen it done in military. Instantly deployable, no infrastructure > necessary. It routs itself just like Internet, it is all digital 10Mbps > data rate, 0.5ms latency per 1 hop, it is very fast and very robust... If > the GIs have it why can't we...worldwide ? ok, you've swerved headlong into my backyard. Who's military, and who's equipment? If it's us, I need a few more specifics to track down more info. -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 17:20:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA31778; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:06:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:06:44 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970111090617.00998b90 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 17:08:05 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Wqkja3.0.Km7.YOy_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4042 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:20 AM 2/9/97 -0500, you wrote: >Look, guys, the phone companies have a point. > >The investment in local switches -- the ones your phone is hooked to -- is >based on a statistical measure of average time on line, reported as 3 >minutes. The long distance phone systems use a variety of methods of >compression to minimize investment in hardware. One of these is time sharing, >where pauses in a conversation are used to transmit other conversations, so >your conversation might be juggled through a dozen circuits without your >being aware of it. > They do have a point but I sure wish they would be honest about it. Their switching costs (required new investment) are $.10 on the dollar to what they were 10 years ago. They also, thanks to AT&T and Bell Labs, have the capacity to turn every copper line at the pole into a 6 mb pipe for about $100 per pole. Will they be up front and lay out a plan which makes sense? They seem to lack the fundamental requirements of vision to be worthy of giving them more money and they should not be given a blank check. To make the flat uni-system investment which is necessary, a larger flat rate for basic access does make sense, but metered access to support the java-jive media intense bloated byte internet offerings of the corp 1000 is INSANE AND GROSSLY UNFAIR ALSO, as I am sure you will identify with, since my bet is that almost no one on Vortex gives a shit about access to commercial websites, at least, not very often. So we have the situation of a Heffner on fixed retirement income being asked to support the access of tennie-bopper superbyte game sites. Ludicrous. Now come the politicians and our grandmothers into the act. So what do you do? Maybe you tax the bloated byte internet sites. The more bites per page you want TO DELIVER, the more you pay for the national investment in pipes and switches. As things stand now, any increase in rates will be used to subsidize the corporate yuppie set at the expense of everyone else. It should be turned the other way around. The corporate yuppie sets are making history's all-time profit margins and have created the internet crises by wanting to commercialize it. Don't let them fool you into thinking it is your fault and that you should pay for it. Make those presumptious yuppies pay for it. It is well worth their while because of the savings they are going to be making by eliminating paper. The move to put all business to business invoicing and transaction accounting on the internet is well advanced already...a 1% tax on corporate net to support and extend the internet is eminantly fair and reasonable. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 17:43:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA31808; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:06:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:06:48 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970111091612.0099a920 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 17:08:09 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"zFgfl2.0.um7.cOy_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4043 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:52 AM 2/10/97 EST, you wrote: >Mike, > >The different policies in different countries regarding the method of payment >for telecom usage also distorts to cost factors in the usage of the internet. > >Its not only the capacity of the subscriber telecom facilities, but also the >internet network itself which are severely overloaded by inappropriate "nerd" >usage, primarily by those at educational centres who seem to have free and >unmonitored access. If the inet was up to the demand imposed and delivered its >potential data transmission rate more of the time, then the public systems would >be less overloaded. > >I think that there should be a dis-incentive to the greedy usage by those who >are currently not charged anything, by the imposition of some charge for the >time on-line to the net, or a monitored restriction on the time allowed per >log-on at educational establishments, possibly controlled by seniority. >Otherwise I see no alternative to increased charges for all users to pay for the >additional capacity of the public service. > >Norman > There is more and more attempt to use the internet as a personal or institutional intranet. This is probably a big part of the problem. The use of phone capacity in the Seattle/Redmond area jumped 60% in one year. Not population. Not Internet accounts. Usage. Corporate/institutional usage. Smells like MICROSOFT. BUT we have a fundamental problem of honesty in dealing with this issue. Politics and these issues are treated with the lowest ethical IQ this country has seen in well over 100 years. There is nothing happening out there except blatent self-serving, self-dealing, and denial. The focus of revenue should be on corporations, not individuals. Individuals are not going to realize much cost savings whereas corporations are going to obtain significant cost savings and a lot of other advantages. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 17:50:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA05378; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:38:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:38:55 -0800 Date: 10 Feb 97 19:46:24 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Message-ID: <970211004623_76016.2701_JHC177-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"mQnIo1.0.uJ1.ksy_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4044 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Using the PSTN (public switched telephone network) for internet access should be rendered academic soon. Already, cable services are offering direct internet access over the cable and their own dedicated network services here in Atlanta. A Media One test bed is beginning in Norcross, GA which allows 56kbps access via a cable modem to the computer. Bell South has retaliated in North Dekalb County offering a dedicated 256kbps (almost 10 times your 28.8kpbs modem) in their video dial tone test bed. Both systems require ethernet LAN cards in the PC (as cheap as $20). The Media One fee is approximately $27 per month and the cost from Bell South is $40 per month. This is in addition to normal video cable fees. The PTSN can go back to worrying about switched voice service which is under attack from the cable companies, long distance companies, and, soon, PCS (personal communications services), a new, 2 GHz digital wireless service which will be cheap compared to cellular telephone service. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 18:53:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA14692; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:29:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:29:18 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:31:16 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: 600 kW Plasma Torch Resent-Message-ID: <"2g2ZQ1.0.Tb3.zbz_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4045 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:39 AM 2/10/97, Joe Champion wrote: >I have received complete technical control of a 600 kW plasma torch located >near Pittsburg. A full picture of the system is available at >www.transmutation.com. > >Since the sole focus of my research is in low energy nuclear transmutation, >I would entertain requests for future experiments from members of this >forum. The first request from my wife was for me to stand inside the >plasma stream. Her desire was for me to transmute into something useful. >This was considered, but finally rejected due to possible permanent >contamination of the system. > >You may address me personally, or through the forum. > >Thanks > >___________________________ >Joe Champion Uh, 600kW? Is that 600 kV? Still impressed either way, but 600 kW is awsome, unless it only works for a microsecond. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 20:07:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA31968; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:53:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:53:07 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:52:33 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense In-Reply-To: <970211004623_76016.2701_JHC177-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5XANR2.0.Qp7.Wq-_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4046 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 10 Feb 1997, Terry Blanton wrote: > Using the PSTN (public switched telephone network) for internet access > should be rendered academic soon. Already, cable services are offering > direct internet access over the cable and their own dedicated network > services here in Atlanta. [snip] > > The PTSN can go back to worrying about switched voice service which is under > attack from the cable companies, long distance companies, and, soon, PCS > (personal communications services), a new, 2 GHz digital wireless service > which will be cheap compared to cellular telephone service. > Totally valid points. Moves to per minute pricing should hasten the demise of PSTN's. Here in Australia we currently have an old monopoly (Telstra) and one sanctioned commercial rival (OPTUS). Both are now offering a full range of communications services including local, long distance, Cable TV plus both Analogue and Digital Cellular services. Unfortunately we haven't got cable modem or other fast services other than ISDN yet. One ISP is now offering cheap (35 cents a minute to USA) long distance services using the internet! From July all comunication services will be open to full competition. We haven't got cable modem services or any other fast to home services yet but here's hoping! In the meantime Telstra is trying to charge per minute on calls to ISP's. They face a lot of hostility... Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 20:12:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA00671; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:00:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:00:40 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:02:40 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SC disk needs to vibrate? Resent-Message-ID: <"zE_IL3.0.MA.bx-_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4047 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 1:00 PM 2/10/97, William Beaty wrote: [snip] > >Is time affected? Beat two crystal oscillators against each >other, place one of them in the beam, look for changes in the difference >frequency. > [snip] Aha, the above is similar to Frank's idea to use crystals for checking inertial changes. It would take some doing to sort out inertia change vs. time dilation. Some more ideas you might want to add to list: Inertia Test: Insert high rpm wheel horizontally into beam to see if ejected. If so plot force vs. rpm to see if it is result of inertia reduction in beam. "To the Stars" test: if inirtia test shows effect is inertial mount the antigravity device on a cart with a horizontal high rpm disk partially inserted in beam to see if cart moves. If so, infinite Isp spacecraft is a real possibility. Map beam with Hall effect probe. Check beam with various antennas and coils for various wavelength EM emissions. Put flourescent tube over beam in dark. Put x-ray film in beam and develope. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 20:41:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA07930; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:30:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:30:03 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:29:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970210232906_1895241103 emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: heat up curves obtained with calculus - updated Resent-Message-ID: <"Y7BfC3.0.px1.9N__o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4049 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Anyone conducting experiments with a device that energy is directly put into and heat is removed out of may want to save this E-mail. The given solution employing differential calculus will enable you to plot the heat up curve, identify anomolus energy, and compare the various thermal aspects of the thermal system. This calculation is to be used for systems that dump energy through a water-water heat exchanger. It took me quite a while to figure it out. I applied to the Yusmar system and have found an energy gain of unity. Frank Znidarsic ....................................................................... Yusmar temp calculations. This calc can be used to find the specific heat or the temp curve on a system that energy is added to as a heat exchanger removes energy. .............................................................................. ............................................ GIVEN T = Temp rise degF = (Tf - Ti) t = time in seconds y = specific heat of the system, Yusmar measured with cooling water off = .45deg/kw-min h =specific heat of cooling water = 6.9 deg-gal/kw-min p = 1/h = .145 kw-min/deg-gal E = KW Ein = 5KW electrical for Yusmar F = flow of cooling water through the heat exchanger in gal/min = for test .357GPM .............................................................................. .......................................... dT/dt = (Ein - Eout ) y dT/dt = (5 - pFT)y .............................................................................. .......................................... pFT = the heat carried away by the heat exchanger. Heat exchanger efficiency at low cooling flows = 100%, the temp out of the heat exchanger = temp Yusmar pFT= (.145kw-min/deg-gal)(Fgal/min) T = (.145F kw/deg)( T deg) .............................................................................. .............................................. dT/dt = 5y - .145FTy rearranging terms dT/dt +.145FTy = 5y multiplying by an integrating factor (e**.145Fty)dt dT (e**.145Fty) + .145FTy (e**.145Fty)dt = 5y(e**.145Fty)dt left-integrating by parts, right-setting up to integrate / / |d( T(e**.145Fty) ) = 5y (.145Fy/.145Fy)| (e**.145Fty) dt / / integrating ( T ) (e**.145Fty) = (5/.145F)(e**.145Fty) + C (T ) (e**.145Fty) = (97)(e**.145Fty) + C simplifing T = 97 + C (e**-.145Fty) At t = 0, T = 0 therefore. C = -97 T = 97 [1 - e **-.145Fty] .............................................................................. ................................... The specific heat of the Yusmar y as determined with the heat exchanger off was 34deg/5KW-15min = .45deg/KW-min time constant = .145Fy = [.145KW-min/deg-gal](.357gal/min)[.45deg/KW-min] = .023/min Temp init = Ti = 60 deg F .............................................................................. .......................... Tf = 97[1 - 1/e**.023t] + T1 Tf = 97[1 - 1/e**.023t] + 60 Equation final The graph obtained from the Yumsar was a simple heat in heat out calculation The graph is approx by Equation Final equation above. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 20:43:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA06564; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:24:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:24:31 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:26:14 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SC disk needs to vibrate? Resent-Message-ID: <"_aWM31.0.Sc1.yH__o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4048 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote: > >"To the Stars" test: if inirtia test shows effect is inertial mount the >antigravity device on a cart with a horizontal high rpm disk partially >inserted in beam to see if cart moves. If so, infinite Isp spacecraft is a >real possibility. > Forgot to state the obvious: so are inertial drive automobiles then a possibility - which would be a lot more my speed. Don't think I'd want to fly with tons of inertial material and worry about a power failure or sudden liquid N2 loss. However, we don't really know how much power John Schnurer is hitting those SC pellets with do we? The Tampere experiments seemed like they might be power efficient - except for the liquid Helium. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 20:58:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09156; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:35:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:35:40 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: John Steck Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:39:55 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9702101744.ZM12015 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Telephone network MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"4QIKz2.0.cE2.PS__o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4050 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 10-Feb-97, John Steck wrote: >ok, you've swerved headlong into my backyard. Who's military, and who's >equipment? If it's us, I need a few more specifics to track down more info. >-- >John E. Steck >Motorola CSS The Navy from TRW-Redondo Beach. Late 70s early 80s ;) -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 21:16:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA11594; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:45:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:45:27 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970211044932.009c34c4 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:49:32 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: SC disk needs to vibrate? Resent-Message-ID: <"IiN7H2.0.3r2.bb__o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4051 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:02 PM 2/10/97 -0900, you wrote: >At 1:00 PM 2/10/97, William Beaty wrote: >[snip] >> >>Is time affected? Beat two crystal oscillators against each >>other, place one of them in the beam, look for changes in the difference >>frequency. That wouldn't necessarily indicate a time dilation. If one oscillates slower, it just means that crystal thinks it has become bigger. :-0 But seriously, I predict that the effect would work well by aiming microwaves at the SC. And, that the weight under test will vary depending on its distance above the SC, in phases based on the frequency being applied to the SC, when close to the apparatus. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 21:34:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA13833; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:56:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:56:52 -0800 Message-ID: <32FFFC2A.45D3 interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:57:14 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SC disk needs to vibrate? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9Bk_i.0.qN3.Im__o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4052 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: (A ton of gravity experiment ideas - see his post) Gee, Bill, I tried all of those ideas right after supper - a LOT of hard work - guess what! - I just weighed myself and I lost 20 pounds, - If I can just sort out the important parameters - patent office here I come! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 21:51:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA23191; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:40:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:40:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:40:35 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Vision for an integrated building System. (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"dk_9A.0.Hg5.XP00p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4053 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:43:58 -0800 From: "kinitro s.a." To: billb eskimo.com Subject: Vision for an integrated building System. Dear Friend We are a group of people trying to form a holistic approach to building systems in respect of future urban development, processing simultaniously the problem of structure, energy and information. We have gone a good way on developing a modular system which you could describe as <>. Now we seek an advanced solution in energy problem, outbiting the conventional machinistic approach. The Vortex pipe seems a to be a possibility for such a system. Is there any previous experience for such an energy device?.Is there any expertise? If there is anybody out there let as know. Kinitro S.A City in the image of man. Lets build the city of the future. Dimitri Papanikolaou. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 22:15:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25371; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:51:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:51:36 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970210215254.00c2a620 mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:52:57 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"vG7NK3.0.DC6.cZ00p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4054 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: REPLIES ARE BETWEEN THE LINES BELOW At 06:02 PM 2/10/97 EST, you wrote: >Epitaxy comments: > >All of this is not necessary IF self switching decentralized wireless >telephone networks were allowed. No need for telephone companies at all >and the whole world is covered with very high bandwidth communication >network wherever there are people with these self switching (relaying) >wireless (or wired, fibered if you must) transceivers. Need more >bandwidth - make more "phones"... > >That's a promising approach in some locations, but it would not work in >Atlanta, New York, or other high population density areas. Wrong. The system I had experience with performed better with higher density of these "relay phones" since they are the ones that are providing the switching functions for their neighbors. Adding more "phones" increases the bandwidth of the whole system but also increases the routing delays. The higher the population the better. On the other hand, this system would actually have problems on a dessert or ocean without so called "seeded" transceivers. >Not with today's technology. And who would be in charge of the wires and fibers? Why not ? This has been done many years ago. With today's advancements in electronics the system would work even better. Also no hard wired infrastructure was be needed, but the existing hard-wires &fibers could be use to aid this system in physically long range hops. > >I've seen it done in military. Instantly deplorable . . . > >Yet, utterly deplorable. And deployable. (Don't you love spell check >programs?) Yes deployable. I do have love/hate relationship with spell checkers. > . no infrastructure necessary. > >Say what?!? Radio connections could not begin to replace the traffic that goes >through Atlanta's fiber optics. Even if every house had cell phone station. >And we already have them every half mile or so, two within sight of my house. Perhaps a long range radio link could not, but the system of self relaying (routing-scattering) short wireless links most certainly is superior to the wired solution. You don't have fiber optic lines going to every house in Atlanta. This system would give you almost that. There are no bottlenecks with this system since there are no Central switching offices to get plugged up. Your cell phone station example still uses centralized switching (the cell station). This is all very ancient and unnecessary. Imagine everybody having a cell station in their pocket and you'll understand. (Note: FH/SS modulation solves the far/near problem of congestion) >It routs itself just like Internet . . . Actually there is one fundamental difference - mandatory data scattering. >And talks that way too, I'll bet. Have you tried using an Internet telephone? >Do you like waiting? The latency was fixed at .5ms per 1 hop. Assuming straight line of hops for 1000 miles would mean 0.5sec latency + speed of light delay. Of course straight line of hops do not happen in reality. The system I was using featured 10Mbps max throughput. Divide that by half and you still can do video conferencing without the problem. >Chuck Davis writes: This communication system worked like a charm for the military (yes in high density situations too). It was virtually unjamable and impossible to intercept because of the data scattering. Why can't we the normal people have something like that? (Oh, no phone bills !) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 22:35:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA00547; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:20:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:20:41 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:20:28 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SC disk needs to vibrate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"PprfU2.0.T8.u-00p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4055 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, William Beaty wrote: > I'm visualizing a lead/lag phase between moving the disk up and down, and > switching the disk in and out of SC threshold by applying a strong DC > b-field to the disk, then modulating the field at 60hz to produce on/off > switching of SC effect in some part of the disk. If this sounds obscure, think like this: perhaps there is some sort of near-instant interaction between the SC disk, the test mass, and the earth. (Imagine what happens between the rotor and stator coils of a motor. Not like radio waves at all.) So, what happens if I use a strong b-field to turn the SC effect off in the YBCO disk, move the disk down a bit, turn the SC effect back on, move the disk upwards, then repeat? This could happen accidentally when an AC coil is near a suspended SC disk. Why would this do anything? Long ago I was visualizing the Casmir experiment and interaction with the ZPE, and wondering if a constant flow could be impressed upon the ZPE. Rather than creating waves in the ether, instead make an "ether pump" composed of a vibrating piston having a one-way flap-valve. The physical motion of an SC panel is the "piston", and the out-of-phase synchronous switching through superconducting transition is the "flap-valve". I couldn't imagine any phenomena that the slow "ether wind" produced by this device might cause. But now I notice the similarity between John S's device and my old Ether Pump Thought Experiment and wonder if the possible ether wind created by the device might interact with gravity somehow. Almost too weird to consider, I admit. Even if the above is wrong, perhaps there still is something about switching the SC effect on and off which links with gravity. If so, impressing AC fields on DC fields would bring about the effect. If so, then a coil with a very large half-wave rectified current might give better results. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 10 23:58:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA18016; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:34:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:34:12 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 01:34:06 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Sevior" at Feb 11, 97 02:52:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sYf0T2.0.QP4.p320p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4056 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin Sevior wrote: > Here in Australia we currently have an old monopoly (Telstra) and one > sanctioned commercial rival (OPTUS). Both are now offering a full range > of communications services including local, long distance, Cable TV plus > both Analogue and Digital Cellular services. Unfortunately we haven't > got cable modem... It's a small world. :-) The company I work for (ADC Telecommunications) has just delivered 5000 cable telephony service units to OPTUS -- a future expansion of which is 512kbs cable modems ... and I happen to be working on the cable data modem project. I'm working on the headend hardware and our Australian partners (NetComm) will be building the customer premise cable data modem module. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 02:01:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA09013; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:24:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:24:56 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970210142606.00c3fa4c mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:26:07 -0800 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Telephone network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"kPILD2.0.jC2.p0w_o" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4039 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Yes this would solve all of the communication problems and you would NEVER > have to pay another telephone bill again ! The 10MBPS bandwidth sounds good too. TELEPHONE NETWORK All of this is not necessary IF self switching decentralized wireless telephone networks were allowed. No need for telephone companies at all, and the whole world is covered with very high bandwidth communication network wherever there are people with these self switching (relaying) wireless (or wired, fibered if you must) transceivers. Need more bandwidth - make more "phones"... The whole idea of central switching office and subscribers is ancient. All this junk belongs in G. Bell era. Today we have FH/SS transmission methods and self routing networks. Why not use them ? I wish all of the engineers got out of the mental rut and abandon the whole central office idea. IT IS NOT necessary. (I bet telco CEOs would disagree here :-) LET EVERY "phone" SWITCH TRAFFIC FOR ALL ITS NEIGHBORS. No central office necessary. I've seen it done in military. Instantly deployable, no infrastructure necessary. It routs itself just like Internet, it is all digital 10Mbps data rate, 0.5ms latency per 1 hop, it is very fast and very robust... If the GIs have it why can't we...worldwide ? C'mon it's almost 21 century At 11:16 AM 2/10/97 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >This subject is irrelevant to Vortex, but it is something I know a lot about, >so I cannot resist commenting. > >The local phone network was designed for short analog voice calls. When >everyone in your neighborhood or office building goes off hook and tries to >place a call, only a fraction will get a dial tone, and the whole shebang will >likely crash. That happens during major emergencies. During normal operations, >at peak hours (11 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon) the phone system is >intended to handle voice business voice calls, which usually last 3 to 5 >minutes. Suddenly, in the last five years, millions of people are making modem >connections. These calls are much longer on average: 15 to 30 minutes, and >with flat-rate services like AOL some people leave the phone off-hook, >connected all day long. This is your phone company engineer's worst nightmare! >The equipment was never intended to handle this kind of traffic. It would cost >a fortune to make an analog network capable of handling continuous >connections. It would be a terrific waste of money too, I think. The long term >solution is a "digital party line" arrangement. That is, a new class of >service like a shared TIE line; an ISDN type connection in which many >subscribers share a channel, and service degrades if they all begin >transmitting simultaneously. It would work like a LAN. You share resources, >but you only see the messages with your address. Obviously, the phone >companies must charge much more for this kind of service than they do for an >occasional voice connection. > >That would take years and billions of dollars. Any solution will, which is why >the regulators, local and long distance TELCOs have to get together and iron >out the financial details. We tend to think of the Internet a long-distance, >computer server technology, but the real hardware impact (and the big money) >is what you see hanging from those old wood poles in your neighborhood. > >In the near term, I think the only reasonable solution is for more U.S. phone >companies charge by the minute for local phone service. They used to do that >in the old days, and some smaller ones still do. In Japan and many European >countries they still do. It seem fair to me, but who knows what the FCC and >the TELCOs will come up with. Telephone tariffs are not known for simplicity, >rationality, or fairness. > >- Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 03:58:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA21338; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:36:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:36:28 -0800 Message-ID: <32FD53E0.24BF worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 18:34:41 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L Subject: Test -ignore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kSMLZ2.0.KD5.xc50p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4057 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Saturday, 2/8/97 6:34 pm Hawaii - Just a test. Eskimo.com had been bouncing e-mail originating on AT&T's worldnet accounts. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 04:00:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA23122; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:39:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:39:28 -0800 Date: 11 Feb 97 06:35:49 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Telephone network Message-ID: <970211113548_100060.173_JHB64-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cYmvA3.0.8f5.lf50p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4058 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Epitaxy said, >> TELEPHONE NETWORK All of this is not necessary IF self switching decentralized wireless telephone networks were allowed. No need for telephone companies at all and the whole world is covered with very high bandwidth communication network wherever there are people with these self switching (relaying) wireless (or wired, fibered if you must) transceivers. Need more bandwidth - make more "phones"... The whole idea of central switching office and subscribers is ancient. All this junk belongs in G. Bell era. Today we have FH/SS transmission methods and self routing networks. Why not use them ? << >> I've seen it done in military. Instantly deplorable, no infrastructure necessary. It routs itself just like Internet, it is all digital 10Mbps data rate, 0.5ms latency per 1 hop, it is very fast and very robust... If the GIs have it why can't we...worldwide ? << I'm sure you meant deployable However, your suggestion seems so obvious that one wonders why it hasn't been done. There must be a snag somewhere, apart from commercial inertia, or even patent restrictions. What is stopping it? Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 04:18:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA31988; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:57:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:57:13 -0800 Message-ID: <32FE684B.7BFE worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 14:14:06 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L Subject: test - ignore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6Ypse.0.kp7.Nw50p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4059 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Test Sunday, 2/9/97 2:14 pm Hawaii time. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 05:29:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA18041; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:19:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:19:27 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970211052019.00c13378 mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:20:39 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Telephone network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Vf-KP1.0.pP4.U770p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4060 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Yes I meant "...instantly deployable...." I don't know what is stopping it, I've seen it work like a charm in military in high density situations years ago. If they have it so can we. The only technical snag I can think of is the 0.5ms latency per 1 hop. Not a problem for Internet but 5sec lag could be really annoying on international voice calls. The price is great though - free ! (Perhaps that is the problem :-) At 06:35 AM 2/11/97 EST, you wrote: >Epitaxy said, > >>> TELEPHONE NETWORK > > >All of this is not necessary IF self switching decentralized wireless >telephone networks were allowed. No need for telephone companies at all >and the whole world is covered with very high bandwidth communication >network wherever there are people with these self switching (relaying) >wireless (or wired, fibered if you must) transceivers. Need more bandwidth >- make more "phones"... > >The whole idea of central switching office and subscribers is ancient. All >this junk belongs in G. Bell era. Today we have FH/SS transmission methods >and self routing networks. Why not use them ? << > >>> I've seen it done in military. Instantly deplorable, no infrastructure >necessary. It routs itself just like Internet, it is all digital 10Mbps >data rate, 0.5ms latency per 1 hop, it is very fast and very robust... If >the GIs have it why can't we...worldwide ? << > >I'm sure you meant deployable > >However, your suggestion seems so obvious that one wonders why it hasn't been >done. There must be a snag somewhere, apart from commercial inertia, or even >patent restrictions. What is stopping it? > >Norman > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 06:23:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26056; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:41 -0800 Message-Id: <199702111412.HAA09389 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: Subject: Re: 600 kW Plasma Torch Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:12:33 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"am4DN3.0._M6.Nv70p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4061 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- > From: Horace Heffner > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: 600 kW Plasma Torch > Date: Monday, February 10, 1997 7:31 PM > > At 11:39 AM 2/10/97, Joe Champion wrote: > >I have received complete technical control of a 600 kW plasma torch located > >near Pittsburg. A full picture of the system is available at > >www.transmutation.com. > Uh, 600kW? Is that 600 kV? Still impressed either way, but 600 kW is > awsome, unless it only works for a microsecond. No Horace, 600 kW and is continuous duty for the most part. That is, until you have to change electrode assemblies. ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 07:21:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA05465; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:10:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:10:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:10:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Cornwall RO X-Sender: remi exeter To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Network problems (>3days). Resend to me at other accn. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ifvJZ1.0.EL1.Pl80p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4062 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo, We've had power failure on one of our servers that screwed up network access. Email was probably bouncing. This is another account I use for lower traffic but shall use temporarily until iesun9 recovers. If you sent me any info and I haven't responded, please resend. I've sent replies to a few people of stuff from last week today on iesun9 and hope they go through. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 07:41:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA08914; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:30:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:30:05 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702110925.ZM15714 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:25:17 -0600 In-Reply-To: Chuck Davis "Re: Telephone network" (Feb 10, 10:33pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Telephone network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"1zjzJ2.0.CB2.y190p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4063 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Feb 10, 10:33pm, Chuck Davis wrote: > The Navy from TRW-Redondo Beach. Late 70s early 80s ;) Personal experience of second hand? Is it possible the technology is clasified? Looking for keyword search descriptives. Not finding anything yet. -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 08:22:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA15849; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:10:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:10:46 -0800 From: RMCarrell aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:09:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970211110327_1146802219 emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Decentralized telephone switches Resent-Message-ID: <"babwI1.0.St3.4e90p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4064 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Slow down, gentlemen and think a bit. The military battlefield distributed switching makes sense where everyone is mobile and you don't want a central switchboard which can be taken out, disabling communication for all. You are also dealing with a limited number of customers within short range of each other where you can use high frequencies and spread-spectrum transmission for security and noise immunity. This doesn't work in a metropolitan area with thousands of customers or in rural areas where customers are spread apart and line-of-sight transmission at high frequencies doesn't work. If every telephone switches for every other, all telephones handle all the traffic, resulting in a huge traffic crunch (with the opportunity for every telephone, properly equipped, to read all the traffic, like cellular phones). Like the delusion of "free energy", the notion that this would provide "free service" is another delusion as the cost of the telephones would rise and the cost of congested spectrum space would rise as well. And if you are going to use fiber, who pays for that? The whole question of telephone service for all is far more complex than meets the eye, and it would be well to think carefully before glibly waving the "why don't they" flag -- careful thought about such questions can be very instructive. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 08:29:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17896; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:17:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:17:51 -0800 Message-ID: <33009BC0.5186 interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:18:08 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 600 kW Plasma Torch References: <199702111412.HAA09389 nz1.netzone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DuNLI2.0.RN4.ik90p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4065 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Champion wrote: > > No Horace, 600 kW and is continuous duty for the most part. That is, > until you have to change electrode assemblies. > Joe: Nice shot on your web page! Could you include a "mickey mouse" schematic on your page? It's hard to get the "big picture" from the system photo. Was the torch designed for refractory coating? Uses an inert feed gas? What materials will it handle as feed stock? I've only heard of the plasma spray process - don't know any details. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 08:34:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19037; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:21:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:21:29 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702111017.ZM15896 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:17:15 -0600 In-Reply-To: Epitaxy "Re: Telephone network" (Feb 10, 11:20pm) References: <3.0.32.19970210212424.00c34da0 mail.localaccess.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Telephone network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"XbADW2.0.Nf4.7o90p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4066 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Feb 10, 11:20pm, Epitaxy wrote: > Subject: Re: Telephone network > > Russian military several years ago. I was in charge of maintaining the > system. Worked like a charm in a very hostile environment so I don't > understand why the USA doesn't have something like this here. > > I know pretty much all of the routing and addressing (actually scattering) > protocol but didn't have the time to figure out all of the RF sections (I > have figured out modulation type, freq, bandwidth and power) before I was > pulled from the project. > > Are you working on such a decentralized communication system also ? Not my Sector's niche, but Land Mobile Products Sector (LMPS) would be the group at Motorola that would be involved if such a program exists. They are primarily involved with radio systems; two way, 911 dispatch, etc. Sounds alot like their new public network technology that combines two-way radio, telephone, text messaging, and data transmission on one network using one phone. Each phone must be doing some internal switching as one of the features is a group conference call with unlimited participants. Nextel is one of the companies marketing the technology. Target is sales forces and other large mobile work forces. Billing is by the second as it employs data burst packets instead of continuous line connection. Suposed to be very economical. More information, press releases, other related products : http://www.mot.com/LMPS/RNSG/networks/ http://www.mot.com/LMPS/iDEN/ -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 10:38:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA07284; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:25:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:25:21 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: John Steck Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:25:19 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9702110925.ZM15714 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Telephone network MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"T4vwS3.0.dn1.CcB0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4067 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 11-Feb-97, John Steck wrote: >On Feb 10, 10:33pm, Chuck Davis wrote: >> The Navy from TRW-Redondo Beach. Late 70s early 80s ;) >Personal experience of second hand? As a Tech, I did a lot of bit error rate testing. Quadrature modulation and spread spectrum. 1.544 mbps, wow. That was when 300 baud modems were kewl ;) The overtime paid for my shiny new Apple ][ >Is it possible the technology is clasified? Yes it was. >Looking for keyword search descriptives. Not finding anything >yet. Well, I don't know what and why you're doing this. The stuff is old tech, by now. My SupraFAXModem is kewler. There's a lot of space time between a 6502-8080 and a DEC Alpha >-john >-- >John E. Steck >Motorola CSS Hey John, can you get me an 80mHz M68060? 66mHz would be kewl, though ;^) -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 11:04:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA14290; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:48:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:48:59 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702111244.ZM16630 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:44:44 -0600 In-Reply-To: Robert Stirniman "Re: Vision for an integrated building System. (fwd)" (Feb 11, 11:39am) References: <199702111714.JAA00278 shell.skylink.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Vision for an integrated building System. (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"1DSRE.0.BV3.QyB0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4069 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Feb 11, 11:39am, Robert Stirniman wrote: > An alternative to the city of the future -- Why not use low-cost > energy devices to irrigate the deserts...... Can't do that! You'll destroy the only known habitat of the tiger striped, great horned, snake bellied, dung gnat. We don't really know what they are good for yet, but Lord knows, their population is already probably endanged by the constant buzzing of evil nearby washing machines and non-stop toenail clipping. Send money now! We may need them to supply raw materials for a price gouging pharmacutical monopoly in the near future. The next generation of high fashion nose hair conditioners could very well depend on it! he he he. Hey Robert. You sound rather pissed off at the world. You last several posts have been very angry. Put down the high powered rifle and try laughing at life once in a while. The ridiculousness of It all can be rather entertaining and alot less stressfull. There is only so much you can change at a time. 8^) --- Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear. The best thing you ever did for me, is to help me take life less seriously. It's only life after all. -Indigo Girls --- You're just an empty cage, if you kill the bird. -Tori Amos --- Just trying to help! Hang in there. -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 11:07:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA13001; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:44:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:44:21 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970112104535.009c4630 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 10:45:38 +0000 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Finale For The Phone Per Minute Controversy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Y5KpL3.0.-A3.4uB0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4068 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: As a finale to the Internet phone thread, check this out, it is verry cool. Send the entire system a message through this guy's automated delivery webpage form. >Return-Path: owner-sphinx angus.mystery.com >X-Intended-For: >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:17:11 -0800 (PST) >To: sphinx angus.mystery.com >From: Stephen & Joni Berkowitz >Subject: Important Letter to sent out to FCC >Sender: owner-sphinx angus.mystery.com >Reply-To: sphinx angus.mystery.com > >{#} Replies are directed back to sphinx angus.mystery.com >{#} To reply to the author, write to Stephen & Joni Berkowitz > >Hello everyone, > >As you are now aware there is a very important matter currently under >review by the FCC. Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal >with the FCC to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They >contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the >telephone network. > >Internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional >per minute charges. > >I have an automated letter that will be sent to the FCC, the president >and vice president, and every member of the senate and congress. > >All you have to do is enter your name and press send and 800 letters get >mailed automatically!!! > >There is no excuse, just go mail the letters every day until the 13th of >February. > >Here is the url: > >http://www.in-search-of.com/frames/fcc/fcc.html > >And, please distruibute this letter to ALL services to which you receive >mail. > > Stephen & Joni Berkowitz > http://home.earthlink.net/~ferris4/ > **THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.** > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 11:17:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA16314; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:57:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:57:50 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702111253.ZM16687 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:53:34 -0600 In-Reply-To: Chuck Davis "Re: Telephone network" (Feb 11, 12:24pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Telephone network Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"iux33.0.n-3.i4C0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4070 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Feb 11, 12:24pm, Chuck Davis wrote: > Well, I don't know what and why you're doing this. The stuff is old tech, > by now. Good ideas at the wrong time are often overlooked when you really need them. 8^) Just curiosity! Thanks for the input. -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 14:13:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA10221; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:44:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:44:26 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:43:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970211164336_176550019 emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: suggested problem for Merryman's math class. ans pre. posted on vortex. Resent-Message-ID: <"kwnip2.0.cV2.uWE0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4071 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Yusmar cold fusion energy machine was tested in Johnstown Pa. by Frank Znidarsic. Electrical energy is is required to operate the machine. Thermal energy is extracted from the machine through a water/water heat exchanger. The raw data from the last test is: time min KW cooling water flows GPM temp deg F Power in Flow Temp in Temp out 0 5.2 .357 55 55 15 5.2 .357 55 90 30 5.1 .357 55 115 45 5 .357 55 124 60 5 .357 55 131 75 5.1 .359 55 137 90 5.1 .359 55 142 105 5 .357 55 146 120 5 .357 55 148 Plot the outlet temp as a function of time. 2. Given that the heat exchanger is 100% efficient and the realtionship between water flow and power is: KW = .145 KW/(gpm min) Plot the ratio of power out to power in. 3. Given that the specific heat of the Yusmar system is h = .45deg/(KW-min) Plot the theoretical temperature out curve. Assume that at start the temp of the system is equal to the temp of the cooling water. Assume power in is always 5 KW. Hint the solution is a differential equation. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 17:07:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26594; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:36:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:36:57 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:36:21 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702112336.RAA26162 dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Vision for an integrated building System. (fwd) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"5fwz52.0.JV6.PAG0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4073 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dimitri wrote: Huge snip and totlally off topic. > >Kinitro S.A >City in the image of man. Lets build the city of the future. >Dimitri Papanikolaou. Papanikalaou invented the famous pap smear which detects cervical cancer and has saved millions of women's lives. Is he related to you? Is he still alive? RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 17:36:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26416; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:35:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:35:47 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:35:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702112335.RAA04880 dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster presentations To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"oXpL22.0.dS6.I9G0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4072 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 11, 1997 At the ICCF-6, CETI was scheduled to present six oral presentation. This was knocked down to two: Miley's and McKubre's. In this period of relative CF doldrums, I think the ICCF-6 Abstracts including the skipped oral CETI presentations should make for good filler material. Also a copy of the Miley and McKubre Abstracts should be useful. This is strictly a typing exercise for me but I think for a useful end --- information. It struck me that I or anybody else that attented the ICCF-6 could help this forum by transcribing the ICCF-6 Abstracts to it and stimulate some additional thoughts and ideas. I will be doing this from day to day as time permits. Others are invited to do the same. Some formulas and graphs I will not be able to type out so it and extensive equations will be skipped (but noted). The main purpose is to stimulate. On the Poster Abstracts, you will be more exposed to what it says than anybody at the ICCF-6 were with its flash 2-minute synopsis by the speakers at poster sessions and limited poster periods. I'll try to be accurate with the typing but errors will occur. -AK- O-17 (oral presentation) Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. May 15, 1996 Electrical control of New Hydrogen Energy reactions Dennis Cravens-Cleans Energy Technologies, Inc. Mike Posey-Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. Heat is produced from the electrochemical loading of natural hydrogen into metals. This has often been difficult to reproduce in some systems. The Patterson Power Cell (tm) has produced excess heat in levels and consistencies that have allowed for systematic studies of the heat generation under a range of electrical inputs. The use pulsed currents allow for a range of electrochemical effects. These allow for avoidance of some difficulties encountered at the mode. The modification of the current from the standard constant current approaches allow for initiation and control of the heat generating reactions. In case of "life after death" the duty cycles can be matched to the required heat output to decrease the integrated electrical energy applied to the cell and therefore increase power gain ratios. O-021 (oral presentation) Producing Excess Enthalpy and Nuclear Reaction Products in the Patterson Power Cell (tm) With Near 100% Reproducibility. James Patterson. John Nix, Dennis Cravens, Clean Energy Technologies, USA George Miley, Gokul Narme, Michael Williams, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA Experiments with the Patterson Power Cell (tm) consistantly demonstrates heat output 100% above electrical power input, and the phenomena has been repeated in several independant laboratories. The unparalled reproducibility in both heat production and nuclear products provide an essential basis for developing a theoritical understanding of the phenomena. We have developed a detailed test protocol for cell operation to precisely quantify the heat generation and correlate excess enthalpy with nuclear products. With a Patterson Power Cell (tm) and relatively inexpensive laboratory equiptment, proper implementation of the protocol can detect heat output with a resolution of 20 milliwatts. Since the typical excess power observed is one watt, the test protocol resolutions of one part per fifty. In this paper we review our initial results from implementing the protocol. Issues addressed include thermal measurement techniques, bead packing and sampling, electrolyte composition, loading the metal with hydrogen, and cell operation. We quantify the progression of the nuclear reaction over time and correlate heat production with nuclear ash. P-013 (poster)] REPLY TO S.E. JONES AND L.D. HANSEN CONCERNING CLAIMS OF MILES, TE AL. IN PONS-FLEISCHMANN-TYPE COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS. Melvin Miles, Chemistry & Materials Branch, Research and Technology Division, Navel Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Ca. 93555-6001, USA The major allegations by S.E. Jones and L.D. Hansen(1) concerning our experiments have been explained in our previous publications as well in a 1992 published discussion. Our first 5 months of investigating the Fleischmann-Pons effect in 1989 experiments produced no significant excess enthalpy. The November 1989 report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the U.S. Department of Energy listed China Lake with Caltech, Harwell, MIT, and other laboratories as one of the groups NOT observing excess heat. Later experiments using palladium and palladium alloys from other sources, however, produced signifucant amounts of anolomous excess power. I would like Jones and Hanson to explain why our 1989 calorimetric results are acceptable and more recent results are rejected. The simultaneous measurements of power and the rate of evolution of the electrolysis gases in our experiments prove that faradic efficiencies less than 100% cannot account for our reports of excess heat. Furthurmore, our calorimetric results are strikingly similar from other laboratories, including measurements in closed calorimetric systems where faradic efficiences are not a factor. Excess enthalpy for the Pd/D2O system generally involves high current densities that exceed 100 mA/cm^2. Therefore, the report by S.E. Jones, et al(2) of low faradic efficiencies during water electrolysis using current densities of only 1-2 mA/cm^2 is not applicable to our cold fusion experiments. For the large current densities used in most cold fusion experiments, the argument of S.E. Jones et al(2) will fail. Based on experiments at our laboratory, there is compelling evidence that the anolomous excess heat is correlated with Helium-4 production. For example, 30 out 33 heat and helium studies yielded either excess helium when excess power was measured or no excess helium when no excess power was present(3). The possibility of obtaining this result by random errors in our heat and helium measurements is less than one in a million. Permanent laboratory recoirds always defined the presense or absense of excess power prior to any helium measurement. The rate of helium-4 production at 10^11 - 10^12 atoms/s per watt of excess power. This is the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that produce helium-4 as a product. Experimentation will ultimately provide the final answers to this debate as well as to the many aspects of the cold fusion controversy. The selection of a calorimeter capable of measuring excess power in the range of 1 watt per cm^3 volume of the palladium cathode is essential for these studies. References: 1. S.E. Jones and L.D. Hansen, "Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments." J. Phys., Vol 99, pp. 6966-6972, 1995 2. J.E. Jones, L.D. Hansen, S.E. Jones, D.S. Shelton, and J.M. Thorne, "Faradic efficiencies Less Than 100% During Electrolysis of Water Can Account for Reports of Excess Heat in 'Cold Fusion' Cell," J. Phys. Chem., Vol 99, pp6973-6979, 1995. 3. M.H. Miles and K.B. Johnson, "Anolomous Effects in Deuterated Systems," Final Report (to be published) Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 17:50:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA03899; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:55:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:55:10 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:59:08 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: detector In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970210025952.006c4a70 mail.localaccess.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UOSSh2.0.iy.hJH0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4074 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This type of fork is already used as gyro. Thin quartz plates have been used for years to measure thin film deposition. J On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Epitaxy wrote: > > > (snip from somwhere else> > An oscillator crystal is typically a thin quartz disk with electrodes > plated on each surface, and they range in frequency from about 200KHz > to tens of MHz. However, 32KHz digital watch crystals have an entirely > different structure. They are a small "tuning fork" about 4mm long and > and 1mm across, with thin electrodes plated onto the tines of the fork. > This gives interesting possibilities. If you open the crystal's metal > enclosure, you can immerse the crystal in gases of various densities, > and this should affect the frequency. Maybe make a CO2 or mercury > vapor detector? > > If you reflect a laser off the tines, the beam should > be scanned back and forth at the crystal's frequency. Rotation of > the crystal should produce tiny frequency deviations, so these > crystals could possibly be used to construct some sort of gyroscope. > The crystals produce ultrasound (they really *are* tuning forks, after > all) and perhaps this effect can be used. Use them as microphones, > and build grids of them for a sound camera image sensor? If two bare > crystals are held near, they probably will lock in synch through audio > coupling. If one crystal is held near an object while oscillating, > there will probably be voltage changes because of sound echoes from > the object's surface. > > > > At 10:02 PM 2/9/97 -0900, you wrote: > >At 1:21 AM 2/10/97, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > >> > >>If inertia is reduced, Horace, another good way to test for it is to > >>stick a tuning fork or a quartz crystal in the beam. Frequency can > >>measured very accurately and a very tiny change in the inertia of the > >>crystal could be measured. The crystal oscillator could be placed in > >>various closed containers to rule out other effects (?) and its > >>frequency could be "beat" against that of a standard crystal nearby - > >>or referenced to a radio time signal perhaps. > >> > >>Frank Stenger > > > > > >What a great idea! Realy accurate determination! > > > >Regards, > > > >Horace Heffner > > > > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 19:54:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA04722; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:24:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:24:17 -0800 Date: 11 Feb 97 22:22:27 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Anyone need a 14,400 MODEM? Message-ID: <970212032227_72240.1256_EHB102-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cyM0E2.0.a91.TVJ0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4076 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I have upgraded my computer. Does anyone need an El-Cheapo no-name external 14,400 bps modem? Yours for the asking. U pay postage. E-mail me directly. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 20:12:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12436; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:57:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:57:03 -0800 Message-ID: <33013F76.48A4 worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:56:46 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L Subject: Sorry - another test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZB6NF3.0.C23.C-J0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4077 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tuesday, 5:55 pm Hawaii time. Is it fixed yet, AT&T Worldnet? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 22:40:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05295; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:30:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:30:11 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:29:56 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: suggested problem for Merryman's math class. ans pre. posted on vortex. In-Reply-To: <970211164336_176550019 emout19.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iB1Tl.0.aI1.oDM0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4078 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > > The Yusmar cold fusion energy machine was tested in Johnstown > Pa. by Frank Znidarsic. Electrical energy is is required to > operate the machine. Thermal energy is extracted from the > machine through a water/water heat exchanger. The raw data from > the last test is: [snip] The first thing I do would be to make sure the problem was set in useful units. Celcius, litres/sec etc. Why make everybodies life hard? degrees F? Gallons per minute? Yuk!! I don't even know if your referring to a US gallon or an imperial one and I forget the conversion for both. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 11 23:07:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA08987; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:56:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:56:42 -0800 From: tim.vaughan trex.ccc-infonet.edu (Tim Vaughan) Subject: RE: Construction of Hans Coler devices needed Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:56:08 GMT Message-Id: <855730568 trex.ccc-infonet.edu> Organization: Yosemite Community College District To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"BNadb3.0.KC2.fcM0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4079 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A -> -> >Does any subscriber to this newsgroup have any knowledege about -> the Hans coler devices the stromerzeuger constuction details in -> ticular regards Geoff Egel email egel main.murray.net.au -> >http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel > -> A gentleman from Sweden was thoughtful enough to put the B.I.O.S. (British Intelligence Objective Subcommittee) report on a web site. The address is: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3752/hcoler1.htm This is the genuine report, because I checked it against my report from the National Archives. It is interesting to note that report # 1043 (the Coler report) was missing from the collection in the library of congress because it was originally classified. I am convinced that the report is real because of some research I did while vacationing in Germany. The technical details are quite detailed for a device called the "MagnetStromApparat". It is a low powered device that demonstrates the effect. I believe this device is a fluctuation coherrer, in other words it takes tiny thermal (and probably quantum ZPE) fluctuations and orders them on large scale. I have spent many hours experimenting with my own version of this with no positive results. However, even the report says that Coler would work with it for hours or even days with no results. The alloy used are probably important. The report describes it as soft iron. Apparently, there is a critical state of conditioning that the iron must be in for the device to work. Hope this is some help, Tim From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 00:29:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA19973; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:18:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:18:39 -0800 Date: 12 Feb 97 03:15:22 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: E=mc^2 or Bust! Message-ID: <970212081522_100433.1541_BHG127-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Avz4x1.0._t4.UpN0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4080 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts, everyone, One scientist asked me (rhetorically, of course, he knows that I know nothing of these things) about mass change in a chemical reaction. Let's assume the validity of the relationship E=mc^2, which people tell me has never really been checked properly. OK, in a nuclear reaction we can measure the masses of the various atoms before and after. But in a chemical reaction the mass change would come about from rearranging the *electrons*. Question: How does reconfiguring electrons change the mass of a group of atoms? My response was that if we accept the Puthoff idea of mass as a *zitterbewegung* effect, localised clumps of kinetic energy interacting with the zpf, then maybe the problem looks different. ???? Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 01:37:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA28865; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:27:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:27:52 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:29:43 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Resent-Message-ID: <"dguPt3.0.u27.MqO0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4082 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris writes: >Gnorts, everyone, > >One scientist asked me (rhetorically, of course, he knows that I know >nothing of these things) about mass change in a chemical reaction. > >Let's assume the validity of the relationship E=mc^2, which people tell >me has never really been checked properly. OK, in a nuclear reaction >we can measure the masses of the various atoms before and after. But in >a chemical reaction the mass change would come about from rearranging >the *electrons*. > >Question: How does reconfiguring electrons change the mass of a group >of atoms? > >My response was that if we accept the Puthoff idea of mass as a >*zitterbewegung* effect, localised clumps of kinetic energy interacting >with the zpf, then maybe the problem looks different. > >???? > >Chris >From a non-zpf viewpoint, it seems logical that electrons in stronger bonds give up more energy than those in weak bonds. This implies less electron angular momentum. Less angular momentum means less electron mass due to relativistic shift in mass due to velocity, however small that mass may be. I have gone even further than that and suggested that the relativistic shift in mass of the electron(s) in a bond should correspond exactly with the energy given up as photons during formation of the bond by the relation E=mc^2, provided that relationship E=mc^2 is valid and constant as SR says it is. It seems like the only logical possibility. Once ZPE comes into the picture there is no need for an energy balance. However, I have asserted that the balance is maintained anyway, that any mass extracted from the vacuum must exactly be matched by the corresponding energy and vice versa. One can not be created without creating a corrsponding amount of the other. This, then is a useful clue to the design of true o-u devices which are not nulcear or chemical in nature - they must create mass as well as energy from the vacuum. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 01:50:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA27878; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:20:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:20:53 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:16:31 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Finale For The Phone Per Minute Controversy Resent-Message-ID: <"in8r13.0.Wp6.qjO0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4081 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:45 AM 1/12/97, Michael Mandeville wrote: >> >>There is no excuse, just go mail the letters every day until the 13th of >>February. >> >>Here is the url: >> >>http://www.in-search-of.com/frames/fcc/fcc.html [snip] BTW, that's *through* the 13th. I went to that web page and it was "dejas vous all over again", as Casey would say. The letter looked a lot like the one I posted here a while back. Well I'm just flattered to be plagerized. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 02:42:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA00275; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:04:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:04:37 -0800 Message-ID: <3301A53E.7F2 rt66.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 03:10:54 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Little , vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fifth Miley Critique References: <199702100654.AAA04926 natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VG87o2.0.D4.pMP0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4083 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Scott, Thanks for your appreciation of my Fifth Miley Critique. I'd like to know more about SIMS on supposedly "fresh" normal metals. How much does the metal composition vary on various length scales? Is there commonly isotopic separation at various length scales? How common are the kind of spots and craters found by many researchers after electrolysis? Does SIMS itself produce transmutations or separate isotopes? What are the details of Miley's special sputtering process- could it be producing energy or transmutations or be separating isotopes? Has anyone replicated the work by John Dash, producing excess power and transmutations in titanium with light and with heavy water? Likewise, any replications of Mizuno et al's various electrolysis experiments resulting in dozens of transmutted elements? Yes, I've talked to Ed Storms several times. He showed me his little laboratory last spring. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 02:58:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA01603; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:32:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:32:57 -0800 From: alansch zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Construction of Hans Coler devices needed Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:24:43 GMT Message-ID: <3301a6d1.2088358 mail.zip.com.au> References: <855730568 trex.ccc-infonet.edu> In-Reply-To: <855730568 trex.ccc-infonet.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/16.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Mf_nJ.0.uO.NnP0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4084 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:56:08 GMT, tim.vaughan trex.ccc-infonet.edu (Tim Vaughan) wrote: [snip] _>The technical _>details are quite detailed for a device called the = "MagnetStromApparat". _>It is a low powered device that demonstrates the effect. _>I believe this device is a fluctuation coherrer, in other words it = takes _>tiny thermal (and probably quantum ZPE) fluctuations and orders them on _>large scale. I have spent many hours experimenting with my own version _>of this with no positive results. However, even the report says that _>Coler would work with it for hours or even days with no results. The _>alloy used are probably important. The report describes it as soft _>iron. _>Apparently, there is a critical state of conditioning that the iron = must _>be in for the device to work. I thought they were supposed to be magnets!? They are - I just checked my downloaded copy of the page. At the bottom of page 1, top of page 2: >II HISTORICAL NOTES > 1. The "Magnetstromapparat" >This device consists of six permanent magnets wound in a special=20 ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >way so that the circuit includes the magnet itself as well as the=20 >winding, (See Fig.1). These six magnet-coils are arranged in a=20 >hexagon and connected as shown in the diagram (Figs. 2 and 3), in=20 >a circuit which includes two small condensers, a switch, and a=20 >pair of solenoidal coils, one sliding inside the other. > To bring the device into operation the switch is left open,=20 >the magnets are moved slightly apart, and the sliding coil set=20 >into various positions, with a wait of several minutes between=20 >adjustments.=20 > The magnets are then separated still further, and the coils=20 >moved again. This process is repeated until at a critical=20 >separation of the magnets an indication appears on the voltmeter. > The switch is now closed, and the procedure continued more=20 >slowly. The tension then builds up gradually to a maximum, and >should then remain indefinitely. > The greatest tension obtained was stated to be 12 volts. Cheers All, Alan =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of. - Michael Sinz =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 03:12:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA03138; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 03:02:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 03:02:04 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 03:01:25 -0800 Message-Id: <199702121101.DAA11857 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: We can OCR the ICCF6 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"b7s9t3.0.ym.gCQ0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4085 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 11, 1997 Jed, yes I know there is OCR technology to scan the pages and send it along. But this manual process is so much more physical and hands-on which I prefer. I read the stuff as I go along and provides a keyboard exercise. Otherwise I would not be reading the efforts of the ICCF-6 particiants but do a pick and choose scan read. So there is an element of a selfish motive in this. At the same time, experimental efforts being conducted is disseminated to those that did not attend. The readers can judge the contents. But then, you can post the conference abstracs by OCR. I have a flat bed scanner and OCR softwares but I find that process too much a mechanical, non-mental procedure to present the Abstract content. I want to be aware (non-judgementally) of the Abstract being presented. Perhaps it may serve to provide a more detailed macro view of the CF field. Although interested in the CF field, not many aside from the attendees, bothered to buy the ICCF-6 Program and Abstracts at 3,000 yen ($27 approx) a copy so this is a 'economical' of getting content. Heck, it wouldn't hurt to post other non-copyrighted, presented experimental data from past activities which are still relevant to CF. I think this to be a useful addition to the Vortex discussion process. It also flash exposes involved individuals not members of the vortex-l which has something to say about CF. -AK- -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 04:25:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA11806; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:14:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:14:42 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970212041557.00ed99ec mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:15:58 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Decentralized telephone switches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"flg1L.0.Ou2.mGR0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4087 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: YOUR ANALYSIS OF THIS DECENTRALIZED COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IS WRONG. I have seen the military system work in high density situation and it works much better when it is congested. This is to be expected considering its switching topography. I agree that the decentralized system will be impaired in rural areas for the same reason why it is aided in congested areas. The solution to sparse population is simple: idle transceivers must be seeded, just like they are in the military system during dessert operation. Your sentence: "...If every telephone switches for every other, all telephones handle all the traffic, resulting in a huge traffic crunch...", is deceptively implying that a telephone will be overwhelmed by traffic from all of the others. This simply is not the case since the a single "relay-telephone" is subjected to traffic of only its neighbors and if this is to much, the data finds another path through the mandatory scattering behavior. Also, an idle telephone can offer all of it's bandwidth to its neighbors, unlike the conventional centralized system where an unused phone is not contributing to the system at all. And NO, no single telephone would have all of the world's data flow through it, because of the mandatory data scattering behavior. The only way this situation could arise if there was only one "relay-telephone" between to cities, and this is not very probable. And yes, one relay would not be able to carry all of the traffic between two cities. Once again this is very improbable scenario (statistically). This is one of the reasons why "more is better". The above scattering effect is what makes this system so attractive for military use because data is almost impossible to intercept from the system since it is scattered among many "relay-telephones" which can be very far away from each other. You would have to be within a transmitting range of EACH ONE of the "relay-phones" that carry parts of the data stream you are interested in, in order to intercept anything meaningful. With one phone you will only get bits and pieces for undefined time. Do a simple statistical analysis assuming that half of bandwidth of each phone is made available for the use of its 2 neighbors and you will understand that this method is superior to anything we use now. Do a simulation in BASIC or C and see for yourself how efficient this system is Also no long distance hops are necessary. These are even undesirable and impair the system since long range increases the amount of immediate neighbors that you have to serve and increase interference (with SpreadSpectum modulation that means less bandwidth). Fast and short hops are the best (just like in congested metropolitan areas) An analogy: It would nearly impossible to take 10million matches and set every house in Los Angeles on fire, but it is easier to set one place on fire with one match and let it spread throughout the city. And yes I agree that the question of telephony is complex, but it is not that way because it has to be. The status quo is not the most efficient way of solving communication problems today. I've seen this decentralized communication network work like a charm. I know I cannot convince you until you do the calculations yourself or see it with your own eyes. I doubt you will ever even try it, considering your closed minded statements about "delusion of free service...". This system works very much like gossip which has been known to move faster than the speed of light with extreme efficiency. (an analogical joke...) At 11:09 AM 2/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >Slow down, gentlemen and think a bit. > >The military battlefield distributed switching makes sense where everyone is >mobile and you don't want a central switchboard which can be taken out, >disabling communication for all. You are also dealing with a limited number >of customers within short range of each other where you can use high >frequencies and spread-spectrum transmission for security and noise immunity. > > >This doesn't work in a metropolitan area with thousands of customers or in >rural areas where customers are spread apart and line-of-sight transmission >at high frequencies doesn't work. > >If every telephone switches for every other, all telephones handle all the >traffic, resulting in a huge traffic crunch (with the opportunity for every >telephone, properly equipped, to read all the traffic, like cellular phones). >Like the delusion of "free energy", the notion that this would provide "free >service" is another delusion as the cost of the telephones would rise and the >cost of congested spectrum space would rise as well. And if you are going to >use fiber, who pays for that? > >The whole question of telephone service for all is far more complex than >meets the eye, and it would be well to think carefully before glibly waving >the "why don't they" flag -- careful thought about such questions can be very >instructive. > >Mike Carrell > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 04:53:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA15310; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:43:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:43:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:42:57 -0800 Message-Id: <199702121242.EAA15020 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts #2 (3 more) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"yxEM6.0.8l3.xhR0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4089 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 11, 1997 Three more ICCF-6 conference Abstracts: -AK- P-016 (poster presentation abstract) TRIODE CELL EXPERIMENTS FOR CONTROLLED FLEISCHMANN/ PONS EFFECT Evan Ragland, The Boiler Works, Diamondhead, MS, USA Experimental research and evaluation of three electrode (triode) cold fusion electrolysis cells is reported herein. Apparatus development began, after patent application, in June 1995. The triodee apparatus introduces controlled loading and operation of Fleischmann/Pons-type cells. In August 1995 excess heat generation was observed in triode apparatus experiments by Dennis Cravens in his laboratory in New Mexico. In November 1995 the Boiler Works laboratory in Diamondhead began experimental evaluation of the triode apparatus. Understanding gained from these experiments led to development of a triode reactor. The reactor has been in continuous operation since 20 March 1996. The experimental reactor data base is being applied in further triode apparatus developments. Near-term goals are, completion of a reactor test bed for "quick change" cathode specimen evaluation and engineering design of a 5 to 10 KW reactor cell. Thin film cathode specimens prepared by the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory of the University of Alabama in Birmingham are presently ready for test and evaluation. These include Pd film on Ag, Al, Cu, and quartz substrates and Pt films on Si bead specimens. Details of triode apparatus operation, control, and experiental results will be presented. The suggestion is made in conclusion that present experimental and theoritical understandings of cold fusion are sufficiently advanced for engineering design and development. If possible, a physical display and/or a demonstration will be available for inspection. P-067 (poster presentation abstract) TRANSMUTATION PHENOMENA IN PALLADIUM CATHODE AFTER ION'S IRRADIATION AT GLOW DISCHARGES Irina B. Savvatimova, Alexander B. Karabut, Aleksy D. Senchukov, Ivan P. Chernov, Scientific Industrial Association "Lutch" Podolsk, Moscow Region, Russian Federation. Observation of the anolomous stable and unstable impourities and isotope shift in the palladium cathode after D, H, Ar and Xe glow discharge (GD) experiments have been made by different methods more detail than early /1-5/(poster sheet numbers). The concentration of some impurites and isotope shift in Pd cathode after GD. Plasma experiments depends on the current density, kind of the ions, the distance from irradiated surface and the time interval (GD) switch off, The most change of the isotope natural abundance in the deuterium irradiated Pd was found for Pd and Ag near the surface shortly after GD switch off by SIMS. The maximum of the impurities increasing was observed for deuterium experiment. Quantity of the impurity decreased from D to H, to Ar + Xe (by EDS method). It correlated with heat measurements /6/(poster sheet number). Maximum impurity contents were for elements Ag, Cd, In, Br, Kr, Sr, Y, ZR, Ge. As with atomic numbers 47-49, 42, 44, 35, 36, 38-40, 54 (by EDS). Maximum isotope shift in the isotope natural abundance of the Pd was founded after irradiation by Ar + Xe. For example, Pd(104) decreasing was to 8% after hydrogen irradiation and increasing to 16% after Ar + Xe irradiation later 3 months (by SIMS after deleting 100 nanometers). Mass 107 (only!) was obtained in the Pd cathode sample after Ar + Xe irradiation three months later.Probably, it depends on the different life period of the isotopes Pd(109) and Pd(107). We registered masses 109 and 107 in ratio =10/1 and 3/1 after deuterium experiment in a few days. The blackening of the x-ray films by Pd, which were shielded from the ion's irradiatlion or were below irradiated foils of the Pd or other different metals, may be as a result of the Pd(109) radiation. Time dependence of the blackening decreasing correlated with period of the life of the Ps(109). Increasing of the mass 110 >25% and decreasing of the 105 > 12% was observed for the irradiated deuterium Pd shortly after other series of the experiments. This is more, than the cumulative messuring error. Masses 107 and 109 was presented in this case too, Most isotope shoift for Ar + Xe experiment with Pd cathode may be explained as a result of the decay (fusion reaction) excited Pd. O-022 (oral presentation abstract)(not presented) ANALYSIS OF REACTION PRODUCTS FROM A CETI CELL T.N. Claytor, M.J. Schwab and D.G. Tuggle, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 Over the past few months we have been examining the light water CETI electrolytic cold fusion cell. The cell uses a lithium sulphate (Li2SO4) electrolyte and special multilayer, Pd-Ni plated beads. During cell operation, we have taken calibrated temperature measurementson the inlet and outlet of the cell in order to detrermine if a particular run shows signs of heat production. If the cell appears to be active, we allow it to run for several days to a week, remove the beads, and analyze them to look for possible nuclear products. Since the beads may have some impurities, the analysis will include calibratlion with unused beads from the same batches. The techniques used to analyze the beads will include x-ray flourescence and high sensitivity gamma counting. Given the opportunity, these results will be covered with results from SEM and Neutron Activitation measurements taken independantly at the University of Illinois. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 04:59:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA15786; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:47:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:47:18 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:46:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Cornwall RO X-Sender: remi exeter To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Bill Beaty, that's a clever email server you got there. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KtQVw.0.as3.KlR0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4090 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Remi Cornwall wrote: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:38:47 +0000 (GMT) > From: Remi Cornwall > Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Network Problem (>3days)! Email bounce? Resend! > Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:15:50 -0800 > Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com > Bill Beaty, Your email server seems to have realised that my other account was faulty and sent to the other one. On the remote possibility that Remi_Cornwall iesun9.city.ac.uk and r.o.cornwall@city.ac.uk aren't the same people this was a bad thing for security and confidentiality. Only kidding (-: Oh yeah, how's it done - do you keep some kind of database and email script/batch file? Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 05:39:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA19503; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:19:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:19:19 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:18:40 -0800 Message-Id: <199702121318.FAA26171 dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Tesla Florida To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"j-Ozu2.0.fm4.MDS0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4091 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 2/12/97 Bill, would you please post the following. Bob Schumann and I are starting a Florida Tesla association. The Orlando Hamfest (largest in the state) will be this weekend, Fri, Sat, & Sun. We are meeting at the fairgrounds front gate at 11 am Sat morning. I will have a small "Tesla Fla" sign. There are a lot of Florida members on this list and all are invited. Future events will include a Florida Teslathon ala TCBOR. Hope to see you there. Richard Wall rwall ix.netcom.com 904-287-6804 or 904-287-4937 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 06:52:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA30576; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:21:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:21:24 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:19:18 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Network Problem (>3days)! Email bounce? Resend! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"rE9l-3.0.bT7.Y7T0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4092 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Test.... Remi On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Remi Cornwall wrote: > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 07:50:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA10214; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:25:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:25:30 -0800 Date: 12 Feb 97 10:23:37 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Cable TV, Internet, home heating Message-ID: <970212152336_72240.1256_EHB107-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ezb623.0.UV2.d3U0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4093 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex One more word about telephony here . . . I just got a brochure from BellSouth (the local phone company in Atlanta) offering 60 channels of cable TV for $24 per month, which is $3 less than the cable company. This includes movies on demand. On my daily walks I have been watching the workmen string fiber optics around the neighborhood for months, and I have been gabbing with the linemen. They somehow plug a coax cable in the fiber optic connection on the pole outside your house. This is a pilot project which is costing a ton of money, according to the Atlanta Journal. Anyway, the brochure also says "BellSouth.net high speed edition -- Internet access up to 100 times faster than current 14.4 modems." This is what I had in mind in my earlier message where I described: "an ISDN type connection in which many subscribers share a channel, and service degrades if they all begin transmitting simultaneously. It would work like a LAN." I just called the phone company. The guy says the Internet is a separate offering with a separate cable, for $40 per month. Oddly enough, it is only available to residential customers, even though I saw them stringing the new cables next to my office complex. I cannot imagine why they don't offer this to business customers. The guy said they will eventually. I personally don't see any reason to pay an extra $20 per month for a faster connection. 28,000 bps is fast enough for my purposes. Most web sites don't even keep up with that, and I seldom use the web anyway. Someday, when Vortex routinely carries graphs and full-color photos we are all going to need high speed connections. But for now, we have to stick with ASCII-only messages, to be fair to our friends living in low-tech places. As often happens with technology, the standard must accommodate the lowest common denominator. The need for "backwards compatibility" often slows down technological progress, but that cannot be helped. People cannot throw away existing equipment overnight. In the case of computers, we throw them away in 3 to 5 years; the U.S. fleet of cars turn over in about 8 years; and we replace heating and air conditioning every 20 or 30 years, I think. (I do, anyway.) In many discussions of over-unity energy and economics, people often overlook this point. You hear two mistaken arguments, at opposite extremes: A. Cold fusion will be worth a trillion dollars a year right away, because everyone needs energy! No, because we cannot afford a trillion dollars in new equipment the first few years no matter what. And you cannot stop production lines in factories world-wide and cut over the first year. B. Cold fusion will never sell, because it is not worth changing out your $2000 home furnace just to save $50 per month in natural gas six months a year. (In warm climates like Atlanta.) Wrong, because you will have to change out your furnace eventually, when it wears out. When you go to Sears to pick a new one, you will select the CF model, even if it costs an extra $600 and saves only $50 per month. That's like getting 8% interest on your money. And in places like New England it will save a lot more than $50. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 08:32:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA13947; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:38:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:38:46 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:38:36 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Construction of Hans Coler devices needed In-Reply-To: <855730568 trex.ccc-infonet.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kgpdQ2.0.qP3.4GU0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4095 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tim Vaughan wrote: > > -> > -> >Does any subscriber to this newsgroup have any knowledege about > -> the Hans coler devices the stromerzeuger constuction details in > -> ticular regards Geoff Egel email egel main.murray.net.au > -> >http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel > > -> > > A gentleman from Sweden was thoughtful enough to put the B.I.O.S. > (British Intelligence Objective Subcommittee) report on a web site. Conny Ohstrom also has material on the Coler device. His site contains significantly more than I've seen elsewhere. Linkname: Coler Invention Filename: http://www.abc.se/~m10190/hcoler/hcoler1.htm .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 11:31:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA27074; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:00:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:00:41 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:00:17 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"scIBR.0.yc6.NDX0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4097 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I did the magnetic test with my helium filled aluminum coated mylar balloons. I wrapped copper wire around the balloon and sent about 4 amps through it at about 12 volts. There was a torque in evidence but there appeared to be no levitation within the first few seconds after turning on the power. Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose upward. The expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be entirely consistent with this expansion. My conclusion is that the magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 12:13:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA27885; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:04:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:04:00 -0800 X-Sender: protech mail.frii.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:52:01 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: protech frii.com (R. Wormus) Subject: CF of H Resent-Message-ID: <"Q2OFI2.0.Yp6.UGX0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4098 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortexians, Although more detail on an appratus and descriptions of the experiments would be nice some interesting work can be found at: >A new atomic theory leads to hydrogen's cold fusion! >I have worked several years on calculates that gives me a thesis >concerning the >spectral series. I received help at this time by a >Professor of the "Institut >d'Optique " in France. That Professor decided >a colleague of him Professor of >the same society and Academician to bring >the thesis at the " Acad=E9mie des >Sciences " of Paris to make published >it. Unfortunately the thesis was badly >received and rejected. I have >tried a long time ago to make published that >thesis as well the first >Professor but in vain. Then I thought that I must to >make an application >so as to do the proof of my thesis. During twelve years I >worked with few >means on the hydrogen's cold fusion. Having succeed I >registered a patent >that is under way to be international. >If you are interested by that story you will have all details among them >the >patent's text, on the WEB by making >http://members.aol.com/newatom >From: erdnadloc aol.com (ERDNADLOC) This was a post on sci.physics.new-theories ____Ron From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 13:37:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA07970; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:54:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:54:17 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:55:41 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"bYEgQ.0.Iy1.d_X0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4099 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I did the magnetic test with my helium filled aluminum coated mylar >balloons. I wrapped copper wire around the balloon and sent about 4 amps >through it at about 12 volts. There was a torque in evidence but there >appeared to be no levitation within the first few seconds after turning on >the power. Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose >upward. The expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be >entirely consistent with this expansion. My conclusion is that the >magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Why only 12 volts? In this regard, the experiment you describe above has nothing in common with that described by Joseph Newman. Also, what gauge copper and how many turns around the balloon (what size/shape/dimensions)? Evan Soule' josephnewman earthlink.net From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 14:02:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA30495; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:15:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:15:17 -0800 Message-ID: <330232C6.93C interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:14:46 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"brZ5o.0.DS7.OBZ0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4101 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: My conclusion is that the > magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. Uh Oh! If Evan calls, tell him we're not here! Frank S. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 14:10:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA14916; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:24:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:24:12 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:23:52 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702122023.OAA09302 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: question from Graneau Resent-Message-ID: <"MNeu2.0.-e3.gRY0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4100 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Howdy Vortexans, Peter Graneau asked me to pose this question to the group: "Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic process. This means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat (increase the temperature of) the water with which they combine. I have been unable to find any calorimetric data which confirms this. Do you know where I can find it?" Any info on this matter would be appreciated...I will forward it to Graneau. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 15:44:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27073; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:15:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:15:04 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:13:34 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702122313.RAA13261 dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: question from Graneau To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"F9FYX.0.Lc6.fxa0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4103 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >Howdy Vortexans, > >Peter Graneau asked me to pose this question to the group: > >"Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic process. This >means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat (increase the >temperature of) the water with which they combine. I have been unable to >find any calorimetric data which confirms this. Do you know where I can >find it?" > >Any info on this matter would be appreciated...I will forward it to Graneau. > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) > > 2/12/97 Scott, Isn't it the same but opposite as the heat of vaporization? RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 15:52:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA22494; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:56:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:56:33 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:57:44 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: question from Graneau Resent-Message-ID: <"pSR9J1.0.KV5.Wga0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4102 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic process. Yes. >This means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat (increase the >temperature of) the water with which they combine. No. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. The vapor is slightly hotter (temperature) than the liquid, which is necessary so that HEAT FLOWS INTO THE WATER. Depending on the system, this heat then can raise the liquid temperature, which will halt further condensation unless the vapor temperature is raised by some outside source. Or else one might remove the heat from the liquid, say by an immersed heat exchange coil and stirring, in order to prevent the liquid temperature rise. In this case heat flows to the heat exchanger, which must be at a slightly lower temperature than the liquid in order to accomplish such a heat flow. To summarize, the definition of exothermic or endothermic rests on the DIRECTION OF HEAT FLOW, not temperature difference. >I have been unable to find any calorimetric data which confirms this. Of course. Thermodynamics deals with infinitessimally slow processes, which means that all components of the system are ideally at the SAME TEMPERATURE. Therefore, thermodynamic tables are constructed from data taken in systems that are ISOTHERMAL to within some small experimental error. >Do you know where I can find it? From the discussion above, the answer is clearly, "Nowhere." Such data would be in contradiction with the definition of thermodynamic data. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 16:07:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02457; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:42:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:42:17 -0800 Message-ID: <33025565.19A3 interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:42:29 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: question from Graneau References: <199702122023.OAA09302 natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2fKp91.0.Ac.LLb0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4104 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > Howdy Vortexans, > > Peter Graneau asked me to pose this question to the group: > > "Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic process. This > means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat (increase the > temperature of) the water with which they combine. I have been unable to > find any calorimetric data which confirms this. Do you know where I can > find it?" Scott, what's wrong with the clasic steam tables of Keenan & Keyes? Of course, these tabbles present data "at thermal equilibrium" and so can say nothing about RATES of condensation or evaporation. In a real process, the liquid molecules are leaving the interface to vapor at the same rate vapor molecules are going the other way - IF the vapor and liquid are isothermal. If the liquid is subcooled a slight amount (by removing heat) more vapor molecules condense to liquid than evaporate. The main idea is that there needs to be a constant heat flow out of the liquid to support a constant rate of vapor condensation. I think the steam table data, then, represents the situation in which an INFITESIMAL amount of liquid subcooling causes an INFITESIMAL rate of NET vapor condensation. I probably don't understand just what it is that Graneau is looking at. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 16:45:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA08883; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:06:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:06:48 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:06:05 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702130006.SAA24375 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: question from Graneau To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"CP03f3.0.eA2.Mib0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4105 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >2/12/97 > >Scott, > >Isn't it the same but opposite as the heat of vaporization? > >RWW > > The heat of vaporization (equal, but opposite to the heat of condensation)of H20 is the highest of all known substances. It takes 540 cal to vaporize one gram of H2O at 100 deg C. Consequently 540 cal is given up when one gram of H2O is condensed at 100 deg C. RWW From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 16:59:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA18433; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:44:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:44:12 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:45:51 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Cc: fstenger interlaced.net Resent-Message-ID: <"lOypL.0.wV4.QFc0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4106 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Larry Wharton wrote: > My conclusion is that the >> magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. > >Uh Oh! If Evan calls, tell him we're not here! Frank S. Dear Frank, I am assuming that you mean your comment as a bit of friendly humor. To repeat: Mr. Wharton's 'test' was quite different from that of Joseph Newman's. If Mr. Wharton wishes to conduct his own experiments with high currents and low voltages this is fine. My comment is to clarify that, as such, it has nothing to do with Joseph Newman's demonstration. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 17:18:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21238; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:04:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:04:20 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:56:13 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cable TV, Internet, home heating In-Reply-To: <970212152336_72240.1256_EHB107-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"CcUiB2.0.8B5.DYc0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4108 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 12 Feb 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I personally don't see any reason to pay an extra $20 per month for a faster > connection. 28,000 bps is fast enough for my purposes. > I can't believe it Jed. You're thinking small :-)! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 17:20:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA19554; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:48:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:48:15 -0800 Date: 12 Feb 97 18:34:40 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Two questions Message-ID: <970212233440_100433.1541_BHG28-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"soXbE2.0.Mn4.DJc0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4107 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts, all, Vladimir Onoochin has asked me the following question, whgich I can't really answer. Has anyone got anything I can send to him? Chris ---------------------------------------------------- I would like to ask you one question concerning Graneaus' works. There is known one phenomenon in the accelerators of the electrons. When the accelerated electronic beam outputs from the accelerator it pass through the ring intended to change the direction of the beam. Usually such a ring is being a coil made of copper wire. After some 'shots' of the electronic beam, the coil is exploded. It is accepted that destroying of the coil occurs due to heating of the wires. However, I think the explosion could be caused by Graneaus' forces (the induced current explodes the wire). Have you ever considered this efect during the vortex group discussion? --------------------------------------------------------- On a related matter, I was asked if I would do my homework on the following question - which I had never seen as a problem before: "Well, before our next meeting, tell me whether you understand the space charge around the cathode of a thermionic diode." Comments, any of you? By the way, the guy who asked me this question was none other than Prof Martin Fleischmann, FRS. I can assume that it is not a trivial one. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 17:53:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA29650; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:32:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:32:32 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <33026F0C.794BDF32 math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:31:56 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sUztz3.0.kE7.jyc0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4109 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > > My comment is to clarify that, as > such, it has nothing to do with Joseph Newman's demonstration. > why don't you simply specify the proper parameters of this simply system. Please include suggested suppliers for any atypical components (like 3000 V DC power supplies). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 18:05:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA30078; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:34:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:34:35 -0800 Date: 12 Feb 97 20:33:10 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Balloon Levitation Message-ID: <970213013309_72240.1256_EHB160-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"lIYaa1.0.rL7.d-c0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4110 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose upward. The expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be entirely consistent with this expansion. How did you measure expansion? With a string or thread around the balloon? Roughly how big did the balloon get? Approximately how long did it take to begin floating up? You were putting in 48 watts, which makes a lot of heat, but I suppose most of it goes into the surrounding air, rather than heating the helium. Soule suggests you should use higher voltage. I say try high voltage and low voltage too. Adjust amps to keep the power the same, and time how long it takes to start moving. If you have time for a few more runs, I'd like to hear about it. It sounds sorta fun, like using a hair drier to launch garbage bags as hot air balloons in the front yard. My daughter gets them way up there! It's almost as much fun as kites or balsa wood rubber band airplanes, which I am crazy about. I never understood why they fly so well, since the wings are not chambered. As someone here remarked, this thing might make a great toy. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 18:24:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA04273; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:04:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:04:35 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:01:19 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: Vortex Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation In-Reply-To: <970213013309_72240.1256_EHB160-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DAfNS3.0.h21.mQd0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4111 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Kites are grand! On 12 Feb 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Larry Wharton writes: > > Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose upward. The > expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be entirely > consistent with this expansion. > > How did you measure expansion? With a string or thread around the balloon? > Roughly how big did the balloon get? Approximately how long did it take to > begin floating up? You were putting in 48 watts, which makes a lot of heat, > but I suppose most of it goes into the surrounding air, rather than heating > the helium. > > Soule suggests you should use higher voltage. I say try high voltage and low > voltage too. Adjust amps to keep the power the same, and time how long it > takes to start moving. If you have time for a few more runs, I'd like to hear > about it. It sounds sorta fun, like using a hair drier to launch garbage bags > as hot air balloons in the front yard. My daughter gets them way up there! > It's almost as much fun as kites or balsa wood rubber band airplanes, which > I am crazy about. I never understood why they fly so well, since the wings > are not chambered. > > As someone here remarked, this thing might make a great toy. > > - Jed > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 19:15:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA19719; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:01:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:01:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:03:34 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: CF of H Resent-Message-ID: <"fX8RU3.0.wp4.yFe0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4112 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Vortexians, >Although more detail on an appratus and descriptions of the experiments >would be nice some interesting work can be found at: > >>http://members.aol.com/newatom >>From: erdnadloc aol.com (ERDNADLOC) > >This was a post on sci.physics.new-theories > >____Ron I talked to Andre' briefly (we don't speak each other's languages very well) by phone yesterday. He seems very nice and was patient with me as well. I have corresponded with him in the past and offered to help when his patent issues. He seems eager to get on with marketing without the patent, which he expected to be issued last January. As far as I can tell the patent has not been issued, but I don't pseak French. It would be good if someone who speaks French would check him out. He seems to have difficulty with tense, like "am holder of patent" vs "will be holder of patent". Glad to see post in "sci.physics.new-theories" was more clear. Here is a post made in sci.physics in Dec.: "Originally-From: erdnadloc aol.com (ERDNADLOC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: What is the best: speaking or making cold fusion of HYDROGEN? Date: 16 Dec 1996 09:56:32 GMT Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.fr I am holder of an international patent describing process and device allowing to make the so called "cold fusion " of hydrogen.I insist on the fact that this patent concern the fusion of hydrogen because there is nothing other in the apparatus when the reaction begins. One switched off the currant (less than three thousand volts) furnished to the electrode when that reaction is beginning.However the reaction continue and the gamma ray pass through at least 60 millimetres of lead.I have been irradiated two times during my experiments(that I have continued during twelve years).That irradiation seemed to be a treatment for skin cancer. I have stopped the experiments as I was enable to protect the environment (I am retired and I work alone in my house). I am seeking in two possible directions: The first direction is to have an agreement with a great School, an University or a Physical Research Centre so as to do the proof of the functioning of my apparatus. The second direction is to find financial support to create a company to exploit the patent." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 20:07:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA28556; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:44:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:44:03 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970213034819.014c9434 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:48:19 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"IZbcr3.0.-z6._te0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4113 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I did the magnetic test with my helium filled aluminum coated mylar >balloons. I wrapped copper wire around the balloon and sent about 4 amps >through it at about 12 volts. There was a torque in evidence but there >appeared to be no levitation within the first few seconds after turning on >the power. Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose >>upward. The expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be >>entirely consistent with this expansion. My conclusion is that the >>magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. >> >>Lawrence E. Wharton >>NASA/GSFC code 913 >>Greenbelt MD 20771 >>(301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov > >Why only 12 volts? In this regard, the experiment you describe above has >nothing in common with that described by Joseph Newman. Also, what gauge >copper and how many turns around the balloon (what size/shape/dimensions)? > >Evan Soule' >josephnewman earthlink.net Au contraire, the experiment described above is near precisely what Joseph Newman demonstrated at the Tesla Society Conference in 1993, after his motor demo. The only difference between Newman and Wharton is that Newman seems to think he's going to be able to ride in the thing. It was also rather disconcerting in '93 that Newman did not want to hook someone else's meter in series with his, to measure current, comparing the readings. He did not appear to understand that it would not limit the current. If his intent was to boggle minds, that was an effective approach, cause it boggled mine that someone proporting to understand electricity to an advanced degree did not understand something so fundamental. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wondrous women Make me swim in Lofty thoughts alot. /-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 20:15:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA30553; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:53:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:53:41 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:53:23 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: question from Graneau In-Reply-To: <199702122023.OAA09302 natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kAglx2.0.DT7.31f0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4114 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Scott Little wrote: > "Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic process. This > means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat (increase the > temperature of) the water with which they combine. I have been unable to > find any calorimetric data which confirms this. Do you know where I can > find it?" One problem is that temperature difference causes net condensation, rather than the reverse. But I think there are added effects which make the situation complex. For example, small droplets have different equilibrium values than large. And depending on the amount of non-equilibrium, chaotic dynamics appears and diffusion-limited aggregations appear (at least in regelation, I don't know if this impacts condensation effects.) I've always wondered if this has something to do with surface energy. Similar things occur with crystallization, where clefts in crystals tend to grow faster than points. Electrolytic "electropolishing" takes advantage of this. Perhaps there is literature somewhere about surface physics that will have the answers. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 20:39:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA05442; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:21:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:21:00 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:19:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970212231920_2093857092 emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic process. Resent-Message-ID: <"DuivJ2.0.WK1.ZQf0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4115 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger don't you remember when you took me to lunch. You said It sure snows a lot here in northern Ohio but when it snows it warms up. The condensing snow takes up the heat. Have you forgotten? Perhaps its just getting colder. Now look you even got Evan upset. I remember the day you made Trina'a hair stand up with that 100,000 demon you built. I'm beginning to think that there is a wild man under that behind that cool calculating engineering facade. Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 21:14:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA15720; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:56:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:56:04 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Two questions To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:55:52 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <970212233440_100433.1541_BHG28-2 CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Feb 12, 97 06:34:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tC_vO2.0.gq3.Vxf0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4116 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > "Well, before our next meeting, tell me whether you understand the > space charge around the cathode of a thermionic diode." Well, electrons ejected due to thermal agitation leave the cathode with kinetic energy, but leave behind a net positive charge, so there is an attraction of the wayward electrons back to the cathode. The more electrons that vibrate loose the stronger the desire to recombine. At some point, the attraction force grows to overcome the kinetic energy of the escaping electrons. So this is a negative feedback system, ergo it is self-limiting by the self-surrounding "space charge", forcing an equilbrium. Now if you apply an electric potential to the electrodes, depending upon the polarity, you either expand or shrink the effective radius of the space charge. On the CRT you are using to read this, the high positive polarity on the anode (front screen) pulls the electron cloud away from the heater/ emitter, reducing the effect of the space charge and allowing current to flow. If the anode voltage supply were to fail, the cathode current would cease because the space charge around the heater/emitter would build up and reach an equilibrium where just as many electrons were being recaptured as were escaping. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 21:35:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA18460; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:04:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:04:53 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:04:40 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <970212081522_100433.1541_BHG127-2 CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Feb 12, 97 03:15:22 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0qHMb1.0.LW4.p3g0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4117 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > in a nuclear reaction > we can measure the masses of the various atoms before and after. But in > a chemical reaction the mass change would come about from rearranging > the *electrons*. > > Question: How does reconfiguring electrons change the mass of a group > of atoms? Since electrons are in motion, they are "reconfiguring" all the time without loss of mass. However, when energy escapes from (or is gained by) the system due to some pertinent form of "reconfiguration" the mass lost is equal (via e=mc^2) to the lost energy -- typically lost in the form of photons or phonos (vibrations) or chemical "ash" which gained energy/mass and then escaped the system. Why one configuration should be lower energy than another I'll leave to the chemists ... -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 21:56:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25417; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:45:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:45:28 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:45:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702130545.XAA04448 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: question from Graneau Resent-Message-ID: <"kWRtI.0.uC6.rfg0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4118 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:13 PM 2/12/97 -0600, RIchard Hall wrote: > >Isn't it the same but opposite as the heat of vaporization? I would think so, but perhaps Graneau is looking for evidence that the heat liberated when water condenses is different from that required to vaporize it. In any case, he would like to find some actual calorimetric measurements of this heat. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 12 22:11:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25449; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:45:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:45:32 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:45:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702130545.XAA04454 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: question from Graneau Resent-Message-ID: <"fudfQ2.0.XD6.wfg0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4119 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:57 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Mike S wrote: >>This means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat (increase the >>temperature of) the water with which they combine. > > No. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. The vapor is slightly >hotter (temperature) than the liquid, which is necessary so that HEAT FLOWS >INTO THE WATER. I get your point, Mike, but couldn't you have a system in which vapor and liquid were both present at the same temp, then raise the pressure to force vapor to condense and heat up the liquid? >>Do you know where I can find it? > > From the discussion above, the answer is clearly, "Nowhere." Such data >would be in contradiction with the definition of thermodynamic data. Perhaps we're just getting tangled up in thermo-terminology (which is easy to do!) Surely you aren't saying that it is impossible to measure the heat of condensation of water? I think that is all that Graneau is asking for...actual calorimetric data on that measurement. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 02:03:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA32538; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:50:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:50:40 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970114015039.009fc680 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 01:50:41 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"E6WCf1.0.Ky7.kFk0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4120 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:33 PM 2/12/97 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Larry Wharton writes: > > Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose upward. The > expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be entirely > consistent with this expansion. > >How did you measure expansion? With a string or thread around the balloon? >Roughly how big did the balloon get? Approximately how long did it take to >begin floating up? You were putting in 48 watts, which makes a lot of heat, >but I suppose most of it goes into the surrounding air, rather than heating >the helium. > >Soule suggests you should use higher voltage. I say try high voltage and low >voltage too. Adjust amps to keep the power the same, and time how long it >takes to start moving. If you have time for a few more runs, I'd like to hear >about it. It sounds sorta fun, like using a hair drier to launch garbage bags >as hot air balloons in the front yard. My daughter gets them way up there! >It's almost as much fun as kites or balsa wood rubber band airplanes, which >I am crazy about. I never understood why they fly so well, since the wings >are not chambered. > >As someone here remarked, this thing might make a great toy. > >- Jed > > uh, ahem, that's me! ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 02:11:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA00974; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:59:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:59:44 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970114020052.009e8880 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 02:00:55 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Two questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"c86wT2.0.8F.FOk0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4121 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Have the sniffles there laddy? At 06:34 PM 2/12/97 EST, you wrote: >Gnorts, all, > >Vladimir Onoochin has asked me the following question, whgich I can't really >answer. Has anyone got anything I can send to him? > >Chris > In any event, you oughter pose this question to Gary Hawkins. I have seen him explode a lot of copper wire. the answer lies in the induced current flow all right. happens in the blink of an eye. >---------------------------------------------------- > >I would like to ask you one question concerning Graneaus' works. >There is known one phenomenon in the accelerators of the electrons. >When the accelerated electronic beam outputs from the accelerator >it pass through the ring intended to change the direction of the beam. >Usually such a ring is being a coil made of copper wire. > >After some 'shots' of the electronic beam, the coil is exploded. >It is accepted that destroying of the coil occurs due to heating of >the wires. However, I think the explosion could be caused by Graneaus' >forces (the induced current explodes the wire). > >Have you ever considered this efect during the vortex group discussion? > >--------------------------------------------------------- > >On a related matter, I was asked if I would do my homework on the >following question - which I had never seen as a problem before: > >"Well, before our next meeting, tell me whether you understand the >space charge around the cathode of a thermionic diode." > >Comments, any of you? By the way, the guy who asked me this question >was none other than Prof Martin Fleischmann, FRS. I can assume that it >is not a trivial one. > >Chris > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 03:34:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA09141; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 03:11:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 03:11:12 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:10:48 +0100 Message-Id: <9702131110.AA18035 giasone.teseo.it> X-Sender: conte teseo.it Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: conte teseo.it (Elio Conte) Subject: Re: CF of H X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: <"EVKQp3.0.hE2.FRl0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4122 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Vortexians, >Although more detail on an appratus and descriptions of the experiments >would be nice some interesting work can be found at: > >>A new atomic theory leads to hydrogen's cold fusion! > >>I have worked several years on calculates that gives me a thesis >>concerning the >spectral series. I received help at this time by a >>Professor of the "Institut >d'Optique " in France. That Professor decided >>a colleague of him Professor of >the same society and Academician to bring >>the thesis at the " Acad=E9mie des >Sciences " of Paris to make published >>it. Unfortunately the thesis was badly >received and rejected. I have >>tried a long time ago to make published that >thesis as well the first >>Professor but in vain. Then I thought that I must to >make an application >>so as to do the proof of my thesis. During twelve years I >worked with few >>means on the hydrogen's cold fusion. Having succeed I >registered a patent >>that is under way to be international. >>If you are interested by that story you will have all details among them >>the >patent's text, on the WEB by making >>http://members.aol.com/newatom >>From: erdnadloc aol.com (ERDNADLOC) > >This was a post on sci.physics.new-theories > >____Ron > please,may you inform us in detail on the CF experiments of H that you have performed and can also you send a copy of your theory? We have interst. Yours Sincerely prof Elio Conte Centro Studi di Radioattivit=E0,via D.Alighieri 256,Bari,Italy --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 04:23:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14883; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:11:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:11:49 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:11:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: What are your views on reductionism? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"O2ba.0.Oe3.3Km0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4124 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, (Apologies if this was sent twice as trouble with our network) Here's something I saw in the current edition of American Scientist. It represents the establishment but I agree with a lot of it. Its a kind of counterblast to 'antiscience', 'holism' without method and new age/new philosophy/fatalism codswallop. My view on Scientific Method: Keep asking the same question until you get a satisficatory answer. One's debating points must be well formed and rational so that they can recieve rational answers. My view on Scientific Laws: Nature doesn't obey OUR laws - she does her own thing. So don't be COMPLACENT with your standard picture observed in a flicker of the Universe's time in a speck of its space. My view on 'holism' (sum greater than parts, old eastern philosphies etc.): One needs a method else how does one proceed with the limited brainpower available without breaking things down? We need a new Francis Bacon. I'll keep an open mind though. Still think its a battlecry for anti-science, anti-logic and people who thrive in such environments to take other's liberties away (tyranies). Remi. The President of Sigma Xi and American Scientist speaks. Volume 85 (current or damn near) Complex aspects of nature may be analysed and understood by considering them to be made up of simpler pieces, which can in turn be analysed separately. Scientists study and reconstruct complex systems by analysing and understanding the way in which the pieces fit together and interact. In this reductionist sense ecology may be studied as interacting pieces of biology, chemistry, geology and physics, biology as interacting and coupled pieces of chemistry and physics, and chemistry as interacting pieces of physics. Complex systems do not behave in ways that violate the laws that we have learned to be true in simpler systems. Biological systems do not violate thermodynamics, although they exhibit complex phenomena not seen in simpler chemical and physical systems. Complex systems and their phenomena may be derivable by synthesis from coupled sets of simpler sets of simpler systems, but the set of possibilities is gigantic. We cannot tell which possibilities will really arise from the path of evolution and historical accident. "Reductionism" has become a pejorative word, a part of the vocabulary of antiscience. It is asserted that "holism" - somehow understanding the complex system without analysing it into parts - will help us to avoid missing essential properties of the complex system. It is true that reductionism analyses can sometimes lose complex system properties, but they also make the understanding of complex systems and system interaction possible. Progress in understanding whole systems has really been made by understanding the parts and the way they fit together. The reductionist mode of thought unifies the body of science by giving us basic rules and laws that we find everywhere. It defines the sense in which a piece of science can be thought of as fundamental: underlying the understanding of more complex systems . This is true not only for fundamentals like mechanics and electromagnetic theory, but also from phenomena that arise from the complexity of systems. Dynamical behaviours such as amplification, oscillation, feedback control and chaos are found alike in planetary (e.g. asteroidal) and stellar systems, in chemical systems, in the control systems and operation of the human heart, in the behaviour of ecosystems, and in the operation and control of technological, organisational and economic systems created by people. Systems and phenomena that seem very different are seen to be very similar in their behaviour, in "what makes them tick", when we understand the bases of their structure. Although we may not predict all the phenomena of biological and other complex systems starting only from fundamental physical theory, it is remarkable that so few concepts tell us so much. We are creating (or in the history of science as "natural science", *re*-creating) a unified science, tied together by a web of underlying natural laws. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 04:28:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA13814; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:05:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:05:25 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:05:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic process. Heat is not dead end. In-Reply-To: <970212231920_2093857092 emout06.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Fwx4f2.0.kN3.3Em0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4123 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear questioner (sorry your name is hidden by software mode at present), Yes! First order phase changes do cause a rise in temperature. Simple 1st Law and 2nd Law analysis shows that this can happen spontaneously. You've come right into my area of research where I believe that a First Order Phase changing catalyst can be made and that heat energy is not a dead end of energy transformation as implied by the 2nd Law. I have analysed cycles where the laws aren't broken but macroscopic perpertual motion is possible - Put the device in a closed isolated universe (no energy in or out) and you get a spontaneous temperature difference without breaking the laws. The way to explain this is through Maxwell's Demon and regarding 1st Order Phase changes as a SORTING process (look at the MB distb. and how evaporation works - top energetic end leaves right? Same temp. as rest of liquid but spontaneous phase change by catalyst releases LATENT HEAT and hence temp rise. Two stage process is Maxwell's Demon). I have a device which I seeking to make (and it is my belief that it isn't complicated to make). I'm not the only one who thinks like this, well respected establishment figures are coming around to my viewpoint - though I have the general principle where theirs is more area specific - e.g. Rolf Landauer in Science June 1996 about energy used for communication somehow being reused in highly non-linear systems. Also the distinguished professor of thermodynamics P.T. Landsberg saw my initial work about a year ago and said I could be right, Kaveh Kiannush (Director Philips Eindhoven). PLEASE don't go telling this around as to respect their professional standing, MORE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE AND THOROUGH REVIEW before they will attach their names fully to my work. If this kind of thing grabs your attention, I can send you details in papers submitted to journals (under review) and a disclosure of the technology. Yours, Remi Cornwall. P.S. If the work is correct, the next step is to find a more general replacement for the Second Law. Being so fundamental to physics it's going to be fun. On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > Frank Stenger don't you remember when you took me to lunch. You said It sure > snows a lot here in northern Ohio but when it snows it warms up. The > condensing snow takes up the heat. Have you forgotten? Perhaps its just > getting colder. Now look you even got Evan upset. I remember the day you > made Trina'a hair stand up with that 100,000 demon you built. I'm beginning > to think that there is a wild man under that behind that cool calculating > engineering facade. > > Frank Z > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 06:08:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA26700; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:54:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:54:52 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:57:09 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: What are your views on reductionism? Resent-Message-ID: <"2GA3Z2.0.vW6.gqn0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4126 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 3:11 AM 2/13/97, Remi Cornwall wrote: [lots of good things snipped] >My view on 'holism' (sum greater than parts, old eastern philosphies >etc.): One needs a method else how does one proceed with the limited >brainpower available without breaking things down? [more good things snipped] Even scientifically speaking there are limits to simplistic analysis. The type of analysis used must accomodate the part of the sum that is greater than the the sum of the parts. Consider computer simulation of sand moving in an hourglass. Simulating one grain of sand 1,000,000 times is not the same as simulating 1,000,000 grains acting together. The former simulation can never see the sand jam in the throat of the hour glass, and gives no information about the device's ability to keep time. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 07:31:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03825; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:06:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:06:21 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:03:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reductionism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"oTFcb.0.hx.hto0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4127 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Horace Heffner wrote: > Even scientifically speaking there are limits to simplistic analysis. The > type of analysis used must accomodate the part of the sum that is greater > than the the sum of the parts. Consider computer simulation of sand moving > in an hourglass. Simulating one grain of sand 1,000,000 times is not the > same as simulating 1,000,000 grains acting together. The former simulation > can never see the sand jam in the throat of the hour glass, and gives no > information about the device's ability to keep time. > Point taken, but what if one models 1e6 INDIVIDUAL grains of sand (the approach is reductionist in that each grain is treated as a little system but the brute force approach is holistic)? Would you be confident (if you had such computing power) that statisical mechanics techniques would concur with the masses of equations depicting every particle and state of the system? My point is this: statistical mechanics, thermodynamics is so convient yet so weird. Newtonian mechanics is non-repeatable enough, has un-observable states due to chaos and non-linearity such that one would think it impossible to use a statistical mechanics without considering the whole of the interactions of the multitude of particles. Then there is quantum mechanics which is weirder still... In taking a bulk averaging effect of the statistical mechanics approach, do with lose something? I'm happy with Classical Kinetic Theory, also with Non-Classical Theory and Fermi-Dirac, Bose-Einstein distributions and their application to bulk behaviour of say semi-conductors or superconductivity. We can only compare theory with experiment right? Trouble is with the things we can't explain so well, and they are human systems. Apparently, new agers think that our reductionist approach will be no good for medical science (bombard the body with drugs without finding why it went wrong in the first place - sorry these views aren't necessarily mine or well represented) or the paranormal (don't laugh, they do research at Princeton on effect of humans on machinery - the millitary are interested). Somehow when we 'cut of solutions' and make approximations, the weirdness doesn't scale up and we lose the complete picture. Also key to the Western reductionist approach is REPEATABILITY. No point telling me that the paranormal crowd are frauds, there is an effect but not always when and how you want it and enough evidence pointing so. This non-repeatability and subjectivity seem to be a feature of quantum mechanics and people like Bohm have talked about the need for a new science and method. What would it be like? Current viewpoint: The Universe is causal and first order logical. One observes an effect, isolates it, defines it, does an experiment to confirm that effect, leading to a Law. Their viewpoint. The Universe is not necessarily causal (Oh God! Sounds like fatalism) There are 'higher order logics' than the familiar first order predicate logic E.g. It is raining in New York (USA) because Manchester United (UK) are playing football. (Given me by a former lecturer who is into all this excessive liberal philosophy as most academics are, he is also very very fatalistic) As a freedom, democracy, pro-property, pro-profit, conservative etc. etc. are these people dangerous (I MEAN REALLY STINKING POVERTY, ANARCHY TYPE DANGEROUS) and a threat to the West and everything you hold decent, a threat to the Youth warping their cognition, OR are they prophets and we merely jerking off with our illusion of progress, wealth and happiness? I don't admit we have everything right. Regards Vortexians, Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 07:38:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04721; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:12:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:12:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:12:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Can I get a witness? Paper off to Rolf Landauer. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"WiYUa3.0.c91.izo0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4128 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, Rolf Landauer (IBM Yorktown) has been saying similar things to me - Science June 1996. I'm going to take a chance and send him my paper 1. Just in case 'he thought of it too' Today in the year of our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Seven in the month of Feburary on the eve of the feast of Valetine (13th right?) I Remi Cornwall do hearby declare that I am submitting a paper to Rolf Landauer IBM Research Fellow at IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. (-: Remi. (you can't have real property without intellectual property) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 07:40:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06505; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:19:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:19:14 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:19:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: reductionism, I detect satire. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-qD7u3.0.Zb1.m3p0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4129 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Would those Rolex watches be sub-atomic particles? Would those infinite number of said watches be your research budget allocated at 1% of Gross Domestic Product? Would the shooting device be the new Superdooper Super Rolex Collider? Would this be the hunt for the Top-Watch? Remi. On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Hugo, Mark D wrote: > Remi: > > If I shoot two Rolex watches at each other and pick up the pieces--- > > Will I ever figure out how they work? (PS, assume in this arguement that > I have > > a virtually infinite number of Rolex watches to play with.) > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 09:24:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA01920; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:08:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:08:16 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:08:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: question from Graneau In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Cupx-1.0.wT.zfq0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4133 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Dear Vo, I sometimes need to filter the many messages that come over vortex so that I can get on with some work. It seems this 'question from Graneau' is relevant to my research area and I deleted a whole bunch of the topic this morning. Anyone care to resend and bring me on-stream. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 09:30:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA29281; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:52:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:52:13 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:53:22 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: question from Graneau Resent-Message-ID: <"BM34M1.0.N97.wQq0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4131 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 02:57 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Mike S wrote: > >>>This means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat (increase the >>>temperature of) the water with which they combine. >> >> No. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. The vapor is slightly >>hotter (temperature) than the liquid, which is necessary so that HEAT FLOWS >>INTO THE WATER. > >I get your point, Mike, but couldn't you have a system in which vapor and >liquid were both present at the same temp, then raise the pressure to force >vapor to condense and heat up the liquid? This is another way. It gets even more complicated once you remove the condition of infinitessimal slowness; then it becomes a kinetic or rate problem. But you will never find that in THERMODYNAMIC tables, which always deal with systems changing so slowly that they are very nearly in perfect equilibrium. >>>Do you know where I can find it? >> >> From the discussion above, the answer is clearly, "Nowhere." Such data >>would be in contradiction with the definition of thermodynamic data. > >Perhaps we're just getting tangled up in thermo-terminology (which is easy >to do!) Surely you aren't saying that it is impossible to measure the heat >of condensation of water? I think that is all that Graneau is asking >for...actual calorimetric data on that measurement. I think Graneau's question was motivated by his statement: "I have been unable to find any calorimetric data which confirms this." I think he means data that would prove his hypothesis. IMHO, from reading his recent paper on this subject, I think Graneau does not understand thermodynamics, so any discussion with him on this subject will get interminably bogged down. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 09:37:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA32279; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:01:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:01:45 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:01:20 -0500 From: uban world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199702131701.AA03842 world.std.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Podkletnov Paper diagrams Resent-Message-ID: <"oPHys3.0.2t7.pZq0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4132 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A I've received the diagrams for the Podkletnov paper (which is on the LANL pre-print server), from Dr. Modanese. The file is 700Kb uuencoded. If anyone has a place to store this I could upload or mail it to them. Jim U. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 10:08:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25750; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:42:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:42:30 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:52 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131640.KAA02862 dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #3 (3 more). 9 so far To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"YBE-8.0.YH6.gHq0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4130 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 13, 1997 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #3 posting (3 more) O-042 (oral presentation) CORRELATION OF EXCESS HEAT AND NEUTRON EMISSION IN PD-LiOD ELECTROLYSOIS H. Ogawa, Y. Oya, T. Ono, M. Aida and M. Okamoto Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors, Tokyo Institute of Technology Ookayama, Meguro City, Tokyo 152 Japan Tel: 81-3-5734 Fax: 81-3-5734-2959 To avoid the uncertainty, especially in the excess neutron evaluation, caused from the date difference between the foreground runs and the background runs, two sets of the experimental systems have been assembled with the excess heat monitoring and the neutron detection systems of NE213. The principles of the excess heat monitoring and neutron detection are same as previously reported. The two experimental systems have been examined to determine the machine factors for the excess heat monitoring and the neutron detectlion in Pt-1.0MLiOH electrolysis for about one month. The machine factor for the excess heat monitoring was determined to be 1.00 and the factor for the neutron detection was determined for each ten blocks in the 1024 channels of the MCA. The neutron energy spectrum was obtained after the correction by machine factors. Using the two experimental systems, the electrolysis operations to observe the excess heat and the excess neutrons have been carried out coincidentaaly under the same conditions which gave positive results with high reproducibility as reported previously. The 3 hours / 3 hours pulse mode electrolysis with 800 mA/20ma current density was performed with Pd-1.0MliOH(as the background run) and Pd-1.0MLiOD(as the foreground run), for 5 weeks. The electrolysis cell system was also improved in the control of electrolyte level and equipped a standard heat source for the temperature calibration for the excess heat monitoring. The Pd-electrodes were pretreated by fine mechanical polish and annealing in vacuo at 850 C. for 10 hours. The excess heat up to 6.5 W (-2.5% of the i9nput power) was observed in the Pd-LiOD electrolysis and the excess neutron emission was also observed with main peak at around 4MeV. The frequency histograms of thje exceass heat generation and illustrated in the figures to demonstrate the appreciab;e difference fbetween the foreground run and the background run. In the presentatlion, we will present the details of the experiments, reproducibility and discuss on the correlation between the excess heat generation and the excess neutron emission with the data obtained most currently. (an ASCII representation of the figures will be attempted here) 60 - - - - f - F r 50 e - q - B u - e - n 40 c - e - - B - 30 B - - F - F - 20 - B F - - - 10 - F - B - B F - B B B F 0 FB FB FB F F F B FB ---------------------------------------------- -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 Excess Power / W B: Background system F: Foreground system Another figure giving F.G./B.G. to Neutron energy /MeV skipped p-066 (poster presentation) SONOFUSION - DYNAMICS OF SUPERSONIC CAVITY Kenji Fukushima, Physics Department, Joetsu University of Education, Japan Sonoluminescence phenomena have continually provided very interesting topics to many branches of science, that is, physics, chemistry, biology and so on. Among a variety of characteristic features of the phenomena, the author is especially interested in how high temperatures can be reached by a supersonic cavity. It is widely believed how that high temperatures such as 10^5 K will be attained even under the experimental conditions of sonoluminescence(1). We conduct, in this paper, the computer simulation of the dynamics of supersonic cavity to determine the upper bound of temperatures reached by a gas content of the cavity. Namely, a bubble formed in a liquid oscillates almost in phase with an applied supersonic field and then in its contraction phase the bubble content is tremendously compressed. As a result, a hot spot of high temperature and high density is transiently formed. To be specific, let us consider an air bubble in water. The compressibility of water, diffusion of air molecules through the bubble wall, condensation and evaporation of water, heat conduction, thermal radiation from a hot spot, phase transition from gas to plsma phase and its reverse are taken into account. By use of the model, temperatures of the hot spot are calculated and then the optimum values of supersonic parameters, that is, amplitude and frequency, are searched for, for the purpose of getting hot-spot temperatures. That is, the tendency is pointed out that the larger values of amplitude and in particular the smaller values of frequency are preferable to attain the higher hot-spot temperatures. It is then concluded that there is the possibility of temperatures reaching 10^7 K or more. In this paper, however, the spatial uniformity is assumed for the temperature and pressure of bubble content. The formation of schock waves may be expected to cause more raise of the upper bound of gas temperatures(2). This problem is very interesting and will be treated in the next paper. 1. R. Miller, S.J. Putterman and B.P. Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 1183 2. C.C. Wu and Paul H. Roberts, Phys Rev. 70 (1993) 3424 P-047 (poster presentation) COOPERATIVE PHONON COUPLING FOLLOWING CATASTROPHIC DESATURATION Mitchell Swartz, Jet Energy Technology, Massachusetts, USA. ABSTRACT A possible explanation for the anolomous branching ratios is based upon a cooperative removal of the He(4) energy just prior to the decay by two body fission. Facilitated by isospin restrictions which limit conventional pathways, the observed excess heat is driven by the reconfiguration to the more tightly bound He(4) ground state. Catastrophic desaturation dominates, and we have now determined that the temperature rise occurs as well-mixed acoustical and optical phonons are unable to carry off all the local momentum and excess energy of the reactions. Account is taken regarding four-vector analysis which indicates conservation of energy delivered to the lattices's phonon cloud - a phusion. Special relativistic and energy considerations indicate the phonon cloud may subtend about 45 - 800 unit cells. This and other results of the analysis may satisfy some of the difficulties, pointed out by skeptics, regarding the experimental observations in the field. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 10:35:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17744; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:12:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:12:51 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:14:10 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"_DkWB1.0.7L4.Wcr0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4136 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: snip--- > >Au contraire, the experiment described above is near precisely >what Joseph Newman demonstrated at the Tesla Society Conference >in 1993, after his motor demo. > >The only difference between Newman and Wharton is that Newman seems >to think he's going to be able to ride in the thing. > >It was also rather disconcerting in '93 that Newman did not want to >hook someone else's meter in series with his, to measure current, >comparing the readings. He did not appear to understand that it >would not limit the current. If his intent was to boggle minds, >that was an effective approach, cause it boggled mine that someone >proporting to understand electricity to an advanced degree did not >understand something so fundamental. > >Gary Hawkins >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today >http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA >------------------------------------------------------------------ > Wondrous women > Make me swim in > Lofty thoughts alot. > /-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\ Dear Gary, Thanks for your observations. However, if your conclusion is that Mr. Wharton's demonstration is "near precisely" what Joseph Newman has demonstrated, then I must postulate that you did not observe Joseph Newman's demonstration in Colorado Springs very closely which I understand was similar to his demonstration in Mobile, Alabama before the Mensa Convention. This could lead one to conclude that your other observations could possess the same degree of precision. I was present at the Tesla Conference in Colorado Springs in which Joseph Newman did *most assuredly* invite others present to connect their *own* testing meters in the circuit relative to the energy machine and this in fact did happen. It is also true that Joe appeared at two Tesla Conferences back-to-back --- I attended the first one and introduced Joe; I did not attend the second Conference. Your reference may be to the second presentation. At the first presentation those present in the audience did indeed indicate their approval of the testing methods and the results obtained. Joe was quite content to have others test his device using their own meters for as long as they wished --- in fact, the presentation went on so long as to began to impinge upon the timing of the next presentation. Sincerely, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 14:50:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA14893; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:19:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:19:46 -0800 Message-Id: <199702132219.RAA19832 mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: Scott Little , vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:32:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: question from Graneau Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702122023.OAA09302 natashya.eden.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"njX0b1.0.Ye3.0Ev0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4138 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 12 Feb 97 at 14:23, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > Peter Graneau asked me to pose this question to the group: > > "Condensation of water vapor is supposed to be an exothermic > process. This means the condensing of vapor molecules should heat > (increase the temperature of) the water with which they combine. I > have been unable to find any calorimetric data which confirms this. > Do you know where I can find it?" > > Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little > From: "Francis J. Stenger" > Scott, what's wrong with the clasic steam tables of Keenan & Keyes? A good starting point! "Thermodynamic Properties of Steam" Joseph H. Keenan and Frederick G. Keyes, John Wiley & Sons. was compiled at MIT, where Dr. Graneau himself worked recently. According to the book's Introduction (pp. 11 - 26 in the edition of 1936), the data on which these tables are based include: - U.S. Nat'l. Bureau of Standards Journal of Research, v. 10, p. 155 (1933). - 3rd Int'l. Steam Table Conference, Mech, Engnr., vol. 57, p. 710 (1935). - measurements by Osborne, Mech. Engnr., vol. 57, p. 162 (1935) - plus another 2 pages of refs. Heat of Condensation (which "should" equal Heat of Vaporization, going in the opposite direction) is usually taken to mean the difference between the specific enthalpies (h), at constant pressure, of the saturated vapor and the saturated liquid, all at a specified temperature. Example from K&K table: at 212 deg F (where saturation pressure = 14.7 psia): sat. vapor: h = 1150.4 BTU/lbm sat. liquid: h = 180.1 BTU/lbm difference: h = 970.3 BTU/lbm = 534 cal/gm Example 2: at 70 deg F (where saturation pressure = 0.4 psia): sat. vapor: h = 1092.3 BTU/lbm sat. liquid: h = 38.04 BTU/lbm difference: h = 1054.3 BTU/lbm Also, lots of interesting data on water is found in: "Water -- A Comprehensive Treatise" [6 volumes] Felix Franks, ed. Plenum Press. 1972 - 1976 [maybe a newer edition came out in the 1980's ?] Best regards, Bob Flower ======================================================= Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Quality Control Engineering Instrumentation Systems - Technology Transfer ======================================================= From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 15:25:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA17984; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:33:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:33:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199702132232.RAA21323 mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: uban world.std.com (Jim Uban), vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:46:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper diagrams Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702131701.AA03842 world.std.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"mVuAP2.0.rO4.QQv0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4139 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 13 Feb 97 at 12:01, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > I've received the diagrams for the Podkletnov > paper (which is on the LANL pre-print server), from > Dr. Modanese. The file is 700Kb uuencoded. If anyone > has a place to store this I could upload or mail it > to them. Jim U. Jim, are the files compressed? If not, why not compress 'em into either ZIP or .gz format? Then maybe they could be loaded onto the LANL server, where they'd be accessible. Best regards, Bob Flower ======================================================= Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Quality Control Engineering Instrumentation Systems - Technology Transfer ======================================================= From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 17:27:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA08949; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:11:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:11:48 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:10:49 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"q2oO8.0.zA2.4lx0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4142 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, John Logajan wrote: > > It's a small world. :-) The company I work for (ADC Telecommunications) > has just delivered 5000 cable telephony service units to OPTUS -- a future > expansion of which is 512kbs cable modems ... and I happen to be working > on the cable data modem project. I'm working on the headend hardware > and our Australian partners (NetComm) will be building the customer > premise cable data modem module. > Thanks very much John! We (the oz subscribers to vortex-l) are now ahead of all the computer Journalists here. We've been hearing about new fast internet connections through OPTUS but no one knew what sort of service they would provide. 512 kbs is an interesting compromise between phone modems and ADSL promised by Telstra. Not quite fast enough for video on demand but more than adequent for video conferencing and video phones. The next thing will be pricing and degradation of service with many connected customers. Finally from my point of view as an Australian Academic, OPTUS has won a new constract to wire Australian research institutions (including Universities) with a new 150 Mbit/sec ATM. I wonder if we will be able able hook into that from cable modems at home? Lotsa fun ahead! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 17:47:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA08798; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:11:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:11:24 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19960213192325.006ccf4c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:23:29 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #3 (3 more). 9 so far Cc: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"M8jL81.0.G82.ikx0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4141 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:40 AM 2/13/97 -0600, aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) wrote: >COOPERATIVE PHONON COUPLING FOLLOWING CATASTROPHIC DESATURATION >Mitchell Swartz, Jet Energy Technology, Massachusetts, USA. >ABSTRACT > > A possible explanation for the anolomous branching ratios is based >upon a cooperative removal of the He(4) energy just prior to the decay >by two body fission. > > Facilitated by isospin restrictions which limit conventional >pathways, the observed excess heat is driven by the reconfiguration to >the more tightly bound He(4) ground state. > > Catastrophic desaturation dominates, and we have now determined >that the temperature rise occurs as well-mixed acoustical and optical >phonons are unable to carry off all the local momentum and excess >energy of the reactions. > > Account is taken regarding four-vector analysis which indicates >conservation of energy delivered to the lattices's phonon cloud - a >phusion. > > Special relativistic and energy considerations indicate the phonon >cloud may subtend about 45 - 800 unit cells. This and other results of >the analysis may satisfy some of the difficulties, pointed out by >skeptics, regarding the experimental observations in the field. > > > > There is a misprint somewhere. The abstract stated: "Special relativistic and energy considerations indicate the phonon cloud may subtend ~450-800 unit cells." The origin is discussed further in "Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids", which will appear in Fusion Technology, for March 1997 issue (1997). Also, this derivation is for heavy water and palladium. The corresponding data for light water and nickel is presented in "Possible Deuterium Production from Light Water Excess Enthalpy Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 68-80 (1996). Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 18:03:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA16386; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:37:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:37:06 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3303C1B8.FF6D5DF math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:36:56 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"PO6Na1.0.y_3.07y0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4143 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > > Dr. Robert E. Smith, former Chief of the Orbital and Space Environment > Branch at the NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight* > Center wrote, regarding our speaker: > "If the manner in which he conducted his experiments and the > results were made known to the industrial or engineering > community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or > individuals possess the expertise and > capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the > apparent capability of his new concepts." > I note the operative word above is *former*. That would explain why I have been unable to locate this individual at MSFC. I wonder just how "former" it is, really. Evan Soule' frequently quotes Smith and elsewhere mentions NASA engineers who requested video of the demonstration. Evan: I want to talk to some of these NASA people who supposedly support Newman's device. Can you give me explicit contact information? I simply want to ask them what their basis is for getting so excited about it. It is a freshman physics exercise to show the device cannot possibly generate significant magnetic lift force (and precious little mnagnetic torque, as well), and so I would like to know what these NASA experts see in it. I seriously doubt NASA engineers think Newman has discovered a 5th force. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 18:27:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21274; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:57:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:57:48 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3303C691.ABD322C math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:57:37 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"V1GOb3.0.GC5.QQy0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4144 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > > "THE DAY OF THE LONE RESEARCHER AND INVENTOR IS OVER. But the day of the lone crackpot is in no danger of disappearing. ( :-) > I will be the first to state that it would be highly desirable (for > purposes of communication among physicists) to have Joe's > mechanical work translated into mathematics. > I honestly believe this will happen in time. But one must > start somewhere. Well, one must. That is why I translated Joe's invention into conventional EM and mechanics for you. Allow me to reiterate the key mathematics in this case: Force on a magnetic dipole of vector dipole moment M, in a spatially dependent vector magnetic field B(x): F = (Grad B) . M and the torque is T = M x B Magnetic dipole moment of N windings of wire, about an area A, carrying current I: M = N I A (vector directed normal to plane of A) If we plug in newmans demo numbers, N ~ 100, I ~ 0.01 Amp, A ~ 1m^2, we get M = 1 amp-meter^2/sec The strenght of the earth's field near us is B = 5 x 10^-5 Tesla. The gradients in the earths field near us go like B/(earth radius) ~ B/(10^7 meter) ~ 5 x 10^-12 Tesla/meter. Thus, for numbers we get: Torque on balloon <= 5 x 10^-5 newton-meters Force on balloon <= 5 x 10^-12 newtons Conclusion: balloon can magnetically rotate, marginally, but cannot magnetically lift in any practical sense of the word. As for how Newman's balloon does achieve lift, I'm willing to bet any graduate physics student could figure it given a few hours to play with an operational device. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 19:04:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA31025; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:49:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:49:19 -0800 Message-ID: <330345AC.7165 ro.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:47:40 -0800 From: Patrick Reavis X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_L7CQ1.0.ha7.kAz0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4146 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > > I did the magnetic test with my helium filled aluminum coated mylar > balloons. I wrapped copper wire around the balloon and sent about 4 amps > through it at about 12 volts. There was a torque in evidence but there > appeared to be no levitation within the first few seconds after turning on > the power. Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose > upward. The expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be > entirely consistent with this expansion. My conclusion is that the > magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. > > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Larry, Is it possible to inflate the balloon to the point at which it will no longer increase its volume? Perhaps this will eliminate the change in density caused by heating, and eliminate any 'thermal effect' question as well... Patrick -- The Double Naught Spy (and non-scientist as well :) http://ro.com/~preavis From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 19:17:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA30567; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:45:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:45:42 -0800 Message-ID: <3303D1C6.F37 worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:45:31 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. References: <3303C691.ABD322C@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZBWVa2.0.VT7.L7z0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4145 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > As for how Newman's balloon does achieve lift, I'm > willing to bet any graduate physics student could figure > it given a few hours to play with an operational device. Are you leaving that as an "excercise for your readers", or did you have something specific in mind? All I can think of is electrostatic force, but I can't figure out where it comes from. But if you've got that part, then apply Schnurer's comment about the atmospheric charge gradient. Then again with Newman, it's probably gyroscopic particles we should be looking for here. Ok, so this lift is precessional then? I haven't a clue about this, and gyro math makes my brain precess. I tried it once years ago, and I'm still sore from it. Is it clear to you at all what the orientation of the coils is when the balloon rises? /--------\ balloon / \ -------------- -------------- coils( horizontal) -------------- \ / \--------/ | | | wire and/or tether | | ... would be my guess. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 20:07:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA06033; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:26:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:26:54 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:28:28 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Two Posts in One Resent-Message-ID: <"5uF1N1.0.9U1.yjz0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4147 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: >> > >> Dr. Robert E. Smith, former Chief of the Orbital and Space Environment >> Branch at the NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight* >> Center wrote, regarding our speaker: >> "If the manner in which he conducted his experiments and the >> results were made known to the industrial or engineering >> community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or >> individuals possess the expertise and >> capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the >> apparent capability of his new concepts." >> >I note the operative word above is *former*. That would explain why >I have been unable to locate this individual at MSFC. I wonder >just how "former" it is, really. Evan Soule' frequently quotes Smith >and elsewhere mentions NASA engineers who requested video of >the demonstration. > >Evan: I want to talk to some of these NASA people who >supposedly support Newman's device. Can you give me >explicit contact information? I simply want to ask >them what their basis is for getting so excited about it. >It is a freshman physics exercise to show the device cannot >possibly generate significant magnetic lift force (and >precious little mnagnetic torque, as well), and so I would >like to know what these NASA experts see in it. I seriously >doubt NASA engineers think Newman has discovered a 5th force. > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry Barry: Dr. Robert Smith was at the George C. Marshall Space "Flight" Center in the 1970s when he was in contact with Joseph Newman. Dr. Smith's letters appear in Joseph Newman's book. To my knowledge he has since retired from NASA and may still be living in Alabama. If there is a listing of retired NASA scientists you might wish to consult it. As to the NASA engineers who contacted me prior to the St. Louis demonstration with a desire in videotaping same (which they did), I do not have their permission to distribute their names and contact information to others. And since its such a simple "freshman physics exercise to show the device cannot possibly generate significant magnetic lift force (and precious little mnagnetic torque, as well)" -- I invite you to build your own device. Indulge. As to 5th force? I don't recall Joe using this terminology. This is your terminology. Unless, in this context, you are assigning this term to electromagnetic phenomena. Since the PHYSICAL lines of force serve to underscore the point that electromagnetic phenomena does indeed consist of MATTER IN MOTION --- I once again invite you to present __your__ fundamental __mechanical__ explanation for magnetic attraction and repulsion. And while you're at it, please explain (again in a fundamental sense) the mechanical essence of Fleming's Rule. Evan Soule' josephnewman earthlink.net _________________________________________________________ >Evan Soule wrote: >> > >> "THE DAY OF THE LONE RESEARCHER AND INVENTOR IS OVER. > >But the day of the lone crackpot is in no danger of >disappearing. ( :-) Well, Barry, thanks for being there to contribute to the fulfillment of Step 2 with respect to the introduction of a new paradigm: ridicule. I have no doubt that your 'antecedents' similarly expressed themselves to Mr. Goddard and his absurd notions of rocketry. > > >> I will be the first to state that it would be highly desirable (for >> purposes of communication among physicists) to have Joe's >> mechanical work translated into mathematics. >> I honestly believe this will happen in time. But one must >> start somewhere. > >Well, one must. That is why I translated Joe's invention snip-- > >Force on balloon <= 5 x 10^-12 newtons > > >Conclusion: balloon can magnetically rotate, marginally, but > cannot magnetically lift in any practical sense of the word. > >As for how Newman's balloon does achieve lift, I'm willing to >bet any graduate physics student could figure it given a few >hours to play with an operational device. >>-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry Barry -- we're not talking about a cyclotron here -- it's a pretty simple demo. You are invited to build your own operational device. But if you do build it, I hope you will follow the guidelines outlined in the post, Part A, and not heat up the helium with '4 amps.' The proper approach is HIGH voltage and LOW current and many turns of copper wire. As far as your comment above, "but cannot magnetically lift in any practical sense of the word." ---- I'm sorry, but the balloon has not "heard" of your pronouncement: when the (relatively) high voltage is applied to the many coils, the balloon rises. Period. Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 20:11:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA11748; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:58:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:58:22 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3303E2D5.31DFF4F5 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:58:13 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Two Posts in One References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nElOc1.0.Ot2.TB-0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4148 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > > You are invited to build your own operational device. > But if you do build it, I hope you will follow the > guidelines outlined in the post. The proper approach is HIGH > voltage and LOW current and many turns of copper wire. > I won't be building any device until (a) there is independent replication verifying that the effect is reproducible. (b) there is a specific set of plans, illustrations and operating instructions endorsed by Newman as proiperly representing his device. > when the (relatively) high voltage is > applied to the many coils, the balloon rises. Period. I'm sure the balloon does indeed rise in Newmans demos. I'm also equally sure that the effect has a mundane explantion. If (a) and (b) are achieved, I actually will build a version myself and elucidate for you how it works, if you in turn will agree to stop insulting the memory of Faraday by equating him with Joe Newman. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 20:51:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA18176; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:28:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:28:53 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:28:44 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper diagrams In-Reply-To: <199702131701.AA03842 world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ZyPlp2.0.wR4.3e-0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4149 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Jim Uban wrote: > I've received the diagrams for the Podkletnov > paper (which is on the LANL pre-print server), from > Dr. Modanese. The file is 700Kb uuencoded. If anyone > has a place to store this I could upload or mail it > to them. Jim U. What's the graphic file format? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 22:26:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA10334; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:14:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:14:05 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:13:22 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702140613.AAA14081 dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Poster P-047 of ICCF-6 correction To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: mica world.std.com Resent-Message-ID: <"VgID_.0.JX2.hA01p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4150 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 13, 1997 Mitchell wrote of one of two posters (P-047 and P-017) presented at the ICCF-6 which I copied for the Vortex, >> Account is taken regarding four-vector analysis which indicates >>conservation of energy delivered to the lattices's phonon cloud - a > There is a misprint somewhere. Correct. Thank you for noting a "misprint somewhere". It was an eyeball contraction of two sentences into one while reading and typing around 6:00 AM. The correct sentences should read: "Account is taken regarding four vector analysis which indicates conservation of energy does occur. This also suggests the use of a fusion related-quantum of energy delivered in the lattices's phonon cloud - a phusion." Being facetious: I wouldn't want to mistakenly advance science radically by the misprint. You have another poster (P-017) which I will be typing soon. That abstract has a notation (an oversize, warped, lower case n) which will be written in ASCII so I will type a capital N with the above explanation of the notation description. I hope you will understand. And thanks for catching the misprint. Sincerely, -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 22:43:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA12493; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:24:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:24:54 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970114222607.00a0b6c0 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:26:09 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"53f3K.0.733.qK01p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4151 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:57 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Conclusion: balloon can magnetically rotate, marginally, but > cannot magnetically lift in any practical sense of the word. > >As for how Newman's balloon does achieve lift, I'm willing to >bet any graduate physics student could figure it given a few >hours to play with an operational device. > > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > > How about a sidebar deal here. You bet money that somebody with no formal eduction in physics and who flunked chemistry (I slept through it) can demonstrate the operant principle in 10 minutes (having nothing to do with magnetism) then cut me in for a slice of your earnings when I win for you. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 22:45:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA12671; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:26:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:26:03 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970114222725.00a0f340 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:27:27 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"G60jV1.0.r53.vL01p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4152 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:45 PM 2/13/97 -1000, you wrote: >Barry Merriman wrote: > > > As for how Newman's balloon does achieve lift, I'm > > willing to bet any graduate physics student could figure > > it given a few hours to play with an operational device. > >Are you leaving that as an "excercise for your readers", or did you have >something specific in mind? > >All I can think of is electrostatic force, but I can't figure out where >it comes from. But if you've got that part, then apply Schnurer's >comment about the atmospheric charge gradient. Then again with Newman, >it's probably gyroscopic particles we should be looking for here. Ok, so >this lift is precessional then? I haven't a clue about this, and gyro >math makes my brain precess. I tried it once years ago, and I'm still >sore from it. > >Is it clear to you at all what the orientation of the coils is when the >balloon rises? > > /--------\ balloon > / \ >-------------- >-------------- coils( horizontal) >-------------- > \ / > \--------/ > | > | > | wire and/or tether > | > | > >... would be my guess. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > Rick, you know too much and are trying to hard to figure this out. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 23:55:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA23660; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:45:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:45:57 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:47:37 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Lift Resent-Message-ID: <"spugt1.0.Xn5.oW11p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4153 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Barry Merriman wrote: > > > As for how Newman's balloon does achieve lift, I'm > > willing to bet any graduate physics student could figure > > it given a few hours to play with an operational device. > >Are you leaving that as an "excercise for your readers", or did you have >something specific in mind? > >All I can think of is electrostatic force, but I can't figure out where >it comes from. But if you've got that part, then apply Schnurer's >comment about the atmospheric charge gradient. Then again with Newman, >it's probably gyroscopic particles we should be looking for here. Ok, so >this lift is precessional then? I haven't a clue about this, and gyro >math makes my brain precess. I tried it once years ago, and I'm still >sore from it. > >Is it clear to you at all what the orientation of the coils is when the >balloon rises? > > /--------\ balloon > / \ >-------------- >-------------- coils( horizontal) >-------------- > \ / > \--------/ > | > | > | wire and/or tether > | > | > >... would be my guess. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Dear Rick -- If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils Joseph Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. /---\ small secondary balloon \---/ > / --------\ large primary balloon > /||||||||||||||||||| \ > ||||||||||||||||||| > ||||||||||||||||||| coils( vertical) > ||||||||||||||||||| > \ ||||||||||||||||||| / > \--------/ | > | > | > | wire > | > | > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 13 23:56:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA23773; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:46:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:46:03 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:47:43 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Two Posts in One Resent-Message-ID: <"7K0Pk1.0.Hp5.vW11p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4154 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: >> >> You are invited to build your own operational device. >> But if you do build it, I hope you will follow the >> guidelines outlined in the post. The proper approach is HIGH >> voltage and LOW current and many turns of copper wire. >> > >I won't be building any device until > >(a) there is independent > replication verifying that the effect is reproducible. > >(b) there is a specific set of plans, illustrations and > operating instructions endorsed by Newman as > proiperly representing his device. > >> when the (relatively) high voltage is >> applied to the many coils, the balloon rises. Period. > >I'm sure the balloon does indeed rise in Newmans demos. >I'm also equally sure that the effect has a mundane >explantion. If (a) and (b) are achieved, I actually >will build a version myself and elucidate for you how >it works, if you in turn will agree to stop insulting >the memory of Faraday by equating him with Joe Newman. > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry Dear Barry, In my opinion, the only insult in this instance is to the memory of such scientists as Galileo who throughout history have had to contend with the Cremonini's of the world: self-appointed naysayers and pathological sceptics whose sole claim to fame is their inability to "look through the telescope." I do indeed equate many of the mechanical abilities of Joseph Newman with those of Michael Faraday upon whose shoulders Joseph Newman stands. If you choose to have a problem with this, the property is yours. Well, Barry, the bottom line as of this particular post is that you can remain dissatisfied, satisfied, or neutral on this issue --- that will be your choice. Joseph Newman is himself convinced of the validity of his technology: he has absolutely no need, nor has any interest in convincing you. Fortunately there are others who have demonstrated a sincere interest in the technology and, I would imagine, will construct their own models, just as I have witnessed other inventive individuals on this list (and related lists) over the past year build and experiment with their own prototypes as their interests suits them. In this instance, Max Planck may well have been right: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Gyroscopically yours, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "The PHYSICAL lines of force serve to underscore the essential point that electromagnetic phenomena does indeed consist of MATTER IN MOTION." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 00:53:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA00009; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:37:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:37:37 -0800 Date: 14 Feb 97 03:35:34 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Two Posts in One Message-ID: <970214083533_100060.173_JHB123-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"RvMGU.0.x_7.FH21p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4155 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soul said: >> The proper approach is HIGH voltage and LOW current and many turns of copper wire. << In view of the very low current why not use Al wire - much lighter and super-purity Al is a good conductor. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 01:18:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA03897; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:04:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:04:37 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970214090900.00b15794 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:09:00 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. Resent-Message-ID: <"QcHNX2.0.jy.Zg21p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4158 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:45 PM 2/13/97 -1000, you wrote: >Is it clear to you at all what the orientation of the coils is when the >balloon rises? > > /--------\ balloon > / \ >-------------- >-------------- coils( horizontal) >-------------- > \ / > \--------/ > | > | > | wire and/or tether > | > | > >... would be my guess. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > When I saw it, the coils were through the poles, so to speak, so it would naturally align with the earth's field, which is what it appeared to do. That's all. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 01:26:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA03217; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:00:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:00:17 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970214090423.00b118a4 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:04:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Podkletnov Paper diagrams Resent-Message-ID: <"QPe6x.0.6o.Qc21p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4156 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: These diagrams are at: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/images/paper/ They might move soon, but I'll let you know. > I've received the diagrams for the Podkletnov >paper (which is on the LANL pre-print server), from >Dr. Modanese. The file is 700Kb uuencoded. If anyone >has a place to store this I could upload or mail it >to them. Jim U. > > Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 01:32:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA03350; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:00:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:00:46 -0800 Message-ID: <33042995.1399 worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:00:07 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. References: <3.0.32.19970114222725.00a0f340 aa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2C3M6.0.9q.tc21p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4157 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael Mandeville wrote: > Rick, you know too much and are trying to hard to figure this out. LOL! I don't know *jack*. And if I don't try hard, I don't even make it out of bed in the morning. Thanks for cheering me up though. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 01:32:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA07661 for billb@eskimo.com; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:32:22 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:32:22 -0800 X-Envelope-From: ERDNADLOC aol.com Fri Feb 14 01:32:18 1997 Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.97]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07632 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:32:16 -0800 From: ERDNADLOC aol.com Received: (from root localhost) by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id EAA29725 for vortex-l eskimo.com; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 04:31:41 -0500 (EST) Old-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 04:31:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970214043139_411812614 emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: ERDNADLOC aol.com Subject: SUBSCRIBE X-Diagnostic: Already on the subscriber list X-Diagnostic: 55 protech frii.com 32760 protech@frii.com X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: "From:protech frii.com (R. Wormus) A new atomic theory leads to hydrogen's cold fusion! I have worked several years on calculates that gives me a thesis concerning the spectral series. I received help at this time by a Professor of the "Institut d'Optique " in France. That Professor decided a colleague of him Professor of the same society and Academician to bring the thesis at the " Academie des Sciences " of Paris to make published it. Unfortunately the thesis was badly received and rejected. I have tried a long time ago to make published that thesis as well the first Professor but in vain. Then I thought that I must to make an application so as to do the proof of my thesis. During twelve years I worked with few means on the hydrogen's cold fusion. Having succeed I made a patent's application that is under way to be international. If you are interested by that story you will have all details among them the patent's text, on the WEB by making http://members.aol.com/newatom From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 01:33:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA06328; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:22:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:22:03 -0800 Message-ID: <33042E4E.7ED6 worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:20:18 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lift References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xbSwA1.0.mY1.vw21p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4159 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils > Joseph Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. Aha. Thanks for the drawing. I needed that, as much as I tried to visualize it from the descriptions. Evan, in response to the switching on and off of the current when the balloon is in the air, does the balloon immediately reverse its vertical trend? I'd think any quick reversals would eliminate the possibility of heating being responsible for its motions if it does work that way. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 02:22:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA10470; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:10:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:10:21 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 04:10:10 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <3303C1B8.FF6D5DF math.ucla.edu> from "Barry Merriman" at Feb 13, 97 05:36:56 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6-UWn.0.VZ2.Ae31p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4160 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > Evan Soule wrote: > > Dr. Robert E. Smith, former Chief of the Orbital and Space Environment > > Branch at the NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight* > > I note the operative word above is *former*. That would explain why > I have been unable to locate this individual at MSFC. I wonder > just how "former" it is, really. Evan Soule' frequently quotes Smith > and elsewhere mentions NASA engineers who requested video of > the demonstration. Somewhere in my collection of books (actually my brother's) is an astrological (not astronomical!) ephemeris written by two "NASA" scientist who used an extensive computer model to generate the ephemeris with accuracy to mere seconds. I happened upon the book when I was cross-checking solar position predictions of a satellite tracking program I was writing, and the "NASA" book agreed nicely. Now I have no way of knowing whether they published the astrological ephemeris because they were astrological believers, or because they figured they could cash in (though the market for computationally intense astrological prediction must be pretty slim.) The labored point I'm making is that just because a guy works for NASA doesn't mean his or her credibility is beyond question. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 02:29:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA10764; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:11:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:11:04 -0800 Message-ID: <33043575.6E00 mail.enternet.com.au> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:20:45 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson enternet.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oK9cc3.0.5e2.se31p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4161 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > > I did the magnetic test with my helium filled aluminum coated mylar > balloons. I wrapped copper wire around the balloon and sent about 4 amps > through it at about 12 volts. There was a torque in evidence but there > appeared to be no levitation within the first few seconds after turning on > the power. Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose > upward. The expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be > entirely consistent with this expansion. My conclusion is that the > magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. Hi Lawrence, Did you reverse the current when the balloon aligned to the earth's field? I believe, based on my sims, that any lift will only occur after the coils are aligned and current flow is reversed. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson enternet.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 03:05:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15620; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:53:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:53:03 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 04:52:56 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Sevior" at Feb 14, 97 11:10:49 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"R1IoE.0.sp3.EG41p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4162 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin Sevior wrote: > John Logajan wrote: > > (ADC Telecommunications) has just delivered 5000 cable telephony service > > units to OPTUS -- a future expansion of which is 512kbs cable modems > > We've been hearing about new fast internet > connections through OPTUS but no one knew what sort of service they would > provide. The disclaimer is, of course, that these are still competitive trials and therefore the ultimate contract could go to some other vendor. > 512 kbs is an interesting compromise between phone modems and > ADSL promised by Telstra. Not quite fast enough for video on demand but > more than adequent for video conferencing and video phones. The next thing > will be pricing and degradation of service with many connected customers. Unlike contention based shared bandwidth schemes, ADC's approach is overlaid on the (digital) telephony base, therefore each subscriber is guaranteed sole possession of bandwidth. So at least from the home to the ISP, there will be no degradation of service with load -- until the point that all channels are in use -- sort of a busy signal. The two disadvantages are that you can't pack as many potential subscribers in the same spectrum, and you can't use other people's idle bandwidth. The advantage is that the performance of contention based WAN/MAN systems under load is still an area of speculation. > with a new 150 Mbit/sec ATM. I wonder if we will be able > able hook into that from cable modems at home? The upstream on most current cable TV systems is allocated about 30MHz. I think 5 bits per hertz is possible, so that just covers 150Mbit. Of course, ATM uses the concept of virtual circuits, so each user on the cable leg would be allocated only a portion of the bandwidth, and as with such allocation schemes, couldn't readily tap into other's idle bandwidth. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 03:10:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA05586; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:54:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:54:32 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:54:13 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part A. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4ViXg1.0.CN1.rcw0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4140 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Evan Soule wrote: [snip] > Joseph Newman's Presentation: > > While the essentials of his discussion are found in his fundamental book, > during the course of his presentation, Joe made several remarks which > especially caught my attention: > > 1) He stated that he had once read in a scientific magazine a discussion of > particle accelerators. The article specifically described how the initial > particle was accelerated through very powerful magnetic fields to a speed > approaching that of light. At the instant of particle collision, many > smaller (and sometimes new) particles would be detected and, as such, the > event appeared to researchers somewhat like "clowns pouring out of an > automobile at the circus." > > With respect to such particle detection, Joe stated the following: > > As he has demonstrated in his research over thirty years, the fundamental > mechanical entity comprising all (electro)magnetic fields is the Gyroscopic > Particle. If such particle acceleration researchers ignore the > consequences of accelerating a given particle through __powerful magnetic > fields__ then they are ignoring a very important fact: [snip] This is what I do for a living and I'm sorry but I feel honour bound to say that Newmans stuff is pure crap. We know a LOT about how fundamental particles behave at very high energies. We've discovered marvelous and subtle symmetries in nature that allow us understand how vast numbers of particles are created from pure energy. It's nothing like this mumbo-jumbo at all. I predict a virulent response to this message but I'll say no more about it. In my experience it only wastes time to encourage these sort of people by entering into debate. Dr. Martin Sevior Senior Lecturer School of Physics University of Melbourne From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 03:16:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15678; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:53:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:53:44 -0800 Message-ID: <330442A1.4439 mail.enternet.com.au> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 21:16:58 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson enternet.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Sender: Greg Watson (Unverified) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b1 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lift X-Priority: Normal References: <33042E4E.7ED6@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------22AE4ECF47920" Resent-Message-ID: <"rIJeZ.0.uq3.sG41p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4163 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ------------22AE4ECF47920 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Evan Soule wrote: > > > If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils > > Joseph Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. > > Aha. Thanks for the drawing. I needed that, as much as I tried to > visualize it from the descriptions. > > Evan, in response to the switching on and off of the current when the > balloon is in the air, does the balloon immediately reverse its vertical > trend? I'd think any quick reversals would eliminate the possibility of > heating being responsible for its motions if it does work that way. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI Hi Rick, I think the reversing of the current is one of the elements necessary for the device to function. Current in one direction causes field alignment and then by reversing the current, you will generate a opposing magnet field and the balloon will be repelled away from the earth. Best Regards, Greg Watson ------------22AE4ECF47920 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Rick Monteverde wrote:
> 
> Evan Soule wrote:
> 
> > If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils
> > Joseph Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal.
> 
> Aha. Thanks for the drawing. I needed that, as much as I tried to
> visualize it from the descriptions.
> 
> Evan, in response to the switching on and off of the current when the
> balloon is in the air, does the balloon immediately reverse its vertical
> trend? I'd think any quick reversals would eliminate the possibility of
> heating being responsible for its motions if it does work that way.
> 
> - Rick Monteverde
> Honolulu, HI
 
Hi Rick,
 
I think the reversing of the current is one of the elements necessary for the
device to function.  Current in one direction causes field alignment and then
by reversing the current, you will generate a opposing magnet field and the
balloon will be repelled away from the earth.
 
Best Regards,
Greg Watson
 
------------22AE4ECF47920-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 03:40:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA24603; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "josephnewman earthlink.net" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bl14g.0.I06.H1s0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4137 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Evan How many turns of what size and kind of wire were used, and what voltage was applied for how long? Hank Scudder ---------- From: josephnewman earthlink.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Date: Thursday, February 13, 1997 11:14AM snip--- Dear Gary, Thanks for your observations. However, if your conclusion is that Mr. Wharton's demonstration is "near precisely" what Joseph Newman has demonstrated, then I must postulate that you did not observe Joseph Newman's demonstration in Colorado Springs very closely which I understand was similar to his demonstration in Mobile, Alabama before the Mensa Convention. This could lead one to conclude that your other observations could possess the same degree of precision. I was present at the Tesla Conference in Colorado Springs in which Joseph Newman did *most assuredly* invite others present to connect their *own* testing meters in the circuit relative to the energy machine and this in fact did happen. It is also true that Joe appeared at two Tesla Conferences back-to-back --- I attended the first one and introduced Joe; I did not attend the second Conference. Your reference may be to the second presentation. At the first presentation those present in the audience did indeed indicate their approval of the testing methods and the results obtained. Joe was quite content to have others test his device using their own meters for as long as they wished --- in fact, the presentation went on so long as to began to impinge upon the timing of the next presentation. Sincerely, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 05:46:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA00534; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:34:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:34:39 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Wild-Eyed Speculation. Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:33:53 +0000 Message-ID: <19970214133351.AAA27396 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"eS4Yz3.0.A8.jd61p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4164 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I'm Back. It is conjectured that "Light Electron-Positron" pairs can be formed from; 1, Photons interacting with matter. 2, Electron bombardment of metals-insulators. 3, Friction effects, (interaction of atoms-molecules)in acccordance with the equation; dE = hbar/dt. 4,Collisions in plasmas. The rest masses of the created electrons-positrons should be products of the "fine structure constant "alpha" and the rest mass of the electron-positron (1.02E06 ev)or the energy of the photon progenitor or the energy dE should be equal to or greater than this product: #1, Regular electron-positron pair; energy = 1.02E06 ev, mass = 2 * 9.1E-31 kg. Energy (ev) Mass (kg) Progenitor Temp (deg K) #2, 3722 6.64E-33 8.6E07 #3, 27.2 4.85E-35 6.3E05 #4, 0.20 3.54E-37 4.64E03 #5, 1.4E-03 2.6E-39 33.0 #6, 1.06E-5 1.88E-41 2.5E-01 #7, 7.74E-8 1.37E-43 1.8E-03 When the particles which have a charge of +/- 1.6E-19 coulombs are subjected to an electrical potential-field equal to their rest energy they will have a relativistic mass of twice their rest mass and a velocity of 0.67c. At a potential 7 times their rest energy they will have a relativistic mass of 7 times their rest mass and a velocity of 0.99c. At a potential of 70 times their rest energy a a relativistic mass of 70 times their rest mass and a velocity of 0.9999c. At an energy equal to the rest energy of a regular electron; (0.510 Mev} they will have the same mass as the rest mass of the regular electron and so on. An experiment to detect these litte buggers (Static Electricity etc?)using a 5 kilovolt- 3 gauss "mass spectrometer" that uses a phosphor-coated plate as a detector, is in the works. If you build it, They Will Come. Regards, Fred From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 06:13:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17293; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:11:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:11:40 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:12:15 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part A. Resent-Message-ID: <"gksLd2.0.xD4.Ibr0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4135 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part A. __________________________________________________________ Note: The following description of the events relating to Joseph Newman's presentation in St. Louis have not been review by Joseph Newman and, as such, are prepared from my interpretation of his comments at the demonstration and my observations of same. __________________________________________________________ Synopsis: Over 150 people attended the demonstration of Joseph Newman's Electromagnetic Lift Device (ELD) on Friday, February 7, 1997 at the Holiday Inn SW in St. Louis, Missouri. A representative from ABC National News was present with a camera as well as a member of the St. Louis press and also media from Ohio. Engineers with NASA in Houston had arranged in advance to videotape the event for their review at a later time; Joseph Newman also arranged to videotape the event. After introductory remarks by myself (see Part B) Joseph Newman spoke while displaying slides and then presented his ELD followed by questions/answers. Free literature regarding the technology was distributed to all attendees. Background: St. Louis was chosen by Joseph Newman as a site for the demonstration for two reasons: 1) It was originally the place where Charles Lindbergh's plans for his transatlantic flight were finalized and 2) It is the city where the X-Prize Foundation announced its support for a practical means of vehicular launch ('mass transit style') into space from Earth. Joseph Newman's Presentation: While the essentials of his discussion are found in his fundamental book, during the course of his presentation, Joe made several remarks which especially caught my attention: 1) He stated that he had once read in a scientific magazine a discussion of particle accelerators. The article specifically described how the initial particle was accelerated through very powerful magnetic fields to a speed approaching that of light. At the instant of particle collision, many smaller (and sometimes new) particles would be detected and, as such, the event appeared to researchers somewhat like "clowns pouring out of an automobile at the circus." With respect to such particle detection, Joe stated the following: As he has demonstrated in his research over thirty years, the fundamental mechanical entity comprising all (electro)magnetic fields is the Gyroscopic Particle. If such particle acceleration researchers ignore the consequences of accelerating a given particle through __powerful magnetic fields__ then they are ignoring a very important fact: Joe believes that as the original particle is accelerated through these powerful magnetic fields (mechanically consisting of gyroscopic particles) --- as this original particle approaches the speed of light it begins to mechanically attract many of these gyroscopic particles which create the __very magnetic fields__ through which the particle is accelerated. As a result of such attraction, the structure of the original particle is altered and becomes larger: a new mechanical entity momentarily comprised of itself plus the various agglutinations of gyroscopic particles which are now accelerating along with it. What the researchers are detecting at the moment of impact are various new particles (consisting of gyroscopic particles) __WHICH THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES CREATED__ during the time that the original particle was accelerated through the powerful magnetic field (consisting of gyroscopic particles). It is quite possible that there may well be no upper limit to the number of "new particles" created in this manner --- although by the possibility of certain angles having a greater mechanical stability than others (between gyroscopic particles), it is also possible that certain types (classes) of sub-atomic particles will tend to be more frequently observed following the point of impact. Joe's primary point is that the researchers --- by their very technique of utilizing powerful magnetic fields (consisting of gyroscopic particles) for purposes of acceleration --- are creating the conditions for the observations which follow when the particle collides. My own crude analogy: let's say one has a jig-saw puzzle consisting of 1,000 puzzle pieces. Let's assume the puzzle is properly assembled and reduced to the size of a particle-to-be-accelerated (per above). Let's further assume that our challenge is to be able to know the original puzzle's design. So we physically accelerate this jig-saw puzzle through a "field" of additional tiny, puzzle pieces (gyroscopic particles) all spinning/traveling at various angles. Some of these additional puzzle pieces proceed to mechanically stick to the puzzle pieces of the original jigsaw puzzle to create a larger agglutinated puzzle mass having new combinations of puzzle parts. We then "smash" this resultant mass and, in the process, 'breakages' occur in new areas of the puzzle's mass and travel in different directions. We then attempt to observe all these new pieces that explode from the collision and attempt to construct the structure of the __original__ jig-saw puzzle. There may be a problem with this methodology if one wants to accurately comprehend the nature of the __original__ jig-saw puzzle. 2) "There is no neutrality to magnetic fields." (To paraphrase Faraday.) In the context of (1) above, Joseph Newman discussed in St. Louis the problem originally presented by Einstein with respect to faster-than-light travel in space and the problem of "infinite mass." Like the particle in the accelerator, if one has a space vehicle approaching light-speed while traveling through the universe --- which like the particle accelerator also consists of "an electromagnetic ocean of gyroscopic particles" that pervades the entire universe --- then it should become clear why the mass of the object in such a gyroscopic-particle-ocean (where such G.P.'s are mechanically intersecting the original traveling craft at many different angles as it reaches their lightspeed) would tend to become "infinite" in principle. Hence the problem of exceeding the speed of light. Joe explained that he mechanically envisioned that the solution to this problem is a simple one and would permit the space traveller to _exceed_ light speed. As one's craft approached light speed, it would become necessary to mechanically create an electromagnetic field about one's craft that would, in effect, mechanically repel the gyroscopic particles comprising the "electromagnetic ocean of the universe." Such a "electromagnetic force field" would enable one's craft to pass through the "light barrier" and reach speeds exceeding that of light. 3) Regarding the ELD Demonstration: This is a simple demonstration which anyone can repeat for themselves. The specific quantities are listed as an order of magnitude only. One may have the vary the parameters depending upon the size, shape of their own craft. Joe began with a mylar balloon approximately 2.5 feet in diameter. This was filled with helium. He then took two long strips of styrofoam (perhaps an inch thick with a length equal to that of the balloon). He also states that the long wings (sometimes made of styrofoam or balsa wood) of model aeroplanes can also be employed. The styrofoam strips are attached to the balloon with double stick tape on either side (2 sides, not 4). Now the winding begins. He first distributed double stick tape across the balloon which would serve as the mode of attachment for the wire and prevent it from slippage. In his example he utilized 38 gauge copper wire run 'length-wise' from one side to another (the same sides only) --- across the diameter of the balloon. The styrofoam strips served to stabilize the positioning of the copper wire and the side of the balloon as the wire was wound. He would wind the wire completely across the diameter of the balloon and then he would double back the windings again, generally trying to keep the wire's apr. 1/4" apart. How many windings? My visual estimate was c. 150. The important point is that the number of windings should be enough to equalize the lift force of the helium such the balloon should assumes equilibrium with the atmosphere when enough copper is attached. Once this is done, Joe attaches a smaller helium-filled balloon (perhaps 8" in diameter) on top of the larger balloon. Joe then attaches underneath the large balloon paper clips, etc. with double-stick tape to again bring the balloon to an equilibrium point. These clips, etc., simply represent the "payload." In accordance with his teachings (relating to his energy machine) of using HIGH voltage and LOW current, Joe then inputs voltage from two 17-member banks of 9-volt batteries connected in series, for a total of 34 batteries or 306 volts. When the electromagnetic connection is made, the balloon begins to rise. When the connection is released, the balloon begins to fall. While rising the balloon begins to gradually align itself with the Earth's magnetic field, much like a compass needle. IMPORTANT: Joe stresses that the above simple, toy-like design does *NOT* (except in the most generalized sense) represent the actual configuration of a craft mechanically worthy of reaching Earth's orbital altitudes. This simple, crude demonstration is only intended to demonstrate the principle. Joe described various means of building a structural craft that would be capable of traveling beyond Earth's atmosphere. Why helium, you ask? Why not? Helium is a substance which the universe has "been kind enough to offer us" --- why not utilize its obvious advantages with respect to our atmosphere. As Joe explained, the helium would counterbalance the majority of the weight of the payload while the vehicle was __in the Earth's atmosphere__. [I should add that it is estimated that Earth's atmosphere extends into space for up to 600 miles --- although at this point it is admittedly nearly indistinguishable from a vacuum.] As the atmosphere become less available for utilization by the helium, then the electromagnetic lift effect would play a greater and greater role in cause the craft to rise. Joe described (and he has given this much additional thought that was not disclosed at St. Louis) how a series of "balloons within balloons" with regulator valves could mechanically accommodate the expected expansion of the helium in upper atmospheric levels. In addition, it would be anticipated that some of the expanding helium could be pumped back into containment cylinders which could then be re-used when descent is desired. In this way, all materials could be continuously recycled for the ascent/descent. Once in space itself, it would be expected that the most optimum form of propulsion would ultimately be electromagnetic since such fields pervade the universe -- e.g., the Earth's electromagnetic field, and that of the moon, the Sun, and even the entire Galaxy. IMPORTANT POINT: Joe postulated that the most optimal point for initiating ascent/descent on the Earth's surface would be at either of the poles, where the magnetic flux lines are most concentrated and therefore strongest. At lower latitudes -- St. Louis or in Mississippi -- the lift effect relative to these physical lines of force is not as strong. Consequently, natural locations on the Earth for such electromagnetic Spaceports would be in the vicinity of the North or South poles. And a simple extrapolation for postulating the most effective way to exit/enter our own solar system would be from the vicinity of the north or south poles of our own star. Aside comment: Years ago I heard a lecture presented by an astrophysicist in which he postulated that someday, in the very distant future, our descendants would be living on the 'surface' of our Sun (recognizing that the Sun has no precise physical surface, such as the Earth). As ridiculous as this statement first sounded to me, he went on to explain that such a physical location would be optimal in terms of an access to energy and disposal of physical entropy. He postulated that by means of a very advanced electromagnetic shield, a population could create a habitable environment in close proximity to the Sun. Advanced, indeed! I would not care to be around should the shield fail! All in all, the St. Louis presentation was a good one and contacts were made which may prove helpful to the expansion of the technology in the future. Sincerely, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html * Note: A gif document featuring one of his ELDs on the cover of the Mobile Press Register newspaper and a second gif document depicting in mechanical detail the nature of a physical effect demonstrating an _opposite_ force to gravity --- are also available. I will be happy to forward said gifs to anyone requesting them. Joseph Newman in St. Louis, end of Part A. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 06:38:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA08704; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:26:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:26:13 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:23:59 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Greg Watson cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation In-Reply-To: <33043575.6E00 mail.enternet.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Ma_Q33.0.q72.3O71p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4166 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., I may be missing something .... on this balloon thing. Do we need or have a return path for the HV? I do not see two wires in the ASCII diagramms. J On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > Larry Wharton wrote: > > > > I did the magnetic test with my helium filled aluminum coated mylar > > balloons. I wrapped copper wire around the balloon and sent about 4 amps > > through it at about 12 volts. There was a torque in evidence but there > > appeared to be no levitation within the first few seconds after turning on > > the power. Then the balloon heated up and expanded and of course rose > > upward. The expansion was quite evident and the levitation appeared to be > > entirely consistent with this expansion. My conclusion is that the > > magnetic levitation effect is nonexistent. > > Hi Lawrence, > > Did you reverse the current when the balloon aligned to the earth's > field? I believe, based on my sims, that any lift will only occur > after the coils are aligned and current flow is reversed. > > -- > Best Regards, > Greg Watson, > Greg Watson Consulting, > Adelaide, South Australia, > gwatson enternet.com.au > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 06:45:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA07374; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:20:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:20:17 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:18:09 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lift In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-i3Me3.0._o1.UI71p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4165 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., For the record: I did mention electrostatic force ... but it IS NOT my force, just a force! :) On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Evan Soule wrote: > >Barry Merriman wrote: > > > > > As for how Newman's balloon does achieve lift, I'm > > > willing to bet any graduate physics student could figure > > > it given a few hours to play with an operational device. > > > >Are you leaving that as an "excercise for your readers", or did you have > >something specific in mind? > > > >All I can think of is electrostatic force, but I can't figure out where > >it comes from. But if you've got that part, then apply Schnurer's > >comment about the atmospheric charge gradient. Then again with Newman, > >it's probably gyroscopic particles we should be looking for here. Ok, so > >this lift is precessional then? I haven't a clue about this, and gyro > >math makes my brain precess. I tried it once years ago, and I'm still > >sore from it. > > > >Is it clear to you at all what the orientation of the coils is when the > >balloon rises? > > > > /--------\ balloon > > / \ > >-------------- > >-------------- coils( horizontal) > >-------------- > > \ / > > \--------/ > > | > > | > > | wire and/or tether > > | > > | > > > >... would be my guess. > > > >- Rick Monteverde > >Honolulu, HI > > Dear Rick -- > > If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils Joseph > Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. > > /---\ small secondary balloon > \---/ > > / --------\ large primary balloon > > /||||||||||||||||||| \ > > ||||||||||||||||||| > > ||||||||||||||||||| coils( vertical) > > ||||||||||||||||||| > > \ ||||||||||||||||||| / > > \--------/ | > > | > > | > > | wire > > | > > | > > > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 06:48:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA10084; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:33:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:33:11 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:34:46 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Two Posts in One Resent-Message-ID: <"SaaHN1.0.ST2.aU71p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4167 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule' said: > >>> The proper approach is HIGH voltage and LOW current and many turns of copper >wire. << > >In view of the very low current why not use Al wire - much lighter and >super-purity Al is a good conductor. Good point! And Al is a possibility -- with an added benefit of its abundance on Earth. A potential drawback is that I believe its magnetic field strength (generated by its utilization as a coil) --- while relatively close --- is still less than that of copper. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 06:53:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17085; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:10:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:10:51 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:12:21 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. Resent-Message-ID: <"ZztBi3.0.nA4.ear0p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4134 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part B. __________________________________________________________ Note: The following represents my introductory remarks given at St. Louis prior to the presentation by Joseph Newman. Following my remarks, a number of individuals who identified themselves as independent inventors and researchers came to me and expressed their appreciation for my speech. It is for this reason that I include these remarks with my posting: if my remarks can serve to encourage even one inventor (in whatever fields of study) to continue to pursue her/his dream -- then such remarks have served their purpose. ---- Evan Soule' __________________________________________________________ Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen. I once read in a popular scientific magazine the following comment: "THE DAY OF THE LONE RESEARCHER AND INVENTOR IS OVER. In the future, basic research will the sole domain of research teams presided over by large industrial concerns." I could not disagree more with this statement. On the contrary - when the day of the lone researcher and inventor is over, our Species is over. In physical science it has been said that "For ever action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." I believe this is also true in volitional science. If we actively destroy the incentive of our most highly leveraged individuals - our innovators - then our entire Species will suffer as a result in ways we cannot even imagine. Research "teams" may be valuable in filling in the steps made between the giant strides of our innovators - but without such innovators the very advancement of our species to our ultimate destiny - the stars - is at risk. I was recently asked the following by someone who had just heard about an invention you will witness today: "Well, if this technology is so important, why haven't I heard of it sooner?" My response: "Ask Galileo, ask Semmelweis, and ask Goddard - they could all provide excellent answers." This same question could have been asked of the Wright Brothers in 1903. This same question could have been asked of TSIOLSKOVSKY in the 1890s - but nobody would have asked - people were too busy ignoring him. The same question could have been asked of Goddard in the 1920s - but people were too busy attacking and ridiculing him for his absurd ideas on rocketry. The reception to innovation usually proceeds in several stages: first it's ignored, then it's ridiculed, then it's attacked, then ... much later ... it's accepted .... usually after the innovator is dead. And then, after it is accepted, there is invariably someone who comes along, looks at the given innovation and replies, "Well, what's the big deal - this is obvious." Well, as Christian Morgenstern once said, "The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply." Let me repeat this, "The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply." Yet simplicity is a characteristic of all great ideas. The wheel is simpler than that which proceeded it. The aeroplane is a simpler and more elegant means of transportation. And, come to think of it, the simplicity of the Golden Rule can be expressed in only a few words - and yet the Golden Rule contains more wisdom than the tens of thousands of words it took to 'regulate the price of cabbage in World War II.' Washing one's hands prior to a medical operation is a simple and obviously necessary task. Yet 150 years ago the innovator of this simple process, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, was attacked and ridiculed by his fellow physicians for proposing this technique. He was ultimately driven to despair and suicide from witnessing the needless and painful deaths of women infected during childbirth by their own doctors. I've asked myself this question, "How many people in December of 1903 would have been truly sensitive to the remarkable innovation of the Wright Brothers?" How many people - upon witnessing that early flight of Orville Wright at Kitty Hawk - would have at that moment realized the monumental significance of that achievement? I would suggest than many would have watched without understanding and would have come away from the demonstration unimpressed. I say this because it has been observed that the news media are often reflective of the consciousness of the people they represent. And, as a matter of historical record, the Wright Brothers had a brother named Lorin who - late on December 17, 1903 brought a telegram announcing their great achievement to the offices of the Dayton JOURNAL and showed the telegram to Frank Tunison who represented the Associated Press. The now famous telegram said the following: "From Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, December 17, 1903: 'Success. Four flights Thursday morning all against twenty-one-mile wind. Started from level with engine power alone. Average speed through air was thirty-one miles. Longest flight was 59 seconds. Please inform Press. Home Christmas.' - Orville Wright." Well, the Associated Press representative Frank Tunison looked at the telegram and said: **"59 seconds. If it were 59 minutes it might be worth mentioning."** This same newsman refused to report the first flight in our species' history because he didn't think a flight of less than one minute was a worthy news item, and he seemed, according to Lorin, annoyed over being bothered about such nonsense. Well, when did the majority of newspapers report on this major new event? The next day? The next week? The next month? The next year? NO! We are STILL waiting for the newspapers to report on the first flight! I have discovered that CONSISTENTLY, the great discoveries - those discoveries which affect the way we live our lives across this planet for generations to come - these great discoveries are usually ignored or go unrecognized by the vast majority of people at the time of their initial disclosure. You may say that such are isolated cases. I wish this were so, but the history of science in GENERAL and of innovation IN PARTICULAR says otherwise. And another example: How about the father of rocketry? Would you not say that this individual discovered a technology that has had a far-reaching impact on the lifestyle of every man and woman alive today? You might say, "certainly this innovator achieved recognition for his innovation." Nope. Wrong again. Most people don't even know who he is, let alone know of his achievement. His name: KONSTANTIN EDUARDOVICH TSIOLSKOVSKY. This 19th century innovator was a Russian schoolteacher by day and a rocket scientist by night. He was all but ignored by the world until a number of Soviet historians discovered him years later and made their claim to having the original pioneer of rocketry. But while was most productive, his discovery went largely ignored. Looking back over the way in which many major innovators have been treated throughout history - whether it's Galileo being threatened with death for his ideas, or Goddard being ridiculed for his ideas - is this to be the FUTURE history of the Spirit of American Innovation? Will future generations look back at the history of American Innovation and describe it as follows: "Such innovation was born in the resiliency of the Pioneer, and died in the suffocating arms of cynics and bureaucrats." I hope this is not the case, which is why I make my case for the importance of the lone innovator. The cynical and bureaucratic approach has its roots in negativism - which is the antithesis of innovation. All too often a bureaucrat's non-creative solution to a problem facing humanity is to pass more political laws and regulations that only serve to restrict the creativity of us all - in other words, **"everything that is not forbidden is compulsory."** [**stated by astrophysicist Andrew J. Galambos] Well, it's time for a change . . . a new beginning. And the speaker that you're about to hear has just such a new beginning in mind. A new beginning is what is needed to launch our species to the stars. A new beginning is what is needed to utilize a new technology that harnesses the very essence of our universe. As a major astrophysicist of our century once said: "Sic Itur Ad Astra" - this is the way to the stars. A couple of Ohio bicycle mechanics changed history. A Russian schoolteacher is the father of modern rocketry. An obscure Austrian doctor innovated a complete cure for puerperal fever. Yes, the day of the lone innovator is alive and well. I am sure you have heard the famous quotation, "if I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." When Isaac Newton said this, he was standing on the shoulders of Archimedes, of Copernicus, of Galileo, of Kepler. The man I am introducing today has also seen farther than others. And it is because, in part, because he stands upon the shoulders of Joseph Black, of Michael Faraday, of James Clerk Maxwell, and of Albert Einstein. And it was Max Planck who said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Our history of the development of knowledge, of the struggle of innovation and inventors, represents our effort as a species to understand the universe. >From a seemingly simple but profound integration of thought processes based upon direct observation, the speaker you are about to hear has moved our species closer to a greater understanding of the universe. Driven by those loftiest of human attributes - curiosity and enquiry - it is his thirty year persistence is the face of bureaucratic indifference, stupidity, and academic intellectual dishonesty, that has enabled him to develop our access to a new source of energy that is actually as old as the universe itself. In essence, the speaker you are about to hear has a personal philosophy which could best be summed up as follows: "If it can't be done, it interests me." And like the Wright Brothers, whose bicycle shop helped them to finance their quest to fly in a heavier-than-air machine, the speaker has utilized his successful inventions to help finance his quest to create and develop a revolutionary energy machine. In his endorsement, one physicist who worked extensively with the inventor, once wrote: "The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale, commercial development of this invention." Dr. Robert E. Smith, former Chief of the Orbital and Space Environment Branch at the NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight* Center wrote, regarding our speaker: "If the manner in which he conducted his experiments and the results were made known to the industrial or engineering community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or individuals possess the expertise and capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the apparent capability of his new concepts." [Aside: *I've always wondered why NASA officials titled their Center thusly since these words, "Space Flight", in this context, seem to represent a logical contradiction.] And Dr. E. L. Moragne, a pioneer in the development of the first atomic bomb, wrote to the speaker: "You have opened an area in Astrophysics which may revolutionize the magnetic energy problems which is now the most paramount problem in future energy and space travel. I do believe with proper research funds, the results would not only be a great financial boom to your financiers, but would lead to developments that will be practical and beneficial to all mankind and develop a new step in science." I have personally known the speaker for nearly 14 years. I will make the following bold statement based upon my knowledge of his work and my observations over the past decade: It is my belief that the speaker today has a deeper and more fundamental _MECHANICAL_ understanding of electromagnetism than anyone alive on this planet. And I make this strong statement NOT to brag about the speaker - for whom I obviously have respect. I make this bold statement to encourage you, the listener, to utilize his talents and understanding to the maximum - *while he is alive*. Don't repeat the mistakes of our predecessors and provide recognition after the innovator has passed away. This only destroys the incentive of our innovators and impedes for us all, the progress of civilization. The inventor himself has said, "The finished prototype of what I teach will change the world drastically for the good of humanity, more so than any invention before this time." Ladies and Gentleman, it is now my pleasure to introduce to you, inventor Joseph Newman. _______________________________ I am sure that among those reading this posting there will be those who 1) oppose it, 2) ignore it, or 3) agree with it. To those who oppose it I write the following: while you are certainly entitled to your opposition, I will say that Joseph Newman has presented his fundamental mechanical explanation for the nature of (electro)magnetic fields. I honestly ask: do _you_ have such a mechanical explanation? If so, I would very much (honestly) like to learn of it. If not, then I would suggest that, in accordance with the scientific tradition, you at least study Joseph Newman's fundamental mechanical explanation and either a) refute it, b) agree with it, or c) improve upon it. His Gyroscopic Particle Theory _does_ mechanically explain, for instance, Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion. Joe goes on to also state and demonstrate in his work that this fundamental gyroscopic entity is also the _mechanical_ unifier of the various fields. I will be the first to state that it would be highly desirable (for purposes of communication among physicists) to have Joe's mechanical work translated into mathematics. I honestly believe this will happen in time. But one must start somewhere. Michael Faraday's mechanics were sufficient to launch a new electromagnetic age in the history of our Species. Fortunately for us, James Clerk Maxwell considered the mechanically-minded Faraday a "mathematician of high order" and was himself sufficiently mechanically gifted to translate such mechanics into mathematical expression. I also believe that like Faraday, Joseph Newman will eventually find his "Maxwell." Very best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html Joseph Newman in St. Louis, end of Part B. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA10516; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:36:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:36:07 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:33:54 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: To Rick Monydata known) (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"nBg6F3.0.Ba2.MX71p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4168 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 1281 Dear AG, Good idea to read about diffferent magnet types, ie, rare earth, ferrite, alnico and so on. Select magnet is using rare earth type for size in experimental set up ..... and cost. electonics GO TO: Magazine store and look for both Electronics Now and Popular There are many venodors of surplus mags. Old dead Sm Co headphones are also OK for small pellet .... On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > We are "In Search Of . . ." answers together. Each posting must reflect > personal respect, integrity, honesty, and full disclosure of information. > ---------- > > Colin - > > Thanks, I've ordered one of those hex discs from Superconductive > components. Should be here soon. But I've only got 5/8" samarium cobalts > coming from another source. I called Dexter Magnetics today, and they > had samariums in the 1" but only 16MGO and were $50 ea.! The 0.625 units > on the way are 24MGO and $4.00 ea. from : > > The Magnet Source > PO BOX 279 > 607 S. Gilbert St. > Golden Co. 80104 > 1-800-525-3536 > > I also ordered some 35MGO NIBs from them, 1" dia. discs. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > ---------- > TO LEAVE THE LIST, send a message to: majordomo primenet.com > with the one line message of: unsubscribe antigravity > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 07:04:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA10892; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:38:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:38:31 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:39:59 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Lift Resent-Message-ID: <"8oecL2.0.6g2.cZ71p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4169 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule' wrote: > >> If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils >> Joseph Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. > >Aha. Thanks for the drawing. I needed that, as much as I tried to >visualize it from the descriptions. > >Evan, in response to the switching on and off of the current when the >balloon is in the air, does the balloon immediately reverse its vertical >trend? I'd think any quick reversals would eliminate the possibility of >heating being responsible for its motions if it does work that way. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Yes, this is the case -- and even more noticeable with the stronger magnetic fields generated by more copper (coils) and/or higher _voltage_. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 07:15:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA13955; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:53:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:53:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:53:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702141453.IAA17955 dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #4 (3 more). 12 so far To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"QDmqL.0.yP3.rn71p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4170 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 14, 1997 ICCF-6 Oral and Poster Abstracts --- continued P-046 (poster presentation) (this poster abstract was typwritten with a misaligned typewriter platen which resulted in an paper with the lower 1/3 of the characters almost missing -- hard to read. It was reproduced as-is in the abstract collection.) INVESTIGATION OF NUCLEAR EMISSIONS IN PROCESS OF DEUTERIUM ESCAPE FROM DEUTERIZED PALLADIUM FOILS A.S. Roussetski, Laboratory of Elementary Particles, P.N. Ledbedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science Moscow, Russia Emission of charged particles was investigated in the process of deuterium escape from electrolytically deuterized PdO-Pd-PdO and PdO-Pd-Ag samples. The measurements have been carried out by three methods: (1) by scintillation counter, (2) by Si-SSd, (3) by CR-39 track detector. The spectra obtained by the scintillation detector and Si-SSD exceeded the background spectra in the energy range 0.5-3.0 MeV. The measurements with CR-39 track detector demonstrated the excess in the number of proton-like tracks for deuterized samples as compared to the background. This makes it possible to conclude about the emission of protons with energies F(approx.=to)3 MeV created in the fusion reaction: d + d -> p(3.02 MeV) + T(1.01 MeV) (1) which takes place in process of deuterium escape from the samples. The neutron yield in the reaction: d + d -> n(2.45 MeV + He(0.82 MeV) (2) was also measured. It was estimated that the ratio of proton and neutron fluxes fron reactions (1) and (2) respectively is Np/Nn(approx.=to) 1. O-044 (oral presentation) REPRODUCTION OF FLEISCHMANN AND PONS EXPERIMENTS G. Longchamps, CEREM/CENG, Avenue des Martyrs, 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9, France L. Bonnetain, P. Hicker, ENSEEG, BP 75, 38402 Saint Martin d'Heres, France The French Atomic Energy Commission, in association with the ENSEEG (Ecole Nationale Superieure d'Electrochimie et d'Electrometallurgie de Grenoble) started in 1993 a program of verification of the results of "cold fusion" published in 1993 by Fleischmann and Pons(1). Experiments have been performed in calorimeters identical to the ones used by Fleischmann and Pons(1). We point out here that these types of experiments can be analysed in three temperature domains: - At low temperatures, below 70 C, excess enthalpy is the difference between the heat radiated to the water bath, and the enthalpy input due to electrolysis. - At intermediate temperatures, between 70 C and 99 C, excess enthalpy is the difference between the heat radiated towards the water bath plus the enthalpy contents of the gas stream, plus the variation of enthalpy of the contents of the calorimeter (because of the fast temperature variation observed) and the introduced electrical enthalpy. - In the boiling regime (without condensation), excess enthalpy is calculated from the difference between the total amount of water contained in the calorimeter evaporated and the theoretical quantity of water that should be evaporated by the energy introduced in the calorimeter (i.e. the enthalpy input due to electrolysis minus radiated enthalpy at boiling temperature). Six calibration runs wlith platinum cathodes and 17 runs with different palladium type cathodes have been performed. At low temperature. 8 experiments have produced an excess energy rate between 1 and 5%. In the intermediate regime, the water vapor carried away gases of the electrolysis are large, and cannot be evaluated precisely. This makes the anlysis difficult, and has not been carried out fully yet. We discuss this point in detail. At boiling, three positive experiments have been successful, giving excess enthalpies rates of 80% to 150%. We present the results obtained with different types of cathode materials: pure, annealed and cold worked palladium and alloys (Pd-Rh and PD-Ce). In conclusion, we confirm the results published by Fleischmann and Pons(1), more particularly in the boiling regime. 1. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176, 118(1993) P-005 (poster presentation) HEAT OUTPUT DURING ELECTROLYSIS OF HEAVY WATER: COMPARISON OF A PALLADIUM CATHODE WITH PLATINUM CATHODE J. Dash, Physics Department, Portland State University, Box 751, Portland, OR 97207 Two closed cells of 25 ml capacity were constructed. Both had Pt anodes, an electrolyte with 0.06 mol fraction H2SO4 in D2O, and recombination catalyst suspended above the electrolyte. One cell had Pd foil (0.055 g) cathode, and the other had Pt foil cathode. Each cell was placed in an identidal insulted container. The cells were connected in series, and electrolysis was performed at constant current density of about 0.25 A/cm^2. The cell voltages were almost the same. The temperature of the air surrounding the cells inside the insulated containers and the ambient temperature were monitored. During the first 20 hours of electrolysis, there was no difference in heat output of the two cells. For most of the next 50 hours of electrolysis, the cell with the Pd cathode produced more heat (as much as 0.3 watt more) than the Pt cathode cell. During this period, the Pd deteriorated and a solid black substance accumulated on the bottom of the cell. Th Pt cathode did not appear to change. After lying dormant for 75 days, electrolysis was again performed. In five consecutive experiments totaling 20 hours of a period of two weeks, the cell with the Pt cathode produced more heat (as much as 0.3 watt more) than the Pd cathode cell. These results suggest that a Pt cathode, under suitable conditions, can serve to catalyze the production of excess heat, consistent with the work of Ohnori and Enyo, who also found that excess heat is produced both by hydride-forming and non-hydride-froming cathodes(1). Results of scanning electron microscope and microchemical analysis of the electrodes will also be presented. 1. T. Ohmori and M. Enyo, J. New Energy, 1, 15 (1996) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 07:29:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA14822; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:58:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:58:51 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:58:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702141458.IAA27671 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: new SL info Resent-Message-ID: <"EuhKV2.0.9c3.Vs71p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4171 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 307 February 12, 1997 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein SONOLUMINESCENCE BUBBLES COLLAPSE AT MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND, new experiments have shown. Sonoluminescence is the still- mysterious process in which sound waves aimed at a water tank cause bubbles to collapse and generate ultrashort light flashes which represent a trillionfold concentration of the original sound energy. UCLA researchers (Seth Putterman, 310-825-2269) determine the speed of bubble collapse by measuring the amount of laser light scattered from a bubble during different points of its implosion. The amount of scattered light is proportional to the square of the bubble radius. Previous experiments could only establish that the bubble collapsed faster than the speed of sound; using ultrashort (100-fsec) laser pulses has now enabled the researchers to ascertain that the bubble collapses at a speed greater than Mach 4 (more than 1 km/s for this tiny bubble). This confirms a major prediction of the leading explanation for sonoluminescence known as the shock-wave model but does not rule out competing explanations because this and other experiments to date can only probe the outer surface of the bubble, not what is happening inside. In addition, the UCLA team determined that the bubble accelerates by at least 10^11 g when the bubble stops compressing and starts expanding; amazingly, the bubble remains intact during this massive acceleration. (K.R. Weninger et al., upcoming article in Physical Review Lett.) Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 08:10:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA25546; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:53:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:53:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199702141555.HAA21161 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:54:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Lift Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"v36bP.0.0F6.Rf81p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4172 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Can I use a heart shaped Mylar ballon? Just happen to have one hanging about today. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 08:25:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA29461; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:09:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:09:06 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:10:44 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"Wfqxb.0.FC7.Xu81p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4173 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:25 -0800 From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "josephnewman earthlink.net" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4137 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: U Evan How many turns of what size and kind of wire were used, and what voltage was applied for how long? Hank Scudder Dear Hank -- I noted the time of your above post, and I believe it was posted before I had posted the Part A. post. I hope the above has been answered by the St. Louis Part A. post -- if not, please let me know. Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 08:43:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA31848; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:16:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:16:19 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com>, Vortex-L Subject: Thermionic diodes Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:14:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5Y-Jo.0.En7.G_81p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4175 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris I found this in a book by Samuel Seely on Electronic Engineering McGraw Hill, 1956, page 9 on. For a parallel plate diode, with a voltage V between anode and cathode at a distance d meters apart, J the current density in amperes per square meter is: J = (epsilon0/2.25*sqrt(2*e/m))*(V^3/2)/d^2 for electrons substituting J = 2.33E-6*V^3/2/d^2 This is known as the Langmuir-Childs or 3/2 power law It shows the space charge current is independent of the temperature and the work function of the cathode. If we have a cylindrical geometry, The equation becomes: Ib = 14.6E-6*L/ra*V^3/2/beta^2 Ib is the current in amperes, L the length of the cylinder in meters, ra is the anode radius in meters, and beta is related to the ratio of the anode radius to the cathode radius. If ra/rc > 8, then beta=1. This is true until all the electrons emitted by the cathode are collected, when the current becomes constant, and doesn't increase with further increases in the anode voltage. Hope this is what you wanted Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 09:21:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04710 for billb@eskimo.com; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:21:13 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:21:13 -0800 X-Envelope-From: R.O.Cornwall city.ac.uk Fri Feb 14 09:21:08 1997 Received: from netmail.city.ac.uk (netmail.city.ac.uk [138.40.12.1]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA04549 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:21:04 -0800 Received: from exeter.city.ac.uk (exeter.city.ac.uk [138.40.1.4]) by netmail.city.ac.uk (/City/2.1) with ESMTP id PAA26312 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:01:20 GMT Received: from localhost (remi localhost) by exeter.city.ac.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA26918 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:01:12 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs Old-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:01:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Cornwall RO X-Sender: remi exeter To: vortex Subject: What are your views on reductionism? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, Here's something I saw in the current edition of American Scientist. It represents the establishment but I agree with a lot of it. Its a kind of counterblast to 'antiscience', 'holism' without method and new age/new philosophy/fatalism codswallop. My view on Scientific Method: Keep asking the same question until you get a satisficatory answer. One's debating points must be well formed and rational so that they can recieve rational answers. My view on Scientific Laws: Nature doesn't obey OUR laws - she does her own thing. So don't be COMPLACENT with your standard picture observed in a flicker of the Universe's time in a speck of its space. My view on 'holism' (sum greater than parts, old eastern philosphies etc.): One needs a method else how does one proceed with the limited brainpower available without breaking things down? We need a new Francis Bacon. I'll keep an open mind though. Still think its a battlecry for anti-science, anti-logic and people who thrive in such environments to take other's liberties away (tyranies). Remi. The President of Sigma Xi and American Scientist speaks. Volume 85 (current or damn near) Complex aspects of nature may be analysed and understood by considering them to be made up of simpler pieces, which can in turn be analysed separately. Scientists study and reconstruct complex systems by analysing and understanding the way in which the pieces fit together and interact. In this reductionist sense ecology may be studied as interacting pieces of biology, chemistry, geology and physics, biology as interacting and coupled pieces of chemistry and physics, and chemistry as interacting pieces of physics. Complex systems do not behave in ways that violate the laws that we have learned to be true in simpler systems. Biological systems do not violate thermodynamics, although they exhibit complex phenomena not seen in simpler chemical and physical systems. Complex systems and their phenomena may be derivable by synthesis from coupled sets of simpler sets of simpler systems, but the set of possibilities is gigantic. We cannot tell which possibilities will really arise from the path of evolution and historical accident. "Reductionism" has become a pejorative word, a part of the vocabulary of antiscience. It is asserted that "holism" - somehow understanding the complex system without analysing it into parts - will help us to avoid missing essential properties of the complex system. It is true that reductionism analyses can sometimes lose complex system properties, but they also make the understanding of complex systems and system interaction possible. Progress in understanding whole systems has really been made by understanding the parts and the way they fit together. The reductionist mode of thought unifies the body of science by giving us basic rules and laws that we find everywhere. It defines the sense in which a piece of science can be thought of as fundamental: underlying the understanding of more complex systems . This is true not only for fundamentals like mechanics and electromagnetic theory, but also from phenomena that arise from the complexity of systems. Dynamical behaviours such as amplification, oscillation, feedback control and chaos are found alike in planetary (e.g. asteroidal) and stellar systems, in chemical systems, in the control systems and operation of the human heart, in the behaviour of ecosystems, and in the operation and control of technological, organisational and economic systems created by people. Systems and phenomena that seem very different are seen to be very similar in their behaviour, in "what makes them tick", when we understand the bases of their structure. Although we may not predict all the phenomena of biological and other complex systems starting only from fundamental physical theory, it is remarkable that so few concepts tell us so much. We are creating (or in the history of science as "natural science", *re*-creating) a unified science, tied together by a web of underlying natural laws. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 09:48:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA05831; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:26:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:26:37 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Thermionic diodes Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:24:41 +0000 Message-ID: <19970214172439.AAA26013 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"bC0Jk1.0.1R1.C1A1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4177 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Hank, & Hi Chris At 04:14 PM 2/14/97 +0000, you wrote: >Chris >This is true until all the electrons emitted by the cathode are >collected, when the current becomes constant, and doesn't increase >with further increases in the anode voltage. > >Hope this is what you wanted >Hank Scudder I think that to say "all the electrons emitted by the cathode are collected" is a bit misleading. Cesium vapor at a very low concentration is used in thermionic diodes since the cesium ionizes (due to the difference of it's work function and the work function of the cathode) and these ions neutralize the space charge due to electrons that would otherwise stay near the cathode and cause the current to be space charge limited. The Russian-made TOPAZ 10 kw space power unit that is (or was) on display at the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico still uses this system plus a Russian designed plasma oscillation setup that turns the output to alternating current. One of the Russian scientists that came to the U.S. to teach the technology is an acquaintance and we both came close to being expelled from a get-together that my daughter had because we spent most of the afternoon off in a corner going over almost all of the thermionic diode technology that we had experienced. Rgeards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 10:05:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA10025; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:41:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:41:31 -0800 Message-ID: <33045D1A.54BA tiac.net> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:42:07 +0000 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon tiac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: different strokes.... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Saeb_2.0.MS2.7FA1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4178 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > You wrote: "...this mumbo-jumbo.." > > Let's see...what was it that the distinguished Italian Professor Cremonini > said about Galileo?: I believe it was that Galileo went around "enchanting > people" with that "confounded tube of his"..... oh well..... and so it > goes... Evan, Enough with teh Galileo references already. Joe Newman had enchanted himself here, to the point where he will not revisit the two coil test, and accuses those who have taken a closer look at this than Mr. Newman seems to have done as refusing to look through the telescope. So I guess the biggest difference between Newman and Galileo is that when others looked through his tube, they saw the same things Gelileo saw. Joe's refusal to review the possibility of error, and the fact that the behavior of the two coil test has a conventional explaination totally disqualifies Mr. Newman from claiming Galileo as a peer. > I've a simple request: > > Since the PHYSICAL lines of force serve to underscore the point that > electromagnetic phenomena does indeed consist of MATTER IN MOTION --- I > invite you to present __your__ fundamental __mechanical__ explanation for > magnetic attraction and repulsion. And while you're at it, please explain > (again in a fundamental sense) the mechanical essence of Fleming's Rule. I see no valid reason that you should insist on a mechanical explaination at all. Newman has often refused to debate issues with thse who do not offer such an explaination. There is nothing more 'right' about a mechanical explaination than a non-mechnacial one, providing both explainations describe the same phenomena we observe in actual experiments. And this is where Joe Newman's theory runs into problems. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 10:46:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA18882; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:19:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:19:49 -0800 From: Chuck Davis To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: psyphy listp.apa.org, mind-l@gate.net Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:18:46 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: YAM 1.3.4 [020] - Amiga Mailer by Marcel Beck Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: FCC decisions update (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Resent-Message-ID: <"rYs7K1.0.yc4.3pA1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4179 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Forwarded message, originally written by Kenneth Carrigan on 14-Feb-97 *** *FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC* ---------------------------- Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling you that Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. Here's a little more detail on the "problem", ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in reality, a bonanza for the Bells. The study found that local carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the additional usage. A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer. Both sides agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks. (Business Week 17 Feb 97) I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a 10 page explanation of what's *really* going on. Unfortunately, the 10 page explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few inaccuracies; if it does, please let me know). First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by Internet Service Providers. Local telephone companies currently charge long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to access the Internet. In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place." In other words, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion. Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each and every one of us to stop the evil FCC. What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you agree or disagree with their decision. The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts ever. By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 11:16:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23760; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:45:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:45:00 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:46:41 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: different strokes.... Resent-Message-ID: <"0IPeP.0.Ap5.gAB1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4180 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Evan Soule wrote: > > > >> You wrote: "...this mumbo-jumbo.." >> >> Let's see...what was it that the distinguished Italian Professor Cremonini >> said about Galileo?: I believe it was that Galileo went around "enchanting >> people" with that "confounded tube of his"..... oh well..... and so it >> goes... > >Evan, > >Enough with teh Galileo references already. Joe Newman had enchanted >himself here, to the point where he will not revisit the two coil test, >and accuses those who have taken a closer look at this than Mr. Newman >seems to have done as refusing to look through the telescope. Dear Bob, The only "enchantment" is that possessed by some people whose paradigms cause them to resort to initiating ridicule, profanity, and insults. > >So I guess the biggest difference between Newman and Galileo is that >when others looked through his tube, they saw the same things Gelileo >saw. As you may recall, Cremonini __refused__ to even look through the telescope in the first place -- claiming that Galileo was employing 'mumbo-jumbo' -- or, in the language of that day, "enchantment." Bob, even though we have our disagreements, you are always civil and do not resort to _initiating_ slurs, sarcasms, profanity, and ridicule. There are several others who could certainly stand to profit from following the example you have set. As to the two coil test, you and I have recently had discussion about this subject and I am awaiting the information you indicated that you would provide. > >Joe's refusal to review the possibility of error, and the fact that the >behavior of the two coil test has a conventional explaination totally >disqualifies Mr. Newman from claiming Galileo as a peer. Bob, please do not create apparent extrapolations with regard to what Joe has 'claimed' --- which are not the case. Neither I nor Joe have "claimed" that he (Joe) is a "peer" of "Galileo." This will be for history to judge --- long after you and I have been recycled. My point was that certain individuals have chosen to treat the paradigm(s) presented by Joseph Newman in the same manner as the treatment afforded Galileo by Cremonini. Joe has a clear understanding of the purpose of the two-coil test. Others have repeated the test for themselves and agree with the point which he was making. I look forward to receiving your additional information per our last conversation on this subject. > >> I've a simple request: >> >> Since the PHYSICAL lines of force serve to underscore the point that >> electromagnetic phenomena does indeed consist of MATTER IN MOTION --- I >> invite you to present __your__ fundamental __mechanical__ explanation for >> magnetic attraction and repulsion. And while you're at it, please explain >> (again in a fundamental sense) the mechanical essence of Fleming's Rule. > >I see no valid reason that you should insist on a mechanical >explaination at all. Newman has often refused to debate issues with >thse who do not offer such an explaination. There is nothing more >'right' about a mechanical explaination than a non-mechnacial one, >providing both explainations describe the same phenomena we observe in >actual experiments. > >And this is where Joe Newman's theory runs into problems. Well, this is, of course, your opinion, Bob. Others would disagree with you. Bob, I am insisting on a mechanical explanation because as such it would more fully elucidate and support the important paradigm that __electromagnetic phenomena does indeed consist of matter in motion.__ And historically speaking, such mechanical explanations have often led to breakthroughts in scientific thought and perspective. Moreover, Joe _does_ have a precise mechanical explanation for magnetic attraction and repulsion. And with respect to the initial sentence of this paragraph, a fundamental understanding of (electro)magnetism would indeed be complimented by a demonstration of a fundamental understanding of its mechanical (matter-in-motion) nature. Moreover, if one is employing powerful magnetic fields in arriving at scientific conclusions, I can understand that it would be useful to understand the fundamental mechanical nature of such (physical) fields. So, once again, to intentionally repeat myself: Since the PHYSICAL lines of force serve to underscore the point that electromagnetic phenomena does indeed consist of MATTER IN MOTION --- I invite you to present __your__ fundamental __mechanical__ explanation for magnetic attraction and repulsion. And while you're at it, please explain (again in a fundamental sense) the mechanical essence of Fleming's Rule. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 11:25:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA26839; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:58:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:58:23 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970115105948.009e1cc0 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:59:49 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Lift Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"jrh5p1.0.DZ6.ENB1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4182 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:18 AM 2/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> >Is it clear to you at all what the orientation of the coils is when the >> >balloon rises? >> > >> > /--------\ balloon >> > / \ >> >-------------- >> >-------------- coils( horizontal) >> >-------------- >> > \ / >> > \--------/ >> > | >> > | >> > | wire and/or tether >> > | >> > | >> > >> >... would be my guess. >> > >> >- Rick Monteverde >> >Honolulu, HI >> >> Dear Rick -- >> >> If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils Joseph >> Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. >> >> /---\ small secondary balloon >> \---/ >> > / --------\ large primary balloon >> > /||||||||||||||||||| \ >> > ||||||||||||||||||| >> > ||||||||||||||||||| coils( vertical) >> > ||||||||||||||||||| >> > \ ||||||||||||||||||| / >> > \--------/ | >> > | >> > | >> > | wire >> > | >> > | >> > This thing, in any orientation of the coils, rides it's own thermally induced vortexian updraft and since there is a slight polarized magnetic field from the wire coils it will also demonstrate elementary magnetic alignment like any compass needle. I think the last diagram will work the best for creating the updraft. Air is being heated inside and outside the balloon, expanding air underneath the skin will want to shove it up and of course its relative weight decreases as it heats inside. The balance of forces is found in the IR of the wires vs the temp of the outside air, assuming the helium renders the device at zero net weight. Naturally the aluminized mylar coating is ideal thermal conductor and the updraft effect can probably be killed or drastically muted fairly quickly, permitting limited if slow elevation control. No work can be done with this device since you can save a lot of weight and trouble by forgetting about copper and batteries and simply using natural gas as is currently used in hot air balloons (a great state of the art, that). I hope you bet that money, Barry, because this is the ten minute solution. Other uses for the toy: a relatively safe one, if much lower voltage used, for children...carnival gee-whiz glitz for Goodyear...and, as a trick question for physics exams. I hope Newman does have it patented because he could make real money with it, just as a toy. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 11:29:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25568; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:52:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:52:26 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: new SL info Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:49:09 +0000 Message-ID: <19970214184907.AAA15353 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"H0vao.0.OF6.eHB1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4181 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, At 02:58 PM 2/14/97 +0000, you wrote: >PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE >The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News >Number 307 February 12, 1997 >by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein > > > >SONOLUMINESCENCE BUBBLES COLLAPSE AT MORE >THAN FOUR TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND, new >experiments have shown. Sonoluminescence is the still- >mysterious process in which sound waves aimed at a water tank >cause bubbles to collapse and generate ultrashort light flashes >which represent a trillionfold concentration of the original sound >energy. UCLA researchers (Seth Putterman, 310-825-2269) >determine the speed of bubble collapse by measuring the amount >of laser light scattered from a bubble during different points of its >implosion. The amount of scattered light is proportional to the >square of the bubble radius. Previous experiments could only >establish that the bubble collapsed faster than the speed of sound; >using ultrashort (100-fsec) laser pulses has now enabled the >researchers to ascertain that the bubble collapses at a speed >greater than Mach 4 (more than 1 km/s for this tiny bubble). >This confirms a major prediction of the leading explanation for >sonoluminescence known as the shock-wave model but does not >rule out competing explanations because this and other >experiments to date can only probe the outer surface of the >bubble, not what is happening inside. In addition, the UCLA >team determined that the bubble accelerates by at least 10^11 g >when the bubble stops compressing and starts expanding; >amazingly, the bubble remains intact during this massive >acceleration. (K.R. Weninger et al., upcoming article in >Physical Review Lett.) > Let me propose that these flashes are from the acoustically stimulated annihilation of the proposed "Light Electron-Positron" pairs that can be trapped on the highly polar water molecules and naturally cannot annihilate with regular electrons any more than an electron can annihilate with a proton. Both are Matter-Antimatter in the true sense, and may not annihilate while tied up with the heavier charges on the water molecule. (the 27.2 ev particle should be about one angstrom in diameter, about the right size tt fit on a water molecule or between condensed water molecules in a water tank. But too big to go into the palladium cathodes or platinum anodes in the "CF" experiments. With one or more 27.2 ev particle pairs per water molecule you're talking something like 3.35E25 pairs/kilogram of water and with 54.4 ev annihilation energy about 3.35E25 * 1.6E-19 * 54.4 = 2.9E08 joules/kg or about 1.39E5 Btu's per pound of water. That's better than the heat output of a gallon of gasoline, and you don't need an oxidizer. Ever notice how static electricity disappears when the humidity is up? Is static electricity "regular" or light electrons-positrons? Did Millikan create the "electrons" that he measured the charges on in his famous oil drop experiment? Ever try to find free electrons in the high dielectric strength insulating oils that take enormous fields to get them to break down? Are the 24 "secondary" electrons emitted by bombardment of magnesium oxide crystals on the impact of one 1.5 kev electron, regular or light electrons? Darn Soapbox is about to collapse. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 12:10:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01269; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:23:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:23:56 -0800 Date: 14 Feb 97 14:21:56 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: different strokes.... Message-ID: <970214192155_72240.1256_EHB81-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"nHWaN1.0.SJ._kB1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4183 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Bob Shannon writes: I guess the biggest difference between Newman and Galileo is that when others looked through his tube, they saw the same things Galileo saw. Interestingly enough, they did not, at first. They saw nothing, because Galileo's gadget did not work worth a darn. Vatican experts at first had every reason to doubt the performance of the instrument. Here is part of a short essay I wrote about this. Galileo performed a preliminary experiment with inadequate instrumentation. Before anyone got a chance to replicate he boasted to the world that he had made an earthshaking discovery. When the experts came to his house to look though his "clumsy" telescope they could hardly see a thing, and much of what they could see was experimental error: "Sometimes a fixed star appeared in duplicate." "The marvel is not so much that he found Jupiter's moons, but that he was able to find Jupiter itself." "Thus, it was not entirely unreasonable to suspect that the blurred dots which appeared to the strained and watering eye pressed to the spectacles-sized lenses might be optical illusions in the atmosphere, or somehow produced by the mysterious gadget itself." - Koestler The telescope was not even mounted properly at first. He was going around showing it to people and trying to convince them with a sloppy, half finished experiment, with a telescope you had to aim by hand. This was forty years after Tycho Brahe began building mounted instruments capable of locating planets to within a fraction of an arc-minute. The biggest difference between Newman and Galileo is that after a while Galileo went back and did the experiment properly; then he showed it other people; and then they replicated him. Pons and Fleischmann were accused of doing a slipshod experiment at first. I think this is unjustified. I think they did the best that could be expected under the circumstances. But, in any case, later on they and others went back and did it again, and again, and the results are now incomparably more solid than they were back in 1989. The moral of the story is that sometimes it takes a long time to separate the flakes from the real scientists. Sometime it takes decades. And many great scientists were certified flakes, right about some things, and screwy about others. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 12:13:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA05229; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:29:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:29:44 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:31:27 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Lift Resent-Message-ID: <"wB-Qq2.0.dH1.tB91p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4176 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "Russ George" wrote: >Can I use a heart shaped Mylar ballon? Just happen to have one >hanging about today. I would imagine that depending upon the size and angular shape of the balloon, you might have a bit more of a problem winding the coil and keeping the wires in the same orientation....Joe described a "star-shape" that he once utilized as a variation --- he stated that it also worked as anticipated, although I never did see the exact positioning of the wires relative to that "star-shape." From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 12:52:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13950; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:26:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:26:24 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "Frederick J. Sparber" , Vortex-L Subject: Re: Thermionic diodes Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:23:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yPESs.0.jP3.jfC1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4184 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick What you say is correct for Cs cathodes. But some Cathodes are just plain W filaments, which are not quite so complicated to explain as a Cs cathode. Hank Scudder ---------- From: Frederick J. Sparber To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thermionic diodes Date: Friday, February 14, 1997 9:24AM Hi Hank, & Hi Chris At 04:14 PM 2/14/97 +0000, you wrote: >Chris >This is true until all the electrons emitted by the cathode are >collected, when the current becomes constant, and doesn't increase >with further increases in the anode voltage. > >Hope this is what you wanted >Hank Scudder I think that to say "all the electrons emitted by the cathode are collected" is a bit misleading. Cesium vapor at a very low concentration is used in thermionic diodes since the cesium ionizes (due to the difference of it's work function and the work function of the cathode) and these ions neutralize the space charge due to electrons that would otherwise stay near the cathode and cause the current to be space charge limited. The Russian-made TOPAZ 10 kw space power unit that is (or was) on display at the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico still uses this system plus a Russian designed plasma oscillation setup that turns the output to alternating current. One of the Russian scientists that came to the U.S. to teach the technology is an acquaintance and we both came close to being expelled from a get-together that my daughter had because we spent most of the afternoon off in a corner going over almost all of the thermionic diode technology that we had experienced. Rgeards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 13:03:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA15957; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:35:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:35:05 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970214203937.00857220 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:39:37 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"Qe3hC3.0.Ev3.unC1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4185 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:14 PM 2/13/97 -0600, you wrote: >snip--- >> >>Au contraire, the experiment described above is near precisely >>what Joseph Newman demonstrated at the Tesla Society Conference >>in 1993, after his motor demo. >> >>The only difference between Newman and Wharton is that Newman seems >>to think he's going to be able to ride in the thing. >> >>It was also rather disconcerting in '93 that Newman did not want to >>hook someone else's meter in series with his, to measure current, >>comparing the readings. He did not appear to understand that it >>would not limit the current. If his intent was to boggle minds, >>that was an effective approach, cause it boggled mine that someone >>proporting to understand electricity to an advanced degree did not >>understand something so fundamental. >> >>Gary Hawkins >>------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today >>http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA >>------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Wondrous women >> Make me swim in >> Lofty thoughts alot. >> /-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\ > >Dear Gary, > >Thanks for your observations. However, if your conclusion is that Mr. >Wharton's demonstration is "near precisely" what Joseph Newman has >demonstrated, then I must postulate that you did not observe Joseph >Newman's demonstration in Colorado Springs very closely which I understand >was similar to his demonstration in Mobile, Alabama before the Mensa >Convention. This could lead one to conclude that your other observations >could possess the same degree of precision. > >I was present at the Tesla Conference in Colorado Springs in which Joseph >Newman did *most assuredly* invite others present to connect their *own* >testing meters in the circuit relative to the energy machine and this in >fact did happen. It is also true that Joe appeared at two Tesla >Conferences back-to-back --- I attended the first one and introduced Joe; I >did not attend the second Conference. Your reference may be to the second >presentation. At the first presentation those present in the audience did >indeed indicate their approval of the testing methods and the results >obtained. Joe was quite content to have others test his device using their >own meters for as long as they wished --- in fact, the presentation went on >so long as to began to impinge upon the timing of the next presentation. > >Sincerely, > >Evan Soule' >Director of Information >NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS Anyone who would like to know the truth on that can order the video from the Tesla Society at 1-800-397-0137. That meter that came from the audience, Mr. Soule, was mine. Newman refused to hook it in series with his to measure current. This would have been the first presentation. I was not fully satisfied with the testing methods. There was a 12 volt battery in series with some much higher voltage batteries, where the parameters on those were not fully demonstrated. Voltage on all of them should have been measured individually before and after. A better approach, would be to [also] use analog meters set up to be clearly visible, where anyone would be able to hook a known voltage source to any of the voltmeters before and after to confirm their readings. Analog meter also for current, where anyone would be allowed to switch their own current meter in series with it to compare. I am not saying there was anything dishonest going on. I'm just saying the "proof" was not thorough and conclusive. A carnival atmosphere began to erupt. In such an atmosphere logic suffers. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 13:06:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA16198; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:36:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:36:18 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Subject: thermionic valves Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:36:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"F175s.0.0z3.0pC1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4186 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I did a search on thermionic diodes on the internet, and came up with this museum. http://chide.bournemouth.ac.uk:80/museum/hms.collingwood.annex/thermioni c.valves.html Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 13:06:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA17784; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:43:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:43:49 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970214204822.008b55f8 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:48:22 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: FCC decisions update (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"9pMiq2.0.nL4.3wC1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4187 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the >telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you >agree or disagree with their decision. > >The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of >the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the >past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of >which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands >down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts >ever. > >By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can >be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at > > http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html > >-- > .-. .-. > / \ .-. .-. / \ > / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ >-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- > RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / > \ / `-' `-' \ / > `-' `-' > www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html > > Thanks for that voice of reason. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 14:42:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA07660; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:19:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:19:08 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:20:40 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Lift Resent-Message-ID: <"QDWQ-3.0.Xt1.QJE1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4188 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 09:18 AM 2/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >>> > >>> >Is it clear to you at all what the orientation of the coils is when the >>> >balloon rises? >>> > >>> > /--------\ balloon >>> > / \ >>> >-------------- >>> >-------------- coils( horizontal) >>> >-------------- >>> > \ / >>> > \--------/ >>> > | >>> > | >>> > | wire and/or tether >>> > | >>> > | >>> > >>> >... would be my guess. >>> > >>> >- Rick Monteverde >>> >Honolulu, HI >>> >>> Dear Rick -- >>> >>> If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils Joseph >>> Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. >>> >>> /---\ small secondary balloon >>> \---/ >>> > / --------\ large primary balloon >>> > /||||||||||||||||||| \ >>> > ||||||||||||||||||| >>> > ||||||||||||||||||| coils( vertical) >>> > ||||||||||||||||||| >>> > \ ||||||||||||||||||| / >>> > \--------/ | >>> > | >>> > | >>> > | wires >>> > | >>> > | >>> > > >This thing, in any orientation of the coils, rides it's own thermally >induced vortexian updraft and since there is a slight polarized magnetic >field from the wire coils it will also demonstrate elementary magnetic >alignment like any compass needle. I think the last diagram will work the >best for creating the updraft. Air is being heated inside and outside the >balloon, expanding air underneath the skin will want to shove it up and of >course its relative weight decreases as it heats inside. The balance of >forces is found in the IR of the wires vs the temp of the outside air, >assuming the helium renders the device at zero net weight. Naturally the >aluminized mylar coating is ideal thermal conductor and the updraft effect >can probably be killed or drastically muted fairly quickly, permitting >limited if slow elevation control. >No work can be done with this device since you can save a lot of weight and >trouble by forgetting about copper and batteries and simply using natural >gas as is currently used in hot air balloons (a great state of the art, that). > >I hope you bet that money, Barry, because this is the ten minute solution. > >Other uses for the toy: a relatively safe one, if much lower voltage used, >for children...carnival gee-whiz glitz for Goodyear...and, as a trick >question for physics exams. > >I hope Newman does have it patented because he could make real money with >it, just as a toy. >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm Dear Mike, Besides the fact that Joe would disagree with your 'evaluation' of the technology (I encourage others to build their own and experiment with it), I have noted your repeated usage of the word, "toy." Since the coils operate cool with the HIGH voltages and LOW current utilized, then employing "much lower voltage" as you describe above would __not__ represent Joseph Newman's demonstration. Of course, if you really want to "heat up the balloon" -- try using 4 amps and 12 volts --- this will work quite well as someone else has already demonstrated. While it isn't Joe's demonstration, it is a good example of thermal lift created by _heated_ coils. And BTW, speaking of "toys" in general -- there was, of course, the "toy" in Ancient Greece: the Hero 'steam engine.' What may be "toys" in one Age become major innovations in another.... Happy Valentines Day! Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 14:50:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA11350; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:35:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:35:48 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:37:29 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation Resent-Message-ID: <"ZmDoV.0.Gn2.2ZE1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4189 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Anyone who would like to know the truth on that can order the video from >the Tesla Society at 1-800-397-0137. > >That meter that came from the audience, Mr. Soule', was mine. Newman >refused to hook it in series with his to measure current. This would >have been the first presentation. > >I was not fully satisfied with the testing methods. There was a 12 volt >battery in series with some much higher voltage batteries, where the >parameters on those were not fully demonstrated. Voltage on all of them >should have been measured individually before and after. > >A better approach, would be to [also] use analog meters set up to be clearly >visible, where anyone would be able to hook a known voltage source to any of >the voltmeters before and after to confirm their readings. Analog meter >also for current, where anyone would be allowed to switch their own current >meter in series with it to compare. > >I am not saying there was anything dishonest going on. I'm just saying the >"proof" was not thorough and conclusive. A carnival atmosphere began to >erupt. In such an atmosphere logic suffers. > >Gary Hawkins >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today >http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA >------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Gary, And for comparative purposes, I would also recommend that anyone who would wish could also obtain a copy of the videotape of Joseph Newman's other demonstration before the Tesla Society. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 16:04:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA23551; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:38:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:38:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:35:49 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Greg Watson cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation In-Reply-To: <3304E24D.543D mail.enternet.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"cQAlp3.0.vl5.WTF1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4191 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks. On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > John Schnurer wrote: > > > > Dear Vo., > > > > I may be missing something .... on this balloon thing. Do we need > > or have a return path for the HV? I do not see two wires in the ASCII > > diagramms. > > Hi John, > > It's not my drawing, but you need two wires. The effect is magnetic, > not > electrostatic. > > Best regards, > Greg Watson > > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 16:07:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA22420; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:30:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:30:26 -0800 Message-ID: <3304E24D.543D mail.enternet.com.au> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:38:13 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson enternet.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, John Schnurer Subject: Re: Balloon Levitation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pp19c.0.DU5.GMF1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4190 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > Dear Vo., > > I may be missing something .... on this balloon thing. Do we need > or have a return path for the HV? I do not see two wires in the ASCII > diagramms. Hi John, It's not my drawing, but you need two wires. The effect is magnetic, not electrostatic. Best regards, Greg Watson From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 17:44:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA29619; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:10:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:10:00 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:11:32 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: different strokes.... Resent-Message-ID: <"xseUS2.0.bE7.Kv81p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4174 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Evan Soule wrote: > >[snip] > > >> Joseph Newman's Presentation: >> >> While the essentials of his discussion are found in his fundamental book, >> during the course of his presentation, Joe made several remarks which >> especially caught my attention: >> >> 1) He stated that he had once read in a scientific magazine a discussion of >> particle accelerators. The article specifically described how the initial >> particle was accelerated through very powerful magnetic fields to a speed >> approaching that of light. At the instant of particle collision, many >> smaller (and sometimes new) particles would be detected and, as such, the >> event appeared to researchers somewhat like "clowns pouring out of an >> automobile at the circus." >> >> With respect to such particle detection, Joe stated the following: >> >> As he has demonstrated in his research over thirty years, the fundamental >> mechanical entity comprising all (electro)magnetic fields is the Gyroscopic >> Particle. If such particle acceleration researchers ignore the >> consequences of accelerating a given particle through __powerful magnetic >> fields__ then they are ignoring a very important fact: > >[snip] > >This is what I do for a living and I'm sorry but I feel honour bound to say >that Newmans stuff is pure crap. We know a LOT about how fundamental particles >behave at very high energies. We've discovered marvelous and subtle >symmetries in nature that allow us understand how vast numbers of particles >are created from pure energy. It's nothing like this mumbo-jumbo at all. >I predict a virulent response to this message but I'll say no more about it. >In my experience it only wastes time to encourage these sort of people by >entering into debate. > >Dr. Martin Sevior >Senior Lecturer >School of Physics >University of Melbourne Dear Martin, Thanks for your "crappy" reply (to utilize your terminology). I'll try not to be virulent. I believe that Joe's principal point was that one should not ignore the possible effects of the power magnetic fields through which the particle is accelerated. As they say -- "different strokes...." Another posted the following on a different list: >>Joseph Newman in St. Louis, Part A. >> [snip] >> >>As a result of such attraction, the structure of the original particle is >>altered and becomes larger: a new mechanical entity momentarily comprised >>of itself plus the various agglutinations of gyroscopic particles which are >>now accelerating along with it. What the researchers are detecting at the >>moment of impact are various new particles (consisting of gyroscopic >>particles) __WHICH THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES CREATED__ during the time >>that the original particle was accelerated through the powerful magnetic >>field (consisting of gyroscopic particles). >> [snip] >"There is a great discussion of this phenomenon, in layman's terms, in the >book THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS by Gary Zukav. (Another excellent book!)" You wrote: "...this mumbo-jumbo.." Let's see...what was it that the distinguished Italian Professor Cremonini said about Galileo?: I believe it was that Galileo went around "enchanting people" with that "confounded tube of his"..... oh well..... and so it goes... I've a simple request: Since the PHYSICAL lines of force serve to underscore the point that electromagnetic phenomena does indeed consist of MATTER IN MOTION --- I invite you to present __your__ fundamental __mechanical__ explanation for magnetic attraction and repulsion. And while you're at it, please explain (again in a fundamental sense) the mechanical essence of Fleming's Rule. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 19:49:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05667; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:38:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:38:42 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SC disk needs to vibrate? Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:38:42 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3308b4f7.11965768 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZfMZp.0.EO1._-I1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4192 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:20:28 -0800 (PST), William Beaty wrote: [snip] >Experiment and wonder if the possible ether wind created by the device >might interact with gravity somehow. Almost too weird to consider, I >admit. [snip] This is strongly related to the concept of gravity as envisaged at project Omicron. See: http://www.cwo.com/~omicron/index.html Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 19:49:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05772; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:39:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:39:00 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:38:52 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330bbf37.14589598 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"thao9.0.3Q1.F_I1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4195 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:29:43 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >I have gone even further than that and suggested that the relativistic >shift in mass of the electron(s) in a bond should correspond exactly with >the energy given up as photons during formation of the bond by the relation >E=mc^2, provided that relationship E=mc^2 is valid and constant as SR says >it is. It seems like the only logical possibility. The energy of a radiated photon comes from the difference in either or both of the potential energy, and the kinetic energy of the electron. One of the problems I have with Horace's scenario is that the electrical potential with respect to the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (to keep it simple) is about 7-800 kV. *So the potential energy of a single electron relative to the nucleus is more than the entire mass of an electron.* In short the energy can't all exist as mass of the electron alone. It must either be shared between the electron and the nucleus (511 keV > 800 keV/2) or reside in the intervening space between nucleus and electron in the form of "virtual photons", or if you prefer a greater density of the vacuum, or more frequent pair production-destruction. I don't like the concept of temporary pair production-destruction. In fact I have no faith in the Dirac sea at all (however this is just personal preference). [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 19:49:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05747; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:38:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:38:55 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Anyone need a 14,400 MODEM? Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:38:50 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330abdc7.14222215 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970212032227_72240.1256_EHB102-2 CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <970212032227_72240.1256_EHB102-2 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TDMnC.0.PP1.A_I1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4194 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 11 Feb 97 22:22:27 EST, Jed Rothwell wrote: >To: Vortex > >I have upgraded my computer. Does anyone need an El-Cheapo no-name external >14,400 bps modem? Yours for the asking. U pay postage. E-mail me directly. > >- Jed > > Ditto for Australian subscribers to this list. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 19:51:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA06110; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:40:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:40:34 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: antigravity primenet.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Antigravity] F. Sweet VTA and Antigrav - questions Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:39:04 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3308081b.12430892 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <2.2.32.19970213035625.006a5268 waikato.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970213035625.006a5268 waikato.ac.nz> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"NsYkn3.0.NV1.m0J1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4196 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:56:25 +1300, RoB Bakker wrote: [snip] > This energy can be utilized by devices designed to convert > electricity to light, heat, or mechanical work or anything else > for which normal electricity is used. The properties of this > energy, although superficially resembling the 120 VRMS 60 HZ > power we normally use, are unique and sufficiently different from > conventional electricity, so that it should be classified as an > entirely new energy form. It will require careful extended study > by a wide range of people in order to document its properties in > the manner scientists have done with conventional electricity. [snip] Suppose that there is indeed an aether. Suppose also that the subatomic particles that we know about are in fact accumulations, or density increases in this aether. If we now also assume that the aether has an average density, then it becomes possible to suppose the existence of rarefactions of the aether as well, i.e. "particles" constructed in the same fashion as normal particles (whirl-pools or vortices?), but consisting of aether with a lower than average density ISO the higher than average density to which we are accustomed (somewhat analogous to a "p-type" semiconductor). Maybe this is the nature of the "negative energy" mentioned here. An alternative possibility is that such "negative density" particles, are in fact the "anti-particles" of particle physics. It is also possible of course that the definitions of "normal" and "negative" are exactly reversed. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 19:52:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05681; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:38:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:38:43 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 600 kW Plasma Torch Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:38:46 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3309b652.12313143 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199702111412.HAA09389 nz1.netzone.com> In-Reply-To: <199702111412.HAA09389 nz1.netzone.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"n6r2t3.0.hO1.1_I1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4193 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:12:33 -0700, Joe Champion wrote: [snip] >No Horace, 600 kW and is continuous duty for the most part. That is, >until you have to change electrode assemblies. [snip] Joe, I realise that this is primarily intended to reduce radioactivity, but it might also be interesting to do a few runs with Pd, Ti, Ni, etc. Just to broaden the field, producing extra data which may later be useful when trying to analyze the results of the work with radioactivity. PS personally I would also try Boron and Bismuth, though the latter melts too easily. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From owner-antigravity ftp1.primenet.com Fri Feb 14 19:55:59 1997 Received: from usr09.primenet.com (root usr09.primenet.com [206.165.5.109]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA08596; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:55:53 -0800 Received: from ftp1.primenet.com (root ftp1.primenet.com [206.165.5.50]) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA07868; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:40:28 -0700 (MST) Received: (from root localhost) by ftp1.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id UAA17967 for antigravity-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:39:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com (root usr08.primenet.com [206.165.5.108]) by ftp1.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA17962 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:39:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from primenet.com (root mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52]) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA04189 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:39:48 -0700 (MST) Received: from hurricane.netspace.net.au (hurricane.netspace.net.au [203.10.110.65]) by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA05713 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:39:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from dialup-m3-188.Melbourne.netspace.net.au (dialup-m3-188.Melbourne.netspace.net.au [203.12.53.188]) by hurricane.netspace.net.au (8.8.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id OAA00033; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:36:31 +1100 (EST) From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: antigravity primenet.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Antigravity] F. Sweet VTA and Antigrav - questions Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:39:04 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3308081b.12430892 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <2.2.32.19970213035625.006a5268 waikato.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970213035625.006a5268 waikato.ac.nz> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.361 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-antigravity ftp1.primenet.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: We are "In Search Of . . ." answers together. Each posting must reflect personal respect, integrity, honesty, and full disclosure of information. ---------- On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:56:25 +1300, RoB Bakker wrote: [snip] > This energy can be utilized by devices designed to convert > electricity to light, heat, or mechanical work or anything else > for which normal electricity is used. The properties of this > energy, although superficially resembling the 120 VRMS 60 HZ > power we normally use, are unique and sufficiently different from > conventional electricity, so that it should be classified as an > entirely new energy form. It will require careful extended study > by a wide range of people in order to document its properties in > the manner scientists have done with conventional electricity. [snip] Suppose that there is indeed an aether. Suppose also that the subatomic particles that we know about are in fact accumulations, or density increases in this aether. If we now also assume that the aether has an average density, then it becomes possible to suppose the existence of rarefactions of the aether as well, i.e. "particles" constructed in the same fashion as normal particles (whirl-pools or vortices?), but consisting of aether with a lower than average density ISO the higher than average density to which we are accustomed (somewhat analogous to a "p-type" semiconductor). Maybe this is the nature of the "negative energy" mentioned here. An alternative possibility is that such "negative density" particles, are in fact the "anti-particles" of particle physics. It is also possible of course that the definitions of "normal" and "negative" are exactly reversed. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ---------- TO LEAVE THE LIST, send a message to: majordomo primenet.com with the one line message of: unsubscribe antigravity From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 14 21:56:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA31649; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 21:38:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 21:38:44 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:38:09 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Resent-Message-ID: <"CXBMJ.0.-j7.TlK1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4197 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:38 PM 2/14/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >One of the problems I have with Horace's scenario is that the electrical >potential with respect to the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (to keep it >simple) is about 7-800 kV. >*So the potential energy of a single electron relative to the nucleus is >more than the entire mass of an electron.* >In short the energy can't all exist as mass of the electron alone. It must >either be shared between the electron and the nucleus (511 keV > 800 keV/2) >or reside in the intervening space between nucleus and electron in the form >of "virtual photons", Yes, EM fields have mass and momentum. A photon *is* an EM field and has mass and momentum. ENegry *is* mas and mass *is* energy, they are inseperable. If you put energy into building an EM field then the mass corresponding to that energy is moved into that field. or if you prefer a greater density of the vacuum, or >more frequent pair production-destruction. I don't like the concept of >temporary pair production-destruction. In fact I have no faith in the Dirac >sea at all (however this is just personal preference). >[snip] > > >Robin van Spaandonk If EM fields have no momentum, no inertia, no energy, then neither does the photon. Which is which and what's the difference? You don't need to invoke a Dirac Sea for this to be True. In fact to invoke that it is *not* true you must prove a circumstance where E<>mc^2. Ha, try that. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 00:07:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA23684; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:57:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:57:22 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:57:12 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: Balloon Levitation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Qryqx3.0.wn5.WnM1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4198 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Evan Soule wrote: > From: "Scudder,Henry J" > > Evan > How many turns of what size and kind of wire were used, and what > voltage was applied for how long? > > Dear Hank -- > > I noted the time of your above post, and I believe it was posted before I > had posted the Part A. post. I hope the above has been answered by the St. > Louis Part A. post -- if not, please let me know. Evan, was the current draw or the coil resistance measured? The part-A message only tells the No. of batteries and the approximate coil configuration. If the total watts dissipated by the coil is very low, then heating cannot be the explanation. Somewhere I have a wire table, which should give approx. resistance for the balloon coil. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 02:41:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA12389; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:27:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:27:24 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <33058F82.2F1CF0FB math.ucla.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:27:14 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"iOxJC2.0.V13.A-O1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4199 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Enegry *is* mass and mass *is* energy This is not a postulate or consequence of any known physics. In physics as we know it, mass is a form of energy, but not vice versa. Energy is the general quanitity, mass being a specific type. Density of energy effects the "curvature of spacetime" (i.e. gravity), but mass has additional properties not possesed by other forms of energy. The relation between mass and energy is summarized by the general equation for the energy of a free particle, E^2 = (mc^2) + (c p)^2 which shows the *separate* contribution from "kinetic" and mass energy. By insisting that all energy is mass, you are denying this equation and in essence defining a new notion of mass. Unfortunately, the one you define does not yield to simple, universal laws of physics. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 03:14:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA17335; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:04:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:04:58 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:07:14 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Resent-Message-ID: <"49md32.0.nE4.PXP1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4200 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:27 AM 2/15/97, Barry Merriman wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> >> Enegry *is* mass and mass *is* energy > >This is not a postulate or consequence of any known physics. >In physics as we know it, mass is a form of energy, but not >vice versa. Energy is the general quanitity, mass being a >specific type. Density of energy effects the "curvature >of spacetime" (i.e. gravity), but mass has additional properties >not possesed by other forms of energy. The relation >between mass and energy is summarized by >the general equation for the energy of a free particle, > >E^2 = (mc^2) + (c p)^2 > >which shows the *separate* contribution from "kinetic" and >mass energy. By insisting that all energy is mass, you are >denying this equation and in essence defining a new >notion of mass. Unfortunately, the one you define does not >yield to simple, universal laws of physics. > > > > >-- >Barry Merriman OK, maybe I am missing something. Could you give me an example, applying E^2 = (mc^2) + (c p)^2, where mass is converted to energy or vice versa, where the sum total of mass and the sum total of energy changes from some observer's reference frame? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 03:45:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA19480; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:36:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:36:44 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:36:47 +0000 Message-ID: <19970215113645.AAA14686 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"tBPA.0.Im4.A_P1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4201 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner, At 05:38 AM 2/15/97 +0000, you wrote: > >Yes, EM fields have mass and momentum. A photon *is* an EM field and has >mass and momentum. > >If EM fields have no momentum, no inertia, no energy, then neither does the >photon. Which is which and what's the difference? You don't need to invoke >a Dirac Sea for this to be True. In fact to invoke that it is *not* true >you must prove a circumstance where E<>mc^2. Ha, try that. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner Hi Horace Isn't this just simple algebra? E = mc^2 then "manifest mass" m = E/c^2 and momentum = mc = E/c. Thus energy-mass are inextricably tied together. If you turn on a "flashlight" of mass M floating in space it's momentum MV is equal to the momentum mc of the energy radiated whether as photons or microwaves; MV = mc, or the velocity gained, V = mc/M. Say the flashlight has a one kilogram mass and puts out 2 watts,ie., 2 joules/second, then V = mc/M.Since m = 2/c^2 = 2.222E-17 then V = 6.666E-9 meters/second after one second and the acceleration is 6.666E-9 meters/sec^2. With Energizer Bunny batteries your flashlight would be moving at 3.154E7 * 6.666E-9 = 0.21 meters/second after a year and moved about 2,000 miles. Quite simply, you can get a kilogram of thrust force from 300 Megawatts of radiation (at any frequency) coming off of a surface. Makes a great way to use the heat from radioisotope waste to push a space probe around with passive propulsion, or using fission reactor heat as a passive propulsion system. It takes about 0.5 kg of fissionable material per megawatt-year of thrust at any temperature. But the higher the temperature the less "radiator" panel area needed. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 04:06:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA20223; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:50:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:50:02 -0800 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 05:49:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702151149.FAA07311 dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #5 (5 more). 17 so far To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"PWwSn.0.qx4.eBQ1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4202 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 15, 1997 ICCF-6 Oral and Poster abstracts continued. TS-003 (special session abstract) ISOTOPIC DISTRIBUTION FOR THE ELEMENTS EVOLVED IN PALLADIUM CATHODES AFTER ELECTROLYSIS IN D2O SOLUTION T. Mizuno, T. Ohmori, T. Akimoto, K. Kurokawa, M. Kitaichi, K. Inoda, K. Azumi, S. Simokawa, and M. Enyo, Hokkaido University, National College of Technology, Japan It was confirmed by several analytic methjods that reaction products with mass numbers ranging from 2 to 82 are produced in palladium cathodes subjected to electrolysis in a heavy water solution at high pressure, high temperature, and high current density for one month. Isotopic distributions were radically different from the natural ones. The anomalous isotopic distribution of these elements shows they do not come from contamination. For example, natural copper is 70% Cu-63, and 30% Cu-65. But the copper found in the cathode was 100% Cu-63, with no detectable levels of Cu-65. Natural isotopic distribution varies by less than 0.001% for copper. Electrolysis experiments were performed at a current density of 0.2 A/cm^2 or total current of 6.6 A to 33 cm^2 surface area for 2.76 X 10^6 s (32 days). The sample electrodes were analyzed for element detection by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX). Augur electron spectroscopy (AES), secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) and eletron probe microanalyzer (EPMA). Thus, the presence of Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Cd, Sn, Pt, and Pb were confirmed. AES and SIMS measurements were also made after bombardment by O2- ions, thus removing surface layers, but the element concentrations at 1 micro m below the electrode surface were almost the same as the surface. SIMS analysis showed other elements: As, Ga, Sb, Te, I, Hf, Re, Ir, Br, and Xe. The SIMS analysis showed other elements, As, Ga, Sb, Te, I, Hf, Re, Ir, Br, and Xe. These elements, except Xe, are difficult to detect by AES and EDX because the peaks are very close to each other, lower than the limits of detection. Xe is naturally difficult to detect by EDX bacause it is in the gas state. The SIMS count number ranged from 10^3 to 10^6 where background counts were as low as ~10. The intensity of Xe was 10 times larger than Pd; it may be that the gas was released by bombarding witrh O2- ions which caused a temperature rise at the sample. Large differences in isotopic distribution compared with the natural distributions were observed by the SIMS method for CU, Zn, Br, Xe, Pd, Cd, Hf, Re, Pt, Ir, and Hg. Especially notable was the fact that no Cu-65 peak was observed. Except for a few cases, in general the isotope abundances are higher for odd mass numbers adn lower for even ones, as compared with the natural ratios. It must be admitted that these reactions have no solid detailed theoretical basis yet, but in broad terms this can explain most of the elements which were observed. One may also imagine that as such, transmutation reactions are taking place during the electrochemical process. TS-007 (SPECIAL SESSION ABSTRACT) EXPERIMENTAL DISCOVERY OF THE PHENOMENON OF LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF ISOTOPES (Mn(55 => Fe(57) IN GROWING BIOLOGICAL CULTURES. V.I. Vysotskii, Kiev Shevchenko University, Radiological Dept., 252017, Kiev, Ukraine A.A. Kornilova, Moscow State University, Physical Faculty, 119899, Moscow, Russia I.I. Samoylenko, Gameleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Moscow, Russia Hypothesis of possibility of nuclear transmutation of elements and isotopes in biological structures has been repeatedly discussed during the last decades. We have carried out investigations aimed at discovery of nuclear transmutation of isotopes in microbiological cultures. We believe that this aim can be achieved only if an isotope obtained in the process of transmutation does not have any analogoues in the nutrient medium where the culture is growing (along with the inevitably present admixtures of this isotope). Therefore all experiments like by H. Comaki(1) are hardly convincing because they do not meet this condition. We have conducted a series of experiments (2) based upon new technology employing the precise methods of Mossbaur spectroscopy. The experiments are based on the expected Mn(55)+d2 = Fe(57) reactions in growing microbiological culture in heavy-hydrogen (D2O) sugar-salt nutrient medium deficient in Fe but addiltionally cintaining Mn. The reaction results in generation of rare stable Fe(57) isotope, concentration of which, in the natural iron (mainly Fe(56)) is very low (approx 2.2%). The Fe(57) isotope obtained in small quantities can be easily discovered by means of the Mossbauer effect. The Mossbauer effect allows us to monitor the isotope contents of all components of the nutrient medium, the initial culture and all samples of initial culture after its growth has finished, taking into account all varieties of experiments. The research experiments were carried out on the basis of bacterial cultures 'D. Radiodurans M-1', 'B.Subtlis GSY 228', 'E. Coli K-1', and yeast culture 'Saccharomyces cerevisae T-8', selected according to the possibility of their growth in light and heavy water media. Previously obtained cultures after centrifuging, washing and post-growth were placed in a flask with sugar-salt nutrient medium containing salts of Mg, Ca, K, ammonium tartate, sucrose and pure water (D2O with Mn in transmutation experiments, H2O with Mn or D2O without D2O without Mn in control experiments). The figures (not displayed here in this ASCII post) 'a' and 'b' present the Mossbauer (Fe(57)) spectrum of 'Saccharomyces' and 'D. Radiodurans' cultures grown during 72 hours in optimal medium (D2O and MnSo4) (figure shows Mossbauer absorbtion dips for 'a' & 'b'), figure 'c' (shows flat absorbtion) - in control experiments and in experiments for investigation of all components of the nutrient medium. (baseline 'Eo' is the central energy of Mossbauer radiation and absorption in Fe(57)) Total mass of the culture was 0.28 g, total mass and full numbers of atoms of created isotope Fe(57) were m(a,b) approx. 10^-6 g and N(a,b) approx. 10^16. The transmutation coefficient in reaction Mn(55) => Fe(57) equal 'lambda' approx. (2 +/- 0,5)*10^8 (nucleus Fe(57) per 's' and per single Mn(55) nucleus). The theory of cold transmutation isotopes in grown culture is discussed. 1. H. Comaki. Frontiers of Cold Fusion (ed. H. Ikegami)/ science frontiers series, No. 4 Tokyo, 1995, p. 555. 2. V.I. Vysotskii, A.A. Kornilova, I.I. Samoylenko. Vestik novikh miditisinskih tecknoikigii (in Rsuusian) / Bulletin of New Technology/, v.3, n.1, p.28-32 (1996) P-056 (poster presentation) LATTICE-INDUCED REACTIONS P.I. Hagelstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Reports of anolomous nuclear effects in experiments with metal deuterides, if correct, imply the existance of a mechanism for coupling a large energy quantum from the solid state to the nucleus. We reported previously on some of the consequences that would follow from the existance of such a mechanism, including electron and ion recoil, and induced alpha and beta decays. We also conjectured that the neutron hopping might play a role. Recent theoritical results indicate that neutron hopping is a possible in principal only with anolomous energy input from the lattice. In this case, the energy transfer is much more than would be required for other possible lattive-induced effects, so that it would not be expected to be a primary reaction pathway. While virtual neutron transfer would be expected for small energy defects, this process would be expected to produce significant real neutrons, in contradiction with experiment. Consequently, we are now exploring lattice-induced alpha and beta decays as candidate explanations for claims of excess heat production and induced radioactivity. Heat would be due to exothermic lattice-induced alpha decays of heavy elements such as Pt or Ce that are present in large quantities on/or in the cathode; tritium would be due to induced alpha decay of Li(7) (the final state tritium would be slow); Li(6) alpha decay (with slow final state deuteron) would result in dd-fusion neutrons at low levels; and lattice-induced beta decays of Pd would yield residual radioactivity; Lattice-induced recoil of deuterons would also lead to low level neutrons. An atom interacts with only a small number of neighbors normally in a lattice, so that anomolous energy transfer is usually forbidden. In the presence of phonon gain, the number of neighbors that interact becomes much larger. Consequently, anomalous energy transfer woould be expected only if phonon gain is present. We proposed earlier that surface phonon gain might be driven by exothermic desorption. Energy transfer in this model would come about through energy fluctuations associated with Duschinsky-type mode changes and dissipation in the lattice. P-056 POSSIBILITY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE UTILIZATION IN THE ERZION MODEL FRAMEWORK Y.N. Bazutov and V.P. Koretsky, "Erzion" Center, 105077 Moscow, P.O. Box 169, Russia The possibility of elements transmutation in radioactive wastes of nuclear reactors was analyzed within the framework of the Erzion Model. The principal scheme of nuclear wastes processing is discussed. The condition for the long-live isotopes Cs(137) be stable is defined. The possibility of transmutations of twenty six elements which forms the main part of radioactive wastes of all sources was analysed also. The final products of the transmutation reactions were examined. It was concluded that practially all radionucleides may be utilized. P-059 (poster presentation) ERZION MODEL OF CATALYTIC NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION AND ITS INTERPRETATION OF BALL LIGHTENING AND OTHER ANOLOMOUD GEOPHYSICAL PHENOMENA Y.N. Bazhutov, "Erzion" Center, 105077 Moscow, P.O. Box 169, Russia The principals of the Erzion Model of catalytic nuclear transmutation are desctibed. The Erzion Model permits the main anomalous features of Cold Fusion to be readily interpreted. Ball lightening and some other anomalous geophysical phenonomena are interpreted in terms of this Model. The fundamental and applied problems resolveable with Erzion Model are indicated: 1) Explanation for the anolomalous data in cosmic rays, astrophysics and geophysics. 2) Explanation for all anolomous features of Cold Fusion. 3) Creating of energy sources and reaching its optimum parameters. 4) Burning away of radioactive wastes. 5) Generation of some stable chenical elements and isotopes (He, Ne, Au). From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 04:57:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA24217; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:48:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:48:04 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970214180949.00b5812c bahnhof.se> X-Sender: david bahnhof.se X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:47:51 +0100 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: David Jonsson Subject: Re: Light bending Cc: qublaad ellemtel.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_C3ZE3.0.Jw5.32R1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4203 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 15:17 1997-02-10 -0500, you wrote: > >Gary Hawkins offerred: > >< >That ether exists, and is more dense around a large mass, >thus acts as a lens to light.>> > >This approach has been given a quantitative analysis, by Wilson, Dicke and >others. One can reproduce General Relativity in most of its essentials by >assuming that the index of refraction of the vacuum varies near mass. In >particular, the light bending phenomenon is reproduced by assuming a >refractive index n = exp (2GM/rc^2). I assume that half of the bending can be explained by treating the light as an ordinary particle traveling at speed c. What about observing the plasma particles surrounding all larger astronomical bodies as contributing to the rest of the increase in refractive index? Has anyone done this? Can anyone help me doing the calculus? Maybe even the photons from the sun interact with the passing lightrays in a nonlinear way (the Kerr effect). David David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-8-681 20 66 Uppsala Cellular GSM +46-706-339487 E-mail david bahnhof.se Sweden Web: http://bahnhof.se/~david/ Postgiro 499 40 54-7 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 05:44:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA28884; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 05:33:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 05:33:29 -0800 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:31:16 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, qublaad@ellemtel.se Subject: Re: Light bending In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970214180949.00b5812c bahnhof.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"O47Yj3.0.A37.diR1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4204 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > David writes about non linear effects, ie., the Kerr effect. The Kerr effect, in past times, was used to make a high speed switch for light. A Kerr Cell comprised a glass cell, often not unlike an over grown spectrophotometric cuvette. The glass or quartz transparent cell with parallel sides was ofet filled with nitrobenzene. And electric field applied caused alignment of the nitrobenzene liquid molecules, not unlike, to a degree, th effect of liquid crystals. The alignment, or lack thereof cause the fluid to polarize light and, again similar to LCD, the cell was in the path of an analysing pair of linear polarizers. In this manner light was either extinguished or not. This is a very simplistic description and I would suggest you consult the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science, or equivalent text to get a better way with the words. JHS > with the passing lightrays in a nonlinear way (the Kerr effect). > > David > > > David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-8-681 20 66 > Uppsala Cellular GSM +46-706-339487 E-mail david bahnhof.se > Sweden Web: http://bahnhof.se/~david/ Postgiro 499 40 54-7 > > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 06:11:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA32515; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 06:02:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 06:02:30 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Light bending Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:02:03 +0000 Message-ID: <19970215140201.AAA19498 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"Dk1bq1.0.zx7.p7S1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4205 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi David, It's been awhile, good to see that you are still at it. At 12:47 PM 2/15/97 +0000, you wrote: >At 15:17 1997-02-10 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Gary Hawkins offerred: >> >><> >>That ether exists, and is more dense around a large mass, >>thus acts as a lens to light.>> >> >>This approach has been given a quantitative analysis, by Wilson, Dicke and >>others. One can reproduce General Relativity in most of its essentials by >>assuming that the index of refraction of the vacuum varies near mass. In >>particular, the light bending phenomenon is reproduced by assuming a >>refractive index n = exp (2GM/rc^2). > >I assume that half of the bending can be explained by treating the light as >an ordinary particle traveling at speed c. What about observing the plasma >particles surrounding all larger astronomical bodies as contributing to the >rest of the increase in refractive index? Has anyone done this? Can anyone >help me doing the calculus? Maybe even the photons from the sun interact >with the passing lightrays in a nonlinear way (the Kerr effect). > >David What I come up with is that when energy is in the "matter form" it's permittivity is such that it's internal speed of light is alpha * c where alpha is the "fine structure constant" 0.00729729. This means that it's permittivity is eo/alpha^2 (1.66E-07 farads/meter)where eo is the permittivity of the vacuum, 8.85E-12 farads/meter. Seems that from Snell's law of internal reflection; alpha = sin theta critical = (eo/e1)^1/2, where e1 is the internal capacitance of a material particle,thus the critical angle for total internal reflection, theta = 0.4181 degrees. I call this Nature's way of establishing the boundary condition for the existence of energy in a material form, ie., a particle. An interesting side note is the propagation velocity of EM fields in conductors. It seems that at a given conductivity the relative dielectric constant approaches 1/alpa^2 * eo and for a given dielectric constant the propagation velocity stays constant at frequencies above 1.0E12 Hz. See Electromagnetic Theory, Julius Stratton, McGraw-Hill, 1941. Which brings up the question of the true nature of energy. If the only two properties of the vacuum is capacitance C and potential V, then: energy W = 1/2 CV^2 and charge q = CV/4(pi)^2 and the magnetic properties of space are caused by variations of these two properties. Since "Nothing" has capacitance and potential, we are here. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 08:46:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA24017; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:37:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:37:10 -0800 Message-ID: <3305E643.2813 interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:37:23 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: LIGHT, MASS, BARRY, HORACE References: <33058F82.2F1CF0FB@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UPmW_.0.At5.pOU1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4206 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > (snip) The relation > between mass and energy is summarized by > the general equation for the energy of a free particle, > > E^2 = (mc^2) + (c p)^2 > > which shows the *separate* contribution from "kinetic" and > mass energy. OK, Barry, I have no problem with the above equation. Looking at it in relation to a photon: 1. Do we agree that the "m" in the above equation is zero for the photon? (The photon has,gag, no rest-mass.) 2. Then, for the photon, your equation becomes: E^2 = (c p)^2 ,or E = cp (The total energy of a photon equals c times the momentum of the photon.) To check this last equation, I refer to page 102 of "INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS" by Semat and Albright, 5th edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Quote: "Since a photon has zero rest-mass, its momentum is given simply by p = E / c" --end of quote. We write this as E = cp , which is the same as we obtained from "YOUR" equation. (Your equation is discussed on page 44 of the same reference.) 3. Now, all that I (and, I think, Horace) am saying is that since a photon of energy, E, has a momentum of c p , it is OK to think of its momentum as being "c times its ENERGY MASS. If we do this, all we wind up with is: E = M c^2 , where M now means ENERGY MASS, not rest mass, m. Now, If I write this as: M = E / c^2 , my claim is that the "M" quantity has gravity associated with it just as any "m" does. To support this claim, I now quote from: "EXPLORATION OF THE UNIVERSE" by Abell, Morrison and Wolff, 5th edition, Saunders College Publishing. This reference is a routine college astronomy text. >From page 583, "Relativity is different from Newtonian theory in that the signals that govern gravitational interactions are not instantaneous, but travel with the speed of light, AND ALSO, OF COURSE, IN THAT MATTER AND ENERGY ARE EQUIVALENT, SO THAT NOT ONLY MATTER ITSELF BUT ALSO ENERGY CONTRIBUTES TO GRAVITATION ----------" Also, on page 423 of: "THE BIG BANG" by Joseph Silk, Silk discusses the details of the "Radiation Era" of the universe and Silk points out that, (with the cosmic background radiation at present equal to 2.7 degrees kelvin) the present mass density of radiation is only d(radiation 2.7 deg K) = 4.5 x 10^-34 gram/cm^3 On page 424 Silk also says "so we infer that, at early eras, radiation becomes dominant over matter in its gravitational influence." Barry, astronomers seem to have no problem with the idea that radiation has gravitational mass - why is this not true for particle physicists? Look, if you can show me some references that clearly say that radiation (photons) has no gravitational mass, as per M = E / c^2, then, please do! Horace and I have inquiring minds, and we want to know! Having great respect for Barry's knowledge - in disagreement on this one point ------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 11:53:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01250; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:42:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:42:27 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: A Particle Theory Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:41:50 +0000 Message-ID: <19970215194149.AAA4547 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"OhuiH1.0.OJ.V6X1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4207 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This theory humbly proposes that particles are trapped waves that act as simple harmonic oscillators localized in space. The particles could be like resonant "tank circuits" or an oscillating mass on a spring where the period of oscillation; T^2 = 4(pi)^2 * (m/k) or a pendulum, T^2 = 4(pi)^2 * (l/g). Energy makeup: radius (r) = hbar * c *alpha/E or radius (r) = q^2/4(pi) * eo * E (meters) alpha = 0.00729729. E = particle rest energy (joules). e1 = internal permittivity = 1.66E-07 farads/meter = eo/alpha^2, eo = 8.85E-12 farads/meter. v = internal velocity = 2.1876E-06 meters/second = alpha * c c = 2.997925E08 meters/second C = r * e1 (farads) L = r * uo (henry) uo = 4(pi)E-07 henry/meter V = (E/C)^1/2 (electrostatic potential, volts) I = (E/L)^1/2 (displacement current, amperes) Z = (L/C)^1/2 = 2.75 ohms = alpha * 377 ohms (the intrinsic impedance of space) q = CV/4(pi)^2 = +/- 1.602E-19 coulombs. the sign +/- is only a matter of phase. f = resonant frequency = 1/[2(pi) * (LC)^1/2] i = q * f (amperes, believed to be the "loop current" responsible for gravity) Since q is constant, C and V must vary inversely as the entity oscillates. This sets up the magnetic (B) field and gives the particles the properties of charge, mass, spin, magnetic moment, and the gravitational "loop current". >From Snell's Law of total internal reflection of a wave: alpha = sin theta critical = (eo/e1)^1/2, theta = 0.4181 degrees. Nature's way of establishing the boundary conditions for a particle. Big "G". The gravitational constant G, 6.67E-11 can be factored out to the Ampere's Law force constant 10^-7 * (0.02583)^2 where it is believed that the 0.02583 value is the magnetostatic value of ampere-meters/kilogram for the force between two masses at a separation distance (r). Thus the product of 0.02583 times the mass of the electron, 9.1E-31 kg = 2.35E-32 ampere-meters as opposed to the value calculated from the current i = q * f of 20 amperes times the electron "diameter" 2(pi)r = [2(pi)*q^2]/4(pi)eo * E This calculated value for any particle is a constant of 3.5E-13 ampere-meters. It seems that a relativistic dilation gamma factor comes into play here, and taking the 3.3E-13/2.35E-32 ratio equal a gamma factor of 1.49E19, thus reducing the loop current of 20 amperes to 1.33E-18 amperes for the electron, resulting in a very weak gravitational force between the electrons and other particles. >From this it is concluded that gravitation is a magnetostatic property; Force = 10^-7 * m1*m2/r^2 (nt) where m is the magnetic pole strength in ampere-meters. Or, Force = 10^-7(0.02583)^2*M1*M2?r^2 for the "traditional" gravitational force between masses M. There, I've said it. FJS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 12:37:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA11410; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:27:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:27:15 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:11:50 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Resent-Message-ID: <"iaFNF1.0.7o2.YmX1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4208 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:36 AM 2/15/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >Isn't this just simple algebra? E = mc^2 then "manifest mass" m = E/c^2 and >momentum = mc = E/c. Thus energy-mass are inextricably tied together. > >If you turn on a "flashlight" of mass M floating in space it's momentum MV >is equal to the momentum mc of the energy radiated whether as photons or >microwaves; MV = mc, or the velocity gained, V = mc/M. Say the flashlight >has a one kilogram mass and puts out 2 watts,ie., 2 joules/second, then V = >mc/M.Since m = 2/c^2 = 2.222E-17 then V = 6.666E-9 meters/second after one >second and the acceleration is 6.666E-9 meters/sec^2. With Energizer Bunny >batteries your flashlight would be moving at 3.154E7 * 6.666E-9 = 0.21 >meters/second after a year and moved about 2,000 miles. Quite simply, >you can get a kilogram of thrust force from 300 Megawatts of radiation (at >any frequency) coming off of a surface. > >Makes a great way to use the heat from radioisotope waste to push a space >probe around with passive propulsion, or using fission reactor heat as a >passive propulsion system. It takes about 0.5 kg of fissionable material per >megawatt-year of thrust at any temperature. But the higher the temperature >the less "radiator" panel area needed. > >Regards, Frederick This is fun but an incomplete accounting of the energy from a total system viewpoint. The energy of the photons is still in the universe, as is their associated mass. The energy to create the photons and kinetic energy (and thus the miniscule increase in relativistic mass of the ship) imparted to the ship came from the kinetic and field energy of the nuclei fissioned and thus already existed, as did the corresponding mass. The momentum imparted to the ship also equals the momentum of the photons. Total change of energy zero, total change of mass zero. The universal correspondence remains the same, E=mc^2. Did I miss something? One thing missed of interest concerning the total balance is that the kinetic energy is partially turned into a gravitational potential. As the photons and ship depart, some of the kinetic energy is converted into gravitational potential energy between them. Is it possible, due to the increased distance, that more gravitons are required to communicate the gravitational force and thus there is more mass in the universe? Or is it a shielding effect? As the masses depart they create less of a gravity shadow (volume) thus there are more gravitons (or ZPF photons as some would have it) in space because there is more volume of space unshielded. Can it be that warping space creates a lack of mass, or is it that E=mc^2 does not hold when gravitational potential comes into play? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 15:00:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA05880 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:00:21 -0800 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:00:21 -0800 X-Envelope-From: herman antioch-college.edu Sat Feb 15 15:00:18 1997 Received: from antioch-college.edu (college.antioch-college.edu [192.131.123.11]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05840 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:00:11 -0800 Received: by antioch-college.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63) id WAA04318; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:58:07 GMT Old-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:58:07 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: There are photon rockets...... they are just not very efficient, pound for pound in pracitcal applictions like a solid fuel rocket is! Or, maybe more acurately, they don't go fast fast. J From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 16:00:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14571; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:46:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:46:40 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:46:05 +0000 Message-ID: <19970215234603.AAA6700 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"uDWGE2.0.aZ3.Vha1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4209 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:11 PM 2/15/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: >This is fun but an incomplete accounting of the energy from a total system >viewpoint. The energy of the photons is still in the universe, as is their >associated mass. The energy to create the photons and kinetic energy (and >thus the miniscule increase in relativistic mass of the ship) imparted to >the ship came from the kinetic and field energy of the nuclei fissioned and >thus already existed, as did the corresponding mass. The momentum imparted >to the ship also equals the momentum of the photons. Total change of >energy zero, total change of mass zero. The universal correspondence >remains the same, E=mc^2. Did I miss something? > >One thing missed of interest concerning the total balance is that the >kinetic energy is partially turned into a gravitational potential. As the >photons and ship depart, some of the kinetic energy is converted into >gravitational potential energy between them. Is it possible, due to the >increased distance, that more gravitons are required to communicate the >gravitational force and thus there is more mass in the universe? Or is it >a shielding effect? As the masses depart they create less of a gravity >shadow (volume) thus there are more gravitons (or ZPF photons as some would >have it) in space because there is more volume of space unshielded. Can it >be that warping space creates a lack of mass, or is it that E=mc^2 does not >hold when gravitational potential comes into play? > Quoting: "The velocity of light,measured by the same magnitude c independently of the state of motion of the frame in which the measurement is being carried out, depends on the gravitational potential 0* of the field in which it is being measured according to the equation c = co(1 + 0*/c^2) Where 0* is -GM/R, where G is the constant of gravitation (6.67E-11 mks units), M the mass of the celestial body in kilograms, R the radius of the body in meters, and co the velocity of light in a vacuum devoid of fields." " For example, the absolute value of the term 0*/c^2 is about 3,000 times greater on the sun than on the earth, making the measurements of c smaller by two parts in 10^6 on the sun as compared to measurements on earth. Spectral lines in sunlight should be displaced toward the red by two parts in 10^6 when compared to light from terrestrial sources." "Light rays are deflected when passing a heavenly body according to the equation a = 4GM/[c^2*R] where a is the angular deflection in radians, and R the distance of the beam from the center of the heavenly body of mass M." This was experimentally verified using the Mossbauer Effect over a height difference of 20 meters above the earth which produces a fractional energy shift of 2 parts in 10^15. Does this say that gravitational potential decreases as R increases? For instance the approximately 62 million joules/kg given to a mass to escape the earths gravitational field is regained when it lands on planet Uno, isn't it? I guess E = mc^2 is directed more toward the exchange of mass-energy than toward the gravitational properties of light. When the electron-positron pair (0.511 Mev rest energy each particle),is created from a massless-chargeless 1.02 Mev photon that has to collide with another body to do this, maybe it only has mass ie., momentum when it is accelerating-decelerating. Don't have much faith in the Hanky-Panky, Emperor's Invisible Cloth Physics of Gravitons. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 17:44:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01838; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:34:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:34:18 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 01:34:21 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330850b2.8236743 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970215140201.AAA19498 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970215140201.AAA19498 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mp3iR.0.XS.OGc1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4210 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:02:03 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >0.4181 degrees. I call this Nature's way of establishing the boundary >condition for the existence of energy in a material form, ie., a particle. Can you then calculate theoretical radii for the proton and electron for us, and lets's see how this compares to the "classical electron radius"? (Or is it just a different way of producing the same value?) [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 17:45:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01898; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:34:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:34:26 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: E=mc^2 or Bust! Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 01:34:19 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <33074a03.6524910 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AtkWx1.0.eS.OGc1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4211 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:38:09 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >Yes, EM fields have mass and momentum. A photon *is* an EM field and has >mass and momentum. ENegry *is* mas and mass *is* energy, they are >inseperable. If you put energy into building an EM field then the mass >corresponding to that energy is moved into that field. [snip] Presumably by mass you are referring to gravitational and inertial mass. As far as I know, the gravitational "mass" of matter is independent of the velocity of that matter. However this is, according to GR not true of the photon, which is gravitationally "attracted" differently according to the orientation of its velocity vector. I.e. I believe the prediction is that photons travelling perpendicular to a gravitational field experience an attractive force twice that of photons travelling parallel to the same field. In this sense, the "mass" of photons would not appear to behave the same as the "mass" of matter. Whether or not the predictions of GR are born out, would seem to be testable by comparing the results of two experiments that have already been done: 1) The bending of starlight passing the sun. 2) The change in frequency of gamma-rays approaching or leaving the earth (vertically), as measured using the Mossbauer effect. Perhaps someone would care to comment? Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 15 19:01:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA14458; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:49:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:49:09 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Light bending Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 02:48:34 +0000 Message-ID: <19970216024832.AAA17224 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"1kMtV.0.lX3.ZMd1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4212 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:34 AM 2/16/97 +0000, you wrote: >On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:02:03 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>0.4181 degrees. I call this Nature's way of establishing the boundary >>condition for the existence of energy in a material form, ie., a particle. > >Can you then calculate theoretical radii for the proton and electron for >us, and lets's see how this compares to the "classical electron radius"? >(Or is it just a different way of producing the same value?) >[snip] > > >Robin van Spaandonk Easy. r = hbar * c * alpha/E The rest energy E for the electron is E = mc^2 = 9.1E-31*c^2 = 8.1786E-14 (joules) hbar = 1.05E-34 joule-seconds, alpha = 0.00729729 (dimensionless) r = 2.80859E-15 meters. The "classical" radius of the electron. Since the proton has three "Quarks" in it, each about 936/3 Mev = 312 Mev or 1.6E-19 * 312 = 4.99E-11 joule each the radius of the three quarks (stacked like washers if you will) is 4.59E-18 (meters)the two positive "quarks" are rotating in the same direction and the negative quark is rotating in the opposite direction thus obeying the rule that charges flowing in the same direction are attracting. You can tell from the nuclear magnetic moment for the proton that one of the quarks has slightly more energy since the magnetons are about 2.81 instead of 3.0. The 0.4181 critical angle is Nature's trigonometry, not mine. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 07:24:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03059; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:14:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:14:34 -0800 Date: 16 Feb 97 10:13:21 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970216151320_100433.1541_BHG64-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"-qCKg1.0.jl.PHo1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4213 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Gnorts again, everyone, Thanks for all the comments on mass change in chemical systems and the mysteries of the thermionic cathode. This next one is trivial: how are photons polarised? Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 10:54:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA30167; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:30:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:30:26 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:28:19 +0000 Message-ID: <19970216182817.AAA11620 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"PFZU41.0.HN7.19r1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4215 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 03:13 PM 2/16/97 +0000, Chris Tinsley wrote: >Gnorts again, everyone, > >Thanks for all the comments on mass change in chemical systems and the mysteries >of the thermionic cathode. > >This next one is trivial: how are photons polarised? > >Chris > > Gnorts? Never had one of those. Do they hurt? Photons are ppolarized up-down and sometimes crosswise. Best Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 10:57:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA30034; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:27:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:27:33 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:26:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702161826.MAA19678 dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #6 (3 more) 19 so far. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"n26U62.0.6L7.I6r1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4214 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: February 16, 1997 Continuing posting of the ICCF-6 Oral and Poster Abstracts: #6 19 posts so far. O-001 (oral presentation) X-RAY, HEAT EXCESS AND He(4) IN THE ELECTROCHEMICAL CONFINEMENT OF DEUTERIUM IN PALLADIUM P.L. Cignini(1), G. Gigli, D. Gozzi, M. Tomellini(2), E. Cisbani(3), S. Frullani(4) and G.M. Urciuoli(3) Departmento di Chimica, Universitia di Roma 'La Sapienza', P.leAldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma, Italy After seven years of worldwide research activity in the field of the cold fusion the energy balance of the observed anomalous phenomena is still far from to be completely proved. This contributes to maintain skepticism in the scientific community. We believe that the best arguments to support the field can arise from those experiments in which excess heat and nuclear evidences are correlated. Since 1989 our activity was addressed to this end with a continuous effort to improve the reliability of the measurements. We dedicated particular attention to neutron detection and due to the high efficiency and overall quality of the system the negative results have found the conclusion that, even in agreement with other reported findings, the neutrons, as well as the tritium production, are very low probability channels in the overall process. Furthermore, a very great effort was expended to obtain reliable on-line measurements of He(4). This was finally obtained by a 'home-made' system based on a high resolution and high sensistivity (=7pA/10^12 atoms of He(4)) quadropole mass spectrometer (QMS). It was connected to an on-line automatic sampling device where the occurrence of air contamination was definitely avoided and, also continuously monitored the Ne(20)+++ signal. At set intervals (equal or greater than 900 s), a sample of 150 cm^3 of the electrolysis gas mixture (N2, D2, O2, D2O vapor, He(4) if any), escaping from the calorimeter-electolysis cell is made to flow through a deuterium cutting system. It is sucked through a LN2 charcoal trap which absorbs almost all the gases except He(4). This is injected at low pressure ('less than equal to' 5 x 10-^02 mbar)into the QMS chamber where the pressure is generally 'less than equal to' 1 x 10^-7 mbar. In a four-cell(5) experiment lasting 950 hours, more than a thousand (1,000+) samplings were performed. For each cell, a satisfactory time-resolved structure of He(4) release data was obtained. Then all this data has been correlated by a simulation procedure to the measured excess heat by computing the expected He(4) at the time when the sampling was effectively done. Furthur, a very important result we aim to present is a clear-cut evidence this phenomena we are dealing with is of no chemical nature. An x-ray film positioned 5 cm from a cell has been impressioned with a series of spots roughly reproducing the image of the cathode. Another x-ray film located in the same position at the same time and for the same period in front of a blank cell was not impressioned at all. Through microdensitometry of the exposed film and calibration of the optical density against the x-ray exposure, each spot characteristics was recorded by position, dimension and intensity. Since all the geometric parameters and nature of all materials interposed between the cathode (cell?) and film are known, it has been possible to calculate the exposure as a function of the energy of radiation and the I/Io ratio. The spot nature of the impressioned film is very intriguing and it could support more than one explanation about the main process occurring in the source. But in the absence of a clear understanding of it, in order to estimate the value of the involved energy, we are oriented (inclined?) to treat the matter in terms of classical physics of radiation. This is by taking account the cathode structure. The structure was a bundle type having 150 Pd wires of 250 um diameter. The analysis of the data leads to the conclusion that (because the energy of radiation and the total energy associated to all the spots on the whole solid angle were, repectively, evaluated to be (89 =/-1) keV and (120 =/- 0.4) kJ), we are dealing with a phenomena which originates at the nuclear level and not at atomic level (soft gamma rays instead of hard x-rays) and it is not the principal source of energy (being approx. 0.5% of the energy measured by calorimetry in the same interval of time. 1. CNR-CSTCAT. Dipartimento di Chimica, Universita' di Roma 'La Sapienza' 2. Diparimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Chimiche, Universitia di Roma 'Tor Vergata" 3.INFN. sex, sanita', Laboratorio di Fiscia, Instituto Superiore di Sanit', V. le Regina Margherita 299, 00161 Roma, Italy 4. Laboratorio de Fisica, Instituto Supoeriore de Sanita', V.le Regina Margherita 299, 00161 Roma Italy 5. One of the cells is a blank cell having a cathode made of Pt instead of Pd. P-050 DIAGNOSIS OF NEUTRONS FROM THE GAS DISCHARGE FACILITY Wang Dalun, Chen suhe, Li yijun, Liu Rong, Wang Mei, Fi Yibei, Institute of Nuclear Physics and Chemistry, China Academy of Engineering Physics, Chengdu 610003 Zhang Xinwei, Zhang Wusgou, Beijing Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathenatics, Beijing 100088 On the basis of special properties of some activitated transitional - metals or hard - melted metals that have the strong capability of adsorption to active gas in certain range of temperature, we have activated some metals by way of gas discharge and made the adsorption of deuterium over saturated for the research to anolmalous phenomena of deuterated metals. About 1 x 10^4 neutrons per second have been detected by BF3 neutron detectors. The neutron yield is controllable and reproducible. In order to confirm furtur the existance of neutrons emitted from the gas discharge facility, five methods followed were used to diagnose the said neutrons. 1) The characteristic spectra of pulse height distribution (CSPHD) of B(10)(n,alpha)^7Li reaction: The CSPHD of expressing the characteristic of two reactions channels of B(10) reacted with neutrons have been measured with BF3 neutron detectors after part of neutrons emitted from the gas discharge facility (abbrr. GD neutrons) had been slowed down to thermal neutrons. The CSPHD of GD neutrons agreed with that of Am-Be source neutrons. 2) The method of thermal neutron filter: The thermal neutrons, slowed down from GD neutrons, have been measured by the Li(6) thermoluminescence films. The Li(6) thermoluminescence films were irradited both in Cd-wrapped condition and in non Cd-wrapped condition. The experimental results showed that the counts of thermoluminescence films in non-Cd wrapped condition were higher than those in Cd-wrapped condition. 3) n-'gamma' discrimination spectra: In the n-'gamma' discrimination spectra from an AM-Be source, the gas discharge facility and a Na(22) 'gamma' source all have been measured by a n-'gamma' discrimination technique with Ne-213 organic liquid scintillation neutron spectrometer. The experimental results showed that, the n-'gamma' discrimination spectrum of the gas discharge facility was similar to one of the Am-Be neutron process, and one of Ma(22)'gamma' source had 'gamma' peaks only. 4) Neutron energy spectra: The neutron spectra of (GD) neutrons was 2.38 +/- 0.15 MeV, which agreed with single energy neutron (2.34 MeV) of normal D-D reactions within the range of equiptment error. 5) There were not neutreons detected in the same condition when H2 were used to be discharged instead of D2. The above mentioned experiments confirmed the existance of GD neutrons. Were these neutrons beam-target neutrons? Or anomalous neuron s? Or Both? For answering these questions, furthur research experiments are needed. P-057 TRITIUM, NEUTRON AND RADIOCARBON REGISTRATION WITH HYDRO-AGGREGATE "YUSMAR" RUNNING Yu. N. Bazutov(1), V.P. Koretsky(1), A.B. Kuznetsov(1), U.S.Potapov(2), V.P. Nikitsky(3), Vp>p Markov(3), N. Ya. Nevezhin(3), 'E. I. Saunin(4), and A.F. Titenkov(5). Tritium, neutron and radiocarbon registration with aggregate 'Yusmar' running is given. These products occurred as the result of nuclear transmutation of the Erzion model fixed elements which were added into light water - usual working liquid of the "Yusmar" device. The excess tritium of (5.0+/-.7) Bq/ml was measured on addition of 70 ml D2O into 10 1iter light water after 12 minutes of "Yusmar" running. Neutrons (fast and slow) were measured with six He(3)- counters during "Yusmar" running when working liquid contains about 10 g lithium or 300 ml D2O with tritium specific activity of 3.5 kBq/ml. Maximum excess neutron bursts (about 40n) were registered also by fast neutron detector after released pressure from 2 to 0 atm. The excess radio-carbon of (3.0 +/- 0.03) Bq/ml was measured after 1.5 hours running with motor-car running liquid typr "Tosol A40M" as eworking liquid of the "Yusmar" device. Future investigation in the framework of the model will yield a large imporvement of installation energetic parameters. 1. "Ezion" Center, P.O. Box 169, 105077 Moscow, Russia 2. Scientific Firm "Vizor", Kishinev, Moldova 3. Rocket-Space Corporation "Energgiya", Kaliningrad, Moscow region, Russia 4.Institute of Physical Chemistry, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia 5.Institute of Nuclear Physics of Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 11:12:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA04292; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:01:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:01:35 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:01:17 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons In-Reply-To: <970216151320_100433.1541_BHG64-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UYlkW.0.w21.Bcr1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4216 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 16 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > This next one is trivial: how are photons polarised? > How can a point-particle have a frequency? Or more importantly, a wavelength? I think each of these can be answered if we can give a simple, gut-level explanation of how waves can be particles, and vice versa. ;) .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 11:18:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA06131; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:08:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:08:41 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:08:30 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons In-Reply-To: <19970216182817.AAA11620 LOCALNAME> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"0QsoR2.0.gV1.uir1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4217 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > At 03:13 PM 2/16/97 +0000, Chris Tinsley wrote: > >Gnorts again, everyone, > > > Gnorts? Never had one of those. Do they hurt? > > Photons are ppolarized up-down and sometimes crosswise. This reminds me. Don't EM waves have some longitudinal component in the near-field of an antenna, where the waves have not peeled loose? For example, if I move a bar magnet forward and back along its axis, it will create longitudinal waves along its axis. However these waves are not free-flying EM, instead they are changes in the magnet's surrounding field. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 11:52:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA13590; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:42:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:42:31 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970216144133_-1675873391 emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com, noever@webtv.net Subject: calcs for gravito magnetic force from update to Book on a Disk Resent-Message-ID: <"FmfqE1.0.CK3.bCs1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4219 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: TRUE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL PROPULSION The entire first three chapters on this disk are based on the relationship between force and gravity. In review, gravity produces a force and, conversely, a force induces a gravitational field. The strength of the gravitational field produced by a force is given by equation #4. Gravity = [G /(ccr)] (dp/dt) Equation #4 (dp/dt) = The force in newtons G = the gravitational constant, 6.6 x 10exp-11 newtons-mm/kgKG c = light speed, 3 x 10exp8 meters/second r = the distance from the applied force in meters Converting 600 tons into newtons and then placing that force into Equation #4 yields a gravitational field strength of: Field = 1 x 10exp-12 newtons/kg. A field of this magnitude could not even lift a flea. Pg 9 It appears that an induced graviational field is to small to be put to usefull purpose. Another component of the graviational field, the gravitomagnetic field, is induced by velocity. The magnitude of the gravitomagnetic field was derived in Chapter #1, Equation #11 Fgm = (G/cc) dm/dt This force acts to push masses, that cross paths in opposite directions, apart. It is conceptually the equivalent to the magnetic fields that push conductors, that are carrying currents in the opposite directions, apart. Indeed this force appears to have been detected using rapidly spinning gyroscopes. An experiment performend by Hideo Hayasaka and Sakae Takeuchi of the engineering faculty at Tohoku University Sendai, Japan, found that rapidly spinning gyroscopes tend to loose weight. Gyroscopes weighing 176 grams lost 11 thousands of a gram when spun at 216 revolutions/second. 4 .............................................................................. ...................................... Pg 10 Chapter 11 of this text explains the zero point interaction. The length at which forces interact changes within zero point sytems. A superconductior is a type of zero point system. In 1992, a graviational shielding field was detected above a rotating superconductive disk by researchers at the Tampere University in Finland. This effect was 300 million times stronger than the effect observed in Japan. The field is also believed to be a short range type of gravitational field know as the gravitomagnetic field. Pg 11 THE MATHEMATICS Given Math of the Earth = 5.9 x 10exp 24 KG Radius of the Earth = 6.36 x 10exp 6 meters Radius of the spinning disc = R = .3 meters Frequency = f = 216 revolutions/second Velocity at the edge of the disk = (2p)(f)(R) Velocity = 406 meters/second For the sake of analysis this velocity will be split evenly between the earth and the spinning disc. Velocity = 203 meters/second Fgm = (G / cc) dm/dt B = (G/ccr) dm/dt B = (G/ccr) MV Bearth=(6.67 x 10exp-11)/[(9 x 10exp16)(6.3 x 10exp6)](5.9 x 10exp24)(203) Bearth = 1.4 x 10exp-7 newtons/(kg/sec) Force on gyroscope = Bearth MV Force on gyroscope = (1.4 x 10exp-7)(.7KG)(203m/s) Force on gyroscope = 2 x 10-5 Weight loss = (100grams/newton) (2 x 10exp-5) Weight loss = 2 milligrams The experimental results of the gyroscope experiment are consistant with the expected results. .............................................................................. .................................... Pg 13 In the gyroscope experiment the kinetic energy of the rotation of the gyroscope produced the effect. In a superconductor the near field gravitational components are seperated into a +1/r and -1/r components. Due to this effect the mass-energy of disc can be considered to be in rotation. For a .3 meter disc rotatating at 2 revolutions per second the calculation is: Velocity = 2p(.3)(2rev/sec) = 3.8 revolutions/second As before the velocity will be, for the sake of calculation, considered to be distributed evenly between the disc and the earth. Bearth=(6.67 x 10exp-11)/[(9 x 10exp 16)(6.3 x 10exp6)](5.9 x 10exp24)(1.8 rev/sec) Bearth = 1.2 x 10exp-9 newtons/(kg/sec) Force on disc = Bearth MV In the case with a superconductive disc P is subsituted for MV the weight of the disc will again be .7KG. Force on disc = Bearth P Force on disc = Bearth (Mcc)/c Force on disc = ( 1.2 x 10exp-9) (.7kg) (3 x 10exp8) Force on disc = .25 newtons Weight loss = (100 grams/newton) (.25 Newtons) = 25 grams % weight change = (25 grams/ 700 grams)(100%) = 3.6% The weight loss is consistant with the weight loss observed in superconductive spinning discs. .............................................................................. .............................. Pg 14 CONCLUSION From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 11:59:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA09389; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:23:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:23:50 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:23:36 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: good quote Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"qV9Ll1.0.ZI2.4xr1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4218 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I thought that the following had application to skeptic/believer battles and Newman Motor discussion: "Biased argument: the inability to give credit to the other side when it is due, usually combined with the inability to accept debit to one's own side when it is due." Great quote, but the source is unfortunate: Marilyn Vos Savant, "world's smartest person" and columnist for sunday newspaper ad insert. Does anyone here recognize this quote? Did she get it from another source? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 12:44:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA22520; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:20:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:20:15 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:18:06 +0000 Message-ID: <19970216201804.AAA14848 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"Od9zQ3.0.lV5.-ls1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4220 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 07:01 PM 2/16/97 +0000,Bill Beaty wrote: >On 16 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > >> >> This next one is trivial: how are photons polarised? >> > >How can a point-particle have a frequency? Or more importantly, a >wavelength? I think each of these can be answered if we can give a >simple, gut-level explanation of how waves can be particles, and vice >versa. > >;) > Visualise an electron bouncing up and down between a pair of spaced vertical needle points with an oscillating voltage applied to them. Then a fundamental tenet of physics is; 1,a moving charge creates a magnetic field. 2,a time varying magnetic field creates an electric field. The resulting Electromagnetic field is propagating out from this oscillating disturbance at the velocity of light with the transverse (electric and magnetic fields at right angles to the the direction of motion of the wave) the plane of the electric vector is used as the reference for the polarization. In this case the polarization is predetermined by the axis of oscillation of the electrons between the needle points and would be vertically polarized and the wavefront actually becomes spherical as it moves away from the source. The same tenets apply to a quantum mechanical disturbance in an atom and the resulting "pulse" or photon of radiation with a transverse em field with random orientation of the electric field (polarization) zips around in space. Crystal alignment, magnetic "gyrators", waveguides, and other such beasties can change the polarization of the em waves and also make them have circular polarization or screwlike polarization which the neutrinos seem to have along with their massless chargless spin 1/2 properties. Leave it to Chris to stir the Cauldron of Science with a "trivial" spoon. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 14:21:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA13294; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:06:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:06:02 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:03:49 +0000 Message-ID: <19970216220347.AAA24655 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"z1khu3.0.UF3.8Ju1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4221 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:01 PM 2/16/97 +0000, Bill Beaty wrote: > >How can a point-particle have a frequency? Or more importantly, a >wavelength? I think each of these can be answered if we can give a >simple, gut-level explanation of how waves can be particles, and vice >versa. > >;) Bill, If you think of space as a transmission line with a network of lumped capacitance, eo (8.85E-12 farads/meter)and inductance, uo (4(pi)E-7 henry/meter)and an intrinsic impedance; Z = (uo/eo)^1/2 = 377 ohms and a photon or em wave moving along this transmission line with a velocity, c = 1/(uo*eo)^1/2, if you disrupt this line by changing uo or eo at some point in the right way the wave will reflect. By the same token if you are trying to do a four-minute-mile in your kitchen you best be either running in a circle or doing some rather rapid reversals near the walls. Either way you are now, by definition, an oscillator.Your motion is causing you to exercise simple harmonic motion, SHM. Thus your "antics" have a frequency and the walls are 1/2 your wavelength, lambda = velocity/frequency. A point shuttling back and forth or moving in a circle is easily described by a sine function. Oscillating electromagnetic waves that have been localized in space do the same thing and they are called particles. They manifest the physical properties of inerta, mass, charge, spin, frequency-wavelength, and magnetic moment. No microscopic grain of sand, just energy acting like it was. The collision of a 1.02 Mev photon with a particle and subsequent metamorphosis into a pair of 0.511 Mev electrons, the electron-positron pair, is a graphic example of the production of matter-antimatter from a photon. The electron-positron pair can co-exist for nanoseconds as "positronium" until a neighboring electron annihilates the positron and both turn back into a photon. What goes around comes around, doesn't it? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 14:57:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA20650; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:45:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:45:42 -0800 Date: 16 Feb 97 17:43:08 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970216224308_100433.1541_BHG83-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"yqaKD1.0.Z25.Luu1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4222 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, Indeed an intriguing exposition, but this question seems like the other two - it gets more commentary than answers. Here's another way of looking at the question: if photons are real, then does the polarisation of em mean that they have a little port and a little starboard, a little up and own and front and back? Are they little X-wing fighters, like? Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 15:44:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA30769; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:34:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:34:04 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:33:49 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702162333.RAA06333 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Resent-Message-ID: <"BGLY_2.0.fW7.gbv1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4223 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:43 PM 2/16/97 EST, Chris wrote: >if photons are real...they have a little port and >a little starboard, a little up and own and front and back? > >Are they little X-wing fighters, like? Indeed, Chris...that is certainly the impression that my formal education has implanted....and there is a nice "proof" of it: Suspend an electron (i.e. small mobile charge) loosely and shoot a photon at it. When it "strikes", the electron is driven oscillatorily in a plane perpendicular to the photon's travel direction. This oscillation also take a specific direction (i.e. heading) within that plane...and that is the orientation of the E-field component of the photon....i.e. the oscillation direction is indicative of that photon's polarization (E-field orientation). Is this helpful...or just dogmatic phenomenological tripe? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 16:49:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA13299; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:35:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:35:00 -0800 Date: 16 Feb 97 19:33:22 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970217003321_100433.1541_BHG43-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"9I-Sg.0.fF3.oUw1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4224 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > Suspend an electron (i.e. small mobile charge) loosely and shoot a > photon at it. When it "strikes", the electron is driven > oscillatorily in a plane perpendicular to the photon's travel > direction. This oscillation also take a specific direction (i.e. > heading) within that plane...and that is the orientation of the > E-field component of the photon....i.e. the oscillation direction > is indicative of that photon's polarization (E-field orientation). Ah, c'mon! You know it's bull, I know it's bull. Physics reminds me of nothing so much as the supposed mental gymnastics of the mediaeval theologians. Expanding universes, big bangs, photons, curved space - all may have some real existence, but I think that people confuse models with reality. Worse, they assume that their models represent the totality - and that to me is the funniest thing of all. Do you really believe that my radio tuned to 1500m actually collects mile-long photons? You know, I saw this Oxford (of course) academic saying that the double slit experiment demonstrated the alternate realities of quantum physics, and that the photons making up the interference fringes are in fact coming from those alternate universes. I think I finally stopped caring. Talking with Martin Fleischmann made me feel that at least there is someone at an extraordinarily high level of competence who doesn't understand or believe in anything either - so there's hope for little old me after all. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 18:25:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA27105; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:57:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:57:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:55:36 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons In-Reply-To: <970217003321_100433.1541_BHG43-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"fehr92.0.Qd6.qhx1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4226 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 16 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Ah, c'mon! You know it's bull, I know it's bull. Physics reminds me of > nothing so much as the supposed mental gymnastics of the mediaeval > theologians. Expanding universes, big bangs, photons, curved space - > all may have some real existence, but I think that people confuse models > with reality. Worse, they assume that their models represent the > totality - and that to me is the funniest thing of all. > This last statement is true in some cases. Both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity predict some very strange phenomena. They point is the predictions come along with numbers which can be measured. Whenever anybody looks the predictions turn out to be right. We live and experience nature in a rather restricted piece of space-time. Is it so surprising that when we look outside this region we find phenomena that appear unusual? > Do you really believe that my radio tuned to 1500m actually collects > mile-long photons? Photons no not have a size. Only wavelength, energy and polarization. > You know, I saw this Oxford (of course) academic saying that the double > slit experiment demonstrated the alternate realities of quantum physics, > and that the photons making up the interference fringes are in fact > coming from those alternate universes. Yeah, well lots of people have their own hobby horse. I've seen some pretty wierd ones promulgated here too. The question you ask someone like that is: What is measureably different about YOUR theory of Quantum Mechanics? There ARE some very interesting Philosophical questions that Quantum Mechanics raises. For many years they were ignored. They're being addressed now both theoretically (as above) and to me much more interestingly, experimentally. > > I think I finally stopped caring. Talking with Martin Fleischmann made > me feel that at least there is someone at an extraordinarily high level > of competence who doesn't understand or believe in anything either - so > there's hope for little old me after all. > Personally I think that these sort of questions should be persued. If no one pushes the limits of what's known, how will we advance? Of course the bottom line is experiment. What does nature REALLY say. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 18:38:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA24202; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:39:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:39:19 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:33:24 +0000 Message-ID: <19970217013322.AAA18025 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"R6NSk.0.1w5.5Rx1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4225 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:43 PM 2/16/97 +0000, Chris Tinsley wrote: >Frederick, > >Indeed an intriguing exposition, but this question seems like the other >two - it gets more commentary than answers. > >Here's another way of looking at the question: if photons are real, >then does the polarisation of em mean that they have a little port and >a little starboard, a little up and own and front and back? > >Are they little X-wing fighters, like? > >Chris > I like the lucid example that Scott gave. I don't think that you can do much more than observe such effects, or go by what you see using polaroid filters or sunglasses. You can't throw a pebble into a pool of water or vibrate a fiddle string and isolate the energy that created the waves either, can you? You can model the thing easily with math and draw pictures of the amplitude and Electromagnetic field relationships, or simulate the fields on the X-Y plates of an oscilloscope or the input of an oscillograph and draw pretty pictures (Lissajous Figures)to get a feel for the "port and starboard and up and down and front and back" (they do, but they are just passing through at c). I've worked many a year with devices that do all sort of things with electrons and I've never seen one yet. Do you believe in electrons, too? Keep the pressure on, Chris and you will make the "Superstring" theorists happy about their one-dimensional waves-strings that can oscillate in length only. This point can be argued very strongly with essentially the same equations. Best Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 18:56:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA32308; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:28:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:28:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:27:59 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"oLWtG2.0.ku7.w8y1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4227 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > > > > Ah, c'mon! You know it's bull, I know it's bull. Physics reminds me of > > nothing so much as the supposed mental gymnastics of the mediaeval > > theologians. Expanding universes, big bangs, photons, curved space - > > all may have some real existence, but I think that people confuse models > > with reality. Worse, they assume that their models represent the > > totality - and that to me is the funniest thing of all. > > [snip] > > > Do you really believe that my radio tuned to 1500m actually collects > > mile-long photons? > > Photons no not have a size. Only wavelength, energy and polarization. > Actually Chris you raised one of very interesting points in Quantum Mechanics. At what point does Quantum behaviour cease? A very good question with some very fuzzy answers! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 19:57:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05353; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:46:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:46:15 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:46:08 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons In-Reply-To: <19970216201804.AAA14848 LOCALNAME> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ELq4M1.0.VJ1.5Iz1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4228 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > At 07:01 PM 2/16/97 +0000,Bill Beaty wrote: > >On 16 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > >> > >> This next one is trivial: how are photons polarised? > > > >How can a point-particle have a frequency? Or more importantly, a > >wavelength? I think each of these can be answered if we can give a > >simple, gut-level explanation of how waves can be particles, and vice > >versa. > > > Visualise an electron bouncing up and down between a pair of spaced vertical > needle points with an oscillating voltage applied to them. Then a > fundamental tenet of physics is; > 1,a moving charge creates a magnetic field. > > 2,a time varying magnetic field creates an electric field. But this is a discussion of polarization of e/m waves. Chris' message was a trick question, he specifically asked about the particle, not the wave. And so all the crazy QM concepts have to be dragged in in order to describe wavelike phenomena in terms of particles. My grasp of QM concepts is just strong enough to recognize that Feynman's version is excellent: that "real" photons are actually the result of interactions between vast numbers of virtual photons which individually take all possible pathways and undergo all possible interactions, and that the photon impacts that we detect are really just the final accounting of a vast "computer simulation" performed by something else at a deeper level. See his "QED" book. I don't recall Feynman explaining polarization. If two electrons repel each other because of photon exchange, where does photon polarization fit in? And if one of those electrons suddenly wiggles, why is the polarization of photon particles suddenly important, whereas before it was not? My own question: A photon has a single frequency. But this means that the wave train must be infinitely long, because the spectrum of a non-infinite wave train has a small spread of frequencies, and the spectrum of a very brief pulse is spread all over in frequency. So how can a particle, which acts like the briefest pulse imaginable, NOT have a huge spread of frequencies? How can it instead have a single frequency, as if it was an endlessly long wavetrain? What's needed here is a popular book on stochiastic electrodynamics. Call it "Banishing the quantum leap", to compete with Wolf's "Taking the quantum leap"? ;) .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 20:35:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA10898; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:23:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:23:39 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:23:28 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702170423.WAA24307 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Resent-Message-ID: <"LB7GL2.0.Bg2.8rz1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4230 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:33 PM 2/16/97 EST, Chris wrote: >Do you really believe that my radio tuned to 1500m actually collects >mile-long photons? Well, yes! Those photons "strike" the antenna and cause the conduction electrons therein to oscillate...which constitutes an AC current that the radio amplifies and decodes, etc. This model of the photon, which incorporates polarization, certainly serves to predict photon behavior and interaction with charges...what more can you expect from physics? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 20:35:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09574; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:13:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:13:24 -0800 From: chronos enter.net (Robert G. Flower) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: (fwd) IBM techexplorer 1.2 now available for free download Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 04:29:45 GMT Organization: Applied Science Associates Message-ID: <3307cfe5.389268544 mailman.enter.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"ke7VR2.0.WL2.Yhz1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4229 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortexians, =46or those who wouldn't give a dime for PC software from IBM -- you'll love this:=20 (in response to a question last week re TeX-reading software) On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:43:57 -0500, in sci.physics "Robert S. Sutor" wrote: >Version 1.2 of IBM's techexplorer Hypermedia Browser(tm) is now >available for free download from our product web site >http://www.ics.raleigh.ibm.com/ics/techexp.htm > >This is the product level version of techexplorer that has been >available in beta on the IBM AlphaWorks site for the last few >months. > >techexplorer is a plug-in for Netscape Navigator and Microsoft >Internet Explorer that displays a large subset of TeX and LaTeX >with extensions for hypertext and multimedia. This release is for >Windows 95 and Windows NT. > >techexplorer is already being used across the Web to deliver technical=20 >articles, selections from books and journals, and course material. > >Compared with version 1.0, this version of techexplorer offers full >compatibility with Netscape Navigator 3 and Microsoft Internet >Explorer 3.0, improved support for various graphics image formats, >greatly extended TeX and LaTeX features, and more basic symbols. > >An updated user guide for techexplorer is available at >http://www.ics.raleigh.ibm.com/pub/techug.html > >To contact the techexplorer team, please send email to >techexpl watson.ibm.com. > >Bob Sutor >IBM Research From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 21:15:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA31422; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:56:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:56:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:56:15 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"L7O0q.0.3g7.xJ-1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4231 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, William Beaty wrote: > > My own question: > > A photon has a single frequency. But this means that the wave train > must be infinitely long, because the spectrum of a non-infinite wave > train has a small spread of frequencies, and the spectrum of a very > brief pulse is spread all over in frequency. So how can a particle, > which acts like the briefest pulse imaginable, NOT have a huge spread of > frequencies? How can it instead have a single frequency, as if it was > an endlessly long wavetrain? > Actually because of the uncertainty principle photons do not have a single frequency. Recall the relevent relations: 1. E = h*f 2. and delta_t * delta_E >= h/(2*pi) where E = Photon Energy h = Plank's constant f = frequency delta_t = uncertainty in time delta_E = uncartainty in Energy >From 2. we can only know the energy precisely if know nothing at all about the time of arrival or the time of creation of the photon. In this sense your absolutely right Bill. You'd need an infinitely long data sample to pin down the precise energy of the photon stream. However the energy of individual photons cannot be known so precisely. Photons are created or absorbed via atomic transitions whose energy has there own instrinsic uncertainy. This uncertainty is directly related to the lifetime of the atomic state which initiates the transition. Some elementary QM books imply that these energies are absolutely precise. That's not true. The energy of the central value of the transition can be determined infinitely precisely only by measuring the energy of an infinite number of photons. To put this into relevant numbers, a typical atomic transition has a lifetime of 10**-10 seconds. This corresponds to an uncertainty in the energy of a single photon of 6.6*10**-7 electron volts. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 22:31:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA27422; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:33 -0800 Date: 17 Feb 97 01:18:15 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970217061814_100433.1541_BHG58-4 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"sX5Mi3.0.Oi6.fZ_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4235 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > Well, yes! Those photons "strike" the antenna and cause the > conduction electrons therein to oscillate...which constitutes an > AC current that the radio amplifies and decodes, etc. > > This model of the photon, which incorporates polarization, > certainly serves to predict photon behavior and interaction with > charges...what more can you expect from physics? As you've gathered, I'm mostly just being tiresome. But I think you are just saying that it's perfectly OK for a *pure particle* (which people honestly do insist that EM is) can perfectly well be a wave with orthogonal E and M axes, and which can traverse the galaxies with a specific orientation. That sounds to me like wanting to have the bun and keep the penny. Like I say, I beg leave to be sceptical. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 22:32:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA27384; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:24 -0800 Date: 17 Feb 97 01:18:11 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970217061811_100433.1541_BHG58-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"czzz1.0.ch6.VZ_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4233 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin, > Of course the bottom line is experiment. What does nature REALLY > say. Yes, yes, YES! In fact all I'm really doing with all this tail-twisting is to argue that we should sit humbly at the feet of good ol' Momma Nature and ask her stuff. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 22:38:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA27401; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:25 -0800 Date: 17 Feb 97 01:18:13 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970217061812_100433.1541_BHG58-3 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"O5MfB1.0._h6.XZ_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4234 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, > Chris' message was a trick question, he specifically asked about > the particle, not the wave. Too right it was a trick question. > So how can a particle, which acts like the briefest pulse > imaginable, NOT have a huge spread of frequencies? How can it > instead have a single frequency, as if it was an endlessly long > wavetrain? Nice one, Bill. Come on everybody, there's plenty of room on the Crackpot Express! Chris Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 22:38:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA27373; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:21:23 -0800 Date: 17 Feb 97 01:18:09 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970217061808_100433.1541_BHG58-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"h6Wru1.0.Eh6.UZ_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4232 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, > You can model the thing easily with math and draw pictures of the > amplitude and Electromagnetic field relationships, or simulate the > fields on the X-Y plates of an oscilloscope or the input of an > oscillograph and draw pretty pictures (Lissajous Figures)to get a > feel for the "port and starboard and up and down and front and > back" (they do, but they are just passing through at c Yes, of course. But these are particles - little bullets. Or so we are told. Now, if the tale were that maybe they weren't little bullets, maybe they just behave a bit like little bullets in some of their attributes - but people keep telling me they are real particles. And I beg leave to be sceptical, and they tell me I'm a crackpot. > I've worked many a year with devices that do all sort of things > with electrons and I've never seen one yet. Me too. > Do you believe in electrons, too? Should I? I'm not really sure. After all - they look a lot like waves, too. Waves with mass... Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 23:02:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA10719; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:13 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:45:03 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330be66a.17448348 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"C3AgE3.0.tc2.qv_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4240 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), William Beaty wrote: [snip] >This reminds me. Don't EM waves have some longitudinal component in the >near-field of an antenna, where the waves have not peeled loose? For >example, if I move a bar magnet forward and back along its axis, it will >create longitudinal waves along its axis. However these waves are not >free-flying EM, instead they are changes in the magnet's surrounding >field. [snip] It seems to me that precisely the same could be said for an electrons electrical field. Hence moving electrons should generate longitudinal electric field waves on the line on which the electron is moving. Transverse waves are generated at right angles to the direction of movement. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 23:02:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA10534; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:00 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:45:02 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330ae5d3.17296500 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970216151320_100433.1541_BHG64-1 CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <970216151320_100433.1541_BHG64-1 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"XusaN.0.Ta2.fv_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4237 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 16 Feb 97 10:13:21 EST, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >This next one is trivial: how are photons polarised? They go on day trips to Kodak, where they get pushed through special cameras? ;) > >Chris > > Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 23:02:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA10556; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:01 -0800 Message-ID: <33080CF1.558A rt66.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:50:15 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kirk.shanahan srs.gov, vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Miley Critiques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IKOWc2.0.la2.hv_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4238 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello Kirk, Yes, I'll send you copies of Miley's two Preprints on Tuesday's mail. Thanks for your comments on my questions on SIMS analysis. A common denominator to a wide variety of interesting experiments is micron-size spots and craters on the electrodes, where high current densities have occurred and possibly nuclear reactions, or at least efficient isotopic separation: electrolysis, glow discharge, spark. Akira Kawasaki just put on Vortex-L an abstract from ICCF-6 by P.L.Cignini, D. Gozzi, et al on electrolysis of D2O on Palladium: an X-ray film 5 cm away got a pattern of spots, including a shadow of the anode. The cathode was a bundle of 150 250-micron Pd wires. The idea instantly occured to me that spots could result from beams or jets, perhaps fairly coherent, of gammas or other radiation emitted from active tiny reaction sites. If they can readily replicate this radiation detection effect, then this is an unusual opportunity to focus on some research. Examine the wires for evidence of tiny reaction sites, and analyze the isotopes. Test for bending of the spot pattern by electric and magnetic fields, and the effect of different filters. Particle physics has made progress for a century by studying individual events, starting with little flashes on photographic film and phosphorescent screens. What approaches would allow real-time study of microscale sites in the various cold fusion experiments? Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 23:04:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA10672; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:45:08 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:45:01 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3308e37a.16695508 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970216024832.AAA17224 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970216024832.AAA17224 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Vq4YQ1.0.dc2.nv_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4239 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 02:48:34 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >At 01:34 AM 2/16/97 +0000, you wrote: >>On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:02:03 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>[snip] >>>0.4181 degrees. I call this Nature's way of establishing the boundary >>>condition for the existence of energy in a material form, ie., a particle. [snip] >Easy. r = hbar * c * alpha/E The rest energy E for the electron >is E = mc^2 = 9.1E-31*c^2 = 8.1786E-14 (joules) >hbar = 1.05E-34 joule-seconds, alpha = 0.00729729 (dimensionless) >r = 2.80859E-15 meters. The "classical" radius of the electron. [snip] This calculation works on the assumption that a single electromagnetic wavelength is "wrapped around" the circumference of the particle. The angle of 0.4181 degrees however, gives the impression that 360/0.4181 ~= 861 reflections would be needed to get around. Shouldn't one therefore assume that it would take 861 whole waves to produce a phase locked structure? That would seem to me to make the circumference (and hence also the radius) 861 times larger. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 23:06:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA10029; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:44:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:44:10 -0800 Message-ID: <33080D94.75A2 rt66.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:49:40 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kirk L Shanahan , vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Miley papers/Your Critiques References: <199702121449.AA21331 gateway1.srs.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2vFWd2.0.dS2.vu_1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4236 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello Kirk, I appreciated your comments, and will gladly put Miley's Preprints in the mail for you on Tuesday. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 23:10:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA11482; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:51:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:51:10 -0800 Message-ID: <33080F7D.F33 rt66.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:57:49 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fifth Miley Critique Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"3BMRh.0.Kp2.U__1p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4241 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Return-Path: rmforall rt66.com Received: from pmc27.rt66.com (pmc27.rt66.com [204.134.97.47]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA01963; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:35:03 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <33019E00.818 rt66.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:40:00 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kennel Subject: Re: Fifth Miley Critique References: <01BC177A.D0D992A0 sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Elliot, I'm glad to have your encouraging feedback. You know, I hope Miley and those working with CETI cells have wonderful, blatant, extreme, obvious success in demonstrating excess power and transmutations. Is anyone working with the CETI kits in Japan? I hope you can e-mail me the reference or the whole recent report by Mizuno-- I can look things up at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 30 miles from Santa Fe. Can I post your post to me on Vortex-L? Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 16 23:27:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA14778; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:09:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:09:21 -0800 Message-ID: <3308139D.2FE2 rt66.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:15:25 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard A Blue , jonesse@plasma.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Gozzi's X-ray film spots References: <199702101447.JAA200834 pilot06.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UdUkf2.0.mc3.WG02p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4242 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks, Dick, for the appreciation. I was intrigued by your comment on the inconsistency of using instruments that depend on conventional physics to test possibly unconventional physics. If low energy nuclear reactions are possible, then wouldn't the 8-KeV oxygen beam in SIMS, able to vaporize a micron-size spot quickly, be likely to be producing its own nuclear reactions? Today, Akira Kawasaki typed in on Vortex-L an abstract from ICCF-6 on P.L.Cignini, D. Gozzi, et al experiment on electrolysis of D2O on Palladium, with X-ray film 5 cm away. The cathode was a bundle of 150 250-micron Palladium wires. The film showed a collection of spots. I wasn't clear from the abstract whether this exposure of film occured more than once. But, why spots? Are jets or beams of gammas or something being emitted from tiny reaction sites? Tiny spots and craters are being described in a variety of experiments: electrolysis, gas discharge, spark. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 00:01:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA17877; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:44:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:44:55 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970217074905.009de8e0 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:49:05 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Resent-Message-ID: <"8b_-E.0.FN4.sn02p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4243 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:43 PM 2/16/97 EST: >Here's another way of looking at the question: if photons are real, >then does the polarisation of em mean that they have a little port and >a little starboard, a little up and own and front and back? I think there is an interesting calculation that could be done. On a clear day, you might be able to see an object a couple of miles away at least, on a hill for example. If photons are real, they are hitting your eyes coming from a point on the object. You move, you still see it. The point on the object is reflecting or sending out gazillions of them. Figure then a two mile sphere or half-sphere, based on the size of a photon, one at every point on that sphere, how many of them are there? The point sent them out all at once. How much energy was required of that source to do that? What is its temperature? Does it compute? A blind man sitting on a beach gets hit by a wave for the first time ever. "Ah", he says, "I've discovered that the ocean is composed of packets of water exactly the size and shape as me, and they are coming this direction at an approximate rate of .125 Hz!" Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 00:14:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA19234; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:01:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:01:44 -0800 Date: 17 Feb 97 03:00:44 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970217080043_100060.173_JHB93-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"-_5rS2.0.Oi4.c112p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4244 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris, >From a complete ignoramus may I insert my crackpot notion? My crude analogy of the particle/wave concept would be, say, a superheated liquid. If you inspect it with only a thermometer it has the property of a gas or vapour, i.e. its temp. at that pressure is indicative of the vapour phase. However, if you measure only its density, its a liquid. In other words we are at an overlap in phase, a sort of hysteresis, where particle and wave concepts exist in parallel, depending on what you use to measure its properties. I hope this makes sense to someone out there - just an Engineer's unsophisticated view. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 00:27:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA20871; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:13:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:13:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3308227D.34DF rt66.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:18:53 -0800 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, davidk@suba.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, dennis@wazoo.com, ceti onramp.net, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, design73@aol.com, wireless@rmii.com, jlogajan skypoint.com, bockris@chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, ghlin greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, ine@padrak.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, 76570.2270 compuserve.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com Subject: SIMS comments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7oZj-.0.165.rC12p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4245 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 16, 1996 I've pasted together various competent comments on the use of SIMS: Does Correa have any material the he is interested in conducting isotopic analysis on. I thought pehaps one of you had some contact with him and might pose this query. In my current work I am using the most advance time of flight SIMS instrument in the world and have the operators pretty well tuned in to this work. Unfortunately it is rather expensive to operate about running about $2500 per day. Little can be accomplished with less than a full day but two days does a lot. Before you get too excited about SIMS work I'd look into the technique. The sensitivity of SIMS is different for each atom. Hence things like sodium show up with big signals because the machine can see sodium easily. Xenon and other inert gases cannot be seen at all in SIMS at least not in any of the methods used in this field including Mizuno. Sure 2 12C's make mass 24 and indeed mass 24 is seen however it is in fact a double ion of 12C. Only a very high resolution instrument can see the difference between 2 12C's and 24Mg, not the instrument Miley used in the manner it was used. Also recall that SIMS has been used for a long time now for examining surface materials like layers of various metals deposited by various processes. No isotope anomalies have been reported in the literature and indeed SIMS is a established tool for measuring isotope ratios. All this is not to say the Miley's report is all wrong but there are some ragged edges. As for SIMS it is full of problems. Low counts are useless by low I mean anything with fewer than hundreds of counts. Using the kind of SIMS equipment Miley uses one gets lots of counts but sacrifices mass resolution. Using TOF SIMS like I do one gets high mass resolution at the expense of counts. In either case time can bridge the gap but time is money in the case of tof SIMS $400/hr just for the instrument. Not seeing isotopes with low abundance is not unusual. Usually if you sit on the sample long enough you get enough counts to see them. The pros who run equipment like Miley uses demand hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of counts per species to make a definitive isotope determination with anything less they are very nervous. SIMS beams forward mix material into the sample, the more intense the beam the more intense the mixing. There are lots of problems using SIMS. Some of Mileys stuff looks good to me some not so good. Sodium ionizes very readily in the SIMS environment. Much more easily than many other speices hence sodium counts are always very high. Looking at the samples before and after clearly shows this. Indeed each element has it's own particular ionization energy so for very precise work one has to calibrate for many if not all species. I am not aware of anyone using a hydrogen source for the ion beam in SIMS. Usually the beam is O, Cs, Ga, or Ar. No evidence is seen for any of these ions doing anything suspicious, at least not in the many days of work I have done. SIMS is indeed a bit ifffy with low counts but sometimes that all you get. 10 counts is very iffy. The mass of 107Ag is a question I look at seriously. You have to understand however that one calibrates for mass each time on a SIMS instrument. The absolute number is not as important as the relationship with the standards used and the isotopes that appear. You can for instance look at dimers and even trimers to confirm an ID or at doubly charged species. I often look at molecular ions of the species in question. Without staring at the full spectra I wouldn't venture a guess as to what is going on nor would any other SIMS person. You just can't do this work in isolation on specific data bits. I can easily spend a day or more on an hours worth of SIMS data. It is difficult work. [End of quotes] I hope this helps. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 03:52:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA09207; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 03:28:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 03:28:42 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:28:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: E.M. doppler shift, where does the energy go or come from? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"j3irU3.0.mF2.e342p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4246 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vortex, I was following this in the back page of New Scientist where joe public asks niave questions. It never was answered. Doppler shift in a 'real' medium with say sound I can handle. Relative motion to the medium allows the equations to drop out easily. E.M. waves says use Relativity - you get the right answers. Quantum theory says the energy of a photon is given by its frequency - hxf. Is it naive to ask, where does the energy go or come from? Or does it all balance out in that in my time frame relative to the source, my time goes slower - I measure a 'red-shift' for a longer time so that it just the same energy as emanated from the source? When relativistic length contraction and time dialation (don't bring G.R. and gravity into this please, its hard enough) are taken into account, both red and blue shift are explained and everything balances? E.g. Person starting from home base, accelerating to constant v near c Special Relativity says: 1) In my frame, laws of physics same esp. regard to meas. of time and length 2) I look at homebase and observe they've speeded up. I measure distance to homebase and correction is applied to Newtonian result - is it +ve or -ve? 3) They look at me, I've slowed down. Their distance measurement needs correcting - is it +ve or -ve? All the swings and roundabouts cancel and no missing (redshift) or gained energy (blueshift) in Doppler shift. BUT I still insist - even if the sums show no violation of the 1st Law. A blue light is more energetic than a red one. The motion between homebase and me is uniform with no field and so no work. Even in my distorted little time frame with all the sums cancelling, blue light zaps more and does more work than the orignal red (say) light. I've gained something merely from uniform motion. Puzzling!? Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 04:58:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA11880; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 04:17:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 04:17:52 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:47:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Over unity on blue shift - thermodynamics in question Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"zdYOi2.0.Xv2.kn42p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4247 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vortex, There must be something wrong with the First Law. Have they applied relativity properly to it in a non-local manner? You see, what I mean is, taking the blue shift case talked about in my previous email, if the sums cancel - you'd have to take source (homebase) and sink (traveller) into account to get the correct 1st Law. If they don't cancel, better ditch the 1st Law! THERE IS something seriously amiss with thermodynamics - its one of the oldest parts of physics and becoming bibilical in practise. Thrmd. was concieved on a tiny speck in a flash of time on a little blue planet. Surely people are complacent. I'm convinced now that the 2nd Law needs extending (my and other's work on constant entropy systems) and I'm going to go after the 1st law now - it too localised. (Thanks Vo and all the weekend stuff on photons, got me thinking) Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 06:43:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA21622; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:43:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:43:26 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:14:32 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <330859bd.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: Active sites. Resent-Message-ID: <"XaULM.0.gH5.y162p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4248 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vortexers, In his very interesting message, Rich Murray has included the active sites concept of the CF phenomena: "A common denominator to a wide variety of interesting experiments is micron-size spots and craters on the electrodes, where high current densities have occurred and possibly nuclear reactions, or at least efficient isotopic separation: electrolysis, glow discharge, spark. Akira Kawasaki just put on Vortex-L an abstract from ICCF-6 by P.L.Cignini, D. Gozzi, et al on electrolysis of D2O on Palladium: an X-ray film 5 cm away got a pattern of spots, including a shadow of the anode. The cathode was a bundle of 150 250-micron Pd wires. The idea instantly occured to me that spots could result from beams or jets, perhaps fairly coherent, of gammas or other radiation emitted from active tiny reaction sites." Rich is one of the few vortexers focusing on important problems working hard and not making speculations..thank you Rich! I have repeatedly stated that recognizing the local character of these phenomena is the first decisive step toward reproducibility, and hence technology. An other interesting aspect is that catalysis is important, not the nature of catalysts; if we consider only the ICCF-6 abstracts (thank you Akira for disseminating this information to a group which is (or was) dedicated to cold fusion ) we have excess heat coming from the catalytic sites based on: nickel (Patterson O-018, 019); gold (Ohmori TS-004) niobium (Karabut P-001) platinum (Dash P-005) charcoal (!) (R. Takahashi P-018) Sometimes only deuterium works, sometimes light hydrogen also. It seems that different catalytic sites, obtained in different systems act like small gates opened for a short time for an energy source (ethergy); this energy penetrates the systems and triggers a huge variety of nuclear phenomena..from traces to fusion and transmutation. We need a global image of what happens..and I dare to predict once more that till the researchers will stubbornly insist that some global properties (like D/Pd) are essential for a working device, CF will be in great trouble. See please the NHE strategy; and here I have to confess that I was contrariated when I wrote ( a month ago) a letter to Elliot Kennel asking him to discuss the "active sites" concept he did not responded at all. The same letter was sent to vortex and only Robin, from the neighboring Australia, has sent a friendly comment. I know that I am right..and all I wanted was (and is) to help. Very truly yours and CF's, Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 07:01:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26548; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:21:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:21:26 -0800 Date: 17 Feb 97 09:19:52 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: SIMS comments Message-ID: <970217141952_72240.1256_EHB93-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"mmeiT2.0.jU6.ab62p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4249 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Rich Murray writes: Xenon and other inert gases cannot be seen at all in SIMS at least not in any of the methods used in this field including Mizuno. Yes, that is why Mizuno uses four methods of detecting isotopes: energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Auger electron spectroscopy (AES), secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) and electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA). One of them works for xenon; I do not know which. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 07:49:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04163; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 07:22:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 07:22:10 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:21:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970217102149_-1005919850 emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: No missing (redshift) or gained energ Resent-Message-ID: <"eZ6_-2.0.z01.WU72p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4250 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: All the swings and roundabouts cancel and no missing (redshift) or gained energy (blueshift) in Doppler shift. .............................................................................. ....................................... That's what I was thinking but with a twist. The cosmological principle states that all positions in the universe are equivalent. Photons loose energy through the Hubble red shift. Where does this energy go? Is it converted to gravitational potential energy? No!! all posititions in the universe are equivalent..they all have the same potential energy. Do we reject the cosmological principle? I don't! In my paper in last Febs Infinite Energy I stated that the positive energy of the universe equals its negative gravitational potential. The total energy of the universe is zero. The negative gravitational potential of the universe increases as the universe expands. The positive energy of matter must also increse to compensate for this increased energy. All particles linked to the gravitational potential of the universe are effected. I believe that these particles are fermions. Bossons do not experience the zero point interaction. They drop below the Fermi energy level in matter and are not energenically linked to the expansion of the universe. This difference is what drives the arrow of time, causes red shift, and times radioactive decay. Think about it..the entropy of the total equals the sum of the entropies of the parts. In a shrinking universe the total entropy must decrese..time would therefore run in reverse..and photons would apper to blue shift... Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 09:13:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA30148 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:13:27 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:13:27 -0800 X-Envelope-From: Bockris chemvx.chem.tamu.edu Mon Feb 17 09:13:25 1997 Received: from mail.tamu.edu (mail.tamu.edu [128.194.103.28]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA30112 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:13:17 -0800 Received: from modem-0499.rns.tamu.edu (modem-0499.rns.tamu.edu [165.91.66.50]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA20732 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:12:38 -0600 (CST) Old-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:12:38 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702171712.LAA20732 mail.tamu.edu> X-Sender: bockris chemvx.tamu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_856205012==_" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Bockris chemvx.chem.tamu.edu (John O'M Bockris) X-Attachments: B:\MURRAY.MEM; X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: --=====================_856205012==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_856205012==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" February 17, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Murray FROM: John Bockris SUBJECT: Re SIMS Yes, SIMS results have to be "interpreted." Basically, atoms get knocked out of the surface but the intensity of the beam depends on the atomic mass (obviously) but also "chemical properties" (e.g., force field, e.g., valency bonds) to the surroundings. I've used SIMS mainly in surface electrochemistry since around 1984 and it does give useful information if you have an "expert" to help. I acknowledge Gene Sparrow (Advanced R&D, Research & Development Services, 4661 Hwy 5, Lake Elmo, MN 55042) as the person who has interpreted some of my more recent SIMS spectra. However, the theory of SIMS has been around for a decade and I assume that George Miley and some of his colleagues at least, are well aware of it. My experience with surface analysis is that each method tells you something. Woe to him who relies on one method. Miley used 3-4 methods. I like Neutron Activation best but sometimes the life time is impractical and sometimes one spectrum overlaps another. Further, one has to have access to a reactor and wait your turn in the reactor people's program. --=====================_856205012==_-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 09:54:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17586; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:45:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:45:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:45:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: No missing (redshift) or gained energ In-Reply-To: <970217102149_-1005919850 emout01.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"grmml1.0.DI4.di82p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4251 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank, I'm not on the mailing list yet for the mag. and I certainly need to get back issues. Any chance of emailing the paper by attachment? Please virus scan the attachment. Right now I'm just doing a calculation about Relativity applied to 1st Law - it shouldn't take too long. I believe that 1st Law isn't broken if one considers a non-local form of it. Over unity I believe is possible but a relativistic effect in your ref. frame bit like magnetism is a rel. effect. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 10:33:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA05145; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:13:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:13:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:16:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702171616.KAA05073 dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #7 (3 more) 23 so far, 20 last To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"hH3Xv2.0.GG1.y-92p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4252 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 17, 1997 Last #6 posting erroneously noted 19 abstracts posted when it should have been 20. Continuing the ICCF-6 Oral and Poster Abstracts #7 P-066 (poster presentation) X-RAY DIAGNOSTIC IN GAS DISCHARGE Chen Suhe, Wang Dalun, Cui Giaxosian, Li Yijun, Wang Mei, Fu Yibei, Institute of Nuclear Physics and Chemistry, China Academy of Engineering Physics, Chengdu 610003 Zhang Xinwei, Zhang Wushou, Beijing Institute of Applied Physics and computational Mathematics, Beijing 100088 X-rays were observed to be yielded when the anolamous phenomenon in the metal loaded with deuterium was studied by the gas discharge method. The X-ray energy spectrum was measured and monoenergy X rays were confirmed existing by the absorption methods, the characteristic X-ray approach and the NaI scintillation counters. The average X-ray energy (26.9+/- 2.2 keV) measured by the absorption method is in agreement within the error range with monoenrgetic X-rays (26.0 +/- 2.4 keV) detected by NaI scintillation counters. The X-ray intensity measured roughly by use of Li(7) thermoluminescent foils in about 10^9 - 1-^10 n/s. Absorption method: Choose a set of Li(7) thermoluminescent foils before calibrating the sensitivity, then makes the sensitivity normalized and background corrected to the counts of thermoluminescent foils irradiated. The average X-ray energy derived from gas discharge is measured by the absorption method. If the thermoluminescent foils have the same thickness and uniform density, the total mass attenuation coefficient u(mu)m(cm^2/g) can be derived from the counts N(zero) before and Nd after penetrating of X-rays through the foil. Given the experimentally measured u(mu) m(T) and the relation between u(mu) m(T) and X-ray energy, the x-ray energy yet to be measured will be given by interpolation. Measurement of different absorption foils: 1) Choose Cu, c2h4, Cd and LiF as absorption foils, then meassure the X-ray energy in gas discharge. 2) Measure the X-ray from discharging of various materials loaded with deuterium. The X-ray energy was measured in gas discharge by the absorption method when Ta, Ti, Pd, Nb, Zr, and Te were used in electrode. 3) Measurement of self absorption of detector: Being taken as detectors and as absorbents of X-rays, several of the Li(7) thermoluminescent foils were arranged into a string and the counts Nn referred to the nth foil. Therefore u(mu) m(T) can be obtained. The specific X-ray approach: The specific absorption energy of cadmium is 26.7 keV and there is abrupt reduction off photon mass absorption coefficient nearby the energy. We can make use of this feature to identify whether or not the X-ray energy is 27 keV in gas discharge. Measurement of NaI scintillation counters: The value 26.9 +/- 2.2keV given by absorption method is the average X-ray energy. However by using NaI scintillation counters and an Am(243) gamma-ray source to measure and calibrate the x-ray energy, the monoenergetic X-rays yielded through gas discharge can be confirmed. Several points can be concluded from the diagnosis for X-rays yieldd in deuterium-filled gas discharge: a) In gas discharge, there exists a monoenergetic X-ray (27 keV) of which the energy is higher than the discharging voltage (11 KV). The repetition rate of the effect is 100%. b) X-ray energy varies independant of electrode material. c) X-ray energy is in no relation to the kind of discharging gas. d) How is the X-ray yielded: Is it yielded in normal ways or abnormal way? Problems remain to be investigated experimentally furthur. P-079 (poster presentation) NUCLEAR PRODUCTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN EFFECT; HELIUM COMMENSURATE TO HEAT GENERATION, CALORIMETRY, AND RADIATION. B.F. Bush and J.J. Lagowski, University of Texas, Dept of Chem., Austin TX 78712, USA M.H. Miles, Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, Ca. 93555, USA The nature of the nuclear phenomena associated with the Pons and Fleischmann effect remains largely unexplained. The phenomena are reproducible, but the procesdses lack controllability. The circumstances of the electrolysis experiments do not produce the same nuclear product distribution as that expected during hot plasma D + D fusion experiments. From our earlier qualitative heat versus helium nuclear products analysis (J. Electroanal. Chen. 304, 271 (1991) to our more recent quantitative helium analysis; the utmost care has been exercised with respect to the scientific rigor of our work. The correlation between the production of helium and the geneneration of excess heat has been reproduced in different laboratories and under different experimental protocols. Preliminary results are shown in the figure: (ASCII enviroment precludes graphic displays. However, the figure description will be attempted. The graph displayed in the figure has vertical values, watts, marked by 20 indexes. Each fourth index is marked, starting from zero, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08 and 0.1. The horizontal values, going to the right, has five spaced indexes. Each index is marked, starting from zero, 2 10^13, 4 10^14, 6 10^13, 8 10^12, 1 10^14. Two straight lines projects out from zero. One line, running about 6 degrees, is identified as 4 mev/He. The second line running at about 32 degrees is identified as 24 Mev/He. Three points are placed: one at approx. (0.0225 W, 3 10^13 He atms), second at approx. (0.046 W, 3.5 10^13 He atms), third at approx. (0.0475 W, 4.5 10^13 He atms). One point is on the 24 MeV/He line. The other two points are considerably above the 24 MeV/He line. The zero origin point of the figure has the notation: Metal Flask Background.) FIGURE. D + D -> He(4) + 24 MeV is the most energetic reaction known. The heat versus helium analysis can be used to attempt to identify the nuclear reaction pathway by comparing the quantity of helium produced to the amount of energy generated. Thus, the most energetic reactions known woould generate 24 MeV/He(4) , as shown depicted by the line in the plot. Likewise, the 4 MeV/He(4) line is included to add perspective. The results were obtained with all-mental apparatus shown to be capable of eliminating atmospheric contamination. The quantitative correlation between the amount of energy generated and the helium produced is at the level that is expected for a high energy nuclear reaction, such as fusion. These results are underwritten by extensive He(3): He(4): Ne(20) control experiments, which will be described in the presentation. Calorimetric quality is the foundation of this work. In our earlly work, isoperibolic calorimetry was used successfully. In our later work as depicted in the Figure, high performance Calves calorimetry is used. This is the most rigorous method of calorimetry known, amounting to an integrated measurement of the total thermal flux. Electrolysis off-gas production rates were measured to determine the Coulombic efficiency of the electrolysis. Atmospheric helium contamination was precluded by use of all-metal sampling flasks and all metal gas collection equiptment with helium leak-tight Cahon VCR metal seals. Radiation monitoring suggested the presence of a weak source of high energy gamma-radiation. The weakness of the source tended to confound the analysis because of the statistics of the minimum detectable activity associated with various radiation detectors. The cathodes used in these experiments were palladium electroplated on gold-flashed copper. No calorimetry was adssociated with these radiation experiments, The technical aspects of the nuclear products analysis will be described as it was reproducd under various protocols. The ultimate goal of this effort is to identify explicitly which nuclear reactions result in the Pons & Fleischmann effect. O-003 (oral presentation) ACHIEVEMENT OF SOLID-STATE PLASMA FUSION ("COLD FUSION') Y. Arata and Y.C. Zhang, Arata Hall of Osaka University, Japan When the deuterium nuclear fusion takes place continuously in a host-solid, the tremendous released energy will heat the solid drastically and the product by reaction will spontaneously emitted from and/or confined as the "frozen state" in the hoist-solid. In other words, there are two kinds of reactions, i.e. energy release and product formation. These reactions should increase proportionately with the increase in number of fusion reactions over a long period. As a result, tremendous amount reaction product, i.e. Helium, should be accumulated as a "frozen state" in the host-solid which generated huge excess energy in ordinary temperatures. Therefore, when the Pd host-solid (Pd-black) was heated to high temperature (greater than equal to 1,300 [K]) in vacuum, a large amount of Helium released from the host solid was detected by "QMS" (Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy). Namely, in the present experiment, the solid-state plasma fusion ("Cold Fusion") was verified by detection of tremendous Helium product as well as huge excess energy. (copier's note: The Pd Black that is referred to is the content of Arata's Double Cathode sealed structure which ran for over 3,000 hours producing about 200 KJ of excess energy, if memory serves) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 11:05:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA06544; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:23:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:23:11 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:16:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970217103800_-1809861717 emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: good idea but has big problem..what holds it? Resent-Message-ID: <"hUYBJ1.0.9c1.C8A2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4253 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This calculation works on the assumption that a single electromagnetic wavelength is "wrapped around" the circumference of the particle. .............................................................................. ...................... What holds it in place? Radiation tends to propagate, does it not? My answer to this question is that a FORCE holds it in place. Gravity is induced by a force. gravity = (G/ccr)dp/dt Applying the forces in the right place and putting them in for dp/dt in the equation above will produce two gravitational 1/r components. The superposition of these two fields yields the 1/rr gravitational field of matter. I've worked the problem out for you on my paper, "The Source of Inertial and Grav Mass" posted on electromagnum with one + sign error. No one will publish it..I guess I to far ahead. The nice thing about this solution is that it leads to the Tempte effect. In the near field the +1/r and -1/r components are not seperated. They have a dipole formation. The rotation of dipole can interact with and produce a gravitomagnetic field. Think about it. If you rotate neutral matter no magnetic field will be produced. If you seperate the charges and rotate an excess of one of them a magnetic field will result. The same thing happes with gravity. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 11:14:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA11592; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:48:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:48:18 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970217181451.008b66d4 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:14:51 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Resent-Message-ID: <"8oBb33.0.mq2.iVA2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4254 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:49 PM 2/16/97 -0800: >or sending out gazillions of them. Figure then a two mile sphere >or half-sphere, based on the size of a photon, one at every point >on that sphere, how many of them are there? The point sent them out >all at once. How much energy was required of that source to do that? >What is its temperature? Does it compute? Now, for a given moment in time, figure the number of photons contained in the sphere whose center is on the moon, some 300,000 miles. I would guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.37 x 10^233 photons. Realize the the source of light sent them all out at once, therefore they all had to fit at that same point. They are, after all, particles, too, they say. So what is the diameter of those particles, and then how did they all fit at that point at that time, a second or so ago when they were emitted? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. You can still recieve photons anywhere on a sphere double that distance, so double your figures and then hand in your papers for grading. Who are the real crackpots? That's where the uncertainty principle becomes very important. It says, we can never know the truth, because our fundamental theories were garbage anyway, so everybody gets an A. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 11:23:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA16082; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:03:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:03:13 -0800 Message-ID: <3308AB7B.6F0E interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:03:23 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Remi, Thermo, and SPACE BALL References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vcKxT1.0.jw3.kjA2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4255 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Remi Cornwall wrote: > > Vortex, > > There must be something wrong with the First Law. Have they applied > relativity properly to it in a non-local manner? > Ah, the subtleties of dynamics! This may be an old story but I always liked it. I have a good telescope-plus-timing system in my yard (I wish!) and I was watching the space shuttle fly overhead the other day moving at about 7813 meters per second. One of the astronauts threw a 0.1 kg ball to another astronaut across the cabin in the direction of orbital motion. I noticed the ball, in transit, was moving at 7813 meters per second. I roughed out the kinetic energy of the ball in transit as: KE = 1/2 m v^2 = (.05) * 7813^2 = 3,052,148 joules Realizing that after the catch, the ball would have kinetic energy of: KE = (.05) * 7793^2 = 3,036,542 joules I began to worry about the 3,052,148 - 3,036,542 = 15,606 joules the catcher would need to absorb. Since 15,606 joules is about like the explosive power in the powder from two, 12-gage shotgun rounds, I got on the phone to warn NASA. Reference frames RULE! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 11:29:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18825; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:12:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:12:03 -0800 Message-ID: <3308AD97.706A interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:12:23 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Remi, Thermo & SPACE BALL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6duwL1.0.3c4.0sA2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4256 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gee, my story would have been great if I had made the first-mentioned velocity = 7793 meters per second as it should be! Sigh!!! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 14:06:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA31409; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:41:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:41:48 -0800 Message-ID: <3308CE80.146A mail.enternet.com.au> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:02:48 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson enternet.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, newman-l@emachine.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: DNMEC Flux Flow References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"xrOS11.0.Vg7.N2D2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4257 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > At 8:07 PM 2/17/97, Greg Watson wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >I have attached a zip file which shows that core flux does > [snip] > > > >As always, your feedback (positive or negative) is welcome. > > > >-- > >Best Regards, > >Greg Watson, > >Greg Watson Consulting, > >Adelaide, South Australia, > >gwatson enternet.com.au > > > I don't know about anybody else on this "list", but I for one did not ask > for this nor do I want it. I unsubscribed from freenrg over a month ago > because I was tired of this nonsense and do not want to have to wait for > gazillion byte attachment to read in that I simply delete anyway. I don't > even have time to read vortex lately. Please stop. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner Hi Horace, Thanks for the input. I have taken you off the DNMEC mail list. Sorry for the intrusion. As for nonsense, if you took the time to study the Gifs, you would see the DNMEC effect is real. Unlike others, I do not claim anything I can't prove and the Qfield sims are a good tool to share info with others, without requiring actual construction. I put together the mail list to overcome the limitations imposed by the 40k limit of the mail list servers. You name, like others, was included as you had shown some earlier interest in the DNMEC effect. Again, I apologize if I intruded on your time. If anyone else wishes to be added or deleted from the DNMEC list, just let me know. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson enternet.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 16:02:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26129; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:42:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:42:02 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "'EOFN'" , "'melissa'" , "MHUGO EPRI" , Sally Allen , Michael Scudder , "Matthew P. Scudder" To: Vortex-L Subject: FW: Scientists Discover New Element Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:38:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pm9yF3.0.5O6.8pE2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4258 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- From: Gelineau, Lisa M. To: Scudder, Henry J. Subject: FW: Scientists Discover New Element Date: Monday, February 17, 1997 10:03AM ISU RESEARCHERS DISCOVER NEW ELEMENT AMES, IA--The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by materials researchers at IPRT/ISU. The new element, tentatively named Administratium, has no protons or electrons, and thus has an atomic weight of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons, and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together in a nucleus by a force that involves the continuous exchange of particles called morons. Since it has no electrons, Administratium is totally inert. However, it can be detected chemically, since it impedes every reaction it comes into contact with. According to its discoverers, a tiny amount of Administratium caused one reaction to take over four days to complete; the normal reaction time is less than one second. Administratium has a normal half life of approximately three years, at which time it does not actually decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which neutrons, vice neutrons, and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Studies have shown that the atomic mass usually increases after each reorganization. Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points, such as governmental agencies, large corporations, and universities. It is always found in the newest, best appointed and best maintained buildings. Scientists point out that Administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reactions where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 17:46:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA12964; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:31:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:31:41 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970115103111.009d1d90 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:17:07 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Lift Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"oVgbY2.0.UA3.yPG2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4259 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:20 PM 2/13/97 -1000, you wrote: >Evan Soule wrote: > >> If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils >> Joseph Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. > >Aha. Thanks for the drawing. I needed that, as much as I tried to >visualize it from the descriptions. > >Evan, in response to the switching on and off of the current when the >balloon is in the air, does the balloon immediately reverse its vertical >trend? I'd think any quick reversals would eliminate the possibility of >heating being responsible for its motions if it does work that way. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > Quick was not a word we would use to describe its motion. It lazily gradually changed orientations. I don't recall on down manuevers. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 18:16:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA23362; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:04:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:04:02 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 02:29:54 +0000 Message-ID: <19970217022953.AAA11492 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"nlD8q2.0.ni5.GuG2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4260 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:33 AM 2/17/97 +0000,Chris wrote: >Scott, > >Ah, c'mon! You know it's bull, I know it's bull. Physics reminds me of >nothing so much as the supposed mental gymnastics of the mediaeval >theologians. Expanding universes, big bangs, photons, curved space - >all may have some real existence, but I think that people confuse models >with reality. Worse, they assume that their models represent the >totality - and that to me is the funniest thing of all. Right to the point, and the sad part is it is, it is bought by the politicos who pass the cost of these "Alice's Adventures in WonderLand" ideas (they even borrow phrases from Mr. Carroll-Dodgson's mental antics) on to the taxpayers. > >Do you really believe that my radio tuned to 1500m actually collects >mile-long photons? What are you listening to, down at 200 kilohertz? If you can get the broadcaster to turn the carrier on for 1/2 microsecond then off for a couple of seconds you should be able to pick up only 150 meters worth during that 1/2 microsecond on cycle. Shades of high-speed wireless "Photon" telegraphy. > >You know, I saw this Oxford (of course) academic saying that the double >slit experiment demonstrated the alternate realities of quantum physics, >and that the photons making up the interference fringes are in fact >coming from those alternate universes. Didn't Professor Dodgson teach math and physics there before he assumed a pen name and started writing? > >I think I finally stopped caring. Talking with Martin Fleischmann made >me feel that at least there is someone at an extraordinarily high level >of competence who doesn't understand or believe in anything either - so >there's hope for little old me after all. > >Chris I'm late, I'm late, Let's get together for tea sometime, if you'll move over, and wear the right hat. Best Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 18:18:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA25278; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:05:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:05:56 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:30:09 +0000 Message-ID: <19970217113007.AAA17635 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"woIgd2.0.pA6.0wG2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4261 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Norman At 08:00 AM 2/17/97 +0000, Norman Horwood wrote: >Chris, > >My crude analogy of the particle/wave concept would be, say, a superheated >liquid. If you inspect it with only a thermometer it has the property of a gas >or vapour, i.e. its temp. at that pressure is indicative of the vapour phase. >However, if you measure only its density, its a liquid. > >In other words we are at an overlap in phase, a sort of hysteresis, where >particle and wave concepts exist in parallel, depending on what you use to >measure its properties. There are 9E13 joules of energy in a gram of matter, say superheated LOX at room temperature, about a cm^3 or less. This energy can be divided up as 633 nanometer photons (red wavelength, 2.0 electron volts each)or about 3.125E31 photons per gram. Being the pragmatic engineer that you are, would you rather be hit with a gram of superheated LOX at room temperature moving at a few meters/second, or a "Laser Beam" containing some 10^31 photons of 2.0 ev each during the same interval? This not a rhetorical question. > >I hope this makes sense to someone out there - just an Engineer's >unsophisticated view. If it looks like a duck---, however, in this case maybe a paraducks? or quackery perhaps? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 18:19:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA25987; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:06:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:06:50 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:20:35 +0000 Message-ID: <19970217122034.AAA26122 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"AYgOB1.0.uL6.swG2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4262 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:18 AM 2/17/97 +0000, Chris wrote: >Frederick, > >Yes, of course. But these are particles - little bullets. Or so we are >told. Now, if the tale were that maybe they weren't little bullets, >maybe they just behave a bit like little bullets in some of their >attributes - but people keep telling me they are real particles. My oracle has been telling me all these years, 64 comes March 29th, that photons are "wave packets" not particles. They only act like particles when they hit something; E = mc^2 or momentum mc = E/c, where the "manifest mass" m shows up as radiation pressure. If they are predisposed to do so they will turn into a particle pair at rest. This is my hot project to see if photons of 7440 ev, 54.4 ev and 0.40 ev can turn into "light electron" pairs and resolve SOME of the mysteries of the CF-Griggs-Potatov? phenomena. Friction localises energy in such a way that it is possible that static electricity may be a lions share of these particles. Same thing for electron bombardment of materials. > >And I beg leave to be sceptical, and they tell me I'm a crackpot. "They", are FOOLS! > > Do you believe in electrons, too? > >Should I? I'm not really sure. After all - they look a lot like waves, >too. Waves with mass... Only when localised in space, like Billy Beaty trying to do a four-minute-mile in his kitchen. However my theory indicates that the energy waves in the particles has done something to space that slows them down to c/137 or about 2.187E6 meters/second, the same velocity a the classical Bohr electron in the "ground state" orbit of the hydrogen atom. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 18:19:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA26068; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:07:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:07:00 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:57:24 +0000 Message-ID: <19970217135722.AAA25255 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"hsyBa.0._M6.-wG2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4263 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Martin At 04:56 AM 2/17/97 +0000, Martin Sevior wrote: > >Actually because of the uncertainty principle photons do not have a single >frequency. Recall the relevent relations: > >1. E = h*f > >2. and delta_t * delta_E >= h/(2*pi) > >where E = Photon Energy > h = Plank's constant > f = frequency > delta_t = uncertainty in time > delta_E = uncartainty in Energy About ten years back Richard Feynman was evaluating an idea that I had submitted to JPL, I developed a healthy respect for his abilities as did Bob Forward who was pursuing matter-antimatter as a propulsion means. Ask Bob about his run in with Feynman back then. Feynman (and others') interpretation of that equation also allows for the possiblity of extraction of energy from the vacuum. Yes ZPE. > >From 2. we can only know the energy precisely if know nothing at all about >the time of arrival or the time of creation of the photon. In this sense >your absolutely right Bill. You'd need an infinitely long data sample to >pin down the precise energy of the photon stream. If you invoke the Larmor equation; E = 0.66*q^2*a^2/[4(pi)eo*c^3] for the radiated cyclotron energy (non relativistic) for an accelerated charge, ie., an electron gyrating in the vicinity of, say, a proton, and this radiated energy comes off as a photon of energy hf as the electron loses kinetic energy, I see no reason to invoke all of that uncertainty about a simple mechanism. > >However the energy of individual photons cannot be known so precisely. >Photons are created or absorbed via atomic transitions whose energy has >there own instrinsic uncertainy. This uncertainty is directly related to the >lifetime of the atomic state which initiates the transition. >Some elementary QM books imply that these energies are absolutely precise. >That's not true. The energy of the central value of the transition can be >determined infinitely precisely only by measuring the energy of an infinite >number of photons. I think that the energies are precise as stated above. > >To put this into relevant numbers, a typical atomic transition has a lifetime >of 10**-10 seconds. > >This corresponds to an uncertainty in the energy of a single photon of >6.6*10**-7 electron volts. Throw a bunch of pennies on the table. Some are heads some are tails, count how many are each. Then start worrying about statistics and how certain patterns look like Jesus or Mohammed and pretty soon things get uncertain-complicated. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 18:21:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA26744; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:07:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:07:51 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Light bending Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:03:44 +0000 Message-ID: <19970217170342.AAA16353 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"XR1wC1.0.hX6.qxG2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4264 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Robin At 06:45 AM 2/17/97 +0000, you wrote: >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 02:48:34 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>At 01:34 AM 2/16/97 +0000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote >>>On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:02:03 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>0.4181 degrees. I call this Nature's way of establishing the boundary >>>>condition for the existence of energy in a material form, ie., a particle. >[snip] >>Easy. r = hbar * c * alpha/E The rest energy E for the electron >>is E = mc^2 = 9.1E-31*c^2 = 8.1786E-14 (joules) >>hbar = 1.05E-34 joule-seconds, alpha = 0.00729729 (dimensionless) >>r = 2.80859E-15 meters. The "classical" radius of the electron. >[snip] >This calculation works on the assumption that a single electromagnetic >wavelength is "wrapped around" the circumference of the particle. >The angle of 0.4181 degrees however, gives the impression that 360/0.4181 >~= 861 reflections would be needed to get around. Shouldn't one therefore >assume that it would take 861 whole waves to produce a phase locked >structure? That would seem to me to make the circumference (and hence also >the radius) 861 times larger. The only way that I can visualise the wave is like a circular disturbance. It could be a one dimensional "string" oscillating in length also, or a string wrapped in a circle like a "wave-washer". The frequency for an electron with energy, E = 8.176E-14 (joule)= hf, then f = 1.23E20 Hz. Wavelength, lambda = 2(pi)r = v/f = 2.187E6/1.23E20 = 1.77E-14 (meters) v = 1/(e1*uo)^1/2 = 2.187E6 = alpha*c. e1 = eo/alpha^2 = 1.66E-7 farads/meter the "capacitance" of a particle as opposed to the capacitance of the vacuum. The "amplitude" of the oscillations is equal to the radius (r). Thus a point shuttling back-and-forth can be graphed as a point moving in a circle, a common way of treating simple harmonic motion, SHM. BTW. If you set a perfect sphere on a perfectly flat surface, won't you find an angle very close to 0.4181 degrees from the point of tangency? And isn't it strange that 861 = 2(pi)/alpha? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 18:24:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA28942; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:10:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:10:14 -0800 Message-ID: <3308BECF.29F1 worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:25:52 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons References: <2.2.32.19970217074905.009de8e0 mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ry6tW3.0.r37.3-G2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4265 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > I think there is an interesting calculation that could be > done. On a clear day, you might be able to see an object a > couple of miles away at least, on a hill for example. If > photons are real, they are hitting your eyes coming from > a point on the object. You move, you still see it. The > point on the object is reflecting or sending out gazillions > of them. Figure then a two mile sphere or half-sphere, > based on the size of a photon, one at every point on that > sphere, how many of them are there? The point sent > them out all at once. How much energy was required of > that source to do that? What is its temperature? Does it > compute? Right, and worse yet for gravity! Gravitons? How many? Sheesh. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 18:36:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA00065; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:14:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:14:24 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702180214.SAA01186 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:14:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Sevior" at Feb 17, 97 01:27:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"URcXy2.0.x._1H2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4266 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin Sevior writes: > At what point does Quantum behaviour cease? > A very good question with some very fuzzy answers! An interesting book on this subject is: "The Infamous Boundary -- Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics" by David Wick, Copernicus/Springer Verlag, New York NY, 1996. (Paperback) The "infamous boundary" is the borderline between classical and quantum effects. Dr. Wick provides a good overview of the history of quantum physics and a perspective of alternative theories. He is unhappy with the non-phenomological nature of mainstream quantum physics, and finds it disturbing that some existing theories which appear to successfully remove some of the "mysteries" are given little attention. Especially the theories of Bell, de Broglie, Bohm, and Feynes -- pilot wave, hidden variable, and stochastic energy "brownian" motion effects. Dr Wick is not a fan of Feynman, and points out that although the two-slit experiment, and wave-particle duality is discussed extensively in Feynman's lectures. Feynman completely neglects to mention any theories which compete with his own ideas, and does not discuss any alternative explanations, or provide any explanation at all of the quantum "mystery" of duality/complementarity. It just is -- and you should try not to think to much about why, because trying to look at it from your classical perspective will make you insane. Dr Wick is especially entertaining and insightful, as he clarifies and beats to death, a variety of the muddled ideas which are commonly used to explain the uncertainty principle. I also like the following quote he provides from David Bohm about the nature of modern quantum physics: "Suppose that when formulation beyond FAPP is attempted, we find an unmovable finger obstinately pointing outside the subject, to the Hindu scriptures, to God, or even to Gravitation? Would that not be very, very interesting?" FAPP is an acronym (meaning: For All Practical Purposes), made up by Bohm, out of his frustration with modern physicists who are willing to accept the apparent paradoxes and contradictions in quantum theory, primarily because the theory is practical -- able to make excellent predictions of experimental results. One conclusion, I reach, is that it might be much better to spend time in study of stochastic electro-dynamics (SED) rather than QED. SED appears to provide equally accurate predictions, and also provides much more in the way of a phenomenological explanation, and a link to the macroscopic world -- via the random energy originally know as zitterbewegung, and now more commonly known as the zero point field of the aether. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 19:41:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA25214; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:27:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:27:40 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:29:20 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Lift Resent-Message-ID: <"DzONq3.0.u96.h6I2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4267 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 11:20 PM 2/13/97 -1000, you wrote: >>Evan Soule wrote: >> >>> If I correctly understand your ascii drawing above, then the coils >>> Joseph Newman uses are vertical -- not horizontal. >> >>Aha. Thanks for the drawing. I needed that, as much as I tried to >>visualize it from the descriptions. >> >>Evan, in response to the switching on and off of the current when the >>balloon is in the air, does the balloon immediately reverse its vertical >>trend? I'd think any quick reversals would eliminate the possibility of >>heating being responsible for its motions if it does work that way. >> >>- Rick Monteverde >>Honolulu, HI >> >> > >Quick was not a word we would use to describe its motion. It lazily >gradually changed orientations. I don't recall on down manuevers. >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm Dear Rick, At the Mensa Convention demonstration (pictured on the available gif which features the front page of the Mobile Press Register newspaper) when the voltage was applied, the ELD would immediately began to rise. And when the voltage was removed, the ELD would immediately began to fall. Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 20:29:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA02628; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:17:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:17:30 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:09:22 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons In-Reply-To: <19970217135722.AAA25255 LOCALNAME> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"qsQ6Q.0.ne.OrI2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4268 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Fredrick, > > If you invoke the Larmor equation; E = 0.66*q^2*a^2/[4(pi)eo*c^3] for the > radiated cyclotron energy (non relativistic) for an accelerated charge, ie., > an electron gyrating in the vicinity of, say, a proton, and this radiated > energy comes off as a photon of energy hf as the electron loses kinetic > energy, I see no reason to invoke all of that uncertainty about a simple > mechanism. Then you're left with the problem of how well you know the electron's acceleration or it's change in kinetic energy. To that you gotta measure the electrons trajectory in some way.... you can't win! Back to the more general point. A photon is euphermal thing. Measure something about it and the photon is gone. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 21:40:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA24993; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:29:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:29:54 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:29:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970218002910_-1441490071 emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: No missing (redshift) or gained energ Resent-Message-ID: <"jqtvU3.0.R66.FvJ2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4269 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just download my book on a disk from my web page. Don't worry about the 10 bucks I'm trying to charge..I have to make an effort to run a business to write off loses on my taxes. Requires MS windows..I hope you have windows. Or you can contact Jene Mallove at 6 bucks a back issue its not much.. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 17 21:56:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA03384; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:45:40 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:45:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970218004501_-1340938100 emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: neutronium Resent-Message-ID: <"Eqi9D3.0.oq.38K2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4270 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Why is it that two neutrons do not stick together.? They are bound by the same strong force that holds protons and neutrons together. Without the repulsive electrostatic force I would expect that they would really bond strongly. Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 00:11:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA03455 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:11:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:11:48 -0800 X-Envelope-From: gwatson microtronics.com.au Tue Feb 18 00:11:42 1997 Received: from orca.microtronics.com.au (root orca.microtronics.com.au [203.30.55.1]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03384; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:11:36 -0800 Received: from e2a116.enternet.com.au (ppp0b.microtronics.com.au [203.30.55.101]) by orca.microtronics.com.au (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA13215; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:41:18 +1030 (CST) Message-ID: <330962B6.B33 microtronics.com.au> Old-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:35:10 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, newman-l@emachine.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: New email address Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: HI All, I have changed my internet mail server and will soon be setting up a web page. Please alter your address books to : gwatson microtronics.com.au Thanks in advance. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson microtronics.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 02:23:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15935; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 02:13:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 02:13:41 -0800 Message-ID: <33097F4F.23B4 microtronics.com.au> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:37:11 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hschulze collison.com.au, vortex-l@eskimo.com, newman-l@emachine.com, freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: New mail address Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BPf6H2.0.su3.K3O2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4271 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: HI All, I have changed my internet mail server and will soon be setting up a web page. Please alter your address books to : gwatson microtronics.com.au Thanks in advance. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson microtronics.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 03:55:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA26339; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:32:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:32:20 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:32:19 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330a91fd.35769794 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970217061812_100433.1541_BHG58-3 CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <970217061812_100433.1541_BHG58-3 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0XPE2.0.NR6.2DP2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4272 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 17 Feb 97 01:18:13 EST, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] > > So how can a particle, which acts like the briefest pulse > > imaginable, NOT have a huge spread of frequencies? How can it > > instead have a single frequency, as if it was an endlessly long > > wavetrain? Wrap it around in a circle so that it bites its own tail, and it will go on forever. The uncertainty then is in the phase, which is totally indeterminate. > >Nice one, Bill. > >Come on everybody, there's plenty of room on the Crackpot Express! [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 04:00:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA28640; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:48:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:48:27 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:48:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Anyone know how many waves in wavetrain of photon wavepacket? Null mesg. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"NeqJ3.0.Q_6.9SP2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4273 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 04:29:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA31360; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:19:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:19:31 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:18:52 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702181218.GAA19247 dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: ICCF-6 Oral & Poster Abstracts --- #8 (6 more) 29 so far To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"ML07L2.0.sf7.HvP2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4274 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 18, 1997 (In previous post I noted 200 KJ produced by Arata. This is an average of 200 KJ per hour for 3000 hours, not 200 KJ total as it may have been implied.) ICCF-6 Oral and Poster Abstracts presented, #8 O-016 (oral presentation) SOME THOUGHTS ON THE NATURE OF THE NUCLEAR-ACTIVE REGIONS IN PALLADIUM E. Storms, ENECO, 270 Hyde Park Estates, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA The accumulated experimental knowledge about the CF effect allow a number of general conclusions to be drawn. Such conclusions need to be considered by any theoretical approach and applied to any effort to improve the scale of the effect. The following conclusions will be proposed and defended. 1. The anomalous reactions occur only in special, small, isolated regions within the host lattice. 2. The distributions of these regions is random because a combination of many local conditions is required for their creation. 3. Any theory badsed only on the properties of the host material will have limited application. 4. Any effort to improve the scale of the effect by modifyoing the gross properties of host material will produce poor success. Experimental results describing a pretest method for identifying energy-producing palladium and the location of the active sites will be described. O-019 (oral presentation) EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATION OF MASSIVE TRANSMUTATION OCCURRING IN MULTILAYER THIN-FILM MICROSPHERES AFTER ELECTROLYSIS(a) G.H. Miley, G. Narne, M.J. Williams, J.A. Patterson(b), J. Nix(b), D. Craven(b), and H. Hora(c) Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illinois, Yrbana IL 61801-2984 USA Over a dozen experiments have been carried out using multilayer thin-film microspheres, designed on the basis of "swimming electron layer" (SEL) theory(1,2) using a 1-molar lithium sulfate light water electrolyte in a flowing packed-bed electrolytic Patterson(tm) - type cell. Significant quantities of transmutation products have been obtained in all of these runs, which have lasted periods of time ranging from one to five weeks. Transmutation of the metallic coatings to new reaction products, with yields exceeding 50% of the initial maetal weight, have been obtained in some cases. Excess heat is also observed in these runs, but varies greatly, depending on the configuration. The largest yields have been obtained for Cu, Al, and Ag, although a variety of additional products are observed, using a combination of secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) analysis and neutron activation analysis (NAA). The dominant product varies depending on the specific coatings employed, with the largest yields typically coming from single-layer Pd or Ni on cross-linked polymer microspheres or from multlayer Ni-Pd-Ni-Pd-Ni microspheres. While the yields are so large as to preclude the possibility of impurity artifacts, some special runs have been carried out and a unique "clean" cell, where the only metal present, in addition to the microspheres, were the Ti, or Pt electrodes. Both heavy and light products, with atomic numbers considerably above and below that of the base metal (NI or Pd), ar observed. This can only be explained by proton-induced transmutations, followed by a fission of the heavier-mass product. The resulting process is quite unique and has been termed "filfiss". Detailed results and the reaction product analysis will be presented, along with a discussion of the "filfiss" mechanism. References 1. G.H. Miley, H. Hora, E.G.Batyrbekov, R.L. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell with Multilayer Thin-Film ?Electrodes", Fusion Tech. 26, 4T, part 2, 313-320 (1994). 2. H. Hora, J.C. Kelly, J.U. Patel, M.A. Prelas, G.H. Miley, and J.W. Thompkins, "Screening in Cold Fusion Derived from D-D Reactions", Physics Letters A. 175, 138-143 (1993). --------------------------- a. This work was partiallky supported by a grant from Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. b. Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. Dallas Tx 75240 USA c. University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia 2033 O-018 (oral presentation --- not given-- time allotted combined with O-019) DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR MULTILAYER THIN-FILM PATTERSON-TYPE MICROSPHERES(a) G.H. Miley, G. Narne, M.J. Williams, J.A. Patterson(b), J. Nix(b), D. Cravens(b), and H. Hora(c) Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illimois, Urbana, Il. 61801-2984 USA As described in a companion paper(1), multilayer thin-film electrodes employing various numbers of Ni/Pd layers and single layers of Ni or Pd on 1-mm cross linked polymer microspheres have produced intense proton-metal transmutations. These results are consistent with the earlier "swimming electron layer" (SEL) theory(2) and with prior studies of thin film flat-plate electrodes(3). Following this earlier work, the selection of thin-ffilm metal parts is based on four parameters: Maximum Fermi energy level difference, goo hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) diffusivity, good H/D 800-angostroms-thiick films of Pd/Ni and Pd/Ti, giving Fermi level differences (deltaF) of 1.5 and 1.7 respectively. These combinations were selected on the basis of ready availability of materials and ease of anufacturing, but other combinations potentiallky offer more intense reaction rates. Examples include Ce/Be, Pd/Zr, Th/Pt, and Th/Be, with deltaF = 7.4, 1.6, 2.4, and 5.5 ev.,respectively. Extensive studies of surfaces and interfaces of the multilayer films before and after use in an electrolytic cell have been carried out, using Auger electron probe and scanning electron microscopy. Results from these studies will be presented. References 1. G.H. Miley et al., "Experimental Observations of Massive Transmutations Occurring in Thin-Film Microsphers after undergoing Electrolysis" Abstreacts, ICCF-6, Hokkaido, Japan (1996). 2. H. Hora, J.C. Kelly, J.U. Patel, M.A. Prelas, G.H. Miley, and J.W. Tompkins, "Screeniung in Cold Fusion Derived from D-D reactions", Physics Letters A, 175, 138-143 (1993). 3. G.H. Miley, H.Hora, E.G. Batyrbekov, R.I. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes". Fusion Tech., 26, $T, Part 2, 313-320 (1994) ------------------------- a. This work was partially supported by a grant from Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. b. Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. Dallas, TX 75240 USA c. University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Autralia 2033 O-020 (oral presentation) ELECTROCHEMISTRY AND CALORIMETRY IN A PACKED-BED FLOW THROUGH ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL M.C.H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker and F,L, Tanzella, SRI Internatuional, Menlow Park CA USA D. Cravens, CETI, New Mexico, USA Packed bed electrochemical cells have come to recent prominance as a convenient way to provide a large area cathode (of nickel and/or palladium) in the search for "excess heat" production. In such cells, the electrolyte is constrained to flow axially, parallel to the direction of net current flow. Calorimetry can be performed by measuring the mass flow rate and temperature rise of the electrolyte in its transit through the cell. This paper focuses on aspects of eletrochemistry, electrochemical engineering and calorimetry that are peculiar to flow-through packed-bed cells. Results will be presented of measurements and calculations intended to characterize the distribution of electrochemical process: Current, potential and composition, within the heterogeneous structure of the packed bed cathode. The interpenetrating, continuous conductive elements formed by the solid phase (coating) metallic conductor and the pore filling electrolyte phase, extended in the dimension of current flow, form a systyem which can be modeled as an electrochemical transmission line. The results of such modeling can be used to predict the depth of electrochemical activity within a packed bed, and to estimate the profile of hydrogen (deuterium) activity. The presence of gas bubbles, evolved in the pores of the cathode, and convected to and through the anode, introduce interesting complications. Depolarization of the anode may occur by the oxidation of dissolved hydrogen, giving the appearance of (partial) recombination. Also, the mixed phase flow of (near) stoichiometric electrolysis gas and electrolyte, makes accurate temperature measurements more difficult. Experience gained in operating such calorimeters will be described, together with the results of modeling calculations. P-014 (poster presentation) FIELD SCREENED LONG RANGE NUCLKEAR REACTIONS Heinrich Hora, G.H. Miley(a), J.C. Kelly School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia Recent experiments on nuclear reactions in metals, such as titanium/palladium multilayer electrodes(1) with very high concentrations of hydrogen or its isotopes, have confirmed the "swimming electron layer" (SEL) model(2). It was found that SEL, created between different metals or at clean metal surfaces, screens the Maxwellian ions of the hydrogen isotopes, resulting in a reduction of their Coulomb repulsion by up to a factor 14. Similar conclusions have been reached by Ichimaru(3) for high density plasmas. This screening enables nuclear reactlions to occur at the greater distances of a few picometer, comparable with 400 eV temperature cases(2). The reactions permitted are not only for the fusion of hydrogen isotopes, but also the exothermic branches of the reactions of hydrogen isotopes with certain palladium isotopes, as shown by mass spectrometry(4). We examinie highly exothermic reactions of hydrogen at platinum interfaces (e.g. with nickel) and conclude that the reaction is favored at the interfaces (ideal: thorium-nickel) and is much less probable in the interior of the metal. The reactlions between the nuclei occur at very low momentum and may not easily result in the MeV particles or quanta because of momentum conservation. We conclude that the enormous reaction energy goes into a large number of excited (rotational or surface(5) states decayoing as emissions of soft gammas for the themalization of the nuclear energy. References 1. G>H> Miley, E.G. Batyrbekov, N. Hora, and R.L. Zich, "Electrolytic Cell with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes", Trans. Fusion Technol., 26, $T, 313-320 (1994). 2. H. Hora, J.C. Kelly, J.U. Patel, M.A. Prelas, G.H. Miley, and J.W. Tompkins, "Screening in Cold Fusion Derived D-D reactions" Phys. Letters A, 175, 138-143 (1993) 3. Setsu Ichimaru, Rev. Mod. Phys., 65, 255, (1994). 4. G.H. Miley, G.Narne, M.J. Williams, J. Patterson, J. Nix, D. Cravens, and H. Hora, "Design Considerations For Multilayer Thin-Film Patterson-Type Microspheres", Abstreacts, ICCF-6, Hokkaido, Hapan (Oct. 1996) 5. H. Hora, "Plasma Model for Surface Tensions of Nuclei and the Phase Transition to the Quark Gluon Plasma" CERN=PS/DL-Note-91/05, (August 1992); H. Hora, "New Basic Physics Derived from Laser Plasma Interaction". Laser Interaction and Related Plasma Phenomenon, G.H. Miley et al, Plenum, New York, 10, 11-21 (1992) -------------------- a. Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801-2984 USA O-022 (oral presentation) ANALYSIS OF REACTION PRODUCTS FROM A CETI CELL T.N. Claytor, M.J. Schwab and D.G. Tuggle, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 Over the pat few months we have been examining the light water CETI electroytic cold fusion cell. The cell uses a lithium sulfate (Li2SO4) electrolyte and special multilayer, Pd-Ni plated beads. During cell operation, we have taken clibrated temperature measurements on the inlet and outlet of the cell in order to determine of a particular run shows signs of heat production. If the cell appears to be active, we allow it to run for several days to a week, remove the beads, and analyze them to look for possible nuclear products. Since, the beads may have some impurities, the analysis will include X-ray florescence and high sensitivity gamma counting. Given the opportunity, these results will be compared with results from SEM and Neutron Activiation measurements takne independently at the University of Illinois. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 04:56:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA00691; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:46:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:46:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:46:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Galleolian Relativity, Kinetic energy, 1st Law. What's the fudge? We , must be missing something, this is so elementary!!! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"tpMD93.0.iA.rIQ2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4275 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, Part of a private email to another Vorty about a ball being thrown on a space ship and simple k.e. sums. This is so simple, are we missing something!!! Answerers will receive the Diana Queen of Hearts Preservation of Sanity Award (a little perfumed barf bag, I think the Americans call it). .....Message..... By the way I'm thinking about your comment on the space shuttle - is it subtle, am I missing something? Something to do with the addition of velocities and squaring as seen from a 'stationary' observer - things don't cancel... A: velocity of space craft B: velocity of ball >From space's craft point of view: Start: 1/2 m x (Vball rel. to ref. frame - Vshuttle rel. to ref. frame) = 1/2 m x (B+A - A)^2 = 1/2 m x B^2 (of course!) End: 1/2 m x (A-A)^2 = 0 Diff in k.e. = 1/2 m x B^2 as expected, and dissapated >From ref. frame Start speed of ball: 1/2 m x (A+B)^2 End speed of ball : 1/2 m x A^2 Diff in k.e. : 1/2 m x (2AB + B^2) (v. big call NASA!) There must be some rule about resolving of velocities for this situation. I don't remember it from high school. Why doesn't relativistic reciprocality apply here. Am I being dumb? It got to be some simple fudge. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 05:05:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA01634; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:56:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:56:02 -0800 Date: 18 Feb 97 07:51:15 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970218125115_100060.173_JHB110-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Mp-cJ2.0.SP.WRQ2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4276 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexians, I have just received by express Fedex a long rambling document from Meyer purporting to validate his water fuel cell process, and threatening me with jail if I don't publish the whole thing to the whole world. Among the documents is a copy of a letter to Meyer, dated Dec.14, 96, signed by Dr H A Nieper, President, The German Association of Vacuum Field Energy. I quote: "I may also attract your attention to the last two Brochores [sic] [among those enclosed] of this association, Nos. 33 and 34, in which I refer to the tested overunity effect of your technology. These will be available as copies from the A.Keith Brewer Sc. Library. ( See enclosure _) [sic] We are now preparing for the EXPO 2000 World exhibition in Hanover, June thru October, 2000. We will present there the modalities of the conversion of Vacuum Field Energy on which also your procedure is based on [sic]. You are highly welcomed to present your technology there, along with others." Dr H A Nieper, Zur Muhle 11, D-30916 Isernhagen, Germany Telefax (05 11) 31 84 17 Does any one know of the above organisation or its President, and what is its standing? Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 05:50:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA06441; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 05:35:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 05:35:38 -0800 Date: 18 Feb 97 08:23:39 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Message-ID: <970218132339_100433.1541_BHG95-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"R630V1.0.MZ1.d0R2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4277 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, > What are you listening to, down at 200 kilohertz? This is the BBC's "Radio 4" - current affairs, newsy type service. It's good, you can pick it up all over Europe. They have R4 on VHF too, but we purists prefer the 1500m transmitter. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 07:22:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA25650; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:11:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:11:08 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:11:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Whimsical questions, New Scientist on Web Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"1H0E43.0.cG6.9QS2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4278 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, If you want to look up or ask questions on a forum similar to vortex but probably with a larger readership base, try New Scientist on the Web and their back page 'The Last Word'. www.newscientist.com/ps/home.html Registration is a must but free. The code is: keep things fairly short, questions tend to restricted to 'pop science' type and don't let on you're a professional scientist/or engineer asking questions because you can't afford the consultation fees! (Be a bit shrewd, you can withold your details). Apart from that, I think the whole edition and back issues are on the server and its a pretty stonking mag. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 07:38:36 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA31214 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:38:32 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:38:32 -0800 X-Envelope-From: Bockris chemvx.chem.tamu.edu Tue Feb 18 07:38:26 1997 Received: from mail.tamu.edu (mail.tamu.edu [128.194.103.28]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA31174 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:38:24 -0800 Received: from modem-0554.rns.tamu.edu (modem-0554.rns.tamu.edu [165.91.66.105]) by mail.tamu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28638 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:38:07 -0600 (CST) Old-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:38:07 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702181538.JAA28638 mail.tamu.edu> X-Sender: bockris chemvx.tamu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_856285734==_" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Bockris chemvx.chem.tamu.edu (John O'M Bockris) X-Attachments: B:\MURRAY.DOC; X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: --=====================_856285734==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_856285734==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" February 17, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Murray FROM: John Bockris SUBJECT: Re SIMS Yes, SIMS results have to be "interpreted." Basically, atoms get knocked out of the surface but the intensity of the beam depends on the atomic mass (obviously) but also "chemical properties" (e.g., force field, e.g., valency bonds) to the surroundings. I've used SIMS mainly in surface electrochemistry since around 1984 and it does give useful information if you have an "expert" to help. I acknowledge Gene Sparrow --=====================_856285734==_-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 07:47:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA27833; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:21:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:21:03 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:22:45 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Feynman's Comments Resent-Message-ID: <"is3u62.0.oo6.TZS2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4279 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Feynman's Comments While reading my Commemorative Issue of The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, published by the Addison Wesley Publishing Company, I encountered a passage on relativistic momentum considerations by Richard Feynman that sounded so similar to what Joseph Newman said in his Energy Machine book, that I wanted to share it. Here's the operant quotation from page 10-9 of Volume I: "One of the propositions of Newton was that interactions at a distance are instantaneous. It turns out that such is not the case; in situations involving electrical forces, for instance, if an electrical charge at one location is suddenly moved, the effects on another charge, at another place, do not appear instantaneously -- there is a little delay . . . . It takes time for the influence to cross the intervening distance, which is does at 186,000 miles a second. In that tiny time the momentum of the particles is not conserved. Of course, after the second charge has felt the effect of the first one and all is quieted down, the momentum equation will check out all right, but during that small interval momentum is not conserved. We represent this by saying that during this interval there is another kind of momentum besides that of the particle, mv, and that is momentum in the electromagnetic field. If we add the field momentum to the momentum of the particle, then momentum is conserved at any moment all the time. The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy MAKES THAT FIELD VERY REAL, and so, for better understanding, the original idea that there are just the forces between particles has to be modified to the idea that the particles make a field, and a field acts on another particle, and THE FIELD ITSELF HAS SUCH FAMILIAR PROPERTIES AS ENERGY CONTENT AND MOMENTUM, JUST AS PARTICLES CAN HAVE." [Emphasis added.] >From the First Edition of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, page 20, I quote: "The FACTS above clearly indicate that the magnetic field consists of GYROSCOPIC TYPE PARTICLES which are the mechanical essence of E=mc(squared) and represent an orderly flow of kinetic energy." [Emphasis added.] Note the similarity between the Feynman and Newman descriptions of the electromagnetic field: both say the field has energy content and momentum. Feynman, however, pulls his punches by inserting the scientific qualification, "just as particles can have" while Newman says directly the field consists of particles in motion. PARTICLES in motion, by definition, have momentum, and the electromagnetic field, according to Nobel Laureate Feynman, in a stretching of the very definition of momentum, has momentum. Since no one has ever seen either an electric field nor gyroscopic particles (nor will, presumably, they EVER, since seeing requires the objects be larger than a wavelength of light, which they definitely are not), both are legitimate ways of talking about a reality that we cannot observe directly. Feynman's way of talking used the concept of field in the accepted scientific say, up until now. Here's a later quote by Feynman from the same page 10-9: "To take another example --- an electromagnetic field has waves, which we call light; it turns out that light also carries momentum with it, so when light impinges on an object it carries in a certain amount of momentum per second; this is equivalent to a force, because if the illuminated object is picking up a certain amount of momentum per second, its momentum is changing and the situation is exactly the same as if there were a force on it. Light can exert pressure by bombarding an object; this pressure is very small, but with sufficiently delicate apparatus it is measurable." If the momentum of the electromagnetic fields or particles of the sun's rays can be used, as some scientists have proposed, to build a solar sail to power future space ships throughout the solar system, perhaps the momentum of the electromagnetic fields surrounding large coils of wire can be used to provide an efficient source of electrical power throughout the same solar system without the use of fossil or radioactive fuels. This is the promise of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine and its associated theory. Robert Joseph Matherne, Physicist 217 Timberlane Road Gretna, Louisiana 70056 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 08:54:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA18543; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:41:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:41:20 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:40:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970218114031_1449001188 emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com Subject: nuclear physics class Resent-Message-ID: <"RYSWZ1.0.cX4.jkT2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4280 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This class I'm taking in nuclear is really tough. Today we went into the property of Isospin. I'm a little in over my head but somehow I managed to get an A on the first exam. We are required to perform a project using the 1 MEV proton accelerator at the university. I want to load protons into a nickel substrate and look for cold fusion effects. As far a I know no one has tried loading with a low energy accelerator. Any ideas of how to set up and what to look for? One of the problems with cold fusion is that protons tend to diffuse out of the material. I may be able to place a coating on the nickel substrate that is impermeable to low energy protons and then load it up by pushing protons right through the coating with the accelerator. Perhaps a permanently loaded substrate could be produced. Need advice. I hope the instructor buys it. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 09:12:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25947; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:59:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:59:41 -0800 Message-Id: <199702181703.JAA25854 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:01:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: nuclear physics class Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <970218114031_1449001188 emout09.mail.aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"mPI8s1.0.LL6.x_T2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4281 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sorry Frank lots of folks have used low energy proton beams on various metals looking for effects. Check out Takahashi. We did this a few years ago using a big van de Graf at Lockheed to explore our melted materials using coulomb excitation for analysis. However the more the merrier. Russ George From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 09:38:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA00459; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:19:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:19:03 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:20:20 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: nuclear physics class Resent-Message-ID: <"8Pdq61.0.Y6.3IU2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4282 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >This class I'm taking in nuclear is really tough. Today we went into the >property of Isospin. I'm a little in over my head but somehow I managed to >get an A on the first exam. We are required to perform a project using the 1 >MEV proton accelerator at the university. I want to load protons into a >nickel substrate and look for cold fusion effects. As far a I know no one >has tried loading with a low energy accelerator. Any ideas of how to set up >and what to look for? One of the problems with cold fusion is that protons > I may be able to place a coating on the >nickel substrate that is impermeable to low energy protons I think a very thin layer of Cu is sufficient to greatly retard loss of the implanted protons. >and then load it >up by pushing protons right through the coating with the accelerator. The accelerator beam probably runs only a few microamps, so you need to design a very small target volume if you want to load it before your course is over. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 11:23:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19203; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:37:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:37:24 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:36:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970218133639_206389249 emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Resent-Message-ID: <"ia8882.0.wh4.XRV2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4283 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hans Nieper is a medical doctor of some repute in the alternative medicine area, also a "free energy" enthusiast. His various symposia are quite well attended by qualified technical people (I myself have presented at some of his a few years ago). However, looking from afar he can be led astray about claims of particular devices by particular inventors, having not much firsthand acquaintance with the detailed technical/social questions. He's no doubt behind with regard to following the Meyer story. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 11:27:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23859; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:59:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:59:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3309FC34.2FED interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:00:04 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: nuclear physics class References: <970218114031_1449001188 emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Q5N3H3.0.Vq5.SmV2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4285 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > I'm a little in over my head but somehow I managed to > get an A on the first exam. Uh Oh! Frank, if you combine your wild ideas with advanced education, I think we're all in big trouble! (Just jealous of your physics class ---- Frank Stenger) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 11:56:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA21536; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:48:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:48:56 -0800 Date: 18 Feb 97 13:47:08 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: What, no duct tape? Message-ID: <970218184707_72240.1256_EHB127-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"k343b2.0.cF5.KcV2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4284 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex The Hubble Telescope insulation has been damaged, apparently from sunlight. The Shuttle astronauts have repaired it. The AP reports: "using Teflon-coated foil, wire, clips, plastic twists and parachute cord, the astronauts patched up the gaps." Good work! It sounds like what people do to insulate and to stop leaks in a cold fusion experiment. It reminds me of the scene in the movie "Apollo 13" where they jury-rig square filters to fit a round hole. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 12:53:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA14128; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:32:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:32:18 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:31:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702182031.OAA08304 dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: NEDO ICCF-6, 2 volume publication & stop posting To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: mokamoto nr.titech.ac.jp Cc: mac iae.or.jp Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"xvMij3.0.fS3.G7X2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4286 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 18, 1997 I just received via DHL delivery, a two volume paper bound set of the Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion Proceedings, October 13-18, 1996. The volumes run 709 pages total. It contains both the oral and poster presentations in its fully expanded form with full text, graphs, illustrations, equations that represented the ICCF-6 proceedings. A valuable reference publication. It also is copyrighted. With this publication, I will immediately STOP my effort in posting the ICCF-6 Oral and Poster Abstracts copies, though I did not mind. It is far better to obtain the two volume publication than be tantalized by my posts. Plus there is the copyright infringement question that can be raised, regrettable as it is to restricting the dissemination of information. I have not received any complaints so far except for a missprint. Shortly after I started to post, I requested permission, if it was required, to copy the abstracts (included in the ICCF-6 program) to a discussion forum, I have not received any response so far. Meanwhile this two volume publication was delivered. I believe this issue of information dissemination has been a sticky point with the ICCF conferences since the issue was raised, I heard, at the Hawaii (USA) ICCF conference. I wonder who raised it? The conferences have been operating under this restrictive cloud of copyright issue ever since then. And the sponsors of the conferences have operated on the side of 'save our own butts' safety rather than grappling with the issue of free flow information. It has gone as far as restricting any opportunity for public coverage of the event, written or otherwise. I would have preferred that the conference sponsors have grappled with the issue of public information dissemination rather then operate on the side of safety by sidestepping the question. In many fields of science, it is mostly public (read taxpayer) funds, not private, that is spent directly or indirectly for research. Even private research results relies on information gathered by support of public funds. So why the restriction for information dissemenation? 'Tis a puzzlement' Actually, it isn't too much a puzzlement when gold, rather than science seems to glitter on the horizon. I recommend the purchase of the volumes. However, I do not know what the cost is. Considering the participation count and the effort involved in the publication, it looks like a NEDO subsidized publication. My copy was furnished probably as a participant. You might contact the company that handled the distribution: Convention Linkage Inc. Ebisu-Five, 206 Ebisu-Nishi 2-Chome, Shibuya-Ku, Tokyo 150 Japan Tel 03-3780-7056 (no fax or e-mail given) Publication Information: Name of proceeding: Progress in New Hydrogen Energy Vol. 1 Progress in New Hydrogen Energy Vol. 2 Published by: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) The Institute of Applied Energy (IAE) Supported by: The Agency of Natural Resources and Energy of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry Edited by Makato Okamoto (Tokyo Institute of Technology) Copyright 1996, New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) and the Institute of Applied Energy (IAE). p.s. I wonder if the individual authors to the convention papers have legally released and permitted their property to be restricted and copyrighted separately in this publication? Who owns the contents, the separate authors or the copyright owners? To quote: "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanicqal, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyroight owner." -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 13:42:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA16085; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:40:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:40:14 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:42:26 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: nuclear physics class Resent-Message-ID: <"KR5nE3.0.Fx3.hEX2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4287 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >This class I'm taking in nuclear is really tough. Today we went into the >property of Isospin. I'm a little in over my head but somehow I managed to >get an A on the first exam. We are required to perform a project using the 1 >MEV proton accelerator at the university. I want to load protons into a >nickel substrate and look for cold fusion effects. As far a I know no one >has tried loading with a low energy accelerator. Any ideas of how to set up >and what to look for? One of the problems with cold fusion is that protons >tend to diffuse out of the material. I may be able to place a coating on the >nickel substrate that is impermeable to low energy protons and then load it >up by pushing protons right through the coating with the accelerator. > Perhaps a permanently loaded substrate could be produced. >Need advice. I hope the instructor buys it. > >Frank Znidarsic Frank, Ni is very interresting, but as you indicate might degass into the evacuated beam tube rapidly. Have you considered aluminum? It would extend the range of energies studied by Kamada, et al (200-400 KeV). Your implantation depth would be much greater, and thus not subject to uncertainties about surface contamination. You wouldn't have to be so careful about target preperation then either. Do you have incident MeV particle detection capabilities at various angles? Kamada used film detectors, and got 1.3 MeV alphas, 0.7 MeV protons. You might want to try various beam energies from .4 to 1 MeV. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 14:04:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA32618; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:45:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:45:57 -0800 Date: 18 Feb 97 16:42:12 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ICCF, copyrights, ICCF7 website, Tungusk Message-ID: <970218214211_72240.1256_EHB105-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"FCcPw1.0.Wz7.JCY2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4288 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Akira writes: I believe this issue of information dissemination has been a sticky point with the ICCF conferences since the issue was raised, I heard, at the Hawaii (USA) ICCF conference. I wonder who raised it? The conferences have been operating under this restrictive cloud of copyright issue ever since then. Yup. It is a darn shame too. They should put all of the papers on the Internet a week after the conference. I believe the ICCF-7 organizers, primarily ENECO, may be planning to do that. Their first conference notice says: _INTERNET INTEGRATION_ We intend to integrate e-mail and Internet technology into all ICCF-7 communication. With early financial sponsorship, we intend to set up an ICCF-7 home page to facilitate general conference information, program outlines and updates, hotel and travel savings, and to post abstracts before the conference. We have already reserved the domain name "http://www.lCCF-7.org". With early financial support, we intend to activate the website this spring. Please e-mail your Internet suggestions directly to jaeger ENECOUSA.com. The Vancouver Tourist Board website is http://travel.bc.ca/vancouver. (WWW.ICCF-7.ORG is not on-line yet.) Akira continues: And the sponsors of the conferences have operated on the side of 'save our own butts' safety rather than grappling with the issue of free flow information. It has gone as far as restricting any opportunity for public coverage of the event, written or otherwise. I do not think the restrictions have been because of fear of copyright violations. The organizers, particularly EPRI and the NHE, have been trying to avid the stigma of "science by press conference." (SBPC) The opposition has accused CF of SBPC from day one. The charge is ridiculous. It is like the Democrats accusing the Republicans of pandering to public opinion of spending lots of money on television advertisements. ALL successful science is done by press conference, special interest lobbyists in Congress, and so on. Just yesterday an international team of scientists announced the "smoking gun" evidence of a gigantic asteroid strike in the Gulf of Mexico that "ended the dinosaur age." This was a perfectly timed tie-in with a two-night ABC miniseries about an asteroid whacking into Dallas, Texas. The miniseries was atrocious: the screenplay and acting atrocious and the science appallingly stupid, but I'll bet it leads to a ten-fold increase in the asteroid hunting budget. That's not a bad outcome. It is interesting science and we do need to keep an eye on those suckers. (To find out why, read about the 1908 Tunguska explosion, which, according to Microsoft Bookshelf, created a mushroom cloud and "black rain" which caused "a scabby disease on reindeer herds." Furthermore, says Microsoft, some people "speculate that the fireball was a crippled alien space vehicle powered by atomic energy." Ha! This calls for a press conference!) SBPC is the only way to do science in the U.S. That's the cost of democracy. The taxpayers pay, so they get to call the shots and run things any way they like. When you consider the alternative -- letting the eggheads decide for themselves -- SBPC doesn't look like such a bad idea. Clemenceau said, "War is too important a matter to be left to the military." Science is too important to be left to the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 16:12:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA30512; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:48:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:48:39 -0800 Date: 18 Feb 97 18:47:00 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970218234659_100060.173_JHB110-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"hLK7O3.0.fS7.L_Z2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4290 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Remi, >> Sorry if I appear nosy, but how can he threaten you if you won't publish his work? << Its not that he wants me to publish his work as such. He wants me to publicly apologise for suggesting that his water fuel cell might not be genuine, and to circulate to all my contacts his version of events surrounding the various correspondence and discussions of his devices for the last 4 years. It seems that he is lurking on this list and is trying to frighten off any criticism of his system. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 16:15:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA30465; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:48:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:48:29 -0800 Date: 18 Feb 97 18:46:57 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970218234657_100060.173_JHB110-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Xt0PW2.0.xR7.C_Z2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4289 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, >> Hans Nieper is a medical doctor of some repute in the alternative medicine area, also a "free energy" enthusiast. His various symposia are quite well attended by qualified technical people (I myself have presented at some of his a few years ago). << Do you know whether he has any lab facilities, or whether he does any practical experimentation to verify any of the claims of new energy sources? Thanks for the background info. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 16:22:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA01617; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:04:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:04:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:04:36 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: neutronium In-Reply-To: <970218004501_-1340938100 emout19.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"d1LPy.0.AP.YEa2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4291 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > Why is it that two neutrons do not stick together.? They are bound by the > same strong force that holds protons and neutrons together. Without the > repulsive electrostatic force I would expect that they would really bond > strongly. > > Frank Z > > Ah, a lovely question Frank. I'm sure your Nuclear Physics instructor will get to it. The reason is that 2 neutrons, being identical spin half particles, have to obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. This means that the overall wavefunction of the 2 neutron system must be anti-symmetric. To do that the spins of the two neutrons must be anti-aligned. Now one of the intriguing things about the nucleon-nucleon force is that its strength spends of the relative orientation of the nucleons spin. If their spins are aligned the force between nucleons is about 2 MeV more attractive that if their anti-aligned. This difference in attraction is just enough to make the 2-neutron system unbound. (The 2-neutron system is unbound by just 70 KeV.) This is actually just as well. If the 2-neutron system was bound, stellar nucleo-synthesis would proceed many orders of magnitude more rapidly. The suns lifetime would be measured in in millions of years rather than the it's estimated 13 billion-year life span. Consequently evolution based on carbon-based lifeforms would not have much chance to progress. This is another of those beautiful examples of "fine-tuning" of the fundamental constants of nature that makes life in the Universe possible. The deuteron, made of a proton and neutron, non-identical particles, doesn't have this restriction, and so is a spin 1 (2 aligned spin half particles) system. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 17:22:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA19175; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:07:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:07:55 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: monteverde worldnet.att.net From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Seeing The Light. Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:18:13 +0000 Message-ID: <19970218031811.AAA5676 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"-X05F3.0.Eh4.e9b2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4292 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Rick, Good choice, going to att worldnet. I'm very pleased with the service. Also since my grandchildren are depending on ATT stock for their future, I felt obligated to contribute. So you don't like gravitons much either? Anything going with the capacitor these days? Keep the Faith. Best Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 17:36:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21327; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:09:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:09:49 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Polarisation of photons Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:11:11 +0000 Message-ID: <19970218151109.AAA29897 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"8SnaJ.0.2D5.QBb2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4293 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 'Allo 'Allo, Chris? At 01:23 PM 2/18/97 +0000, you wrote: >Frederick, > > > What are you listening to, down at 200 kilohertz? > >This is the BBC's "Radio 4" - current affairs, newsy type service. It's >good, you can pick it up all over Europe. They have R4 on VHF too, but >we purists prefer the 1500m transmitter. > >Chris > The AM (commercial) broadcast band starts at 550 kilohertz over here, that's why I wondered. They use around 200 kilohertz down in Carlsbad Caverns to point out to tourists carrying receivers the points of interest on their walk-through tours. The FCC is selling licenses for airspace down there somewhere for cellular use. Supposedly great coverage area for digital signals. Photons? When are those British Airmen going to get out of France, so that I can see the painting of the "Fallen Madonna With The Big Boobies"? BTW. I have the video tape of "The Mouse That Roared". Great Satire. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 17:40:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA24511; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:13:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:13:07 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: nuclear physics class Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: <19970218174456.AAA8404 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"b12iq2.0.g-5.VEb2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4294 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Frank At 04:40 PM 2/18/97 +0000, you wrote: >This class I'm taking in nuclear is really tough. Today we went into the >property of Isospin. I'm a little in over my head but somehow I managed to >get an A on the first exam. We are required to perform a project using the 1 >MEV proton accelerator at the university. I want to load protons into a >nickel substrate and look for cold fusion effects. As far a I know no one >has tried loading with a low energy accelerator. Any ideas of how to set up >and what to look for? One of the problems with cold fusion is that protons >tend to diffuse out of the material. I may be able to place a coating on the >nickel substrate that is impermeable to low energy protons and then load it >up by pushing protons right through the coating with the accelerator. > Perhaps a permanently loaded substrate could be produced. >Need advice. I hope the instructor buys it. > >Frank Znidarsic > > You might want to look at the Nickel Borides (Ni2B, Ni3B, and NiB) in the hopes that the interstitial Boron along with the hydrogen, does something of interest.The powders are available from Electronic Space Products International, ESPI 1 (800)638-2581 out of Agoura, Cal. I would look for p + 5B11 = 3 2He4 or D + 5B10 = 3 2He4 or such. Since natural boron runs about 20% B10 you have a good mix. They carry all sorts of powders, foils, and wire etc., in their catalog. Good Luck. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 20:11:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA29857; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:41:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:41:41 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:40:56 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702190340.VAA26200 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: kinetic energy confusion Resent-Message-ID: <"vxj9Z.0.RI7.pPd2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4295 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Remi, We, too, have noticed the apparent kinetic energy anomalies that appear when an observer at rest watches a ball being thrown from a moving platform. What you must take into account to resolve the apparent problem is that the act of throwing the ball from the platform changes both the platform's KE and the balls KE. If the ball is thrown forward (i.e. in the direction that the platform is moving), the platform is slowed down and the ball is accelerated. From the stationary observer's point of view, the ball gains a quantity of KE much greater than the energy expended by the thrower. That is because the ball gets BOTH the thrower's energy AND the energy lost by the platform. You can work this all out to your satisfaction in a couple of hours by writing equations for the KE of both the ball and the platform before and after the throw....from the viewpoint of a stationary observer. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 20:15:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA30521; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:45:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:45:22 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <330A7744.1CFBAE39 math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:45:08 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: neutronium References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oq8IA3.0.pS7.ITd2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4296 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin Sevior wrote: > > If the 2-neutron system was bound, stellar nucleo-synthesis > would proceed many orders of magnitude more rapidly. The > suns lifetime would be measured in in millions of years > rather than the it's estimated 13 billion-year life span. Can you clarify why this is---its not immediatly clear to me how it would alter the carbon cycle in the sun. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 20:23:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA31288; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:56:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:56:28 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Spark Phenomena Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 03:47:03 +0000 Message-ID: <19970219034701.AAA22757 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"B8xSJ1.0.Me7.ddd2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4297 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner: Another reference on spark phenomena is: L.B. Loeb and J.M. MeeK, The Mechanism of The Electric Spark, Stanford University Press, 1941. A relevant excerpt: "The time required for the breakdown of the gas in a gap is an important element. L.B. Loeb has pointed out that this time is often less than the time for an electron to traverse the gap completely. This implies that there must be some means of ionization present other than electron impact and that the velocity of popagation of this ionizing agent or mechanism must be much greater than the electron velocity. It SEEMS definitely established that this additional method must be photoionization." The velocity v of an electron at a voltage V is; v = (2Ve/m)^1/2 where e is 1.6E-19, m is 9.1E-31. At 10 kilovolts v = 5.9E7 meters/second or about 0.2c. Any of the light electrons at 10 kilovolts would have a velocity of 0.7c to .9999c or 2.0E8 to 2.99E8 meters/second which could explain the Loeb observation. Could be both? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 21:04:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA10451; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:53:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:53:27 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:52:55 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: neutronium In-Reply-To: <330A7744.1CFBAE39 math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"moNIh1.0.8Z2.6Te2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4298 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > Martin Sevior wrote: > > > > If the 2-neutron system was bound, stellar nucleo-synthesis > > would proceed many orders of magnitude more rapidly. The > > suns lifetime would be measured in in millions of years > > rather than the it's estimated 13 billion-year life span. > > Can you clarify why this is---its not immediatly clear to > me how it would alter the carbon cycle in the sun. > Sorry the connection wasn't direct at all. If neutronium existed (2 bound neutrons) then a state of 2 bound protons could also exist. (It isn't bound for exactly the same reason that 2 neutrons aren't.) Then the reaction p + p => 2(p) + gamma would go many orders of magnitude faster than p + p => d e+ nu which is the current bottleneck for nucleosynthesis in the sun. Hmmm thinking about it now it may be that a star like the sun would just find a new equilibrium at a lower pressure and/or temperature. You'd have to do a proper calculation to work it out. No time for that! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 18 23:27:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA16202; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:10:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:10:25 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Spark Phenomena Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:09:11 +0000 Message-ID: <19970219070908.AAA29086 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"tUBoF1.0.3z3.WTg2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4299 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner: Here is the equation for calculating the velocity of the proposed light electrons at the predicted rest masses of: #1, 0.511E6 ev mo = 9.1E-31 kg (5.9E7 meters/sec 10 kv) #2, 3730 ev mo = 6.64E-33 kg (2.778E8 meters/sec 10 kv) #3, 27.2 ev mo = 4.85E-35 kg (2.9977E8 meters/sec 10 kv) #4, 0.20 ev mo = 3.54E-37 kg (2.99788E8 meters/sec 10 kv) v = c{1- 1/[(eV/moc^2)+ 1]^2}^1/2 (meters/second) The relativistic mass or "Gamma Factor" mr = mo/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 gives one a good idea why even at a gamma of a 137 ie., the rest mass mo multipled by a 137 (.511 Mev) is required to get #2 up to the rest mass of the regular (#1) electron. All will "weigh" the same as #1 at 0.511 Mev. This raises the question of the light ones being all over the place in high energy particle machines and being mistaken for regular electrons. This is also a possible reason that magnetic fields used for the ballistics of the regular electrons would mask the presence of the light ones. The radius (r) of the electron going through a perpendicular magnetic field: r = mr*v/eB shows that at 5 kilovolts the relativistic mass for #2,#3, and #4 is about 9E-33 kg and they would sweep a radius of about 5 cm in a weak 3 gauss magnetic field where the #1 electron would sweep a radius of about 70 cm. This defines the makeup of a mass spectrometer type experiment to be used by a National Lab (D.O.E.) to look for these particles for me. If you see any clues in your spark experiments that would tend to support the possibility that they are showing up in your experiments, I would be glad to hear it> Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 00:05:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA24705; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:48:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:48:29 -0800 Message-ID: <330AB03B.6354 worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:48:13 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats References: <970218234659_100060.173_JHB110-2 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7UjnC3.0.x16.C1h2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4300 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman Horwood wrote: > It seems that he is lurking on this list and is trying to frighten off any > criticism of his system. He does, does he? Hmm... . . . Hey STAN, ever hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT??? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 00:19:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA29340; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:09:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:09:45 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:12:01 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"efk1K.0.MA7.7Lh2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4301 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >The velocity v of an electron at a voltage V is; v = (2Ve/m)^1/2 where e is >1.6E-19, m is 9.1E-31. At 10 kilovolts v = 5.9E7 meters/second or about 0.2c. > >Any of the light electrons at 10 kilovolts would have a velocity of 0.7c to >.9999c or 2.0E8 to 2.99E8 meters/second which could explain the Loeb >observation. > >Could be both? > >Regards, Frederick Of course the above estimates need relativistic corrections, but that is not important to your point. It seems like it should not be difficult to sense lightweight electrons, especially of known mass, due to the presence of their characteristic cyclotron frequency. Upon running the current flow resulting from about 2 usec spark discharges through a loosly coupled (8 turns primary, 6 turns secondary) ferrite core transformer, I noted the spark envelope consisted of a very fast component, probably near a GHz. The spark gap was 1.3 cm. This could have been an artifact of the ferrite core, or of current oscillations in the spark gap. I would guess at a minimum of 200 pulses (cycles) per 2 usec stroke, so thats 2x10^-6/200= 1x10^-8 sec/pulse or a pulse rate of 100 MHz. I think it looked closer to a GHz. If the oscillations are from one end of the 1.3 cm gap to the other at the speed of light they would be at 2.3x10^10 Hz. Given that they are between 1x10^8 and 1x10^9 Hz, the rate must be between 0.1 c and 0.01 c. If the oscillations were due to side to side motion, the spark had a diameter of about .1 mm, or .01 cm, so the velocity of propagation would drop by a factor of 1.3/.01 = 130, placing the velocity under 0.001 c. Another possibliity is that the oscillations are due to an electron cylcotron frequency. However, there was no appreciable magnetic field, except that from the spark itself (which was from a piezoelectric crystal - a fireplace lighter) and the earth. I have found the sparks to carry about 10^12 electrons. That's a charge of about 1.6x10^-7 coulombs. That gives current i = 1.6x10^-7 C/(2x10^-6 sec) = .08 A. At a radius of about .005 cm or 5x10^-5 m, we have B = (2x10^-7 Wb/A*m)*(i/r) = (2x10^-7 Wb/A*m)*(.08A/5x10^-5 m) = 8x10^-4 Wb/m^2 = 8 gauss. Considering the earth's magnetic field that's 8+-1 gauss. An electron would have a cyclotron frequency of 2.8 Mhz in a 1 gauss field, it would have a cyclotron frequency of 22.4 MHz in an 8 gauss field. This is off by a factor of between 5 and 50. Using your mass ratio of (9.1x10^-31)/(6.64x10-33) we have a ratio of 137, not too good, but could be. However an 7500 V electron would have a cyclotron radius of about 38 cm, so your particle would have a cyclotron radius of about .65 cm. Not enough room in the arc space (bulb inner dia. 1 to 1.5 mm) to cycle. Of course the lateral cyclotron motion would not be at anywhere near 7500 V speed, and the core field B could be much more than 8 gauss, so again, could be. Hope I got the calculations right. Just food for thought. Fast little guys to sense. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 01:27:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA08560; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:50:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:50:35 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:53:05 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"A2YQH1.0.a52.Pxh2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4303 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner: > [snip] > >This defines the makeup of a mass spectrometer type experiment to be used by >a National Lab (D.O.E.) to look for these particles for me. > >If you see any clues in your spark experiments that would tend to support >the possibility that they are showing up in your experiments, I would be >glad to hear it> > >Regards, Frederick I just sent a post before reading this. I see from your numbers mine were off, but you can get the idea. A HF component to the spark that might jive with the cyclotron freq of the light particles. Might also just be an artifact of the circuit I was using, or my $100 war surplus Vietnam era vacuum tube scope. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 05:30:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA11685; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 05:20:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 05:20:17 -0800 Message-ID: <330AFC6C.4EFD microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:43:16 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: DNMEC Flux Flow] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------177215A6E5F" Resent-Message-ID: <"De_7e.0.Rs2.Ful2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4304 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------177215A6E5F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson microtronics.com.au --------------177215A6E5F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <330AF8D0.1CFF microtronics.com.au> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:27:52 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Newman-l Subject: Re: DNMEC Flux Flow References: <97021820452910738 emachine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Newman-l wrote: > > From: Greg East > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:57:45 -0800 > Subject: Re: DNMEC Flux Flow > > Newman-l wrote: > > > > From: Greg Watson > > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:02:48 +1030 > > Subject: Re: DNMEC Flux Flow > > Organization: Greg Watson Consulting > > > > I put together the mail list to overcome the limitations imposed by the > > 40k limit of the mail list servers. You name, like others, was included > > as you had shown some earlier interest in the DNMEC effect. > > > > If anyone else wishes to be added or deleted from the DNMEC list, > > just let me know. > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Greg Watson, > > Greg Watson Consulting, > > Adelaide, South Australia, > > gwatson enternet.com.au > > Hi, > > If there is a special list for those interested in DNMEC, then I want in > on it! Done. > I have not seen any posts from either Greg Watson or Stefan > Hartmann in quite some time. Stephan has gone quite, but I still post every few days as my testing developes. > For a while there, Hartmann and Watson > were suggesting that they were on the brink of presenting a finished set > of mathematical formulas and polished theories explaining the free > energy phenomenon associated with non-linear operation of > electromagnetic /dynamic systems. Now, nobody is saying anything. > Maybe I'm just not getting the mail!! I never said I had a finished / polished set of data. What I have done is to try to provide the ideas and results as they develope. > To those people who are trying to, or are thinking about getting a > patent on a motor of their own design, consider the following; Patents > are issued on "things", not ideas. You CAN NOT patent an idea. It's > always been that way. After performing a thorough search, concentrate > on how your invention becomes an improvement over prior art (issued or > expired patents). My experience as an inventor is that you must > concentrate your efforts on stressing the uniqueness of your invention, > excluding too much all-encompassing theory. Try and concentrate on > innovative features which enhance manufacturability and > commercialization, and illustrate the benifits of what you have done. > This is what patents are all about...to give an inspired individual a > time-limited monopoly on his device so that its production can create > jobs HERE and improve OUR economy. It was not anticipated, early on, > that this would end up limiting the U.S.'s share on new technologies, > but this is happening. Just like in the Kawai patent, this patent is a > unique motor design which contains lots of iron and iron cores. It > really is nothing more than a Variable Reluctance motor with fat teeth > and a permanent magnet stuck on its rotor shaft end. It is unique in > its design however, and varies in construction from anything which Mr. > Newman has shown in his book and tapes. But as an overunity machine, > it does operate on the theories and priciples outlined by Mr. Newman. > The object of the Kawai invention was to offer an efficient > motor...that's it!!!, but which (gee whizz) shows some signs of being > able to operate as an overunity motor. You see, the patent process is > also a strategic effort. When all is said and done, the claims at the > end of the patent are the most important, and in the most part, the only > legally arguable part of the patent. Your claims are literally "read" > onto the illustrations of an existing or expired patent by the patent > examiner. Generally, if the patent examiner can read all of your claims > onto another patent's illustrations then you lose. If, however, the > examiner can't do this, and you have been able to accomplish the same > thing using fewer or unique components, then you have a good chance of > getting your patent. If it appears that you have added an improvement > to an existing patent which could enhance it's manufacturability and > utility, then this becomes a new strategy...not a dead end. I'm not > giving patent advice. I am just passing along my observations and > experience. The advice of a professional is always the best route to > take because every patent case is unique. > > It is clear to me that Mr. Newman is the originator of electromagnetic > motor theories which can be translated into machines which can operate > in overunity modes. It is clear to me that Mr. Newman has provided a > unified theory which seems to be the only theory fully explaining the > mechanics of magnetic fields as well as all manifistations of > matter/energy and their behaviors. But patents and theories do not > share common ground. There is no legal mechanism which allows for > monopolizing both, just either one or the other uniquely. Inventors get > patents and theorists get copyrights. Inventors get royalties from > manufacturing and capitalizing on their inventions while theorists get > royalties from publications and research capital to further their > research. If things go well, the research results in patentable > "things" which eventually become manufactured and capitalized upon. You > see, it's a sequence, ...IDEA...RESEARCH...PATENT...PRODUCT...each > member unique unto itself, but a critical component in the sequence. > There is no legal mechanism which covers the entire sequence in one > stroke. > > I have a friend who just received a patent on an air-core motor with no > iron in the rotor...just magnets and coils. His patent strategy was > clear...there was no mention of overunity operation in the patent > document. It's just a very efficient motor, but can be coaxed into > overunity operation if controlled to do so. I now believe that any > motor, even a field-wound motor, could be modified and coaxed into > overunity operation. In fact, I am getting ready to prove that this is > so right now. I'll keep you posted. Would be interested in details of this motor and your ideas. I would encourage you to post through the group. Our planet need a helping hand just right now. Lets keep the info flowing. > Thanks for your time. Regards, > > Greg East Hi Greg, I also don't believe in the patent process. My objective in the DNMEC posts is to use this and other mail lists to present my ideas to a intelligent and interested public. I someone gets there before me, good on them. I just hope they remember where the ideas came from and my request for 5% royality. I don't really expect the 5%, but I could be a nice suprised. I have my doubts that a motor or generator designed along extising lines could be coaxed OU. All my studies have shown that the device must be designed to coax the OU effect into life. To do that, you must understand the effect. Now we have the chicken and the egg problem. I believe I have uncovered an OU effect and have gone public in an effort to verify the effect and stimulate others to think outside of the square. I have a notebook of around 8 effects which I believe are OU. Once you understand the operational characteristics of a OU device, it makes looking for the effects easier. The coil and rod test is just one example. The DNMEC generator is the second. In my current test setup, I have been able to reduce the driving motor's power usage by 25mw while delivering 25mw into a load resistor. These figures could be off by +-50%. The output waveform is complex and motor driving frictional changes cause current to bounce around. However, I now can observe, almost everytime, a reduction in motor current as I short the output coil. The output power is low at this point because the effect only occurs in a small area outside of the gap. I am working to increase the size of the OU area and reduce frictional losses to boost the signal to noise ratio of the effect signal. In an effort to keep all posted, I have sent this to Newman, Freenrg & Vortex. Will keep all posted. By the way, the DNMEC mail group is just for distribution of Gifs. Most of the discussion is via Freenrg. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson microtronics.com.au --------------177215A6E5F-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 07:52:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04524; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:27:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:27:10 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:25:50 +0000 Message-ID: <19970219152548.AAA23844 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"99KVt2.0.a61.Dln2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4305 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace: At 08:53 AM 2/19/97 +0000, you wrote: > >I just sent a post before reading this. I see from your numbers mine were >off, but you can get the idea. A HF component to the spark that might jive >with the cyclotron freq of the light particles. Might also just be an >artifact of the circuit I was using, or my $100 war surplus Vietnam era >vacuum tube scope. Nothing wrong this those scopes. They have done a great job getting us this far. A bit of number crunching. The cyclotron frequency (f) = eB/[2(pi)*m(rel.)] (Hz). At five kv, I come up with 8.5E8 Hz at 3 gauss for the "light ones" (9E-33 kg)and 8.4E6 Hz for the regular electron 9.1E-31 kg). At 8 gauss; 2.26E9 Hz for the lights, and 2.24E7 Hz for the regulars. I guess the spark fields (channel sizes etc.)could get a bit more complicated than this, but, it seems to be a good starting point to look around from. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 09:54:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03490; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:40:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:40:01 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:39:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219123900_177379088 emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Resent-Message-ID: <"r0OTo2.0.Ps.khp2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4307 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated Norman asked (re Hans Nieper): <> He does not do any experimentation with regard to new energy sources. He just self-publishes a newsletter, arranges conferences, puts people together, etc. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:12:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA08312; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:55:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:55:53 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "Frederick J. Sparber" , Vortex-L Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:21:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"qlnlA3.0.412.Xwp2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4308 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, Horace In your discussions of the spark gap, you don't seem to be concerned about the fact that the spark really is a plasma in air, with a finite density and mean free path for things like electrons. I beleive an electron doesn't stay free very long, but quickly becomes enslaved to a gas molecule or atom, forming ions, which are much more massive, and would change your calculations a lot. Hank Scudder ---------- From: Frederick J. Sparber To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Wednesday, February 19, 1997 7:25AM Horace: At 08:53 AM 2/19/97 +0000, you wrote: > >I just sent a post before reading this. I see from your numbers mine were >off, but you can get the idea. A HF component to the spark that might jive >with the cyclotron freq of the light particles. Might also just be an >artifact of the circuit I was using, or my $100 war surplus Vietnam era >vacuum tube scope. Nothing wrong this those scopes. They have done a great job getting us this far. A bit of number crunching. The cyclotron frequency (f) = eB/[2(pi)*m(rel.)] (Hz). At five kv, I come up with 8.5E8 Hz at 3 gauss for the "light ones" (9E-33 kg)and 8.4E6 Hz for the regular electron 9.1E-31 kg). At 8 gauss; 2.26E9 Hz for the lights, and 2.24E7 Hz for the regulars. I guess the spark fields (channel sizes etc.)could get a bit more complicated than this, but, it seems to be a good starting point to look around from. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:17:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA08434; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:56:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:56:11 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702191107.ZM15705 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:07:04 -0600 In-Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> "Internet & Phone expense" (Feb 18, 11:22pm) References: <970210161634_72240.1256_EHB126-1 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet & Phone expense Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"y9bmW3.0.632.nwp2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4309 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Feb 18, 11:22pm, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The long term > solution is a "digital party line" arrangement. That is, a new class of > service like a shared TIE line; an ISDN type connection in which many > subscribers share a channel, and service degrades if they all begin > transmitting simultaneously. It would work like a LAN. You share resources, > but you only see the messages with your address. Obviously, the phone > companies must charge much more for this kind of service than they do for an > occasional voice connection. Actually, this very similar to the approach used for the two way paging technology now on the market. Instead of a continous connection, short bursts of data are exchanged untill all packets are recieved/sent. Connection times are only on demand so power consumption, network traffic, and system bottle necks are minimized. There is work towards adapting the technology for laptop modems and PCS phones for wireless connections to an ISP and/or corporate server, but I do not have details or know status. With slight modification to desktop communications software and adding a "broadcasting" modem, this setup could eliminate alot of the bandwidth/switching problems phone companies are currently getting bogged down with. There are many situations where this kind of connection would not be ideal, but for the vast majority who are just browsing various websites or accessing ISPs for email, it could be a very cost effective method to be figuratively "online". Charges for these services right now are typically by the second, or by number of characters (packets) the exchange requires. Obviously, the phone companies will always try to charge more for everything they can no matter what, so lets not give them any new ideas on how to better rake in the bucks! They are doing fine all on their own. ;^) "...the future is so bright, I gotta wear shades." -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:17:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA10766; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:03:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:03:41 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702191803.KAA00587 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Einstein on Aether To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:03:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <970217103800_-1809861717 emout06.mail.aol.com> from "FZNIDARSIC@aol.com" at Feb 17, 97 12:16:02 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_SGSQ.0.nc2.q1q2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4311 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message forwarded from Usenet. ================================================ From: Edward Green Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity; sci.physics Subject: The Aether Date: February 16, 1997 8:17 PM I just found a wonderful passage on a topic dear to my heart, and want to share it with you to the extent my typing holds out... [From _Field Theory in 19th-Century Britain_; Barbara Gusti Doran: Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Volume 6] In May 1920, fifteen years after his special theory of relativity allegedly banished forever the aether from physics, Einstein delivered a speech at the University of Leiden in which he made explicit his views on the aether . In summation, Einstein declares: "According to the general theory of relativity, space is equipped with physical qualities; an aether in this sense therefore exists. Space without aether is unthinkable with respect to the general theory of relativity..." Einstein was not merely trying to "salvage the aether concept on behalf of Lorentz" in whose honor the speech was made , but had "seized this opportunity to underscore the increasing harmony he felt between his and Lorentz' thought", and to make explicit the functions and properties of the aether that are essential to his mature conception . Without an aether, Einstein continued, "not only is there no light propagation but there is no possibility for the existence of measuring rods and clocks, hence there are also no space-time distances in the sense of physics. "To Einstein, the aether of modern physics is, first, the physical medium of electromagnetic propagation. That had been the meaning of the "aether" since Thomson and Maxwell had given that name to Faraday's medium. Einstein's attempts after 1915 and to the end of his life to construct a field theory of the material particle and to unify the electromagnetic and gravitational fields demanded as a second function of the aether its necessity for the _existence_ of measuring rods and clocks. Here we see the primordial medium of Thomson's vortex-atom and Larmor's strain-center electron: the aether is the physical, nonmaterial substance which is the source of material particles and hence all material bodies. ------------------End Quote---------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:18:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA10377; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:02:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:02:46 -0800 Message-ID: <330B404C.BAE interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:02:52 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: HELP: Re: Scott: kinetic energy ----- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ftl9v3.0.-X2.01q2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4310 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I previously wrote: > > OK, I just sent a post about the "spaceball" kinetic energy problem. > In the post I GUESSED a catch time of 0.01 seconds and I GUESSED a > catch distance of 0.1 meters relative to the shuttle. > Then I figured the shuttle moved a GROUND distance of > 7793 meters/sec x .01 sec = about 78 meters (including the 0.1 > meters on-board) > Remember, the .01 sec was a GUESSED time! I divided the 78 meters > ground-catch-distance by the GUESSED shuttle catch distance and got > 78/.1 = 780 ratio. Then using the force x distance version of energy > I concluded that the shuttle guys would see the ball catch energy as > 15,606 / 780 = 20 joules. I confirmed that the SHUTTLE-CALCULATED > ball energy would be 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 x 0.1 kg x (20 m/sec)^2 > = 20 joules! > > WHY DID MY GUESSED NUMBERS (0.1 M and 0.01 sec) WORK OUT SO WELL! > IS THIS WHAT I GET FOR BEING A SMART-ALECK? > SCOTT - I'M SORRY! I NEED HELP! FRANK STENGER I just figured out what I did - I think! Several days ago I pulled 20 meters per second out of a hat as a good baseball speed. On a different day I GUESSED that 0.1 meters was a good "catch distance" for a ball - and I also GUESSED that 0.01 second was a good "catch time" for a ball. Now, assume uniform acceleration and we can connect velocity, V, and time, t, and distance, S, by: S = 1/2 V t , if the velocity is zero at one end of the interval, t. My guessed numbers were V = 20 meters/sec and t = 0.01 seconds. This gives S = 1/2 x 20 x 0.01 = 0.1 meters! BUT, 0.1 METERS WAS MY GUESSED CATCH DISTANCE. It looks like I made THREE educated guesses at numbers and they turn out to be EXACTLY compatible! Keep in mind that I did not use the above equation UNTIL THIS POST! And I thought quantum physics was weird! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:26:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA12625; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:10:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:10:05 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:10:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Spaceballs. But what about red/blue shift? In-Reply-To: <330B2A9D.1057 interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VZ6Ak3.0.753.w7q2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4312 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank, et. al. Nifty, really nifty. Yeah I see it now. In the ship I accelerate the ball by a fixed force a certain distance then deacc. it with same counter force over same distance. Different ref. frame, so what, force(s) applied over greater/lesser distance, everything cancels. Yeah, really lateral - sod the 'analysis'! You recieve the BOp (Bachelor Opportunity) award in Diana Queen of Hearts 1/4 Year honours list. But... what about the redshift/blueshift problem and the apparently missing or gained energy? As I see it, crudely, I have a rectangle travelling through space (oriented lengthwise in direction of travel) with a certain 'energy density'. Depending on my speed, time dilation and length contraction effects, I get a lower energy density (red shift) or higher (blue shift). Energy is still conserved but apparent o-u or u-u is a relativistic effect, no? Waffle no good without sums... Apologies to Mel Brooks and 'Marm' Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:36:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17331; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:23:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:23:18 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:24:26 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"3B9n51.0.EE4.FKq2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4313 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Frederick, Horace > In your discussions of the spark gap, you don't seem >to be concerned about the fact that the spark really is a plasma >in air, with a finite density and mean free path for things like >electrons. I beleive an electron doesn't stay free very long, but >quickly becomes enslaved to a gas molecule or atom, forming >ions, which are much more massive, and would change your >calculations a lot. > >Hank Scudder Yes, the big effect slowing the electrons is collisions with all those air (nitrogen and oxygen) molecules. Electrons do not accelerate ballistically in the electric field in atmospheric pressure air for very far before they collide with something. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:53:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA22223; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:38:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:38:44 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:37:32 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702191837.MAA25573 dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: On the failed U.S. Yusmar tests, some questions. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: little eden.com Cc: 100433.1541 compuserve.com Cc: 72240.1256 compuserve.com Cc: 76570.2270 compuserve.com Cc: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Cc: jaeger ENECO-USA.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"D5Q8a1.0.7R5.mYq2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4315 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: February 19, 1997 To the Yusmar experimenters, In the recently published two volume 'Progress in New Hydrogen Energy', the ICCF-6 proeedings, there contained expanded details of the oral and poster presentations beyond the Abstracts the participants received. Poster P-057 contained tests with a Yusmar pump for "Tritium, Neutron, and radiocarbon registration" In the expanded text, there is a description of the test setup and a closed loop Yusmar pump diagram similar to the excess heat experiment setups used used in the U.S.. In this case, they were looking for nuclear changes so there were no elaborate calorimetric instrumentation along with fluid tank reservors. However, there is a description in the vortex unit which I have not noticed before. Maybe I just missed it. Let me quote part of page 388 (this is permitted under copyright convention I understand): "2. Yusmar hydrofacility --- The pump capacity is 12 m^3/hour, the motor power is 7.5 kW, the working fluid is 10 l.. Fluid control devices placed inside the tubes in the upper part of the facility make the fluid rotate. A cavitation-inducing insert is also mounted inside the tubing. The maximum admissable pressure is 10 amt. The hydrofacility is equipped with heat sensors (1-4, fig.1), a pressure gauge that supplies its data to recorders, and valves at the facility top and bottom for varying the working fluid composition and for sampling water and solutions." My questions on the Yusmars used in the U.S. are: Were the parts described in the Yusmar vortex unit here also present (rotators & cavitators) in the U.S. units? Or are these parts peculiar to this test described. I think they are part of the Yusmar units and if missing in the U.S. units, what happenned? Maybe I am making a big thing out of nothing. If so, my apologies for cluttering cyberspace. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 10:55:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19535; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:30:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:30:11 -0800 Message-ID: <330B3544.4410 interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:15:48 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: HELP: Re: Scott: kinetic energy confusion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cLd3i.0.2n4.nQq2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4314 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: OK, I just sent a post about the "spaceball" kinetic energy problem. In the post I GUESSED a catch time of 0.01 seconds and I GUESSED a catch distance of 0.1 meters relative to the shuttle. Then I figured the shuttle moved a GROUND distance of 7793 meters/sec x .01 sec = about 78 meters (including the 0.1 meters on-board) Remember, the .01 sec was a GUESSED time! I divided the 78 meters ground-catch-distance by the GUESSED shuttle catch distance and got 78/.1 = 780 ratio. Then using the force x distance version of energy I concluded that the shuttle guys would see the ball catch energy as 15,606 / 780 = 20 joules. I confirmed that the SHUTTLE-CALCULATED ball energy would be 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 x 0.1 kg x (20 m/sec)^2 = 20 joules! WHY DID MY GUESSED NUMBERS (0.1 M and 0.01 sec) WORK OUT SO WELL! IS THIS WHAT I GET FOR BEING A SMART-ALECK? SCOTT - I'M SORRY! I NEED HELP! FRANK STENGER From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 11:43:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA30777; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:09:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:09:37 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:05 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"PzL9V.0.nW7.m_q2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4317 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >A bit of number crunching. The cyclotron frequency (f) = eB/[2(pi)*m(rel.)] >(Hz). > >At five kv, I come up with 8.5E8 Hz at 3 gauss for the "light ones" >(9E-33 kg)and 8.4E6 Hz for the regular electron 9.1E-31 kg). At 8 gauss; > 2.26E9 Hz for the lights, and 2.24E7 Hz for the regulars. > >I guess the spark fields (channel sizes etc.)could get a bit more >complicated than this, but, it seems to be a good starting point to look >around from. > >Regards, Frederick There is potential for frequency overlap, not knowing for sure energies and field strength. With field strength varying about the central channel I would expect a highly spread frequency distribution. The signal, though at the threshold of the observable on my scope, seemed fairly uniform. Maybe the light particles would couple motion to some extent? It seems like the circuit might be the source of the oscillation. There might also be values wrong as well due to my mixing data from different experiments to come up with estimates for values not measured, like current and threshold voltage. Here is an actual experiment where the HF spark component was seen: ------------------------------------------------ | D1 | | ------|>|------B1---------- | | C | | | ----| |---------| |----- | | ------|<|------B2--- --- D2 | | \/\/\/ primary (L1) ====== T1 /\/\/\ secondary (L2) | | G O Bi - xenon flash bulbs used for spark gaps, 1.3 cm length C - Piezo Crystal (having capacitance C) Di - 35 Kv PIV diodes G - Ground O - Oscilloscope probe T1 - ferrite core transformer, 8 windings primary (L1), 6 secondary (L2), 30 KV insulation Some values: Capacitance: Bi - below 1 nF C - 0.30 nF (variable depending on position of leads) Di - below 1 nF T1 - Between primary and secondary: 0.058 nF Inductance: L1 - 0.029 mH L2 - 0.019 mH I think I still have a 7mm video tape of this experiment, including scope. Spark duration about 2 usec, about 8 usec apart. The discharge timing pattern was only slightly variable, as some strokes would be missing on occasion and separation varied maybe 10-20 percent, but a fairly similar discharge pattern for all piezo strikes. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 11:45:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA29799; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:06:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:06:06 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702191301.ZM16201 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:01:39 -0600 In-Reply-To: Norman Horwood <100060.173 CompuServe.COM> "Re: Stanley Meyer Threats" (Feb 18, 5:46pm) References: <970218234659_100060.173_JHB110-2 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"uLQVr3.0.WH7.Ryq2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4316 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Feb 18, 5:46pm, Norman Horwood wrote: > >> Sorry if I appear nosy, but how can he threaten you if you won't publish > his work? << > > Its not that he wants me to publish his work as such. He wants me to publicly > apologise for suggesting that his water fuel cell might not be genuine, and to > circulate to all my contacts his version of events surrounding the various > correspondence and discussions of his devices for the last 4 years. > > It seems that he is lurking on this list and is trying to frighten off any > criticism of his system. Norman- Truth can hurt, but it does not make it lible. I wouldn't sweat it. Sticks and stones and all. Look on the bright side, he didn't send it COD. Sounds like he wants you to be his Director of Information. What an oportunity! How much are you going to charge him? he he he. (Sorry Evan, just couldn't help myself!) By the way, how do you lurk on an email discussion exploder? -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 11:48:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA32630; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:16:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:16:33 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:12:20 +0000 Message-ID: <19970219191218.AAA18961 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"izW9R2.0.ez7.D6r2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4318 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:24 PM 2/19/97 +0000,Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >>Frederick, Horace >> In your discussions of the spark gap, you don't seem >>to be concerned about the fact that the spark really is a plasma >>in air, with a finite density and mean free path for things like >>electrons. I beleive an electron doesn't stay free very long, but >>quickly becomes enslaved to a gas molecule or atom, forming >>ions, which are much more massive, and would change your >>calculations a lot. >> >>Hank Scudder > >Yes, the big effect slowing the electrons is collisions with all those air >(nitrogen and oxygen) molecules. Electrons do not accelerate ballistically >in the electric field in atmospheric pressure air for very far before they >collide with something. Who said anything about air sparks at atmospheric presure? We were discussing zenon or He-neon discharges at low pressure, ie., 4 Torr or less. Best get your facts together before shooting from the hip. FJS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 12:17:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA03204; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:48 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:29:17 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"T5iQv3.0.zn.tFr2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4319 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Frederick, Horace > > In your discussions of the spark gap, you don't seem >to be concerned about the fact that the spark really is a plasma >in air, with a finite density and mean free path for things like >electrons. I beleive an electron doesn't stay free very long, but >quickly becomes enslaved to a gas molecule or atom, forming >ions, which are much more massive, and would change your >calculations a lot. > >Hank Scudder > ---------- The sparks are in xenon at about 770 Torr (between 380 and 1150 Torr). You still have a point, but I am curious as to where the oscillation comes from. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 12:22:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA09034; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:50:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:50:54 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:53:20 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"h4v6i3.0.4D2.Scr2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4321 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>Frederick, Horace >> In your discussions of the spark gap, you don't seem >>to be concerned about the fact that the spark really is a plasma >>in air, with a finite density and mean free path for things like >>electrons. I beleive an electron doesn't stay free very long, but >>quickly becomes enslaved to a gas molecule or atom, forming >>ions, which are much more massive, and would change your >>calculations a lot. >> >>Hank Scudder > >Yes, the big effect slowing the electrons is collisions with all those air >(nitrogen and oxygen) molecules. Electrons do not accelerate ballistically >in the electric field in atmospheric pressure air for very far before they >collide with something. > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 Yes, electrons collide and terminate free motion, but what of these new hypothesized particles? The antiparticles should not annihilate upon meeting an electron because of the mass mismatch, so orbital formation is a possibility to consider. So what happens if an electron captures a light electron. Does it radiate away it's energy, or form an atom? I assume the Pauli exclusion principle applies here as well as to electons, so a stable orbital is a possibility. Call it light electronium? Could light positrons (denote l) form an e-/l+ soup, a new kind of liqiid plasma like matter? Such would not be far from an EV, condensed charge, except net charge zero. Would such a clump have pairs in an aggregation separated by a minimum distance by Pauli exclusion? What of l-,l- (or l+,l+) pair formation and superconductivty? Suppose the l+ can bind to electrons leaving the l- free to roam about for a while, thus forming a superconductor. What of spectral results from the light electronium? Seems like the little critters would put out x-rays. Could produce a new high energy spectrum altogether - could this be related to the Tampere beam? So much new to consider! Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 12:23:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA12035; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:05:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:05:42 -0800 Message-ID: <330B5CEC.1F6B worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:05:00 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats References: <970218234659_100060.173_JHB110-2 CompuServe.COM> <9702191301.ZM16201@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"E33kx.0.vx2.Lqr2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4322 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John E. Steck wrote: > By the way, how do you lurk on an email discussion exploder? People who are not members of the list can log onto Bill's web site and download archives of these discussions, for one. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 12:28:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13891; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:15:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:15:26 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:15:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702192015.OAA17626 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: On the failed U.S. Yusmar tests, some questions. Resent-Message-ID: <"a1NXN1.0.vO3.Szr2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4324 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:37 2/19/97 -0600, Aki wrote: >"2. Yusmar hydrofacility >Fluid control devices placed inside the tubes >in the upper part of the facility make the fluid rotate. A >cavitation-inducing insert is also mounted inside the tubing. I can imagine that something is being distorted in the xlation from Russian to English here. The entrance chamber to the Yusmar device is shaped so as to make the water rotate....but there are no moving parts. There is an axially oriented vane located inside the long cavitation tube near its outlet. It would have the effect of spoiling the rotation of the water before it exits the Yusmar but it would also create additional cavitation right there.... Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 12:34:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA07908; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:46:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:46:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "Frederick J. Sparber" , Vortex-L Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:42:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Khd2X1.0.Rx1.KYr2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4320 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick No shooting, just trying to help. What is the mean-free-path you are working with? What is the cross-section sigma for an electron? Hank ---------- From: Frederick J. Sparber To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Wednesday, February 19, 1997 11:12AM At 06:24 PM 2/19/97 +0000,Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >>Frederick, Horace >> In your discussions of the spark gap, you don't seem >>to be concerned about the fact that the spark really is a plasma >>in air, with a finite density and mean free path for things like >>electrons. I beleive an electron doesn't stay free very long, but >>quickly becomes enslaved to a gas molecule or atom, forming >>ions, which are much more massive, and would change your >>calculations a lot. >> >>Hank Scudder > >Yes, the big effect slowing the electrons is collisions with all those air >(nitrogen and oxygen) molecules. Electrons do not accelerate ballistically >in the electric field in atmospheric pressure air for very far before they >collide with something. Who said anything about air sparks at atmospheric presure? We were discussing zenon or He-neon discharges at low pressure, ie., 4 Torr or less. Best get your facts together before shooting from the hip. FJS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 12:51:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13088; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:15 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:13:41 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"gPoGD.0.NC3.Xvr2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4323 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 06:24 PM 2/19/97 +0000,Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >>> >>>Hank Scudder >> >>Yes, the big effect slowing the electrons is collisions with all those air >>(nitrogen and oxygen) molecules. Electrons do not accelerate ballistically >>in the electric field in atmospheric pressure air for very far before they >>collide with something. > >Who said anything about air sparks at atmospheric presure? We were >discussing zenon or He-neon discharges at low pressure, ie., 4 Torr or less. >Best get your facts together before shooting from the hip. > >FJS My apologies. This discussion sprang out of a private exchange involving personal stuff like birthdays, so all the info hasn't been posted. However, the full data on a subject experiment has now been posted, so that problem is rectified. About the bulb pressure, that is my calculation based on a mfr's catalog which states that 5000 Message-Id: <199702192042.PAA09905 spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l eskimo.com In-reply-to: (hheffner@corecom.net) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"3bixd1.0.xz4.sMs2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4326 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hank Scudder said: > In your discussions of the spark gap, you don't seem >to be concerned about the fact that the spark really is a plasma >in air, with a finite density and mean free path for things like >electrons. I beleive an electron doesn't stay free very long, but >quickly becomes enslaved to a gas molecule or atom, forming >ions, which are much more massive, and would change your >calculations a lot. Not the issue. If you have a spark gap and sparks jumping it, then the probability that an electron will knock another electron loose is greater than the probability that it will be captured. If you don't meet this "avalanche" condition, you will get a coronal discharge but no spark. Now for the hard part. You have to figure the mean lifetime of a free electron, and how far it will travel in that time, given it started at rest and was scattered by other atoms. But and this is what makes for the observed anomaly, occaisionally a captured electron will emit a photon in the direction of travel. This capture radiation can knock an electron loose after travelling some distance at the speed of light. Now go watch a thunderstorm--but use a really high speed camera. You will find that there is no such thing as a bolt from A to B. Instead there are hundreds of small avalanches that merge together to form a path. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 13:39:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA18099; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:31:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:31:48 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:34:00 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"DJ_jO2.0.eQ4.kCs2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4325 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Just had an idea. If, I can find all the parts I can reproduce the experiment and then put a magnet near B2. If the oscillation stays, it is not cyclotronic. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 13:51:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA30565; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:31:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:31:41 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:33:03 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"viWLf.0.UT7.w4t2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4329 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Heffner's circuit: > > ------------------------------------------------ > | D1 | > | ------|>|------B1---------- | > | C | | | > ----| |---------| |----- > | | > ------|<|------B2--- --- > D2 | | > \/\/\/ primary (L1) > ====== T1 > /\/\/\ secondary (L2) > | | > G O > >Bi - xenon flash bulbs used for spark gaps, 1.3 cm length >C - Piezo Crystal (having capacitance C) >Di - 35 Kv PIV diodes >G - Ground >O - Oscilloscope probe >T1 - ferrite core transformer, 8 windings primary (L1), > 6 secondary (L2), 30 KV insulation > >Some values: > >Capacitance: > > Bi - below 1 nF > C - 0.30 nF (variable depending on position of leads) > Di - below 1 nF > T1 - Between primary and secondary: 0.058 nF > >Inductance: > > L1 - 0.029 mH > L2 - 0.019 mH I think you made a spark gap oscillator. The transformer inductance, the stray capacitances,..... Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 13:52:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA26097; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:12:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:12:40 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:15:01 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"lxw2t2.0.gN6.5ps2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4327 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Suppose l+ can bind to e-. This forms a neutral particle that, provided it is sufficiently bound, can slowly enter and linger in the nucleus. The lingering time increases the potential for a weak interation. If l+ exist, and are made in sufficient number, there is a potential explanation for cold fusion and transmutation by electron capture. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 13:53:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA29294; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:24:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:24:37 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:26:04 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: On the failed U.S. Yusmar tests, some questions. Resent-Message-ID: <"D_3OM1.0.Y97.J-s2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4328 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Akira Kawasaki quotes re Yusmar: > Fluid control devices placed inside the tubes >in the upper part of the facility make the fluid rotate. A >cavitation-inducing insert is also mounted inside the tubing. The >maximum admissable pressure is 10 amt. I just received my ICCF6 proceedings. From the figure, the 'device in the upper part of the facility to make the fluid rotate' appears to be the familiar tangental inlet chamber. The 'cavitation-inducing insert' appears to be two plates or vanes joined at right angles to one another, spanning the inner diameter of the vortex tube. It is about 70% distance downstream of the inlet chamber, or about 30% upstream of the recirculation tube outlet point. Of course, the sketch might not be at all to scale... Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 14:24:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05739; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:06:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:06:14 -0800 Date: 19 Feb 97 17:03:39 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970219220339_100060.173_JHB116-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"hFdHn.0.OP1.Jbt2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4332 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, >> He does not do any experimentation with regard to new energy sources. He just self-publishes a newsletter, arranges conferences, puts people together, etc. Hal Puthoff << Thanks for that info. I've written to him asking whether he has personally witnessed any tests on the Meyer cell which validate Meyer's claims. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 14:36:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05714; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:06:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:06:14 -0800 Date: 19 Feb 97 17:03:44 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970219220343_100060.173_JHB116-4 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ODkRn1.0.BP1.Hbt2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4331 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark, >> how someone could be involved in patent infringement for offering to do something someone DOES NOT HAVE A PATENT ON... is beyond me. Anyway, << Not only that, but the reverse might be true - your friends might be able to block CETI's application by quoting prior art if they have been doing similar things for a few years. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 14:45:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA10793; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:26:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:26:26 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:22:39 +0000 Message-ID: <19970219222237.AAA26576 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"pgy5K.0.Ye2.Gut2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4333 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:42 PM 2/19/97 +0000, Hank wrote: >Frederick > No shooting, just trying to help. What is the mean-free-path >you are working with? What is the cross-section sigma for an electron? Feel free to do so. Only gimme a chance to find a rock to get behind first. The mean free path for the regular electron is: 1/(pi)N sigma^2 where N is 2.29E19 * PT/PoT molecules/cm^3. I show an electron M.F.P: of about 80 cm for hydroge and neon at 10^-3 Torr and naturally about 0.08 cm at one Torr. What would the M.F.P. be for a light electron with a mass of 9.1E-31/137^2 kg and a radius of 137^2 * 2.81E-15 meters be, especially if it can get up to something like 0.67c at 27.2 ev kinetic energy? I don't have access to any literature that treats that,yet. Rgeards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 15:22:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05639; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:06:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:06:01 -0800 Date: 19 Feb 97 17:03:42 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970219220341_100060.173_JHB116-3 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"e2H3T1.0.zN1.7bt2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4330 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, >> Sounds like he wants you to be his Director of Information. << Hardly! He already has a team of PR assistants who he uses to chat up potential customers, and his "International News Release" is a polished publication full of quotes by everyone who has ever even suggested that his theory might have some basis in science. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 16:21:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA20920; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:40:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:40:18 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702191732.ZM17471 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:32:10 -0600 In-Reply-To: Norman Horwood <100060.173 CompuServe.COM> "Re: Stanley Meyer Threats" (Feb 19, 4:04pm) References: <970219220341_100060.173_JHB116-3 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"GS23i1.0.l65.Vzu2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4335 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Feb 19, 4:04pm, Norman Horwood wrote: > >> Sounds like he wants you to be his Director of Information. << > > Hardly! He already has a team of PR assistants who he uses to chat up potential > customers, and his "International News Release" is a polished publication full > of quotes by everyone who has ever even suggested that his theory might have > some basis in science. A joke Norman. Maybe a bad one, but just a joke. There is never just one flea. Don't let them get to you. -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 16:23:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA17990; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:07:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:07:41 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: <19970219230301.AAA16871 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"Bknny1.0.xO4.wUu2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4334 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:03 PM 2/19/97 +0000, Norman wrote: >Mark, > >>> how >someone could be involved in patent infringement for offering to do >something someone DOES NOT HAVE A PATENT ON... is beyond me. Anyway, << > >Not only that, but the reverse might be true - your friends might be able to >block CETI's application by quoting prior art if they have been doing similar >things for a few years. > >Norman > I can't get over the incredible patent search engine at; www.uspto.gov. I did a keyword-boolean search in a few minutes that would've cost a Kings Ransom if done by a searcher or patent attorney. Even plugged in my name and found that I had about 26 patents referenced to half dozen or so patents that I had issued since 1962. The database goes back to 1976, some 2 million patents with abstacts.High Priced Patent Attorneys, Beware! Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 18:34:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22433; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:44:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:44:42 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970120090159.009a7a90 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:44:05 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Y8msY1.0.OU5.3ow2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4336 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:47 PM 2/18/97 EST, you wrote: >Remi, > >>> Sorry if I appear nosy, but how can he threaten you if you won't publish >his work? << > >Its not that he wants me to publish his work as such. He wants me to publicly >apologise for suggesting that his water fuel cell might not be genuine, and to >circulate to all my contacts his version of events surrounding the various >correspondence and discussions of his devices for the last 4 years. > >It seems that he is lurking on this list and is trying to frighten off any >criticism of his system. > >Norman > > I hope his bs is not worrying you. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 19:45:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA20018; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:24:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:24:31 -0800 Message-ID: <330CCE1C.3D40 triode.net.au> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:20:12 -0800 From: Maxwell X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oxytherapy List , Rife List , Free Energy List , Vortex List , Hypoglycemia List , Australian Racing List Subject: Alternative Cancer Treatment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6RO083.0.Uu4.hFy2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4337 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: originally posted by newman-l emachine.com (Newman-l) ***PLEASE POST ON OTHER LISTS*** -------------------------------- The following information came from a news report on the radio today: An alternative cancer treatment, Hydrazine Sulphate (rocket fuel), is being used with success in the U.K. The host reported that the U.S. group "People Against Cancer" can provide more information on the subject. Their number is (515)-972-4444 9-5 Central USA time, M-F ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY MAXWELL. ------------------------------------------ Hydrazine is an anti-cachexia agent. Cachexia is the term used for weight loss and debilitation often associated with cancer. In terminal patients it is usually cachexia that causes death, not the cancer itself. Cancer uses glucose as its fuel but only partly combusts it. The waste product, lactic acid, spills into the blood and is taken up by the liver and kidneys. The body expends much energy reconverting the lactic acid back into glucose which is fed back in an ever-increasing amount to the tumour again - the normal energy reserves become depleted. Eventually the body reaches a point where it can no longer keep up with the constant demand for energy and rapid weight-loss and debilitation begins to occur. Hydrazine sulphate blocks a key enzyme in the liver that allows lactic acid to be converted into glucose thus interrupting the cachexia cycle. It is cheap, readily available, and relatively non-toxic if taken in the correct dose (60 mg/day). It is virtually impossible to stop anyone from taking it. One years supply would cost about $20-50. Many experienced DRAMATIC REMISSIONS on hydrazine - many have treated themselves in the past. Hydrazine can be used in onjunction with other anticancer agents - it appears to make cancer more vulnerable to cellular poisons. Dr Joseph Gold, the discoverer of hydrazine's anti-cachexic action, stated that alcohol, tranquillisers, and barbiturates should be avoided as they inhibit the action of the drug. Results of a joint USSR-USA research program into Hydrazine concluded at a large Soviet Cancer Centre (1975): * Hydrazine stops growth of animal cancers: 97.4% inhibition of Walker carcinosarcoma in rats. Other types of cancers showed a moderate response. * Hydrazine works by stopping gluconeogenesis: It destroys tumours without directly poisoning cancer cells by some indirect means. * Hydrazine is relatively non-toxic: No damage to liver - Little weight loss - No damage to blood-making cell in humans - some patients experience weakness and nausea. * Hydrazine controls cancerous growths in humans: 48 Russian patients were given hydrazine as a last resort - surgery, radiation, chemotherapy did not work - they were doomed to die. Of the 48 terminal patients: * 35% of patients experienced objective anti-cancer effects: * 20% of tumour regressed plus * 15% of cancers stopped growing. * 58% of the patients experienced subjective anti-cancer effects: * Complete disappearance or marked reduction of bone pain - increased appetite. * Got out of bed * Experienced a general well-being. -------------- More information about Hydrazine can be obtained from: Cancer Information Support Society, 39 Atchison street, St Leonards, NSW 2065. Phone: Australia (02) 9906 2189. http://triode.net.au/~max/ciss.html The syracuse Cancer Research Institute, Inc., President Plaza, 600 East Genesee St., Syracuse, NY 13202 USA. ph (Aus 0011-1) 315- 472-6616. Penthouse magazine, April 1993, July 1994 (US Edition). -END- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 19:57:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA25959; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:40:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:40:55 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970220034504.008c8ce0 mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:45:04 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Einstein on Aether Resent-Message-ID: <"eI9rY.0.RL6.4Vy2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4338 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:03 AM 2/19/97 -0800, you wrote: >Message forwarded from Usenet. >================================================ > >From: Edward Green >Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity; sci.physics >Subject: The Aether >Date: February 16, 1997 8:17 PM >Relativitaetstheorie_ (Berlin 1920)>. In summation, Einstein declares: >"According to the general theory of relativity, space is equipped >with physical qualities; an aether in this sense therefore exists. >Space without aether is unthinkable with respect to the general theory >of relativity..." Man that is a keeper. In a rough analogy, it would be something like an ability to detect and quantify waves on the ocean, but not be able to see or detect molecules of water with current instruments. The only problem with that is that analogy is the particle element to it, whereas with ether, beneath the particle level presumably, have to ponder what "stuff" it is made of. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 22:16:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA24359; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:04:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:04:39 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:25:41 +0000 Message-ID: <19970220012539.AAA29771 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"1qQgl3.0.fx5.pb-2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4339 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace: At 07:53 PM 2/19/97 +0000, you wrote: > > >Yes, electrons collide and terminate free motion, but what of these new >hypothesized particles? The antiparticles should not annihilate upon >meeting an electron because of the mass mismatch, so orbital formation is a >possibility to consider. So what happens if an electron captures a light >electron. Does it radiate away it's energy, or form an atom? I assume the >Pauli exclusion principle applies here as well as to electons, so a stable >orbital is a possibility. Call it light electronium? > >Could light positrons (denote l) form an e-/l+ soup, a new kind of liqiid >plasma like matter? Such would not be far from an EV, condensed charge, >except net charge zero. Would such a clump have pairs in an aggregation >separated by a minimum distance by Pauli exclusion? What of l-,l- (or >l+,l+) pair formation and superconductivty? Suppose the l+ can bind to >electrons leaving the l- free to roam about for a while, thus forming a >superconductor. What of spectral results from the light electronium? >Seems like the little critters would put out x-rays. Could produce a new >high energy spectrum altogether - could this be related to the Tampere >beam? So much new to consider! > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Nice going Horace! This fits nicely with the Proton-electron-Proton = Deuterium reaction. The bound pair acting as a "neutron" can get absorbed in such a reaction and spit out the light positron. Is this where the Deuterium is coming from in our biosphere? Based on a particle model that I have been doodling with, here's a little ditty that you might want to consider. It seems that the atoms are made up of charged particle sub-units that can exchange energy-radius with other particles and thus conserve angular momentum, energy, and spin (mvr). The model suggests that; There are 5A - Z entities that belong to every atom, 2A "up" or positive units 2A - Z "down" or negative units Z external electrons A - Z neutrinos. Gets kinda hairy when you get to Pu 239, but it works well enough to have a bit saner picture of the atoms than fractionally charged and a rainbow of charming "quarks". Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 22:45:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05348 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:44:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:44:58 -0800 X-Envelope-From: GeorgeHM aol.com Wed Feb 19 22:44:52 1997 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05283 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:44:50 -0800 From: GeorgeHM aol.com Received: (from root localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA12413; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:43:48 -0500 (EST) Old-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:43:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970220014347_-1809569914 emout15.mail.aol.com> To: FZNIDARSIC aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: g-miley uiuc.edu Subject: Re: diffusion barrier for CF electrodes X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: Frank - I agree with you about the problem of preventing outward diffusion during the loading process- this is an issue I too thought about earlier. That is why I tried plasma implantation with a plasma focus -- driving energetic deuterium ions into a palladium target through a thin chromium film surface coating such that the deuterium could not easily diffuse back out. I reported this in an ICCF meeting several years ago. It may have worked (?), but there was too much electrical noise from the focus pusled-power source to do the definitive low level measurements needed - so I gave up this particular approach. We did however, get repeated positive exposure from the target on x-ray film after pulsing, for what that was worth. (Use of a conventional accelerator for loading, as done at NRL and Colorado Sch Mines in those days, allowed easier diagnostics, but they apparently did not try the barrier approach.) At any rate, I believe the outward difussion issue is the reason others using electrolytic methods have obtained better results by added various compounds (Si, etc) to the electrolyte, or by allowing Si to leach out of the glass cell. The electrode initially loads with deuterium before the additive in the electrolyte builds up significantly on the electrode surface; then as the additive continues to deposit on the surface, a diffusion barrier forms, slowing outward diffusion loses, and allowing a higher d or p loading. This approach is not well controlled, however since the timing of the buildup vs the loading rate is crucial, but will vary, causing a wide range of loadings from experiment to experiment -- hence poor reproducibility -- a continuing problem for CF experimenters. What do you think about this? Regards, George Miley From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 23:02:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA06879; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:50:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:50:16 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Patent searches To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:50:03 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <19970219230301.AAA16871 LOCALNAME> from "Frederick J. Sparber" at Feb 19, 97 11:03:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"P8mHz2.0.Ch1.bG_2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4340 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber wrote: > I can't get over the incredible patent search engine at; www.uspto.gov. I > did a keyword-boolean search in a few minutes that would've cost a Kings > Ransom if done by a searcher or patent attorney. Even plugged in my name and > found that I had about 26 patents referenced to half dozen or so patents > that I had issued since 1962. The database goes back to 1976, some 2 million > patents with abstacts.High Priced Patent Attorneys, Beware! Also check out http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/ IBM has opened their patent database to the public. They currently have abstract content search capability for patents back 26 years, and they have scanned images of patent pages back 17 years. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 23:36:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA18091; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:26:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:26:31 -0800 Date: 20 Feb 97 02:25:52 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970220072551_100060.173_JHB89-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"JvsYO3.0.YQ4.Zo_2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4341 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Frederick, >> I can't get over the incredible patent search engine at; www.uspto.gov. << I agree - it excellent. I wonder how long its going to be free? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 19 23:41:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA18108; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:26:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:26:31 -0800 Date: 20 Feb 97 02:25:54 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer Threats Message-ID: <970220072553_100060.173_JHB89-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"EUpF61.0.fQ4.ao_2p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4342 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael, >> I hope his bs is not worrying you. << Not in the least - I'm just ensuring that all our Vortex friends are kept up to date on the guy's latest machinations. However it is a such waste of time flogging through the piles of verbiage just in case there is some sense somewhere. Norman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 01:01:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04926; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:51:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:51:57 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:54:20 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"v6WXn1.0.pC1.e213p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4343 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Heffner's circuit: >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> | D1 | >> | ------|>|------B1---------- | >> | C | | | >> ----| |---------| |----- >> | | >> ------|<|------B2--- --- >> D2 | | >> \/\/\/ primary (L1) >> ====== T1 >> /\/\/\ secondary (L2) >> | | >> G O >> >>Bi - xenon flash bulbs used for spark gaps, 1.3 cm length >>C - Piezo Crystal (having capacitance C) >>Di - 35 Kv PIV diodes >>G - Ground >>O - Oscilloscope probe >>T1 - ferrite core transformer, 8 windings primary (L1), >> 6 secondary (L2), 30 KV insulation >> >>Some values: >> >>Capacitance: >> >> Bi - below 1 nF >> C - 0.30 nF (variable depending on position of leads) >> Di - below 1 nF >> T1 - Between primary and secondary: 0.058 nF >> >>Inductance: >> >> L1 - 0.029 mH >> L2 - 0.019 mH > >I think you made a spark gap oscillator. The transformer inductance, the >stray capacitances,..... > >Michael J. Schaffer Well, you might be right, and I have had a suspicion of such. However, the limits on the observed frequency are 100 MHz to 1 GHz. The leads on the piezo total 1.5 meters. The leads on T1 primary total 1.35 m. There were other leads totalling about another m. That's a loop of about 3.45 m, giving a maximum resonant freq. of 77 MHz on the big loop, which is not far off, but it excludes LC times. So f =1/(2Pi)((L1)(C))^0.5 = 1/(6.28)((0.029 mH)(0.30 nF))^0.5 = 1/(6.28)((2.9x10^-5)(3x10^-10))^0.5 = 1.7 MHz, so the idea of superimposing an A/C ripple on top of the spark pulse current in the big loop containing both L1 and C1 doesn't come close to a solution. In addition, the there is no big initial rise time pulse coming out of L2. There is no big DC pulse current rise or current drop. The current flow seems to be in lots of small chunks. It is a gradual increase in amplitude of an ac component followed by a waning. No spikes. It is like the current arrives in small sparks of duration about 10^8 to 10^-9 seconds, which grow in current and then wane. The major loop eliminated leaves only the loop which includes the reversed diodes. The small current oscillations have to jump the gap in B1 and get past the diode D1. From the fact current only flows about 20% of the time in one direction, it appears that current only flows about the major loop about 40 percent of the time. This implies the plasma completely dissapates rapidly between sparks, thus there is never a circumstance where both B1 and B2 conduct simultaneously. Perhaps an A/C ripple current, on top of the DC pulse, is set up that bounces between D2 and L1? This doesn't make much sense because any current reversal will shut down the plasma, the DC currrent flow, and oppose the diode D2. CORRECTION to DATA: The capacitances of Bi and Di above were unmeasureable with my DMM, which puts them down at about .001 nF, not 1 nF as written above. If there is sufficient leakage in the bulbs then it might be possible to set up an oscillation of the right frequency. One way to figure out if so and where the oscillation is coming from is to increase the wire lengths significantly to increase loopback time. Now, if I can just find those darn parts. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 01:13:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA09918; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:04:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:04:27 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:06:51 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"-Xmft.0.rQ2.QE13p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4344 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [snip my flight of imagination] >This fits nicely with the Proton-electron-Proton = >Deuterium reaction. The bound pair acting as a "neutron" can get absorbed in >such a reaction and spit out the light positron. Is this where the Deuterium >is coming from in our biosphere? The above also requires a neutrino? P + (e-,l+) + nu -> n + l+ n + p -> D Or was it emits an anti neutrino? Or what? Solar wind sounds like a reasonable source of D2. > >Based on a particle model that I have been doodling with, here's a little >ditty that you might want to consider. [snip ditty] I'll have mercy on the anti-theory members of this tea party. Wouldn't want to upset the Queen of Hearts you know. Cheers. > >Regards, Frederick Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 03:54:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA24300; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:45:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:45:22 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: neutronium Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:45:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330f2423.46701386 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970218004501_-1340938100 emout19.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <970218004501_-1340938100 emout19.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hv2hN3.0.cx5.Hb33p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4346 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:45:02 -0500 (EST), FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: >Why is it that two neutrons do not stick together.? They are bound by the >same strong force that holds protons and neutrons together. Without the >repulsive electrostatic force I would expect that they would really bond >strongly. > >Frank Z > > Maybe neutrons only "stick" to protons, and protons only stick to neutrons? This would explain not only the absence of the dineutron, but also of He2, while allowing deuterium. It would also explain why nuclei with equal numbers of protons and neutrons tend to be more stable. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 03:54:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA24269; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:45:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:45:17 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light bending Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:45:27 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330d1bd0.44570328 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970217170342.AAA16353 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970217170342.AAA16353 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"o05Ea3.0.7x5.Cb33p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4345 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:03:44 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >BTW. If you set a perfect sphere on a perfectly flat surface, won't you find >an angle very close to 0.4181 degrees from the point of tangency? And isn't I think that in the limit the angle is zero. >it strange that 861 = 2(pi)/alpha? No, it's not strange. I got 861 from your angle of 0.4181 degrees. This in turn you derived from alpha. So it is to be expected unless one of us made an error in arithmetic. [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 09:55:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02596; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:38:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:38:52 -0800 Date: 20 Feb 97 11:52:30 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: USPTO and other free resources Message-ID: <970220165230_72240.1256_EHB49-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xeOLG.0.kZ.Bm83p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4348 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Norman writes: >> I can't get over the incredible patent search engine at; www.uspto.gov. << I agree - it excellent. I wonder how long its going to be free? Forever, I think. The Patent Office presently maintains regional libraries around the country including one in Atlanta, at Georgia Tech. They have always been free and open to the public. So I expect the Internet site will always remain free. It is a lot cheaper for them and incomparably more convenient for the public. Free information resources are a fine tradition in the U.S. Other marvelous resources are the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, and the Public Libraries. The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum will make prints of marvelous old aviation photos at a nominal cost. They will talk about them enthusiastically too, and help identify dates, people and machines. The Dekalb Count public library system is about to put their entire card catalog and magazine abstract service on Internet. You can now dial up the computer directly, using their home-grown search program. (It happens to be closed down this week, for the conversion I think.) That is handy for bibliographies. Here is an example of a magazine abstract, about a subject unrelated to cold fusion: Search Request: K=ULCERS MARSHALL NEW YORKER Articles from 1988-1993 BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD -- 1 of 1 Entry Found Brief View ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE: Marshall's hunch. AUTHOR(S): Monmaney, Terence. SOURCE: New Yorker; Sep 20, 1993, v69n30, p. 64-72; GTNY ARTICLE TYPE: Feature. SUBJECTS: Physicians; Stomach; Ulcers; Medical research; Bacteria PERSONS: Marshall, Barry J. ABSTRACT: The unprecedented and very unorthodox findings of Barry J. Marshall, a physician, point toward cures for stomach diseases and ulcers that affect millions of people. Marshall's findings proved that Helicobacter pylori causes ulcers and that ulcers can be cured with antibiotics. In the U.K., the British Library Science Reference and Information Service runs a fine patent search service. They have an office in Virginia, charges U.S. customers $3 to copy a recent U.S. patent. The phone numbers back in 1994 were: London 071-323-7937 Virginia 804-758-3311, Fax: 800-325-2221 - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 09:56:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02333; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:38:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:38:30 -0800 Message-Id: <199702201617.JAA08423 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Transmutation Experiment Won First Place! Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:08:46 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2s0kg1.0.cY.9m83p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4347 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The 16 year old Mesquite High School student who entered a transmutation experiment which produced precious metals from ordinary chemicals into the school science fair won overall first place from all of the schools in her district. At the request of her mother her name remains incognito until this weekend. The reason being, adverse publicity could damage her chances at the next level -- the regional science competition. I wish to thank the members of the vortex forum who were kind enough to present questions, for this aided her in preparing for her oral presentation. I will keep you all informed of her progress in this endeavor. Respectfully, ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 10:29:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA10048; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:56:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:56:46 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:43:04 +0000 Message-ID: <19970220134302.AAA29945 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"10J5o1.0.1R2.n093p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4349 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:06 AM 2/20/97 +0000, Horace wrote: >[snip my flight of imagination] > >>This fits nicely with the Proton-electron-Proton = >>Deuterium reaction. The bound pair acting as a "neutron" can get absorbed in >>such a reaction and spit out the light positron. Is this where the Deuterium >>is coming from in our biosphere? > >The above also requires a neutrino? > > P + (e-,l+) + nu -> n + l+ > n + p -> D Lets see if I can get this right. The accepted P-e-P = D reaction yields a 1.44 Mev neutrino; Proton (1.007825 amu) + e (0.00055 amu) + Proton (1.007825 amu) = Deuterium (2.0141 amu) + neutrino (1.44 Mev) + 0.515 Mev. (At 931 Mev/amu.) The "massless-chargeless" spin 1/2 neutrino is apparently carrying this 1.44 Mev off as kinetic energy at almost c. Starting off with 5A - Z units = 4 units in each proton:2 up, 1 down, and the external electron in each atom. For the deuteron 5A - Z = 9 units, 2A = 4 up, 2A - Z = 3 down, 1 external electron, A - Z neutrinos = 1 internal neutrino in the neutron of deuterium = 9 units. Conclusion; the neutrinos are light, very low mass pairs similar to the hypothesized light electron pairs and are created during the reaction. Since the neutrino has no net charge it must be a bound pair. Since it's net spin is 1/2 the mass distribution (small though it may be) can be explained by the moment of inertia of one particle acting as a disk (moment of inertia I = 1/2MR^2) and a section of a cylindrical shell; (moment of inertia I = MR^2) thus a net spin of 1/2 with the difference between a neutrino and antineutrino being merely a matter of which "particle" of the pair is acting as a disk or section of a cylindrical shell. Note that I * 2(pi)f = mvr = spin = hbar >Or was it emits an anti neutrino? Or what? Creates a pair of neutrinos, keeps the antineutrino and emits the neutrino. > >Solar wind sounds like a reasonable source of D2. >From the info I have Deuterium on the surface of the Sun is very-very scarce> > >> >>Based on a particle model that I have been doodling with, here's a little >>ditty that you might want to consider. >[snip ditty] > >I'll have mercy on the anti-theory members of this tea party. Wouldn't want >to upset the Queen of Hearts you know. Cheers. If you gonna stick your neck out, no use going half-way. Behold the Turtle! Cheers to you too. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 10:37:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19191; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:22:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:22:09 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:21:53 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Einstein on Aether Resent-Message-ID: <"GhgCg3.0.kg4.lO93p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4350 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 10:03 AM 2/19/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Message forwarded from Usenet. >>================================================ >> >>From: Edward Green >>Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity; sci.physics >>Subject: The Aether >>Date: February 16, 1997 8:17 PM > >>Relativitaetstheorie_ (Berlin 1920)>. In summation, Einstein declares: >>"According to the general theory of relativity, space is equipped >>with physical qualities; an aether in this sense therefore exists. >>Space without aether is unthinkable with respect to the general theory >>of relativity..." > >Man that is a keeper. > >In a rough analogy, it would be something like an ability to >detect and quantify waves on the ocean, but not be able to >see or detect molecules of water with current instruments. >The only problem with that is that analogy is the particle >element to it, whereas with ether, beneath the particle level >presumably, have to ponder what "stuff" it is made of. > >Gary Hawkins >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today >http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA >------------------------------------------------------------------ You write about the "...particle element..." Could not the aether and "particle element" be one and the same? If so, how? Hint: The Gyroscopic 'Particle' And yes, I would agree -- that's an excellent quote by Einstein. Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 11:17:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA00633; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:59:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:59:52 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:01:51 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"KPzNs1.0.V9.Uy93p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4351 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:43 AM 2/20/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >Creates a pair of neutrinos, keeps the antineutrino and emits the neutrino. Hmmm, sounds too reasonable this tea party. >> >>Solar wind sounds like a reasonable source of D2. > >>From the info I have Deuterium on the surface of the Sun is very-very scarce> Isn't this a good argument for the lack of l+,l- pair production in stars? Seems like the energy is there, especially in the corona. What is the missing ingrediant for l pair creation on the sun? Is this disproof of l existence? Did someone just yell "off with their heads?" Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 11:41:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA05289; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:13:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:13:55 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:12:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702201912.NAA26026 dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: A correction To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: mokamoto nr.titech.ac.jp Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"ADwQt.0.-H1.T9A3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4352 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 20, 1997 Makoto Okamoto, editor of the 2 volume ICCF-6 Proceedings, and chairman of the Local Area Committee if the ICCF-6, wrote back from his copy of my post of the publication being distributed. He is a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Tecnology and was the Local Area Chairman of the ICCF-6 Conference. I did not notice it until later but he pointed out that the publication has printed the word 'Hydrogen' as 'Hydorogen' on its cover page title. The apparent mis-spelling is actually correct --- to a Japanese! 'Hydorogen' is the romanized spelling of the way the Japanese pronounce 'Hydrogen'. There are a lot of imported words than has been transformed into Japanese polysybillic pronounciation habit by adding extra vowels or simply transmuted into the Japanese words. This has been going on for ages. The Japanese language is rapidly changing into a new conglomeration of standard Japanese and almost unrecognizable imported words and phrases. Old people lament, the middle aged are bemused, the youth 'don't give a damm', and it is an indication of society in change. Okamoto also clarified their (NEDO & IAS) position vis-a-vis the science copyrights. If I may quote a portion of his letter: "The copyright may have no regulation in the scientific world in general, but it is very important for the scientists who wrote the articles. When the articles are published withought any copyrights, no body can referee the papers. So, we published the proceedings with authorized copyright." It seems that the 'scientists' raised a big 'stink' at Maui and Monte Carlo conferences because "they had not any cares on the copyright". This was recognized by NEDO and IAE. NEDO and IAE themselves has no interest in the copyrights but was just protecting the concerns expressed. So, it seems if there are any complaints of low profile conferences, the participating 'scientists' have to look to themselves to solve their self inflicted problems, not the conference organizers trying to cater to their needs and promote the status of progress in the field. Or perhaps a conference organizor can show early leadership and clear up this mushy situation with an wide open conference under clearly defined rules of participation and information dessimination. Otherwise a future announced attraction of an on-line website conferencing of the ICCF-7, among other actvities outlined may be just a wish-list item. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 12:45:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25538; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:31:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:31:27 -0800 Date: 20 Feb 97 15:29:07 EST From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Message-ID: <970220202906_76570.2270_FHU36-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"9XOf21.0.fE6.OIB3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4353 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief Infinite Energy Magazine Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 Phone: 603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 INTERNET:76570.2270 compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell Following coverage in Infinite Energy #10 of the latest developments with CETI's RIFEX^TM kits and radioactive remediation patent (approved by the US PTO and awaiting number assignment), we have received news of further developments in the form of the following press release. These developments will be highlighted in Issue #11 of Infinite Energy, out in March 1997. Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. PRESS RELEASE RECEIVED FROM CETI -- 2/20/97 ********************************* Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. Press Release Contact: Douglas Collins (702)825-1727 February 20, 1997 CETI + DRI = MOU .. A Formula For Success Nuclear Scientists Reach Agreement on New Energy Technology Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI^TM) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Desert Research Institute (DRI) to jointly pursue research and development for advanced energy technologies and secure, clean energy production. CETI^TM has developed some patented technology for energy production with the Patterson Power Cell^TM which has been featured on ABC's Nightline and was ABC's top science story for 1996. Dr. James Patterson of Sarasota, Florida is one of the USA's most respected scientists with over 150 U.S. patents held in a variety of technical disciplines. The secret to the Patterson Power Cell^TM is in the CETISpheres^TM, uniform microspheres with special coatings that appear to contribute to the remarkable energy production of the power cell. The high energy production has captured the interest of serval major corporations as well as several major universities. As the Wall Street Journal reported, "The Patterson cell can be turned on and off seemingly at will. Several working devices have been made avialable to two teams." "This is the first time that we have a system that seems to work every time," says a nuclear chemist who consults to utilities. The cell's reliabaility, which would allow scientists to manipulate it, "gives us our first chance to see if this [phenomenon] involves a nuclear reaction," he explains. And it is not the same old cold fusion story...The US Patent and Trademark Office, which has maintained that cold fusion is impossible and unpatentable, have issued Dr. James Patterson several patents on this device. In addition to the clean energy production, the Patterson Power Cell^TM appears to have inherent potential for radioactive waste remediation. Desert Research Institute will be a key partner in exploring this tremendous opportunity by the demonstration and verification of patented CETI^TM technology. Created in 1959 by an act of the Nevada Legislature, the Desert Research Institute was established as a unit of the University of Nevada. DRI pursues a full-time program of basic and applied environemtnal research on a local, national, and international scale. DRI's 400+ scientists, technicians, and support staff conduct some 100 research projects annually. Over its 35 year history, the Desert Research Institute has grown to be one of the world's largest multidisciplinary environmental research organizations. With five major reserach centers, Water Resources, Atmospheric Sciences, Energy and Environemtnal Engineering, Biological Sciences, adn Quaternary Sciences, DRI has conducted research in every state and on every continent of the world. "We are pleased to be in partnership with such a distinguished research partner as the Desert Research Institute," said James Reding, president and CEO of Clean Energy Techhnologies, Inc. Clean Energy Technologies, Inc.(R) Reno Office: 4790 Caughlin Parkway #163, Reno, Nevada 89509 (702) 825-1727 * Fax (702) 828-2623 Corporate Offices: 2074 20th Street, Sarasota, Florida 34234 * (941)-951-2384 * Fax (941) 365-0487 Internet Home Page: www.cleanenergy.com/ceti From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 12:45:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25737; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:31:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:31:49 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Subject: RE: A correction Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:27:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ffsPV.0.BH6.iIB3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4354 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Akira Why are papers not able to be refereed if they are not copyrighted? Hank Scudder ---------- From: aki ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: mokamoto nr.titech.ac.jp; aki@ix.netcom.com Subject: A correction Date: Thursday, February 20, 1997 11:12AM February 20, 1997 Makoto Okamoto, editor of the 2 volume ICCF-6 Proceedings, and chairman of the Local Area Committee if the ICCF-6, wrote back from his copy of my post of the publication being distributed. He is a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Tecnology and was the Local Area Chairman of the ICCF-6 Conference. I did not notice it until later but he pointed out that the publication has printed the word 'Hydrogen' as 'Hydorogen' on its cover page title. The apparent mis-spelling is actually correct --- to a Japanese! 'Hydorogen' is the romanized spelling of the way the Japanese pronounce 'Hydrogen'. There are a lot of imported words than has been transformed into Japanese polysybillic pronounciation habit by adding extra vowels or simply transmuted into the Japanese words. This has been going on for ages. The Japanese language is rapidly changing into a new conglomeration of standard Japanese and almost unrecognizable imported words and phrases. Old people lament, the middle aged are bemused, the youth 'don't give a damm', and it is an indication of society in change. Okamoto also clarified their (NEDO & IAS) position vis-a-vis the science copyrights. If I may quote a portion of his letter: "The copyright may have no regulation in the scientific world in general, but it is very important for the scientists who wrote the articles. When the articles are published withought any copyrights, no body can referee the papers. So, we published the proceedings with authorized copyright." It seems that the 'scientists' raised a big 'stink' at Maui and Monte Carlo conferences because "they had not any cares on the copyright". This was recognized by NEDO and IAE. NEDO and IAE themselves has no interest in the copyrights but was just protecting the concerns expressed. So, it seems if there are any complaints of low profile conferences, the participating 'scientists' have to look to themselves to solve their self inflicted problems, not the conference organizers trying to cater to their needs and promote the status of progress in the field. Or perhaps a conference organizor can show early leadership and clear up this mushy situation with an wide open conference under clearly defined rules of participation and information dessimination. Otherwise a future announced attraction of an on-line website conferencing of the ICCF-7, among other actvities outlined may be just a wish-list item. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 13:57:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA01982; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:36:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:36:38 -0800 Date: 20 Feb 97 16:25:02 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Message-ID: <970220212501_72240.1256_EHB134-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1V0U03.0.uU.aFC3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4355 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex A great deal of information about the Desert Research Institute (DRI) can be found at: www.dri.edu Attached is some of the General Information blurb from the home page. - Jed Created in 1959 by an act of the Nevada Legislature, the Desert Research Institute (DRI) was established as a unit of the University of Nevada. When the University of Nevada System was formed in 1968, the Desert Research Institute became an autonomous, nonprofit division of the system. Over its 34 year history, DRI has grown to be one of the world's largest multidisciplinary environmental research organizations focusing on arid lands. Today, nearly 400 scientists and technologists are engaged in research projects worldwide. . . . Activities are directed from five research centers representing the geosphere (Quaternary Sciences Center), hydrosphere (Water Resources Center), biosphere (Biological Sciences Center), and atmosphere (Atmospheric Sciences Center and Energy and Environmental Engineering Center). . . . The institute's annual budget is more than $24 million: its faculty and staff obtain about $22 million through research contracts and grants, and the state provides about $2 million. Unlike universities, DRI does not grant tenure to its faculty, who must find funding for their own salaries and research programs in a highly competitive marketplace. This means they have to be more than excellent scientists -- they have to be successful entrepreneurs as well. * End of File * From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 15:04:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA17623; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:42:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:42:22 -0800 Date: 20 Feb 97 17:38:17 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Japanese borrow words Message-ID: <970220223817_72240.1256_EHB103-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"LC4vu2.0.HJ4.DDD3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4356 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Akira wrote: There are a lot of imported words than has been transformed into Japanese polysybillic pronunciation habit by adding extra vowels or simply transmuted into the Japanese words. This has been going on for ages. Yup. Specifically, it has been going from the age of the Empress Jingo, circa 363. She led an army, invaded, and conquered part of Korea. (Supposedly she was pregnant at the time. Career woman had a tough job back then.) They brought back a bunch of Chinese words. Hundreds of years later most of the vocabulary was Chinese transmuted into Japanese. To my taste, it didn't improve the language any more than the huge chunk of Latin we English speakers imported. Take the ballad of the Battle of Dan-no-ura, which I just happened to be listening to before Akira's message appeared. "Ikusabune" (warship) sounds a lot better than "senkan:" Aware mujou no haru no kaze Ima wa nushi naki ikusabune Iduku to mo naku tadayoi iku koso Kanashikere (That means, roughly:) In the heartless spring breeze Now the pilotless warships Drift away aimlessly Truly a mournful sight . . . Since then they borrowed another large chunk of words from Dutch, and then a bunch more from English. I predict both borrow groups will fade in the future, just as many English Latin borrowings faded after the 18th century. The Japanese dropped "shabon" (Dutch for 'soap') and went back to "sekken." Someday they'll drop "shyan'poo" (shampoo) and get back to "sen'patsu," (from the Chinese) so people will understand one another again. I doubt they will ever go back to the original Japanese yamatokotoba, which would make it even easier. And now back to anomalous energy . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 15:36:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA28021; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:23:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:23:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:22:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702202322.RAA28385 dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: reffere was: RE: A correction To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: hjscudder rdyne.bna.boeing.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"pvcSI3.0.lr6.hpD3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4357 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: February 20, 1997 Hank, you wrote: >Why are papers not able to be refereed if they are not copyrighted? >Hank Scudder > ---------- Actually Okamoto wrote the word 'reffere' so he might have meant refer, referee, or referred. Take your pick, I took my shot at it. It would be nice to identify the persons who made the objections and read their reasoning. The great majority of the conferees in any conference are not of mind to rip-off on crediting another's work, copyrighted or not. Information is used to feed other ideas and information which is one of the functions of science. A similar concern on video-taping was raised at another conference (not ICCF). I then distributed leaflet forms to all the conferees so they can individually register, formally, their objections to video recording their own presentations if they felt it was infringing on their rights. I would then not record that part. There was not a single written objection although the concern was voiced by the conference organizors. Then the organizors, I feel, black-mailed me into giving them control of the recording for distribution (just to let me record). As if there was an ounce of money to be made. It left a bad after-taste. And this, among 'scientists'. Even video-taping the entire ICCF-6 (except for about 30 minutes) left a similar bad taste in my mouth. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 16:59:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11706; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:37:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:37:29 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:55:09 +0000 Message-ID: <19970220205507.AAA21216 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"YIF_M2.0.gs2.4vE3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4359 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:01 PM 2/20/97 +0000, Horace wrote: >At 4:43 AM 2/20/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >> >>Creates a pair of neutrinos, keeps the antineutrino and emits the neutrino. > >Hmmm, sounds too reasonable this tea party. > > >>> >>>Solar wind sounds like a reasonable source of D2. >> >>>From the info I have Deuterium on the surface of the Sun is very-very scarce> > >Isn't this a good argument for the lack of l+,l- pair production in stars? The reaction P + P = Deuterium + a positron and a neutrino implies that the reaction has to have a collision of the 1.02 Mev or better to make an regular electron-positron pair. Small wonder that this takes billions of years per event on the Sun where the temperature is about 2.5 Kev, and there are "missing solar neutrinos". >Seems like the energy is there, especially in the corona. What is the >missing ingrediant for l pair creation on the sun? Is this disproof of l >existence? > >Did someone just yell "off with their heads?" > Keep in touch with Tweedle Dee or is it Tweedle Dum. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 17:00:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10773; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:34:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:34:38 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:35:55 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"q7DrZ1.0.Ae2.TsE3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4358 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I wrote: >> P + (e-,l+) + nu -> n + l+ >> n + p -> D Which should have been: e- + l- + l+ -> (e-,l+) + l- p + (e-,l+) -> n + nu + l+ n + p -> D In the last reaction the p could be most anything, as could the p in the second reaction, including reactants that create unstable nucleii. Seems like that would have been detected fairly readily. If the second reaction doesn't/can't work with p but works with heavier nuclei with an extreme skew towards stable products then there would be a better match with the observations. I don't see why this would be happen though. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 17:40:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA13699; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:49:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:49:31 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970221004936.0066fc94 sparc1> X-Sender: kennel sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:49:36 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: ICCF-6 Proceedings Resent-Message-ID: <"AaNxj.0.yL3.P4F3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4360 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Vortex: Today I received a copy of the ICCF-6 proceedings, so probably they will make it out to Europe and the US in a week or so. It seems to me that there are a number of papers with fairly high scientific content, which in fact come very close now to nailing down the existence of anomalous nuclear behavior in metal deuterides. As I've mentioned previously in this forum, I particularly liked papers by Kasagi, Roussetski, Lipson, Ochiai and others in that regard. Plus I believe that the materials research is approaching a very high standard. In the way of more speculative topics, there is a very intriguing paper by Wang (Diagnosis of Neutrons from the Gas Discharge Facility). It doesn't explain at all how the experiment was carried out (I don't think anyone was there to describe the paper during the poster session, though it was posted), but the neutron measurement is quite extraordinary. So I would single this out as the "wild card" of the conference--it's either a colossal mistake or else it might be the highlight of the conference. Also, FWIW, Mizuno published some of his profiled SIMS isotopic shift data in these proceedings, and I think these are much harder to refute than Miley's data. Still, it is highly desirable to see the same data verified by at least TWO diverse methods before accepting the existence of such a major anomaly as that which has been claimed. For that reason, we hope that we can do neutron activation analysis on these samples. However, since the isotope shift only occurs in the top micron of the surface, it will be tough to see such a small sample with reliable statistics. By the way, Andrei Lipson from Moscow is working with us for at least the next several weeks (and possibly longer) and sends all his CF colleagues his regards. With the help of Mizuno and Akimoto from Hokkaido U we are continuing to try to coax larger nuclear signatures from various types of experiments. We also hope to have a test cell from the Celani group in Frascati Italy up and running at our labs next month. We're going to use Celani's calorimeter at first to see if we can see the same things that they see, and then try our own calorimeter to see if there is a difference, and if so, we will try to determine why. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 18:20:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA25529; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:56:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:56:52 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:59:21 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"BtTQp.0.nE6.Y3G3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4361 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:55 AM 2/20/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >The reaction P + P = Deuterium + a positron and a neutrino implies that the >reaction has to have a collision of the 1.02 Mev or better to make an >regular electron-positron pair. Small wonder that this takes billions of >years per event on the Sun where the temperature is about 2.5 Kev, >and there are "missing solar neutrinos". > [snip] > >Regards, Frederick Yes, but the conjectured light pair takes only about 7.5 KeV. e- + l- + l+ -> (e-,l+) + l- <- 7.5 KeV the is only input p + (e-,l+) -> n + nu + l+ n + p -> D This energy seems readily available. So, where's the light particles if they exist? What condition for their creation is missing on the sun. The (e-,l+) should be able to linger about nuclei long enough for the weak interaction. Gee, maybe not. The deBroglie wavelenghth of a slow l+ would be huge! Same for a slow (e-,l+) complex maybe also. It would require a very tight bond of the (e-,l+) for it to be able to slip into a nucleus. Such a bond would not occur in the form of a typical atomic orbital (l+ orbiting e-), because that would require a very large diameter due to the low mass of the l+. Therefore to be "small" enough to ge into a nulceus it would have to be fast, but if it's fast it can't linger about for a weak reaction to occcur. Am I just babbling? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 18:32:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA28579; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:11:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:11:13 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: hheffner corecom.net From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:05:29 +0000 Message-ID: <19970221020527.AAA12104 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"vvlDn.0.O-6.-GG3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4362 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace: I was curious to see what the self-pinch pressure on your estimated 0.08 ampere, 0.005 cm radius spark was. The equation; P = I^2/200(pi)r^2 (dynes/cm^2) is the number that I came up with. For the numbers you gave, about 0.41 dynes/cm^2 . The lightning channels are estimated at about 5 cm radius and the current is in the range of 30,000 to 200,000 amperes with the "step leader" progressing at about 5E7 meters/sec (about 0.17c). Surprisingly the 200,000 amperes gives about 2.55E6 dynes/cm^2 or only about 2.55 atmospheres of self-pinch pressure. With all the noise I had always figured it to be higher. The equation N = 2.7E19 * PT/Po*T (molecules/cm^3) must limit the number of electrons and thus the current at a given gas pressure for a spark. C.G. (Guy) Suits at General Electric did a lot of work on electrical discharges in gasses in the 30"s and published a lot in the physics journals. He noticed some really weird effects with hydrogen, and also noted earlier work by Lutz? in Germany on the weird behavior of electrical discharges in steam at less than 300 psi. Next time I get to the UNM library I'm going to take a second look at some of this with a different perspective. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 19:23:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA01997; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:45:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:45:10 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <330D0C19.2F1CF0FB math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:44:41 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: davidk suba.com Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release References: <970220202906_76570.2270_FHU36-2 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oiBAe.0.6V.qmG3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4363 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A I just read through CETI's press release. Lets read *between* the lines for some fun :-) :-) > PRESS RELEASE RECEIVED FROM CETI -- 2/20/97 ********************************* I can see they are handling their own PR these days....maybe its downsizing... > > > CETI + DRI = MOU I think the correct equation is CETI / Claims = NOU (Not Over Unity) > > CETI has signed a Memorandum of > Understanding (MOU) with DRI to jointly pursue > research and development In other words, they could not find any corporate buyer for their revolutionary technology. I wonder how much CETI agreed to pay DRI... > > the Patterson Power Cellwas ABC's > top science story for 1996. In other words, no scientific journal has published their results. (I didn't realize ABC ranked their science stories; in any case, I thought the photo analysis of OJ's Bruno Magli shoes was their top science story for 96...) > Dr. James Patterson of Sarasota, Florida is one of > the USA's most respected scientists More precisely, one of the USA's (was this press release in "USA Toaday"?) *50,000 or so* most respected scientists. I don;t think he ever made it into the National Academy. (Did Patterson even get his Phd? I though he said Dupont hired him before he finished...) > with over 150 U.S. patents > held in a variety of technical disciplines. Yes---in addition to Cold Fusion Energy, Patterson has patents for an improved fishing rod reel and a novel plant fertilization system (no joke). > > The high energy production has captured the > interest of serval major corporations but it failed to capture their funding. > as well as several major universities. several == Miley U of Illinois and Bowles @ U of Missouri So, I guess that means I have several ears. > > As the Wall Street Journal reported, Thats where I get my science news...how else would I ever have found out about P&F in the first place. > "The Patterson cell can be turned on and > off seemingly at will.... Yes, I could also turn my Patterson cell replica on and off at will...unfortunately in either state it did nothing. > Several working devices have been made avialable to two > teams." Now remember, for this press release several = two. > > "This is the first time that we have a system that > seems to work every time," says a nuclear chemist who > consults to utilities this person must contact CETI IMMEDIATELY---they misplaced their always-working-cell and have been searching desparately for it ever since. > > The US Patent and Trademark Office, which has maintained that cold > fusion is impossible and unpatentable, have issued Dr. James > Patterson several patents on this device. Of course the reason the USPTO did this is that the device *as patented* is not intended for cold fusion. Come to think of it, I wonder what Patterson's other patents _REALLY_ are...maybe his fishing reel is a warp drive, his plant fertilizer is the philosopher's stone. > > Desert Research Institute They sound particularly well suited to investigating barren technology... > will be a key partner in ... the demonstration and verification > of patented CETI technology. good---its about time someone did this. > > > > "We are pleased to be in partnership with such a distinguished > research partner as the Desert Research Institute," > said James Reding, president and CEO of Clean Energy Techhnologies, > Inc. In other words, "thank god we finally found someone who would enter into a partnership with us..." >From DRI web page: ----------- > The institute's annual budget is more than $24 million wow...thats about as big as 2--3 university departments. > faculty must find funding for their own salaries and research > programs.... This means they have to be more than excellent > scientists -- they have to be successful salesmen > as well. ----------- > > Clean Energy Technologies, Inc.(R) > Reno Office: 4790 Caughlin Parkway #163, Reno, Nevada 89509 (702) Reno...Hmmm, I think I see CETI's new strategy for raising capital. > Corporate Offices: 2074 20th Street, Sarasota, Florida 34234 * (941)-951-2384 * In other words, would that be in Patterson's garage....? ----------- :-) Chill, Its a joke! (but I wont clarify the meaning of that pronoun :-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 19:26:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA09629; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:13:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:13:07 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:13:22 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"4hhyF2.0.3M2.aAH3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4365 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 5:05 PM 2/20/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >Horace: > >I was curious to see what the self-pinch pressure on your estimated 0.08 >ampere, 0.005 cm radius spark was. The equation; P = I^2/200(pi)r^2 >(dynes/cm^2) >is the number that I came up with. For the numbers you gave, about 0.41 >dynes/cm^2 . > Please note that the estimate for spark current above, the only one I had handy, was from another similar experiment, but is probably low. Apologies, but I was in a rush to get some calcs regarding your idea for light electrons. It's really a very stimulating idea and may offer some explanations for lots of things. > >Regards, Frederick Had another thought about light electrons if they exist: heavy atoms must spontaneously generate profuse amounts of them in the vicinity of the nucleus due to the enormous electrostatic gradient there. There is theoretical evidence that a "super" nucleus could even generate real e-,e+ pairs. If light electrons could facilitate transmutation, etc., then heavy elements,like lead should transmute spontaneously. They might be expected to radiate x-rays, since K shell electrons could escape via shielding provided by l+ lights. Something more is needed to explain why this doesn't happen. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 19:28:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA04163; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:51:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:51:49 -0800 Message-ID: <330D0BA6.7518 microtronics.com.au> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:12:47 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: newman-l emachine.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Kawai Patent and the Rod & Coil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"fY7d02.0.901.jsG3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4364 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I have sent the Kawai motor patent to the DNMEC mail list. This device claims OU. Make no mistake about that. The effect is, I believe, the same as the rod & coil as discussed earlier here. I.E. The ferrite rotor gains energy from the domains in the rotor and the increasing coil inductance (caused by the rotor's approach to coil) reduces coil current to a lower level than would normally be expected. What say you? Look at the claims on page 24. Input of 19.55 watts and rotary output of 62.16 watts. If you wish to be added to the DNMEC Gif mail list, please let me know. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson microtronics.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 19:51:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA17065; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:38:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:38:03 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:33:42 +0000 Message-ID: <19970221033339.AAA1206 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"FDrCZ2.0.ZA4.NYH3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4366 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:59 AM 2/21/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 11:55 AM 2/20/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >> >>The reaction P + P = Deuterium + a positron and a neutrino implies that the >>reaction has to have a collision of the 1.02 Mev or better to make an >>regular electron-positron pair. Small wonder that this takes billions of >>years per event on the Sun where the temperature is about 2.5 Kev, >>and there are "missing solar neutrinos". >> >[snip] >> >>Regards, Frederick > >Yes, but the conjectured light pair takes only about 7.5 KeV. > > e- + l- + l+ -> (e-,l+) + l- <- 7.5 KeV the is only input > p + (e-,l+) -> n + nu + l+ > n + p -> D > >This energy seems readily available. So, where's the light particles if >they exist? What condition for their creation is missing on the sun. The >(e-,l+) should be able to linger about nuclei long enough for the weak >interaction. I'm hoping that for the most part that they readily annihilate with one another,under stellar conditions, thus offering more flexibility for storage and use on demand. I think that the 55.4 ev photons may be the ones that make the 27.2 ev light particle pair. These are the ones that have a radius equal to the ground state Bohr atom radius, a rest energy equal to the total energy of the Bohr electron in the ground state, and an energy of 1/137^2 times the rest energy of the electron. These little goodies got me started on this whole exercise in the first place. The "magic numbers" for the application of the fine structure constant have some skips in them. Only an experiment will say where. > >Gee, maybe not. The deBroglie wavelenghth of a slow l+ would be huge! Same >for a slow (e-,l+) complex maybe also. It would require a very tight bond >of the (e-,l+) for it to be able to slip into a nucleus. Such a bond would >not occur in the form of a typical atomic orbital (l+ orbiting e-), because >that would require a very large diameter due to the low mass of the l+. >Therefore to be "small" enough to ge into a nulceus it would have to be >fast, but if it's fast it can't linger about for a weak reaction to occcur. >Am I just babbling? Like a brook, or Niagara Falls? BTW. The equation s/b N = 2.7E19 * P*To/Po*T (molecules-atoms/cm^3) T in deg K and pressure in atm. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 21:15:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA05365; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:52:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:52:30 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <330D2A04.4487EB71 math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:52:20 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release References: <970221040801_76570.2270_FHU62-1 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"K50g52.0.KJ1.BeI3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4368 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene F. Mallove wrote: > > Ah, Barry, you are soo-ooo very wrong!: > >> "I think the correct equation is >> >> CETI / Claims = NOU (Not Over Unity)" > > Very much over-unity still. > Don't be so sassy when you don't know what you are talking about. Ok, I'll cut them some slack. The corrected equation is CETI + Excess Heat Demo Kit = IOU > >> "Yes, I could also turn my Patterson cell replica on and off >> at will...unfortunately in either state it did nothing. > > You know damn well you do NOT have a Patterson "replica." I definetely had/have a replica, crafted with considerable care and expense. Was it a perfect replica? Evidently not. Could CETI given some minimal assistance to correct the errors of my ways, say by proving a few cc of magic beads at a reasonable fee? I guess not, though they were given ample oppurtunity. >> "In other words, no scientific journal has published their results." >> Infinite Energy is a scientific journal and we published >> their results. I didn't realize you were refereeing reports these days. If so, its amazing you had time to send Miley's preprint out for referees, and even more amazing that they didn't block it from publications due to its very "preliminary" nature. It would certainly have been rejected for need of corrections in journals I read. > Too bad you don't subscribe. Too busy with transmutation experiments > making gold, eh? Well, at least the coffee-can "transmutation" experiment I was involved with won 1st place in a regional science fair. I think that puts us one up on CETI. > > "Of course the reason the USPTO did this is that the device > *as patented* is not intended for cold fusion. Come to think of it, > I wonder what Patterson's other patents _REALLY_ are...maybe > his fishing reel is a warp drive, his plant fertilizer is the > philosopher's stone." > > Sarcastic nonsense. Sarcastic, yes. Nonsense, no. We both know patterson's basic patents in no way impiles or indicates over unity performance. I haven;t seen their latest one, though. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 21:43:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA13985; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:33:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:33:06 -0800 Date: 21 Feb 97 00:31:32 EST From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Message-ID: <970221053131_76570.2270_FHU52-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"GdwLK2.0.RQ3.GEJ3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4369 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Wary Barry writes: "I didn't realize you were refereeing reports these days." Barry is unaware that sneer review is not necessary for a journal to be scientific. Poor deluded tokamaker. Tell me, Barry, where were the Wright brothers' papers sneer reviewed? Where was Edison's work sneer reviewd? Where was Newton's calculus and Principia sneer reviewed? Much more has been accomplished without sneer review than with. Hey, Barry, the MIT PFC's grossly fudged data of 1989 was "peer-reviewed" by Dr. Conn and co. (apt name!) Editor of J. Fusion Energy, who worked under $200k/year Prof. Ron Parker, Director of the PFC and co-author of said fudged data. I would like to have seen that paper turned down by the underling! Conflict of interest, yes? Nice peer review situation that, eh? Incidentally, Dr. Conn also turned down for publication Noninski's correspondence on said erroneously analyzed data. Peer review at work again! What a great system!! Wake up, Barry! Be wary... Gene Mallove . From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 21:57:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA16707; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:47:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:47:14 -0800 Date: 21 Feb 97 00:45:30 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: , , Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Rele Message-ID: <970221054529_100433.1541_BHG47-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"TG07S2.0.v44.VRJ3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4370 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > I just read through CETI's press release. Lets read *between* the > lines for some fun :-) :-) Yes, but it's all so easy - is it not? Would you be as willing to feed your desire for fun at the expense of some of the more absurd (but generally respected) goings-on in the world of science? Now, it is true that by comparison with the first half of this century (when anything seemed possible and unbelievable because revolutionary inventions were happening all the time (like electronics, flight, nuclear weapons, computing, the transistor) the second half has been a period of stagnation. So the mind-set is there to deny novelty, and it is easy to raise a laugh on the subject. That's been true in the past, with Galvani being derided as "the frog's dancing master," and Mendeleyev being laughed at when one wag in the audience suggested that alphabetical order might be even better... One journalist was telling me today that a big difficulty with anything new is that academic or publishing groups are *terrified* that they will be the object of ridicule. In other words, that fear of your approach is blocking new work. An example appears to be the recent Tampere stuff, where one journalist has found (on the spot) that much of what the University there said about Podkletnov and his associate and their work simply was untrue. The university was frightened of being associated with anything controversial, so (it seems clear enough) they told lies. Another problem is that derision is essentially harmful. More so to the donor, who has by indulging in it harmed himself both by his pleasure in his efforts to discomfit others, and by his willingness to set aside his own critical faculties for the duration. You promoted your post as an attempt at humour. I don't really think it was quite that. I'd also say that (for the above reasons) I have made and honest effort of late to abandon the kind of approach you use. It's much too easy, and it was causing me to set aside my own critical faculties. I feel embarrassed at the recollection of having indulged myself in this way. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 23:41:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA00028; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:10:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:10:48 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:12:27 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Resent-Message-ID: <"4EM362.0.L.tfK3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4371 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I just read through CETI's press release. >Lets read *between* the lines for some fun :-) :-) > >> PRESS RELEASE RECEIVED FROM CETI -- 2/20/97 ********************************* > >I can see they are handling their own PR these days....maybe >its downsizing... > >> CETI + DRI = MOU > >I think the correct equation is > > CETI / Claims = NOU (Not Over Unity) > snip-- > >> Several working devices have been made avialable to two >> teams." > >Now remember, for this press release several = two. > >> "This is the first time that we have a system that >> seems to work every time," says a nuclear chemist who >> consults to utilities > >this person must contact CETI IMMEDIATELY---they misplaced >their always-working-cell and have been searching desparately >for it ever since. > >> >> The US Patent and Trademark Office, which has maintained that cold >> fusion is impossible and unpatentable, have issued Dr. James >> Patterson several patents on this device. > >Of course the reason the USPTO did this is that the device >*as patented* is not intended for cold fusion. Come to think of it, >I wonder what Patterson's other patents _REALLY_ are...maybe >his fishing reel is a warp drive, his plant fertilizer is the >philosopher's stone. > >> Desert Research Institute > >They sound particularly well suited to investigating >barren technology... > snip-- >> "We are pleased to be in partnership with such a distinguished >> research partner as the Desert Research Institute," >> said James Reding, president and CEO of Clean Energy Techhnologies, >> Inc. > >In other words, "thank god we finally found someone who >would enter into a partnership with us..." > >>From DRI web page: >----------- >> The institute's annual budget is more than $24 million > >wow...thats about as big as 2--3 university departments. > >> faculty must find funding for their own salaries and research >> programs.... This means they have to be more than excellent >> scientists -- they have to be successful > >salesmen > >> as well. >----------- >> Clean Energy Technologies, Inc.(R) >> Reno Office: 4790 Caughlin Parkway #163, Reno, Nevada 89509 (702) > >Reno...Hmmm, I think I see CETI's new strategy for raising >capital. > >> Corporate Offices: 2074 20th Street, Sarasota, Florida 34234 * >>(941)-951-2384 * >In other words, would that be in Patterson's garage....? >----------- >:-) Chill, Its a joke! >(but I wont clarify the meaning of that pronoun :-) >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ATTENTION!!!ATTENTION!!! >From Vortex Comedy Central: Ah yes....we bring you -- that Master of Dripping Sarcasm: Barry!!! Who's at it again. [Trumpet Salute/Drum Roll] While I'm no particular friend of CETI (and don't worry, I won't launch several people into orbit on this list by stating that Patterson specifically called Joseph Newman several years before he (Patterson) applied for his patent wanting to know if Joe's technical process applied to "heat" -- which it does as outlined in Joe's book -- and that the nature of Patterson's claim in this respect was included in Joe's original patent application as a derivative of the general technical process --- no, I won't write these things since my real problem is not so much with Mr. Patterson as it is with that Master of Technical Incompetence, that loveable, sensitive, and intellectually-dishonest "Expert in Perpetual Motion", my 'good friend' and dear patent examiner: DONOVAN F. DUGGAN. :-) but I do have one tiny observation about the above 'gems' from Barry: Barry posted: >> Several working devices have been made avialable to two >> teams." Barry writes: >Now remember, for this press release several = two. While I realize that all this is in the spirit of "humor" and that Barry is actually a "secret investor in CETI attempting to 'rally others to CETI's defense' by helping to fund their endeavors," And in the spirit of Barry's "humor" it seems to me that mathematically "several" devices, e.g. "3" devices, could be made available to "2" teams, i.e., 1 device to one team and 2 devices to the other team. How Barry seemingly arrives at the conclusion that CETI and/or himself is suggesting an equivalence between "several" and "two" is a slightly interesting approach.....but then since Barry is indeed the mathematical expert here at (temporary) Comedy Central then he is, no doubt, employing slightly higher mathematics to arrive at such an equivalance. :-) Relax Barry, It's only a joke! :-) Evan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 23:43:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA00488; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:14:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:14:52 -0800 Message-ID: <330D5A4A.A2B rt66.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:18:18 -0800 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley uiuc.edu, design73@aol.com, davidk@suba.com, drom vxcern.cern.ch, rollo@artvark.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, dennis wazoo.com, ine@padrak.com, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, wireless rmii.com, jchampion@transmutation.com, bockris chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, blue pilot.msu.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release References: <970221053131_76570.2270_FHU52-1 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Ar8DS1.0.U7.hjK3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4372 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hey Votexans (I'm from Texas), I admit, as a sometimes rebuked practitioner of off-the-cuff, sassy, unguarded, provokative, impatient, and critical appraisals, that I thoroughly enjoyed Barry Merriman's (barry math.ucla.edu) testy, tasty translation of the PR Release on CETI's "Memorandum Of Understanding" with Desert Research Institute. It was funny! It may be largely true. Barry has stuck his neck way straight out, ready to receive the dangling placard, "Turns out, the facts have proven me wrong." I have done the same thing with my five Miley Critiques. They have been based almost entirely on word by word study of Miley's two Preprints. I'm interested to see how little substantive, detailed discussion of my many points has ensued. I wonder if I'll ever get a response like: "Wow! Thanks for the accurate criticisms! We're going to have to scrutinize every line we publish from now on, and run many more specific checks on our experiments, if anyone's going to believe our amazing claims." So, I see in Gene Mallove's response to Barry's many-pointed joisting post a kind of emotional, reactive blast, rather than a listening to the questions behind the questions: Why haven't we heard some specifics from CETI spokespersons about the disappearance of claims of excess power production, down from a thousand to one claim a year ago? You know, even a two-to-one claim, reliable, verified by completely independent third parties, would be a tremendous result. Why so many actually absurd errors in Miley's two Preprints? Why not quick response with some carefully presented, convincing data? Wouldn't "Infinite Energy" be far more effective in promoting unlimited energy if its reports were refereed and vetted, and if competent and even biased skeptics were given adaquate space to express their concerns in responsible detail? A circle-the-wagons style of forced optimism and one-sided enthusiasm will lead many valuable players to quietly withdraw from the field. I congratuate Barry for daring to drop his fishing line into the magical, murky waters of Champion's dumbfounding transmutation claims. It seems that the fisherman, having snagged his line on some strange items of data, is himself hooked by his unexpected catch. He is staying wide awake, I sense, and double-checking before sharing his big fish story with the rest of us. And I am sure that if he finds himself blunddering (oh dear, is that really two "d's"?), he'll be the first to talk about it publicly. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 20 23:56:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA04838; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:40:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:40:54 -0800 Message-Id: <199702210739.AAA17916 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:40:34 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"BqQVI.0.VB1.56L3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4373 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Whether it be CETI, P&F or Joe Champion two basic fundamentals govern the reality of transmutation, or any new discovery: 1) A concept that works in the originating laboratory; and, 2) The ability for the originator to transfer the knowledge (specifically technique) to others so that the essence of peer review is achieved. I can only make assumptions for CETI and P&F, for I assumed that they past the first phase, but either lacked, or were afraid to give away the secret, for the second part of the required equation. Barry maintains a hard shell. When we first met, he visited a site I was working at near Phoenix. He questioned everything ,even to the point of having a metal detector available to see if I had put gold in my pocket. To me this was enjoyable for if I passed the review he would have no problem in the belief factor. But the reality is -- it really didn't matter if Barry could find fault in my experiments. For, unless he could return to a private place and replicate the phenomena time and time again, he would be a skeptic. Realizing this from the start, my goal was to move from the 1,000,000:1 category to a more realistic region of 1,000:1 by showing him how we carried out experiments. Barry left the Phoenix area and traveled onward to Dallas where he met Dan York and company. At no point was Barry convinced of anything other than the observation of a *possible* phenomena. Trying to maintain perspective, in Phoenix and Dallas Barry carried out his own experiments, using chemicals and furnaces he purchased (without assistance of outside funds, even though they were offered). He maintained notes and was curious, but not convinced. The reason being, there were others in the proximity of the experiments. Having said all of this, my function to gain acceptance from Barry required that Dan York, Bill Stehl, Bill Giffin and myself provide the network for Barry to replicate these experiments totally independent. The reality is -- I have not succeeded in total. Some of the independent replication has worked for Barry, while others have failed. The reason Barry is not on my case such as he is on Newman and CETI is simple -- we network regarding the potential trouble which arises in various experiments. You see, I understand my science. There may be some gray areas as to mechanics on the nuclear level that my peers may have to decipher. Although, if an experiment doesn't work and the proper data is returned, either Dan, Bill, Bill or myself can figure out a logical reason why. Then we repeat with the proper changes. It is my opinion, that Barry would like to find the truth to this. Gene's statements were somewhat out of line, for I know without question that Barry has spent thousands of dollars to prove CETI, P&F, myself and probably other's wrong. He has a small problem with my work for he lacks continous repication. If a CETI Cell doesn't work, is Dennis going to supply the data necessary to correct the problem? I am not even going to attempt to answer. Although, in my asinine (and truthful) style, I can say if they knew what they were doing, why did they offer me (Joe Champion) $300,000.00 in 1996 to help them over the hump? This is a recorded fact from the grandson himself! To observe an anomaly and report it is one thing, to understand it and expain it to others is another. ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 00:45:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA12563; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:34:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:34:31 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:36:58 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Spark experiment with modifications Resent-Message-ID: <"ZRb1g1.0.943.LuL3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4374 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Continuing the search for light electrons: ------------------------------------------------ | D1 | | --x1--|>|--x3--B1----x5---- x8 | C | | | ----| |---------| |----- | | --x2--|<|--x4--B2--x6 --x7 D2 | | \/\/\/ primary (L1) ====== T1 /\/\/\ secondary (L2) | | G O Bi - xenon flash bulbs used for spark gaps, 1.3 cm length C - Piezo Crystal (having capacitance C) Di - 35 Kv PIV diodes G - Ground O - Oscilloscope probe T1 - ferrite core transformer, 8 windings primary (L1), 6 secondary (L2), 30 KV insulation xi - splice points Some values: Capacitance: Bi - below .001 nF C - 0.30 nF (variable depending on position of leads) Di - below .001 nF T1 - Between primary and secondary: 0.058 nF Inductance: L1 - 0.029 mH L2 - 0.019 mH Having found enough parts, I reproduced the above experiment, of interest due to an AC spark component hypothesized to be due to cyclotron frequency of light electrons. The results were as follows: Spark duration about 2 usec, with multiple storkes varying from about 4 to 8 usec apart. The discharge timing pattern was only slightly variable, as some strokes would be missing on occasion and separation varied maybe 10-20 percent, but a fairly similar discharge pattern for all piezo strikes. Each stroke trace appeared to be made of an AC signal. The strokes appeared on the scope as fuzzy bunches of AC separated by 4-8 useconds of no signal. The fuzzy bunches appeared to be made up of a signal of more than 50 MHz. My scope is not very stable so measurements were not easy or stable. The fuzzy bunches made a ball like bunch of signal in an envelope with a faster rise time than decay time, but only by a factor of maybe 2. There were about 5 strokes to a piezo strike. The voltage of the strokes showed up as 2 V when the scope was set at 2 V/cm. The probe was set at 10X, so the voltage observed was 20 V. The spark jumps about a cm so the primary voltage was about 10,000 V. The transformer provides very weak coupling with the intent to interfere a minimal amount with the original signal, and to get a picture of the current profile. To check for the AC signal being a result of inter-component resonance, a roughly 30 m piece of 15 KV insulated wire was spliced into the points x1 through x8, one point at a time. The objective of adding the splice was to add a minimum of 10^-7 second delay, due to the speed of light. This means an absolute limit to any resonance signal including the delay line would be 10 MHz. The signals were observed at 2, 1 and .5 usec/cm. The result was that none of the splicings noticeably affected the frequency of the AC component. The envelopes changed a bit and the spark characteristics may have changed a bit, most noticibly for the splice at x3. For that splice the spark in B1 seemed more variagated, knarled, and intense. These effects were fairly minimal and subjective. It is reasonably certain, even with the poor condition scope, that at no time did the AC component reduce to 10 MHz or below, as that would mean only 20 cycles in a stroke, which should have been clearly visible at 1 usec/cm. This implies that the mechanism for producing the AC is in one of the components. If its a fluke, then either the transformer core, or the scope amplifier is suspected. If the measurement is not a fluke, then the spark strokes contain a strong AC component or are completely comprised of a pulsed DC current. Any other suggestions or possibilities? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 02:27:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA21867; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:03:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 02:03:21 -0800 Message-ID: <330D7020.454F microtronics.com.au> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:21:28 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hschulze collison.com.au, vortex-l@eskimo.com, newman-l@emachine.com, freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Kawai Patent Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4b-S1.0.aL5.dBN3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4375 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, Several people not on the DNMEC Gif list have asked for the Kawai Patent. If you would like a copy, just ask. Its very interesting to read a US patent which very clearly claims OU. 19.55 watts in and 62.16 watts out. Its in the Patent, Believe It or Not! -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson microtronics.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 03:14:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA27598; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:05:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:05:33 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:05:36 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <33126deb.15999288 mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9q0Gm.0.8l6.x5O3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4376 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:15:01 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: >Suppose l+ can bind to e-. This forms a neutral particle that, provided it >is sufficiently bound, can slowly enter and linger in the nucleus. The >lingering time increases the potential for a weak interation. If l+ exist, >and are made in sufficient number, there is a potential explanation for >cold fusion and transmutation by electron capture. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner If light electrons exist, why have they never shown up in particle accelerator experiments? Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 03:14:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA27633; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:05:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:05:41 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: nuclear physics class Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:05:32 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <330d4185.4632009 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970218114031_1449001188 emout09.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <970218114031_1449001188 emout09.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-G2R92.0.hl6.46O3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4377 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:40:33 -0500 (EST), FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: >This class I'm taking in nuclear is really tough. Today we went into the >property of Isospin. I'm a little in over my head but somehow I managed to >get an A on the first exam. We are required to perform a project using the 1 >MEV proton accelerator at the university. I want to load protons into a >nickel substrate and look for cold fusion effects. As far a I know no one >has tried loading with a low energy accelerator. Any ideas of how to set up >and what to look for? One of the problems with cold fusion is that protons >tend to diffuse out of the material. I may be able to place a coating on the >nickel substrate that is impermeable to low energy protons and then load it >up by pushing protons right through the coating with the accelerator. > Perhaps a permanently loaded substrate could be produced. >Need advice. I hope the instructor buys it. The problem with this Frank, is that if you use 1 MeV protons, then they will deposit most of their kinetic energy in the substrate. In order to get a noticeable CF heat signal (10%?) about 1 in 50 of your protons is going to have to undergo a CF reaction. Given the past history of CF, I think this is pushing things a bit. Besides which a 1 MeV proton is way above the hot fusion regime (about 10-20 keV?) so you will have considerable difficulty convincing anyone that any result you might achieve is CF, and not HF. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 04:22:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA32486; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:12:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:12:28 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:07:23 +0000 Message-ID: <19970221120721.AAA4723 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"0EFS23.0.Qx7.h4P3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4378 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:05 AM 2/21/97 +0000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >If light electrons exist, why have they never shown up in particle >accelerator experiments? Easy to miss, Robin. At 10 kev a regular electron is moving at about 6E7 meters/sec and in a magnetic field of 0.1 tesla sweeping a radius of about 0.34 centimeters. The radius swept in the same magnetic field for the light electrons with 10 kev kinetic energy would be about 0.02 cm. In a cloud chamber or bubble chamber, I doubt that there would be a discernable track until you got the energies up to where their relativistic mass was comparable to that of the electron at rest. Then wouldn't you figure that they were regular electrons? The cloud chamber pictures of C.D. Andersons discovery of the electron-positron pair were made with the electrons-positrons moving at around 23 Mev in a magnetic field of 0.08 tesla (800 gauss) are you sure that these were not light electrons? One gets so used to seeing photos of the particle tracks that you began to think that you are looking at the actual particles in real time. Go back and look at the cloud chamber and bubble chamber photos with this in mind, then ask yourself the same question. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 04:35:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA00984; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:25:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:25:52 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 06:25:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702211225.GAA20693 dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: #2 RE: A correction To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: hjscudder rdyne.bna.boeing.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"aFFk83.0.IF.EHP3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4379 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You wrote: > >Why are papers not able to be refereed if they are not copyrighted? >Hank Scudder I considered again your question. I wish to add to my first response since I think it did not address your core question. Rather, I was responding to the original problems which gave rise to Okamoto's explanation. This is the the quote with the word reffere (also 'reguration') untampered with: "The copyright may have no reguration in the scientific world in general, but it is very important for the scientists who wrote the articles. When the articles are published without any copyrights, no body can reffere the papers. So, we published the proceedings with authorized copyright." Frankly, I do not know what he exactly means to say. However, speculating: It does not come out clearly this way, but, I would take the paragraph to mean that copyright dates serves as a valid date stamps for claims of primary discovery related perhaps to patent applications later. Maybe a copyright date is a superior (or additional) form of date stamping your work rather than a lab work notebook with dates and times which might be falsified. Perhaps it is an additional tool to help 'reffere' papers. Who knows? I know that scientific discoveries are the tip of an iceberg. The ugliness (rest of the iceberg) can very potentially come out in the court fights afterwards in the process of applications of those discoveries. Recent and current history is replete with examples. Two recent PBS TV documentaries on Farnsworth (TV) and the Wright Brothers (Flight) makes for a consumer's pablum slight exposure to the raging court fights that went on. -AK- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 04:59:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA03078; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:49:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:49:09 -0800 Date: 21 Feb 97 07:47:51 EST From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Message-ID: <970221124750_76570.2270_FHU31-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qzoRo.0.0m.3dP3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4380 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rich Murray writes: "So, I see in Gene Mallove's response to Barry's many-pointed joisting post a kind of emotional, reactive blast, rather than a listening to the questions behind the questions:" "Questions behind the questions"? Baloney! "Why haven't we heard some specifics from CETI spokespersons about the disappearance of claims of excess power production, down from a thousand to one claim a year ago? You know, even a two-to-one claim, reliable, verified by completely independent third parties, would be a tremendous result." Look, Rich, let's just say you are not in contact with people who know what is going on. Whether you or Barry can comprehend this simple fact, this is true: cold fusion is now in an intensely commercial phase. The effects are real. You have a serious analytical problem thinking that you have concluded that everything you touch in this field "disappears" under your magic analysis. NO one needs to keep YOU or Barry posted on their latest verifications and results. I promise you one thing, however, you are going to see some major news on a variety of fronts in the next 3-6 months -- and not just from CETI. It will squeeze your position and that of Barry further into the realm of the absurd. Enough said. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 05:08:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04005; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:58:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:58:52 -0800 Date: 21 Feb 97 07:23:27 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Rele Message-ID: <970221122326_100433.1541_BHG107-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"WLBL-3.0.V-.BmP3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4381 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard, > Why haven't we heard some specifics from CETI spokespersons about > the disappearance of claims of excess power production, down from > a thousand to one claim a year ago? You know, even a two-to-one > claim, reliable, verified by completely independent third parties, > would be a tremendous result. We don't like the CETI approach, and we've made that plain enough for long enough. But what you say is just repeating the old cry, we have you (and to a degree us) saying "why don't they do what we think they should do," while the company is off doing whatever it is *they* think they should be doing. By the way, the claims have NOT disappeared. In other words, the non-identicality of their agenda and yours is not a proof of anything at all. > Wouldn't "Infinite Energy" be far more effective in promoting > unlimited energy if its reports were refereed and vetted, and if > competent and even biased skeptics were given adaquate space to > express their concerns in responsible detail? No. What an hilarious idea! > A circle-the-wagons style of forced optimism and one-sided > enthusiasm will lead many valuable players to quietly withdraw > from the field. WHAT? Jed and Gene and I - "forced optimism and one-sided enthusiasm"? Ha! I needed a laugh this morning! As to the result you propose will occur, I suggest that you support your contention - bearing in mind that we can demonstrate that the opposite is true. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 05:59:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA11208; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:46:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:46:40 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 07:45:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702211345.HAA25393 dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com> From: aki ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: 20,000 yen for the ICCF-6's 2 volumes To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"L9KPl1.0.ok2.xSQ3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4382 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: February 21, 1997 To Vortex members, The two volumes of the ICCF-6 Proceedings are available to the public at 10,000 yen per volume. You will need the two volumes so it is 20,000 yen. I figure this to be about $167.00 at 120 yen to the dollar. The package weight is 2.5 kilograms for two volumes. The volumes are of unequal weights. Its approx.1.5 Kg. for Vol. 1 and 1.0 Kg for volume 2 if you take vol 2 to be 1/3 lighter than vol.1 (v.1 417 pgs, v.2@ 212 pgs) You need this to figure the additional cost of the mode of delivery to ADD to the volume cost. This is the fax information received: (with snips of extraneous stuff) -AK- Conference Secretariat NHE-Center, IAE Tel: +81-3-3508-8901 Fax: +81-3-3508-8902 We would like to inform you that the price for Proceedings (Vol. 1&2) are 10,000 yen per volume. Mailing costs will be aaded to this amount. We will mail them to you after we receive your payment Payment is acceptable by the bank transfer and bank draft only. The following is our bank account, Bank name: Sumitomo Bank Bank No. No. 0009 Branch Tokyo Public Institutions Business Department Account Name The Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion Account No. Account No. 096 Please send us the copy of the bank receipt when you order them. We look foward to your reply. If you have any question, please contact us. Regards, Conference Secretariat From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 06:07:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA12642; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:57:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:57:52 -0800 Date: 21 Feb 97 08:56:16 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Message-ID: <970221135615_72240.1256_EHB75-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"QgZ8a2.0.R53.UdQ3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4383 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: I definitely had/have a replica, crafted with considerable care and expense. Was it a perfect replica? Evidently not. No, it was not even close. It did not meet the minimum required performance characteristics: the thin film cracked and shed. There is no way they could have worked. Could CETI given some minimal assistance to correct the errors of my ways, say by proving a few cc of magic beads at a reasonable fee? I guess not, though they were given ample opportunity. Of course they could have! They chose not to. Evidently, they don't like your style. If I were them, and I read e-mail postings like these -- with rude comments about fishing reels and plant fertilizer -- I would not have anything to do with you either. Perhaps they have understood your attitude all alone. I am no friend of CETI. Everyone knows that I have repeatedly, publicly disagreed with them on numerous occasions. But I can well understand why they refuse to do business with people who think they have "replicated" with self-destructing, non-loading beads, and people who make outrageous, totally unsupported statements about "disappearing heat claims" and the like. CETI has not retracted *one word* of their heat claims. Neither has Miley, or Cravens. Neither have I! I measured a 16 deg C Delta T temperature and a flow of about a liter a minute. A 5-watt Radio Shack power supply was the only input. That is undeniable proof of massive excess heat, far beyond the limits of chemistry. Nobody has ever given the readers of this forum any technically sound reason to doubt my observations. There was a long, careful debate here. People tried to demonstrate how the flow rate might have been a fraction of a milliliter per minute; I showed how that would be impossible. People tried to show how the "cooling tower" could not have removed more than a few watts; Mitchell Jones ran a series of tests showing that the tower could easily remove 300 watts. I think if he had pursued the matter and worked with Cravens, he would have seen even better heat-transfer capacity in the design, but I can live with 300 watts. It is much larger than the input. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 07:44:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA32360; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 07:25:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 07:25:18 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 06:27:33 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"sg1Ao1.0.Lv7.MvR3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4384 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:05 AM 2/21/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: [snip] >If light electrons exist, why have they never shown up in particle >accelerator experiments? This is an interresting point. While true that at the high energies involved, they would be at over .99 c, thus indistinguishable relativistic mass, velocity, thus m/e track, energy, etc., if there was any major difference between l- and e- in the way they interact with other particles, e.g. in making tracks, then this should have shown up, either in the form of lost energy (no l- tracks) or weird tracks. Since this appears not to have happened, it would be expected that no cyclotron frequency could show up in the spark experiment. In fact, with the larger de Broglie wavelength, the light electron should be even more susceptible to collisions at low energies than the electron. The l- should have a much more pronounced double slit pattern at low energies. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 07:59:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA23468; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:16:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:16:53 -0800 Date: 20 Feb 97 23:08:01 EST From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Release Message-ID: <970221040801_76570.2270_FHU62-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"am7Ox1.0.ck5.p6I3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4367 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ah, Barry, you are soo-ooo very wrong!: "I think the correct equation is CETI / Claims = NOU (Not Over Unity)" Very much over-unity still. Don't be so sassy when you don't know what you are talking about. "In other words, they could not find any corporate buyer for their revolutionary technology. I wonder how much CETI agreed to pay DRI.." It's very much the other way. "In other words, no scientific journal has published their results." Infinite Energy is a scientific journal and we published their results. (Too bad you don't subscribe. Too busy with transmutation experiments making gold, eh?) Nature and Science, incidentally, are NOT scientific journals on the matter of cold fusion, for obvious reasons. "Yes---in addition to Cold Fusion Energy, Patterson has patents for an improved fishing rod reel and a novel plant fertilization system (no joke)." Seems like a very good man then. Productive and practical, unlike academic welfare recipients. "but it failed to capture their funding." You know from nothing. "Yes, I could also turn my Patterson cell replica on and off at will...unfortunately in either state it did nothing. You know damn well you do NOT have a Patterson "replica." So stop saying that! "Of course the reason the USPTO did this is that the device *as patented* is not intended for cold fusion. Come to think of it, I wonder what Patterson's other patents _REALLY_ are...maybe his fishing reel is a warp drive, his plant fertilizer is the philosopher's stone." Sarcastic nonsense. > > Desert Research Institute "They sound particularly well suited to investigating barren technology..." The only barren technnology is the one you were working on -- until recently? -- the tokamak. Barren technology that nonetheless rips us all off -- but not for much longer. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 08:49:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17203; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 08:38:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 08:38:16 -0800 Message-ID: <330DCF8F.4DCC interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:38:39 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena References: <19970221020527.AAA12104 LOCALNAME> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"D3b_32.0.hC4.qzS3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4386 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > The lightning channels are estimated at about 5 cm radius and the current is > in the range of 30,000 to 200,000 amperes with the "step leader" progressing > at about 5E7 meters/sec (about 0.17c). Surprisingly the 200,000 amperes > gives about 2.55E6 dynes/cm^2 or only about 2.55 atmospheres of self-pinch > pressure. With all the noise I had always figured it to be higher. Frederick, the 5 cm radius for lightning return strokes may be from photographic data and could be on the high side. In Uman's "Lightning" he mentioned holes thru fiberglas screens made by lightning as being of radii "from a few millimeters to a few centimeters". From other comments in the book it seems to me that a channel radius of 1 cm is not unreasonable. This would up your pressure estimate to about 64 atmospheres - a more impressive figure! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 09:03:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA16391; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 08:33:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 08:33:51 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 07:36:06 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: nuclear physics class Resent-Message-ID: <"6Ithz3.0.q_3.dvS3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4385 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:40:33 -0500 (EST), FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > [snip] >>up by pushing protons right through the coating with the accelerator. >> Perhaps a permanently loaded substrate could be produced. >>Need advice. I hope the instructor buys it. Say if you want a densely loaded target, try a piece of plastic, PTFE, teflon. You would have to put up with the carbon in the target though. Another thought. With an Al target, Kamada got .7 MeV protons. This suggests some kind of resonance there, either with the Al or the H. Could try that eneggy range and see what pops out. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 09:20:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA24482; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:08:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:08:23 -0800 Date: 21 Feb 97 12:06:26 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Champion's claims not supported Message-ID: <970221170625_72240.1256_EHB90-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0367s.0.L-5.3QT3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4388 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Joe Champion writes as if his claims have been verified by outside experts: You see, I understand my science. There may be some gray areas as to mechanics on the nuclear level that my peers may have to decipher. Although, if an experiment doesn't work and the proper data is returned, either Dan, Bill, Bill or myself can figure out a logical reason why. Then we repeat with the proper changes. Joe sent me samples of materials that he thought contained isotopic anomalies. They did not. They were analyzed by a first-class Japanese corporate lab, at Mizuno's expense. The lab reported back that the powdery material was not suitable for this type of analysis and no conclusions can be drawn. There were more anomalies in the "before" sample than the "after" one, which suggests that Joe's process turns exotic material into ordinary stuff. This was published here in real time. Apart from the TAMU experiments a few years ago, which ended inconclusively, Joe has *no* independent scientific proof for any of his claims. Furthermore, the people he told me he is working with, who he said would vouch for him, emphatically denied this when I spoke with them. If Joe Champion had ANY DECENT SAMPLES of metal with isotopic anomalies, he could have sent them to Mizuno a year ago. By now, everyone would believe him. The fact that he has never lifted a finger to do that convinces me that he has nothing, and his claims are invalid. People here have accused CETI of keeping secrets. I agree that they have. I think it has hurt their commercial prospects and their credibility. But their level of openness, cooperation, and scientific legitimacy are far above Joe Champion's. The performance of CETI's devices have been described in good, independent scientific papers from Cravens, Miley and McKubre. I wish there were hundreds of independent papers instead of three, but nobody can deny this track record. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 09:21:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA24416; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:08:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:08:12 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:07:28 +0000 Message-ID: <19970221170726.AAA22088 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"MDdLB2.0.Pz5.vPT3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4387 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:27 PM 2/21/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 2:05 AM 2/21/97, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >[snip] >>If light electrons exist, why have they never shown up in particle >>accelerator experiments? > >This is an interresting point. While true that at the high energies >involved, they would be at over .99 c, thus indistinguishable relativistic >mass, velocity, thus m/e track, energy, etc., if there was any major >difference between l- and e- in the way they interact with other particles, >e.g. in making tracks, then this should have shown up, either in the form >of lost energy (no l- tracks) or weird tracks. > >Since this appears not to have happened, it would be expected that no >cyclotron frequency could show up in the spark experiment. In fact, with >the larger de Broglie wavelength, the light electron should be even more >susceptible to collisions at low energies than the electron. The l- should >have a much more pronounced double slit pattern at low energies. The de Broglie wavlength for the electron; (e-) = h/[(2mo*eV)^1/2(1+ eV/2mo*c^2)^1/2] thus about 1.23E-11 meters at 5 kev. For a light electron (l-) at 5 kev lambda = about 2.45E-10 meters. In electron diffraction applications; lambda = 12.2638/[V^2(1+9.7852E-7*V^)1/2] Usually electron diffraction is carried out at 40 kev to over 100 kev. At 100 ev the wavelength for the electron is 1 angstrom and at 50 kev 0.05 angstrom. The velocity, v = c * {1- 1/[(eV/moc^2)+ 1]^2}^1/2 to get the relativistic corrections into the equations. The point; at low energies the differences are noticeable and at the high energies the properties converge. Wouldn't it be prudent to look around at the low energies? Where are you going to find low energy (less than 1 Mev particle tracks in cloud chamber or bubble chamber experiments that use B fields of less than 0.1 Tesla? The "Artifacts" of these experiments might show something also. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 10:10:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02391; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:54:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:54:44 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman earthlink.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:56:28 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: 'Kawai' Patent Resent-Message-ID: <"U-cT81.0.Eb.Y5U3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4389 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >From: Greg Watson >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:21:28 +1030 >Subject: Kawai Patent >Organization: Greg Watson Consulting > >Hi All, > >Several people not on the DNMEC Gif list have asked for the >Kawai Patent. If you would like a copy, just ask. Its very >interesting to read a US patent which very clearly claims OU. > >19.55 watts in and 62.16 watts out. Its in the Patent, >Believe It or Not! > >-- >Best Regards, >Greg Watson, >Greg Watson Consulting, >Adelaide, South Australia, >gwatson microtronics.com.au > I would certainly agree with Greg's synopsis of the 'Kawai' patent. Since he posted the above note, I have receive a number of private emails from people asking me to repost the earlier statement by Joseph Newman concerning Kawai. The following is that original posting: *** NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS *** Route 1, Box 52 * Lucedale, MS 39452 * (601) 947-7147 email: josephnewman earthlink.net *********************************************************** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE *********************************************************** THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN --- THEFT OF TECHNOLOGY --- 9/26/1996 "Ironically, Joseph Newman's lifework for humanity -- a Pioneering Energy Invention -- has been proven correct by the very betrayal of Joseph Newman and the conspiracy by a select few to steal this technology for their exclusive benefit. These "Benedict-Arnold-types" who were, at one time, close to Joseph Newman, have collaborated with powerful industrial interests and with influential representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties affiliated with the United States government." Joseph Newman states the following Proof: [Additional proof will be forthcoming in the lawsuits.] "The United States Patent Office issued Patent Number 5,436,518 for an electromagnetic motor which claims 318% more output than input energy. This U. S. Patent for a motor --- which is a direct theft of Joseph Newman's technology --- was recently issued to a Japanese national (Kawai) and a Japanese Corporation. "This Patent describes precisely what physicist Dr. Roger Hastings (who publicly endorsed and supported Joseph Newman's technology) and Joseph Newman's former patent attorney Emmett Pugh - both longtime and trusted associates of Joseph Newman - who both conspired, stole, and quietly produced Joseph Newman's technology through collaboration with such companies as Johnson Corporation, *MinnKota* Corporation, Ray-O-Vac Corporation, Mobile Oil Corporation, Toro Corporation, Brunswick Corporation, Motor Guide Corporation, Zebco Corporation, and Arnold Industries all of whom sold the stolen technology through such stores as Sears and WalMart. "Joseph Newman's technology - as stolen by the above- named companies and individuals - was deceptively disguised within popular *trolling motors* and lawn motors where the buyer(s) could not easily discover or realize that the motors they were using were actually the Revolutionary Energy Machine technology of Joseph Newman as featured in national and worldwide publicity for over 15 years. "The U.S. Patent Office admitted in U.S. Federal Court: "If Joseph Newman's Invention worked, it would be a Pioneering Invention." The United States Supreme Court has already ruled in several decisions, "From the widest to the narrowest interpretation of the Claims - the Claims will be upheld in the language of the Applicant." The original Applicant and Inventor of this energy machine technology is Joseph Newman. "The conspiracy against the people of this nation and the world -- about which Joseph Newman has long warned --- is now proven with this Disclosure. "Justly, these criminal acts as exposed will now cause reputable and honest business people to come forward and make honest contracts with Joseph Newman to mass produce this Revolutionary Energy Machine throughout all walks of life. "Oil (for purposes of energy generation) as well as environmental pollution --- will now become obsolete." --- Joseph Westley Newman Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 To view only several of the motors now utilizing Joseph Newman's technology, access the following websites: http://www.jwa.com/FISHING/MOTORS/transom.html http://www.jwa.com/FISHING/MOTORS/allterrain.html http://www.jwa.com/FISHING/MOTORS/riptide.html There is *considerable* additional information which is now being collected regarding individuals who were former close associates of Joseph W. Newman who became consultants to companies such as MINN KOTA MOTORS; the involvement of RAY-O-VAC Corporation who had at one time signed a battery production contract with Joseph Newman and is now involved with MINN KOTA MOTORS; the involvement of Mobil Oil Corporation with MINN KOTA MOTORS; as well as additional Corporations which are now utilizing this technology. The specific details, Affidavits, Signed Disclosure Agreements, etc., will be included in the legal briefs filed with the lawsuits. ___________________________________________________________ Joseph W. Newman (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 josephnewman earthlink.net website: http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html ___________________________________________________________ Update Note (2/21/97): It is unfortunate that developments has come to the above, but I personally place the original and fundamental blame in the hands of the proven, technically incompetent, ex-patent-examiner: * Mr. Donovan F. Duggan * As the former U. S. Commissioner of the Patent Office and technical expert to the Federal Court (who was originally recommended as a Special Master/technical expert to the Court by the Patent Office and whose credentials were explicitly hailed as being "superb" by Federal Judge Thomas P. Jackson) William E. Schuyler, Jr. specifically wrote in his REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER to the Court: "Defendant (Patent Office) intentionally did not consider the formalities of Plaintiff's (Joseph Newman) application or the patentability of Plaintiff's claims under 35 USC sec 102/103. "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is * overwhelming * that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is * no * contradictory factual evidence." And as the Republican Study Committee of Congress wrote in their Special Report to the United States House and Senate regarding Joseph Newman's long struggle for a Pioneering Patent: "Joseph Newman has received arbitrary and unfair treatment at the hands of the PTO and Federal Judge Jackson. Congress should act because the Executive and Judicial branches have failed this American citizen. In light of Congress' oversight responsibilities and the fact that it is empowered by the Constitution to issue patents, the fact that the preponderance of evidence is in Newman's favor, and the fact that this invention is potentially beneficial to hundreds of millions of people, it is totally in order for Congress to grant Newman a patent and to allow the American marketplace to decide the value of this invention." The previous actions of the bureaucrats at the patent office have given Joseph Newman no choice but to take all measures to insure that justice is done. From the very beginning --- more than 18 years ago --- all Joseph Newman has wanted is for the equal opportunity to prove his technology in the marketplace with the protections afforded by the American patent system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 10:42:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA11108; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:30:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:30:17 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:29:23 +0000 Message-ID: <19970221182922.AAA29470 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"jIgP82.0.Qj2.rcU3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4390 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:13 AM 2/21/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: > >Had another thought about light electrons if they exist: heavy atoms must >spontaneously generate profuse amounts of them in the vicinity of the >nucleus due to the enormous electrostatic gradient there. There is >theoretical evidence that a "super" nucleus could even generate real e-,e+ >pairs. If light electrons could facilitate transmutation, etc., then heavy >elements,like lead should transmute spontaneously. They might be expected >to radiate x-rays, since K shell electrons could escape via shielding >provided by l+ lights. Something more is needed to explain why this >doesn't happen. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > A friend at Sandia Labs (SNLA) referred me to a book published by Stratton; Electromagnetic Theory, Julius Adams Stratton, McGraw-Hill, 1941. (three years before March 29th 1944 ) that covers the propagation velocity of EM waves in conductors. It seems that the Velocity vs Frequency curves for copper, Conductivity = 5.8E7 mho/meter become constant at about 1E12 Hz if you plug in the relative dielectric constant of the metal. As a matter of fact a calculation of the dielectric constant shows that the wave propagation velocity is constant at c/137 = 2.187E6 meters/sec for 8E13 Hz and above. Since E = hf 8E13 Hz = 0.33 ev and above. What then happens to the de Broglie wavelength Lambda = h/mv under these conditions? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 10:44:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA11545; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:32:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:32:06 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Subject: Gentlemen, gentlemen! Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:29:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"M5XDk.0.Eq2.SeU3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4391 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry and Gene Your emotional interaction is getting close to flame wars. Large sarcasm is self defeating, so are strongly personal responses. Please cool it, stick to science. I think Barry's response to Newman was much better, then his CETI diatribe. It gave me something to actually ponder and analyze. Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 11:18:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA20910; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:06:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:06:11 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970221190445.0068d4ac world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:04:45 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: No missing (redshift) or gained energ Resent-Message-ID: <"czGga1.0.c55.C8V3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4393 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:21 AM 2/17/97 -0500, Frank wrote: >All the swings and roundabouts cancel and no missing (redshift) or gained >energy (blueshift) in Doppler shift. >.............................................................................. >....................................... >That's what I was thinking but with a twist. The cosmological principle >states that all positions in the universe are equivalent. Photons loose >energy through the Hubble red shift. Where does this energy go? Is it >converted to gravitational potential energy? No!! all posititions in the >universe are equivalent..they all have the same potential energy. Do we >reject the cosmological principle? I don't! Methinks photons do not loose energy through the Hubble red shift. IMHO the red shift is a result of two frames of reference, and the relative velocity between them (ie. Doppler shift at optical electromagnetic frequencies. If the second frame of reference is moving toward the photon emitters then there would be a blue shift. In fact, as Einstein showed in a thought experiment, when one considers both red and blue shift, and then adds both of them together, there is a slight difference from two photons emitted without the shifts. If memory serves when we last repeated that on an envelope back, that difference can be defined as an amount, epsilon, which when cracked through the equations in that Gendanken experiment is (and what led Einstein to the equation) E=mc2. Try it. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 11:18:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA20666; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:05:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:05:32 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970221190422.00683c48 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:04:22 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Active sites. Resent-Message-ID: <"4nvEa1.0.O25.m7V3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4392 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:14 PM 2/17/97 GMT, Peter Gluek & Rich Murray have been discussing the spots and craters on electrodes showing the CF phenomena: > >"A common denominator to a wide variety of interesting experiments is >micron-size spots and craters on the electrodes, where high current >densities have occurred and possibly nuclear reactions, or at least >efficient isotopic separation: electrolysis, glow discharge, spark. >Akira Kawasaki just put on Vortex-L an abstract from ICCF-6 by >P.L.Cignini, D. Gozzi, et al on electrolysis of D2O on Palladium: an >X-ray film 5 cm away got a pattern of spots, including a shadow of the >anode. The cathode was a bundle of 150 250-micron Pd wires. The idea >instantly occured to me that spots could result from beams or jets, >perhaps fairly coherent, of gammas or other radiation emitted from >active tiny reaction sites." >Rich is one of the few vortexers focusing on important problems >working hard and not making speculations..thank you Rich! > >I have repeatedly stated that recognizing the local character of these >phenomena is the first decisive step toward reproducibility, and hence >technology. An important step. The metallurgical and material aspects are as important as the nuclear ones, and should be considered. However, it is possible that there are at least two types of sites which differ from the normal loaded metal. In particular, both the active site(s) and the breakdown fractures, defects, voids, dislocation loops, bubbles, and blisters, both differ from the intact metal. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 11:54:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA31639; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:42:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:42:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:44:41 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"WgVfz3.0.3k7.TgV3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4394 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:33 PM 2/20/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >> >>Gee, maybe not. The deBroglie wavelenghth of a slow l+ would be huge! Same >>for a slow (e-,l+) complex maybe also. It would require a very tight bond >>of the (e-,l+) for it to be able to slip into a nucleus. Such a bond would >>not occur in the form of a typical atomic orbital (l+ orbiting e-), because >>that would require a very large diameter due to the low mass of the l+. >>Therefore to be "small" enough to ge into a nulceus it would have to be >>fast, but if it's fast it can't linger about for a weak reaction to occcur. >>Am I just babbling? > >Like a brook, or Niagara Falls? > >BTW. The equation s/b N = 2.7E19 * P*To/Po*T (molecules-atoms/cm^3) T in deg K >and pressure in atm. > >Regards, Frederick We're on the wrong wavelength. The implication is that if the de Broglie wavelength is large, i.e the quantum waveform is large, the probablity of either a weak or strong interaction diminishes. There is no relation I can see to gas laws. The problem is: if the waveforms mutually appear smaller due to increased relative motion, the contact time diminishes. Closer centers of mass mean increased likelyhood of interaction, but increased quantum wavelength diminishes the probability. For example, the probability of a nuclear reaction in a large Bose condensate should be about nil, true? The trick to electron capture is simultaneously having a long "hang time" about the nucleus and having a small quantum wavelength. I was thinking possibly a bound pair (l+, e-) might fulfill both requirements, due to the low ratio of mass of the electron to the light electron (134). I was thinking this might mean *both* e- and l+, if bound, would maintain a large velocity, large angular momentum, and thus have a reduced size quantum waveform. However, the de Broglie wavelength, a kind of statistic of the quantum waveform, is only a function of momentum, and thus will be large at a slow velocity, true? At larger velocities, there is no "hang time". Electron capture is just plainly a difficult thing to pull off. Looking at the brigth side, this provides some explanation as to why the light electron would not accomplish much in the sun. More like Niagra Falls. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 13:07:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA18069; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:51:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:51:05 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702212049.MAA01102 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Japanese borrow words To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:49:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <970220223817_72240.1256_EHB103-1 CompuServe.COM> from "Jed Rothwell" at Feb 20, 97 05:38:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Ibzmp2.0.9P4.WgW3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4395 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell writes: > And now back to anomalous energy . . . Babel is babble. Even when it is made up of words in the same language. Take a physics paper written about GR and gravitation, compare it with a paper about quantum mechanics. Entirely different languages. It doesn't seem like these folks can talk very well with each other. Anomalous example #1. Why does the electromagnetic potential (A) in quantum mechanics have a very physical interpretation (requiring invariance under a gauge transformation), but in classical EM it is considered to be merely a mathematical convenience -- and therefore allowed to have gauge freedom? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 15:00:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA06133; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:54:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:54:23 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:52:52 +0000 Message-ID: <19970221225251.AAA23365 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"xBXrK2.0.8V1.DUY3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4397 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:44 PM 2/21/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: > >The problem is: if the waveforms mutually appear smaller due to increased >relative motion, the contact time diminishes. Closer centers of mass mean >increased likelyhood of interaction, but increased quantum wavelength >diminishes the probability. For example, the probability of a nuclear >reaction in a large Bose condensate should be about nil, true? > >The trick to electron capture is simultaneously having a long "hang time" >about the nucleus and having a small quantum wavelength. I was thinking >possibly a bound pair (l+, e-) might fulfill both requirements, due to the >low ratio of mass of the electron to the light electron (134). I was >thinking this might mean *both* e- and l+, if bound, would maintain a large >velocity, large angular momentum, and thus have a reduced size quantum >waveform. > >However, the de Broglie wavelength, a kind of statistic of the quantum >waveform, is only a function of momentum, and thus will be large at a slow >velocity, true? At larger velocities, there is no "hang time". Electron >capture is just plainly a difficult thing to pull off. > >Looking at the brigth side, this provides some explanation as to why the >light electron would not accomplish much in the sun. > >More like Niagra Falls. > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner If I read you right on invoking the de Broglie wavelength h/mv, then comparing the proton-elecron "protium", the deuteron-electron "deuterium", an electron-light electron "electronium". Then: Protium, lambda = h/mv (at 300 K) = 1.78E-10 (meters). Deuterium, lambda = h/mv (at 300 K) = 1.26E-10 (meters). Electronium, lambda = h/mv (at 300 K) = 3.33E-10 (meters). This wily exercise suggests that the neutral deuterium-electron "quasi-neutron" is more likely to tunnel into a heavy nucleus. I am interested in the light electrons only as an energy storage means, that can be made to annihilate in situations like in the P&F cell where they are too large to "diffuse" into the electrode metal and do some weird things at the surface. As I stated earlier I think that they can attach to the highly polar water molecules or mix in water and stay there until disturbed and caused to annihilate. Yours Until Niagara Falls, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 15:07:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA02151; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:43:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 14:43:42 -0800 Date: 21 Feb 97 17:19:13 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Murray's Miley Critiques Message-ID: <970221221913_72240.1256_EHB132-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"aXZ0W1.0.TX.SKY3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4396 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Rich Murray I'm interested to see how little substantive, detailed discussion of my many points has ensued. I wonder if I'll ever get a response like: "Wow! Thanks for the accurate criticisms! We're going to have to scrutinize every line we publish from now on, and run many more specific checks on our experiments, if anyone's going to believe our amazing claims." Miley did scrutinize every line. I assisted in the grunt work of publication, so I know that he and co-workers did. Perhaps he got it wrong, but not for lack of effort. Although I know little about spectroscopy and the detection of elements and isotopes, I responded in detail to some aspects of Murray's critique. He never addressed the points I raised. I discussed his claims with people who do understand spectroscopy, and they say his hypotheses have no merit. They get a sense that he is doing an armchair analysis, and that he has no hands-on knowledge of the instruments and techniques. I, of course, am even more stuck in the armchair than Murray; he knows far more than I do about spectroscopy. When he talks about calorimetry and the Claytor's spark discharge experiments I am on much firmer ground. Thus, I can only "nibble around the edges" leaving it to experts in spectroscopy to address his main points. Evidentially, they see no point in doing that. Briefly, here are the main points I raised, in my message "Miley Preprints Critique" 07-Dec-96 16:23: Dust or other would cause readings would vary wildly from sample to sample, unless the dust composition was as uniform as the beads themselves and exactly the same amount of dust fell on each sample. Great care was taken to avoid dust and other contamination. Murray claims he "can't help but be skeptical of claims of 4 +-0.8 watt power output" yet all of his objections relate to SIMS and other methods of detecting elements and isotopes, which have nothing to do with the calorimetry. Murray claims there is no continuous record of the calorimetry. This is incorrect. There are no negative heat excursions, so Murray's energy storage hypotheses are defeated. Bockris and other experts in electrolytic diffusion say that in order to see significant differences in isotopic concentration with heavier elements, you must perform thousands or even hundreds of thousands of passes. Murray overlooks the fact that null runs did not show the effects he hypothesizes might be due to electrolytic diffusion. Murray claims that "competent researchers like Scott Little and Barry Merriman have tried and failed to get excess power or transmutations from their own bead experiments." The beads used by Little and Merriman were fabricated by an outside contractor who did not see the patents. No absorption tests were performed to determine whether these beads met the standards described in the patents. During the experiments, the beads split apart and self destructed, which is proof they are not fit for this experiment. Therefore, Little & Merriman's work proves nothing. I have pointed this out time after time, yet Murray and even Merriman himself persist in claiming that Merriman has done a meaningful replication! This is like saying that a South Pacific cargo-cult contraption made from packing crates and coconuts is a "meaningful replication" of a U.S. Navy radar set. Murray proposed an extraordinarily complicated, expensive and problematic solution to a non-existent problem: complex interbead interactions. Murray suggests that beads might be loaded with Claytor's glow discharge method, which he thinks is "far simpler" than electrolysis. This is absurd. I suspect his statements about spectroscopy are equally absurd, but since they are over my head, I cannot judge. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 17:25:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA17432; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:03:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:03:26 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:18:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970221181853_2027648577 emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, noever@webtv.net, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: tempere connection. Resent-Message-ID: <"WQZd82.0.zD4.xMa3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4398 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: phys rev lett 63, 2701, 1989 describes a weight decrease measured with spinning gyroscopes. I believe that there is a connection to the Tempere effect. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 17:28:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22569; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:15:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:15:42 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:35:59 -0500 (GMT) From: Carlos Henry Castano To: Edwin Strojny Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Flow sensors In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970125211553.008ebf54 freeway.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-1804928587-856568159=:8678" Resent-Message-ID: <"CD7Gf3.0.JU5.IYa3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4399 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ---559023410-1804928587-856568159=:8678 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII first excuse me please, for my slowness in this reply. i'm had several troubles in the construction of any device that kept a constant (or known) flow, moreover i have not many money. my solution is a tank of constant volume (like a old sanitary tank, with his valve of fill even), i put this tank at 1,5 meters above of system (water jaquets of the electrochemical cells), this tank constantly are conected at the line of water of acueduct. the idea is very simple, you only put the valve (V1,V2,...) in any point wait a couple of minutes and your flow are very stable, you can measure this with a analytic balance and a chronometer, in 15 minutes change 2E-3 ml (two microliter) in a flow of 1 ml/sec or more. of this way you only measure the flow eventually in the experiment. in the attachment i put a sketch of the system, in a next future i put a photo in my home-page. tell me that you think about of this system. best wishes, Carlos Henry Casta~o. Departamento de Electroquimica, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin. Colombia, South America. p.d. please, excuse my english, i hope that you can understand me. On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Edwin Strojny wrote: > In getting ready for the spring assault on cold fusion/transmutation > experimentation, I am looking for a liquid flow sensor which has a 0-5VDC > output proportional to the flow (say 50-500 ml/min flow) that can take 80-90 > deg C without damage to the sensor. The only one I found so far is one sold > by Cole-Parmer (Cat. No. E-32704-02), but which they claim has a temperature > limit of 50 deg C. The wetted materials, polyphenylene sulfide, glass, > sapphire, Viton, and Ryton, can take temperatures much higher than 50 deg C. > Can this sensor be used at higher temperatures or will I damage the > electronic circuitry at 90 C.? > > Ed Strojny > > _____________________________________________________________________________ hay mas cosas en el cielo y en la tierra que ideas en la mente de los hombres ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are more things in heaven and earth that dream in the mind of the people _____________________________________________________________________________ ---559023410-1804928587-856568159=:8678 Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF; name="water.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: sketch of my flow system. R0lGODdhgAK6AbMAAAAAAIAAAACAAICAAAAAgIAAgACAgICAgMDAwP8AAAD/ AP//AAAA//8A/wD//////yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAACAAroBAAT+8MlJq7046827 /2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgsGo/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1a r9isdsvter/gsHhMLpvP6LR6zW673/C4fE6v2+/4vH7P7/v/gIGCg4SFhoeI iYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam5ydnp+goaKjpKWmp6ipqqusra6vsLGys7S1 tre4ubq7vL2+v8DBwsPExcbHyMnKy8zNzs/Q0dLT1NXW19jZ2tvc3d7f4OHi 4+Tl5ufo6err7O3u7/Dx8vP09fb3+Pn6+/z9/v8AAwocSLCgwYMIEypcyPAe AAAPHkqQGBFiCYoNM7ahyNEixhH+HzWKPBOy4kSLJEqOXOnjYUcKHTG6LDnT pM2QH2OilJjTo0uWQGG87HnT50kLL4tWIJqUJ0qTSYNKTTGzqc+aSpcazQpz 60mrRytinUr24tOwUSekRbuVplenbOOWnWtC5Vi3YbvKtftz786+NukKDpGW aFa8h8+qfQp2sd7AgyNnGJv369/KfjE77trX8GKVkkOLHk26tOnTqD2ATs16 yurWsJ28jk07yezauInczs37x+7ewHX8Dk7chuLiyJMrX8584/Hm0F0MRzU9 +qnqprBbJ6Wd+/Ptrbp/rlp1knjwn85H3PBdkXr0nNS3Xy/pPXxNu8vDZG9+ /v3s/iH+RR5g+9UX4H+jTEcefZYtmMaADqJgH4KWnAehTA1GiAVlkxEowoQU UiIfBhceV6Js4nmo2oEhplfiizDGKOOMNNZo4404DtiiKg854OOPQAYppI8A DAlkkUYOWaKSFybp5JNG9gjllEFKOSWIO0JiJZVCIpmkl1xGuWSVY4YZpZlo gukkllk6siWaDqjZJZxpNtmlnVfSaaacTLaZyptpPsmnnnCWeSSecRK6J5Rs +rkIoIuuqeikayL6I3mUUjnopSw6igmkYW5KZKakampoqV8K2qmnFYqap6So xhqqS7Km+uWqrIroKqOC1uprr7+eeWuu3inq6q7BoopsrKL+NkpsIaByeWyy 1F5abZWVPitKtJoCe22wyyqbrbagcPuqrd+Cm+6xuJLrZrjCopuur/BSyq67 Lhrr7bz0Xrurs/j+YS6vsPL7a710IgtwwH0MvK+SBieLcKSMtstwIg4XHG/E 9E5csbQWX3xIxvJCzLHEHjO5Z8giQ5vyqBqffDDJd068cMt40GxyyTKDS2vF OpOJ86cvJxpzz9XGmOnNQ9cRNLZHIy31pEw3PcfTRz489dZ6Vm11HFhbGzXX ZIP8ta76jl322uOeHUnYMPPM9txium1g2nLTrTendr9d9LR7By5034/AbXTe gs/tNeFqGA544oIvzjgajmsNueL+LE9+R+VqX0625JqXwTninnMNeuhjjL5x 6WyfjnoYqu/MeuuZvy5H7HPOjrntiOAOte5ru857F75nDXzwtQ/vRvFiH/95 8sqzwXzczm8tfPRZTH949VNfj/0V2hfNvazef19F+ONbD735JP1tefoRl8++ FOjDj7T880NRv/0y458/inhbHf8M5r//MWF/A4zf+gwIO/d1LoHUKiADbeNA 0kEQZRPUAwIvuK4FZpB4FRQgB5PmwQ9uYYMjJKEJNxdC2aVQhSt0Wgtz90J/ lTCG4Jvh72oYwRvi8Hw6NB4Pe/hDOsDtcUOcWRGN+DIkJrFWElwiEI74vieS KopS9E3+ypxoxVJhMYstwRoXu2ivL4KxBz+jmAjJSCgVnXF5QRsjGxNmxjeG sV5ynOPKfGhHK6TxXGvUI8j42Ec/zuRKMBJkoThUSCbm6JGQPGSlIknJGzWy YZXM5IxUpclOQuiShWMkDsxVR1BewkuE5AApU2nKVaAyjKpqZTNeicZ7yXIZ tOTBKm+Jy0vBsm28PEYud7DLYCJjmMKxpTGNgcwcFHOZxWjmKJUJzWFI8wbP rKYwrmkcamoTGNysQTa/+Ytw0mCc5OyFOWeAznTuYp0yaKc7cwHPGMhznreo p1C8iU96+rKWsewnL/T5gnsKdBYElQ4/D1qLhLbAoAyFhUP+WQDRiLpioiuo qEVZgVEVaHSjPPqnLhcK0ld0lCokLWl4RErMlKrUlSxNZkBfGouTSsilNKVO TJ2J05xmZ6fTnKlPV0qkXw5rqBcFKjZ7itRtKbWbQm3qn54qTqZKNT1UPadV r/o29mSVnVvlaig1YNMTfFSsY53MV+MZVrS6x41qWas92+rW3kEGKXLdZ1Tr aqCJkDWvBaUrXwchk++UtS6CHWwgGAOaw5plr4ptBGMYtBTAKhSykcVYTigL E8s+NLGZ3YNiIKIix6YEtKFl4WjVgteiAhSYqR0ZiTYTV9eOFLOxfVSBahsn o9Ytt11lbWdt21LcAteuwuUtK8n+itrjavCvxJUpbJ3rHuj29rVHpS4j2mNa kDRXu3bgrmcp+l3wGtG6y+2Qcc27WPT6tk/sxZh7sfvb+MpWrdHl6Xrt27D5 3na6/G0vfq/73+wGmLD+LS6AD+wH8eY3qAtmMB8cTGAFG1jCAkuwdC+M4f4O OL0kKm+HKadh/UZ4xGt4DYVBfIGzovgJ2lFxiSHM4RfnsKAzXup+bVxLAVnm x2L5C06ugqEPv/dOPEYCWBpjldG2xSM5huqJkxxGqDC2yZ0x0ZP9amT6wpfK RYBLYRPj4zI3JcpV3TGYeeogJju5xVvmbGUfrOMpr7mleXGzXLSyFzRrVc13 Xmpl9FP+lDGbuS1+BiugA02SRLN10YwWnaPnCulIp27SerWzpRvd5QLXd9Nv WPGRBwfqUGM6sJUutRdE7WUkq3p5p76spl8Nu1h/NtW01gKrPf3lXD/I1uTF ta/BB+yMinjY+iu2R4+NbNkoG6XCbrZrnn3TaEs7Cru28KevLYZsb3jb3AaD t01c43ATj9pmZba5jzBuGoN73Vxod53LDe/soRux1q63be792FnrG9v8Pm2+ /20EeUuZ3gSngsHT7O+EN2Hhf264w5cAcUVLfOL77rS2e43x8wXcuwPvuG8+ /iF1i1w4JCeMyU8+ypSDwMUsD7PLPwDzmMtmvMYOuc11g/P+Zet850Lobsl/ DvQp9hzaFy+6bY5e7aQrnd1MTzfRn67LqOPb6VTnOZ0P/u6s68/q/Ua41w8I doFjfexG3zrDxY72pas94mxvO9TfbvG4yz3MZQf52e9OzLwPfe98d6bfVT71 wNtz8C9fueELiniaK37xD238igoP+cjT/dGArzw7Jd+Bmmt+lJxX5eM/L6HQ s2f0pK+L6ZlL+dSbdfXqzbzrLV/hb3N89mmvPbm7jvuqX57Ssuc7oaUD+xC3 nupeEzrhgz92UTL+95m2O+lZHJHiw/n4Nofr4aGPauYjv+/cl7X02y4j41hf QNg/OYGcn9HzayX9Incj+18f/lv+e7/o11N+4uHf8fy7vyv8h3H+V3/Bdn9A N4C65263N3vat3kEmHMGGHM84XsJOG+893lQBn4VyHULOH0ZKBz/txgBSHA7 QYHU934RGH8lqIEnCIApmH0mOGqH0ntIEYOtRmo0yGUg+IA+94ISaIO85mqu 90jEx4NIN37Nt1qqVIQbuHYXKHwm0nlM2IIi6IP/9hwBUkL653gjaG5YKIW0 R4Un0YXhRmTD12JTeEeT5Els2IZu+IZwGIdyOIdvaE066Ffap4Uh+BVrSId+ +IeAGIiCOIh/KEx3yCCGlYa1JD6KlESEWBXcY4ictYJoGIZq2IiYmIm+olUK 0oACdhb+lFiDlriImliKpkgpJfcb8ycgpUQ/hxiKS6GII8WIp1iLipSKB7KK WtGKADeJySWKFLWHYmGLxFiMToKLK9KJvJhsvniIu9V+RnhTtGiM1MhDyChR r/iLsTiKs1iN3liMkpiIs8WNLTWN33iOAxSOk7GO5JhM5oiO8Dg+6jiOlRiM 0Zhu7xiP+gg881iJC6KH94hYjziQBDkgQFOQnnSQCFlJfWiHciZckwWQTciJ C1mRg6iQFhlJGJmRNqKQDmlYJ9KObAYjmfAv3TYoy6h3hxInYogfzthaAdli wjgjJckoJ/mECicnnugLHzhgE3kRwqhTgnKTHZhDQtiPPun+Q1toCybZQDjp GjrZkvHxknMWkzAplddhk05ZlIZ0lMxElcNllVWJlQBihd71GLpYEU9JP1Gp DD1JIkciFEE5MoxFW/uHhN2kF2txfVzJU2i5k2OIg1/5kFX5kykxl4bAFICJ fniZl2R2emtZVXrpFawnmHA2UGDJW4YJEoiZmJQZY81Clpd5V4HBF13nOnuZ H23ZIYRJC28pk423lK0yaO3CLY3VkmuxWeuHkldGWsmkGXtZhTPIitqYT5k5 EXH5fJv5J5/pH0M2XRPYEq8Iipyhln3iISdYGBhSWqv5FcBIT8dZfbHZmYk5 nUtYE7YpZMU5ko/xjJ8hJl+Icg/+yRHVGZjDuRqiWV2tOR5yuJzMOWRLyBmb cob7WVWGto2s2CMagqDTxBcv6RQ1Mx/5KV8FGmSG8yXVN6GEwCG38WaSxDf0 2GN2uZ5WlmXsyJ5m1iFgkpYael/OGUEZSk9vxh98JqB5OEW9WWTEKaAn6peb QZ8qaqIBqguvCZMHE6O4gBhkVWbeyX4t2qMLOh716KNSmpnoyaKYWaH5qCRI 6gygSJkZwqAUJxbtWaPrpwQg6WTOmaXO6Yf+CU67iIW9WaFD4KCj+Rl0ikbE iRc3+k7h2U2LuU1VGmKEemN3WqNKhqcjChl24VakBaaI+gW3qXCkSZpuMVlo 5RmHumr+cpqTrBmpu5inQ6ViT2pshQpCTPqpikWqJ3mq8Taj7MWqDeSqJwSr 5iWr4tapnJqq4IWrkqqrqAqq5pCSNcVdpbpstKprtnoO1UGsneCru7qpysqr w7oqzhofMdKq0po9y2pNuymkhdUT4Cpkj3qtkjWIMPYiv0qtwaBnj+muS3as lUCId0SQbIWuMgqvZhhnjbGox5SduImQ9yqIMvqucfaXmVGmbgmwVaZFbHVa nyR6ScqvFHtoCeuvwsSwItqw+4Rn+VSxBpuw8eqlGjtSOPqwvzmxgEFoLPut 4fqyGBtNJeuxHBtYNNuu8lpOM5uyNatQNwtOOcuTO0ulG2v+szyLs/mAmgF7 snP1syqltD3rtOQltSAFtUVrsk17tC9ltVgbtVOrtU87tNPEtB0LtiXFtVQ7 tllLtFsrtoLmsGurtjmFtmbLtp+VthZFt3Zbt8jKt3nrto7ptabqtxGlt3J7 tXdLuAxluG8ruH27t1ULuJIJt2ULuRvFuIGLuF9ruX+ruCjruCiFt4UruVpF tkbLuaPruXHbtad7uG2rupWruYOLuotLumBluj4Lu/iEuZMLujclurWru7nr u+kGvAfFu6VLua3buDSFvLervMPrumErvIlLvIhlvALlvJ8ru48rvWdru9vL utHLvK9Lu+GLvaeFvrsLvqurviX+577upL3tS72JB7/pJL+xK77V672RS7+z y72h67/fhL/La7+OZ8ADzL75i8Cd14LmyjsEPL4MLLECrE0RvL/6u7n8e7kK XMAVTMHmm734Oov2Or/JO7cjXI4lvE8pnIP6Q68uHMMyPMM0XMM2fMPvgsOp U5uE9MCVZ0Y+LIEzihVEvLLYSa42umdFrBM6nL5Koa/eaaYgC8Vc0cT1CxdV qhPBKa5TvK97ZsVnicVW9sWaUZqPKrKQCrNgrHJtBrIKi8ZwLKxB7HBRQcV2 asddXMZrzFy0acRAVqkvS66CPKiFFrQ6rIqGvMdmsSKKnKsH3MiQHMmSPMmU XMmWfMkEYBYBAAA7 ---559023410-1804928587-856568159=:8678-- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 19:26:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA19955; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 19:14:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 19:14:36 -0800 Message-Id: <199702220216.SAA27784 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:14:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Joule Thompson effect Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <970221181853_2027648577 emout02.mail.aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"Xe2TJ.0.us4.0Ic3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4400 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here's a question. Can someone post a solution to the heat generated by an outgassing hydrogen gas from a small highly pressurized (~1000atm) void ~2 cubic microns in volume buried in a metal lattice. What is the time frame the such an event could take place in (how fast can the hydrogen leave.) Since loading Pd or some other metal with hydrogen might fill such a void to this kind of pressure what is the stored energy. remember the Joule Thompson coefficient for hydrogne is negative. Russ George From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 20:28:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA03644; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:18:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:18:00 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <330E7364.41C67EA6 math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:17:40 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques References: <970221221913_72240.1256_EHB132-1 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"u3g4c.0.qu.sDd3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4401 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Therefore, Little & Merriman's work proves nothing. I have pointed > this out time after time, yet ... Merriman himself persist in > claiming that Merriman has done a > meaningful replication! I certainly did do a meaningful replication. Is was not exact, of course. But very, very similar. My replication certainly proves something, though not that CETI's device cannot work. As for the beads, yes about half split and lost their coating. But what of the half that didn't? Why don't they do anything? Jed, you should note that I have never claimed that my attempted replication implies CETI device does not work. To say so would be logically invalid, obviously. My experiment does prove that CETI's device is not very generic. A few minor changes seemed to have made it "not work", and this cannot be entirely attributed to split bead coatings, since many bead coatings remain intact as well. In any case, this argues against the implied early understanding that their breakthrough was simply to use beads to obtain a high surface area thin film. There would have to be more to it than this. Thus you are lead to say that the surfaces must be specially prepared. But this seems to be in contradiction to the claims that electrodeposited surfaces and sputtered surfaces both work well, since such surfaces have *very* different microstructure. This all remains a mystery. I don't claim to know whether CETI's device really works or not. I do know that they don't care if I know. The latter is their perogative, but it seems quite short-sighted that they would not even minimally cooperate with one of the few academic scientists interested in their device. Personally, I still hope CETI's device does work, and if they ever do release beads that produce excess heat, I'll gladly test them in my device. Until then, my experiment has proven their is little value in trying to independently replicate their work. NO ONE has done so (Miley included). ----- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 20:29:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA03920; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:19:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:19:02 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970222042302.00b0a44c mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:23:02 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Japanese borrow words Resent-Message-ID: <"0qUbV1.0.5z.oEd3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4402 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:49 PM 2/21/97 -0800, you wrote: >Babel is babble. Even when it is made up of words in >Anomalous example #1. >Why does the electromagnetic potential (A) in quantum >mechanics have a very physical interpretation (requiring >invariance under a gauge transformation), but in classical >EM it is considered to be merely a mathematical convenience -- >and therefore allowed to have gauge freedom? Because of the mathematical incertainties of predicting the impossible, but more so because of the technical improbabilities of intentional clarity to impress. Pretty impressive huh. Fog machines work too. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 20:32:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA04674; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:22:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:22:14 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:21:48 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: tempere connection. In-Reply-To: <970221181853_2027648577 emout02.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FTVVP3.0.w81.pHd3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4403 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > phys rev lett 63, 2701, 1989 describes a weight decrease measured with > spinning gyroscopes. I believe that there is a connection to the Tempere > effect. > That effect was thoroughly investigated and found to be erronious. Another reason to approach the Tempere result and other anomalus results with extreme caution. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 20:51:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09134; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:41:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:41:41 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <330E78F6.794BDF32 math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:41:26 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Rele References: <970221054529_100433.1541_BHG47-1 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"eGvZR.0.KE2.2ad3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4404 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Barry, > > > I just read through CETI's press release. Lets read *between* the > > lines for some fun :-) :-) > > Yes, but it's all so easy - is it not? > Would you be as willing to feed > your desire for fun at the expense of some of the more absurd (but > generally respected) goings-on in the world of science? > Certainly, if you show me a scientist making incredible claims and advancing his case through press releases and business negotiations while turning away other scientists interested in studying their claims. Such cases are thankfully few and far between in the academic scientific world, where collaboration and open communication are the cultural norm. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 21:27:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA17063; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:17:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:17:29 -0800 Date: 22 Feb 97 00:15:12 EST From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI and DRI Cooperation - News Rele Message-ID: <970222051511_76570.2270_FHU60-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"3v27n1.0.h94.c5e3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4405 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry wrote: "Certainly, if you show me a scientist making incredible claims and advancing his case through press releases and business negotiations while turning away other scientists interested in studying their claims. Such cases are thankfully few and far between in the academic scientific world, where collaboration and open communication are the cultural norm." "Collaboration and communication are the cultural norm"? Yes, like the collaboration and communication between the magnetic fusion and inertial confinement fusion communities, who at various times wanted the other group to disappear. However, like two powerful Maffia families vying for the same turf (our wallets), these groups manage to symbiotically stay alive in wonderful, "open communication." And both groups have had very "open communication" against CF -- spreading lie after lie about cold fusion --as well as falsehoods about their own pathetic efforts to confirm or reject CF in 1989. Press releases and "business negotiations" --e.g. with Congress and our wallets -- are the central themes of the hot fusion community. That's why good people like Professor Lawrence Lidsky at MIT, walked out of hot fusion years ago (around 1983), leaving the detritus behind. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 22:11:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA23978; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:01:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:01:04 -0800 Message-ID: <330E9B0B.728C rt66.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:06:52 -0800 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, little@eden.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dennis wazoo.com, mica@world.std.com, ine@padrak.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, wireless rmii.com, bockris@chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, design73@aol.com, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com Subject: Flash Isotopic Separation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OGAvm1.0.Ys5.Tke3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4406 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vigorously Vocal Vortexians, I certainly hope it is true, as Gene Mallove emphatically promises, that wonderful and well substantiated reports will within 3-6 months establish major excess power and plentiful nuclear transmutations in CETI bead experiments. I'm impatient! I hope those who are currently running tests, such as Little and Claytor, can quickly let us know whether they feel confident that they are already achieving these results. In my First Miley Critique, I found myself taking a minute to toss off an idea that somehow some sort of electrolytic diffusion process might be separating isotopes in the CETI experiments that seem to be proving isotopic anomalies. Bockris has stated that this is most unlikely, in his very well informed and experienced judgement. So, I would like to take a few more minutes and develop my little idea, as the armchair analyst that I most truly am, virginally innocent of any contact with actual laboratory work. Cu-63 and Cu-65 do differ in mass by about 3 %, for example. Is it possible that high current densities in electrolysis, glow discharge, or spark experiments, at micron-size active regions, generating a powerful magnetic field, creating in the metal progressively incandescence, melting, vaporization, and explosive jet formation, perhaps even a fairly focused spinning jet or vortex, would in that instant separate the two isotopes of Cu? Also, might such processes discriminate between isotopes with odd and even nuclear spin? So, I am suggesting the possibility of a flash process of isotopic separation. Does anyone care to work out some numbers for simple, crude models? It seems to me that an expanding spinning jet, like a tornado in reverse, would be an ideal system for putting different atoms into expandingly different orbits. Say, could something like this happen in the exploding spot at the focus of a SIMS analysis? In 1958, I made a Hilsch Tube, which uses a spinning vortex of air to separate the air instantly into a strikingly hot outer region and cold inner region, my first and last laboratory work, at the Pure Oil Company in Port Neches, Texas. It could be, too, that both nuclear and non-nuclear processes are producing isotopic anomalies in the same experiments. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 21 23:47:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA02439; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:38:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:38:01 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:40:35 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Spark experiment a blunder Resent-Message-ID: <"bJWoX2.0.1c.O9g3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4407 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Well, I just replaced the xenon bulbs with 10 M ohm resistors. The scope trace remained basically unchanged. The source of the HF signal is not the xenon bulbs. This circuit is just history in my lab book. ------------------------------------------------ | D1 | | --x1--|>|--x3--B1----x5---- x8 | C | | | ----| |---------| |----- | | --x2--|<|--x4--B2--x6 --x7 D2 | | \/\/\/ primary (L1) ====== T1 /\/\/\ secondary (L2) | | G O Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 02:16:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA17423; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 01:54:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 01:54:38 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 01:54:28 -0800 Message-Id: <199702220954.BAA32060 Au.oro.net> X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: 3D oscillon device Resent-Message-ID: <"3FFV9.0.4G4.R9i3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4408 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortex; If anyone is interested in funding the development of this device, I can go into how I think it may be possible to induce the same structures as exist in electrons and in the subatomic constituents of protons, ie quarks. Ross Tessien Path: oronet!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.ssi1.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!128.230.129.106!ne ws.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!nntp.ucr.edu !math.ucr.edu!not-for-mail From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Newsgroups: sci.physics.research Subject: 3D Oscillon Apparatus Design Date: 19 Feb 1997 08:01:50 -0800 Organization: Impulse Engineering, Inc. Lines: 146 Sender: baez math.ucr.edu Approved: baez math.ucr.edu Message-ID: <5edst4$ji3 li.oro.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: charity.ucr.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14 Status: RO In recent articles, researchers have studied oscillons which are essentially a form of standing wave in a bed of beads that is vibrated in a vertical direction. The oscillons alternately take the shape of a peak or a valley, and they oscillate their shapes on every other cycle like a spin 1/2 particle. I designed a device to induce similar oscillations, but in three dimensions. I am hoping someone with funding would be interested in constructing and studying the behaviors of 3D oscillons. If so, Please contact me personally. Thanks, Ross Tessien tessien oro.net Following is a breif description of the apparatus; By using a saturated water vapor in a chamber (say a 3 foot cube), one can induce acoustic vibrations in the vapor by vibrating (~200Khz) the 6 opposing walls of the chamber. This is analogous to the vibrating of the table under the beads in the current appparatus. In this case, however, a structure of acoustic nodes will form throughout the chamber. If the waves leaving the walls are planar, then the nodes will form into essentially a rectilinear structure of high and low pressure nodes very much like the patterns observed in 2 dimensions in the beads. Different frequencies will likely create different "tiling" patterns in 3D. I have supposed that if you send into the chamber, in addition to the above resonances, what would be considered a phased array sort of convergence of acoustic energy, that one ought to be able to induce a condensation of the water vapor in a region at the focal point of such an added convergence. If this resonance can phase and frequency match to the driving oscillations of the walls, (or match to every other cycle like the oscillons), then the resulting condensed node may be able to be pumped by the surrounding structure of acoustic standing waves. The reason is because the vapor ought to condense as the density of molecules forced into the node exceeds the condensation density. Such a condensation process constitutes a non linearity in the vapor, and should reflect the incident wave energy and thus maintain the convergent resonance just like the oscillon is maintained by the table vibration in the vertical direction. The standing wave energy of the walls corresponds to the vibration of the table. And the focused energy corresponds to the poking of the beads with the pencil to induce the oscillon in the former art. If this can be acheived, then the oscillon should then be powered and maintained by the acoustic nodal structure. Such oscillons, if possible, ought to behave in new and interesting ways. This project would thus be fundamental research into these behaviors. I own a machine shop, and ought to be able to help out a little bit with the expenses. But I do not have high speed cameras or other methods of observing the high frequency behaviors of the pulsating oscillons, assuming they can be formed. I have considered this design, but cannot afford to construct it at this time and am wondering if any University or other researchers would be interested in studying this device and working with me on its development. As far as a possible use, one could conceive of reversing the computer analysis techniques of Magnetic resonance imaging such that rather than listening, one used in essence, a complex 3D phased array radar like emission of acoustic energy to induce condensation where and when one chose. Thus, by additionally shining light on the fuzzy balls of condensate, one could "display" a 3D image of some object like a DNA strand or some such. this rastoring in the device above would be about as crude as the first TV images at best. If any one is interested in trying to construct this device, I would be willing to assist with the designs and with the research. I have some possible applications to the study of particle physics that I would like to pursue. Respond to this via email if you are interested unless you consider it valuable to discuss the techniques in the newsgroup. I am willing to share them as I am not concerned with comercial viability, and simply want to be able to get the thing constructed and begin research on the interactions of these oscillons. I have a lot of additional information about why this ought to work that I can go into with any one who is interested. Thanks, Ross Tessien tessien oro.net From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 03:52:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA24595; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 03:29:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 03:29:24 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:08:28 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <330ed3b3.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: Active sites on the very surface! Resent-Message-ID: <"dpwda2.0.D06.JYj3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4409 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear CF-lover Vortexers, Re.my re-statement regarding the role of the active sites in the CF phenomena : "I have repeatedly stated that recognizing the local character of these phenomena is the first decisive step toward reproducibility, and hence technology." Mitch Swartz wrote: " An important step. The metallurgical and material aspects are as important as the nuclear ones, and should be considered. However, it is possible that there are at least two types of sites which differ from the normal loaded metal. In particular, both the active site(s) and the breakdown fractures, defects, voids, dislocation loops, bubbles, and blisters, both differ from the intact metal" The problem is that besides being _local_, active sites are placed on the surface and only on the surface due to the strong disymmetry of it. All these fractures, defects, dislocations, bubbles, blisters, crevices, capillaries, fissures, etc. are actually _internal surfaces_, able to give birth to active sites. Juvenile surfaces are the best. It is necessary to understand the great complexity of the concept of surface. I have spent many years working with catalysts and with suspension polyvinyl chloride, a polymer which is produced in form of porous beads (some ten times smaller than Patterson's) and my experience has helped me to develop a degree of understanding of what a world of wealth of information a surface is. An example of what directions of research we have to follow is described in the paper: ..................................................................... "In-situ surface dynamics in heterogeneus catalysis" by Kenzi Tamaru, Department of Material Science and Technology, Science University of Tokyo in Yamaguchi, 1-1-1 Daigaku-Dori, Onoda, Yamaguchi 756, Japan Applied Catalysis A, General vol 15 (1), 27 Mar 1997, 167-177 The pre-publication abstracts, received from the editor (Elsevier) is : "The studies of the dynamic behavior of the catalytic surface, including adsorbed species, under the reaction conditions given, demonstrated an approach to elucidate the mechanism of catalytic reactions, and to identify the sites where the reaction take place on the catalyst surface. This dynamic approach revealed the adsorption assisted processes in the kinetics of adsorption and desorption, and in some of the heterogeneous catalytic systems, such as for instance decomposition of alcohols and formic acid. A dynamical method to identify the reaction sites on the catalytic surface was proposed. The dynamic approach was applied to the catalytic reaction of the hydrogen- oxygen on silver and copper surfaces, which have different structures of chemisorbed oxygen. it was suggested that in the case of copper the reaction takes place between the peripheral part of chemisorbed oxygen islands and dissociatively chemisorbed hydrogen. On the other hand , in the case of silver the reaction proceeds between the hydrogen molecule and the middle part of the linear chain" ................................................................... More for inspiration than for direct aplication. I will try to get this publication, but if somebody could help.. thank you in advance! Anyway, I completely agree with Mitch that many (not only two) types of active sites can be formed even in the frame of one CF system. I am very scared and amazed thinking about the (for me) incredible fact that so many efforts are focussed on the classical massive-Pd/D2O system, where the bulk is fiercely competing with the surface for deuterium and where the birth of active sites is a time-consuming miracle. This is the equivalent of building a house on marshy soil, a tragedy for engineering. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 06:02:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA02961; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:51:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:51:18 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970222135036.008dc980 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:50:36 -0500 To: Carlos Henry Castano From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Flow sensors Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"KQWP9.0.Ak.Ldl3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4410 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:35 PM 2/21/97 -0500, Carlos Castano wrote: > > >my solution is a tank of constant volume (like a old sanitary tank, with >his valve of fill even), i put this tank at 1,5 meters above of >system (water jaquets of the electrochemical cells), this tank constantly >are conected at the line of water of acueduct. > > >tell me that you think about of this system. > >best wishes, >Carlos Henry Casta~o. >Departamento de Electroquimica, >Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin. >Colombia, South America. > You have a clever system of constant flow at a constant pressure. In my case I need a system which would have a heated water supply of about 70 to 90 deg C. which would be best handled by recirculating the already heated water. Also I do not need such large volumes of water. In your system one could use a pump to recirculate the water to the reservoir and use a heater in the reservoir to maintain a fixed temperature. I just finished yesterday the installation of a roller pump (Cole-Parmer Masterflex) which is now ready for calibration. This installation is in my work shop which this morning had a temperature of -15 deg C. I am now awaiting warmer weather (end of March) before I proceed further. Thank you for your response. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 06:25:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA07105; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 06:15:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 06:15:10 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:17:44 -0900 To: "Frederick J. Sparber" From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"an6kp.0.xk1.kzl3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4411 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 3:07 AM 2/22/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > As soon as the light electron (it doesn't matter >which one)gets the energy from the proton or deuteron it's mass will shoot >up to the mass of the electron, or more. V = q/[4(pi)eo*r] at 2.81E-15 >meters = 0.511 Mev mass. Thus given, the relativistic mass it will act as >the muon does and "orbit" close in. > >The de Broglie wavelength h/Mr*c will be equal to the Compton wavelength >(2.427E-12 meters)also, and the radius of this "quasi-neutron" will be 2.81 >fermi, ie., 2.81E-15 meters the same as the classical radius of the electron. This seems nonsensical. Why would the light electron do this and not the electron? This sounds reminiscent of Mitchel Jones' protoneutron theory. High energy electrons don't form obitals upon approach of a nucleus, they radiate. Electrons forming orbitals emit energy when dropping into the orbital. Too energetic and they simply go on by. Why the l- can do this and not the e-? Aren't they almost indistinguishable at high energies? > >I think that the proton (or deuteron) can provide the energy long enough for >this neutral entity to tunnel into a heavy nucleus. So it is a momentary "orbital"? If so, same theory should apply similarly to the electron? > >If the light electrons-positrons are made by friction, photons, or in >plasmas, and electron bombardment, you have what you need for the "CF" >effects as soon as the charged protons or deuterons are "seen" by a light >electron, if there is one around. >> >>However, all that said, I don't see any reason various non-orbiting pair >>systems can not form, as is possible with the electron. The big new >>possibility of your hypothesis is the mixed particle pairs of unequal >>charge will not self annihilate. > >You can get the same simple harmonic motion, SHM as an orbiting electron >from a linear bounce of the electron off the proton like dribbling a >basketball. That's not "proton" I used above, it's some positive form of the electron. Not so similar. The e- and e+ radiate in their death spiral until annihilation. l+ and e- (or e+ and l-) would have similar masses, thus should have similar spirals, resulting in radiating away massive energy, until the l's slowed down enough to manifest as significantly different, i.e. a having a larger quantum waveform. True? > >Regards, Frederick Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 06:45:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA10237; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 06:35:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 06:35:00 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:34:50 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702221434.IAA29522 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Flow sensors Resent-Message-ID: <"DP59v3.0.oV2.JGm3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4412 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:35 PM 2/21/97 -0500, Carlos Henry Castano wrote: >the idea is very simple, you only put the valve (V1,V2,...) in any point >wait a couple of minutes and your flow are very stable... We used this approach on our first water-flow calorimeter and it worked pretty well as long as the water was clean. If there is dust or other particulates in the water, they will collect in the restrictions in the valves and cause the flow rate to change slowly...or suddenly. As long as you measure the flow rate frequently, you will be OK. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 09:18:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA05537; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:04:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:04:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Mitchell Swartz , Vortex-L Subject: Re: No missing (redshift) or gained energ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:20:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"M3IWZ2.0.sL1.pSo3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4413 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell This is macroscopic stuff, photons are more or less microscopic. What is a good mathematical expression for a photon? I've always thought of them as an electric field E(x,y,z,t) wuth an associated perpendicular magnetic vector H as an envelope, possibly gaussian for convienience, both in space and in time. For one going outward in the +Z direction with velocity c and amplitude A, wavelength lamda, frequency c/lamda.. E(x,y,z,t) = A*exp(-(x^2 +y^2)/width^2)* exp(-(t-z/c)^2/lifetime^2)*sin(w(ct-z/lamda + phase) Is that similar to what you think a photon is like? Hank Scudder ---------- From: Mitchell Swartz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: No missing (redshift) or gained energ Date: Friday, February 21, 1997 11:04AM In fact, as Einstein showed in a thought experiment, when one considers both red and blue shift, and then adds both of them together, there is a slight difference from two photons emitted without the shifts. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 09:50:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA10891; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:25:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:25:27 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Cc: hheffner corecom.net Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 04:37:55 +0000 Message-ID: <19970222043753.AAA10922 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"xZdbo.0.xf2.zlo3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4414 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, If a light electron chose to "orbit" a proton or deuteron, since F centripetal Fc = mv^2/r = F electrostatic Fes q^2/4(pi)eo, wouldn't it orbit at a distance of around 1.0E-13 or so at a velocity very close to c? How does one solve the wave equation for this, based on light electrons of rest mass of 9.1E-31/137, 9.1E-31/137^2, or 9.1E-31/137^3? What would the de Broglie wavelength h/mv be in these cases? Could a "quasi-neutron" formed in this way allow tunneling of Hydrogen or Deuterium into a heavy nucleus? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 09:51:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA16071; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:39:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:39:40 -0800 Date: 22 Feb 97 12:37:49 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Japanese borrow words Message-ID: <970222173748_100433.1541_BHG9-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ghEvv3.0.zw3.Pzo3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4418 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert, > Why does the electromagnetic potential (A) in quantum mechanics > have a very physical interpretation (requiring invariance under a > gauge transformation), but in classical EM it is considered to be > merely a mathematical convenience -- and therefore allowed to have > gauge freedom? I give up. Why DOES the electromagnetic potential (A)... Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 09:52:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA11361; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:26:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:26:44 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" (by way of "Frederick J. Sparber" ) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Cc: hheffner corecom.net Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:46:03 +0000 Message-ID: <19970222054601.AAA5923 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"KZa6c2.0.em2.-mo3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4415 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gnorts, oops & sorry, got distracted. :-( If a light electron chose to "orbit" a proton or deuteron, since F centripetal Fc = mv^2/r = F electrostatic Fes q^2/[4(pi)eo * r^2], wouldn't it orbit at a distance of around 2 fermi, 2E-15 meters or so at a velocity very close to c? How does one solve the wave equation for this, based on light electrons of rest mass of 9.1E-31/137, 9.1E-31/137^2, or 9.1E-31/137^3? And a relativistic mass of 9.1E-31 kg. What would the de Broglie wavelength h/mv be in these cases? Could a "quasi-neutron" formed in this way allow tunneling of Hydrogen or Deuterium into a heavy nucleus? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 09:52:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA11414; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:26:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:26:57 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:07:25 +0000 Message-ID: <19970222120723.AAA28627 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"l8gF12.0.qn2.9no3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4416 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:27 AM 2/22/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: Frederick Sparber wrote: >>If a light electron chose to "orbit" a proton or deuteron, since F centripetal >>Fc = mv^2/r = F electrostatic Fes q^2/[4(pi)eo * r^2], wouldn't it orbit at >>a distance of around 2 fermi, 2E-15 meters or so at a velocity very close to c? > >Don't think so. Mu meson orbits close in because of high m/e. The light >electrons would orbit at longer distances. Electrons orbit (if you can >really call it that) at velocity of about 1/100 c. Lights would still be >light at that speed and have big orbitals at lesser speeds. Also, in the >case of l+ orbiting an e- the situation is far more complex due to the fact >you really can't simplify the two body nature of the interaction due to the >close (1/137) mass ratio. Might be able to treat the lighter lights >(1/137^2 etc.) OK though. You are missing the point. As soon as the light electron (it doesn't matter which one)gets the energy from the proton or deuteron it's mass will shoot up to the mass of the electron, or more. V = q/[4(pi)eo*r] at 2.81E-15 meters = 0.511 Mev mass. Thus given, the relativistic mass it will act as the muon does and "orbit" close in. The de Broglie wavelength h/Mr*c will be equal to the Compton wavelength (2.427E-12 meters)also, and the radius of this "quasi-neutron" will be 2.81 fermi, ie., 2.81E-15 meters the same as the classical radius of the electron. I think that the proton (or deuteron) can provide the energy long enough for this neutral entity to tunnel into a heavy nucleus. If the light electrons-positrons are made by friction, photons, or in plasmas, and electron bombardment, you have what you need for the "CF" effects as soon as the charged protons or deuterons are "seen" by a light electron, if there is one around. > >However, all that said, I don't see any reason various non-orbiting pair >systems can not form, as is possible with the electron. The big new >possibility of your hypothesis is the mixed particle pairs of unequal >charge will not self annihilate. You can get the same simple harmonic motion, SHM as an orbiting electron from a linear bounce of the electron off the proton like dribbling a basketball. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 09:52:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA11610; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:27:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:27:36 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:10:39 +0000 Message-ID: <19970222151037.AAA27224 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"oytR02.0.Jq2.jno3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4417 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:17 PM 2/22/97 +0000, you wrote: >At 3:07 AM 2/22/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >> As soon as the light electron (it doesn't matter >>which one)gets the energy from the proton or deuteron it's mass will shoot >>up to the mass of the electron, or more. V = q/[4(pi)eo*r] at 2.81E-15 >>meters = 0.511 Mev mass. Thus given, the relativistic mass it will act as >>the muon does and "orbit" close in. >> >>The de Broglie wavelength h/Mr*c will be equal to the Compton wavelength >>(2.427E-12 meters)also, and the radius of this "quasi-neutron" will be 2.81 >>fermi, ie., 2.81E-15 meters the same as the classical radius of the electron. > >This seems nonsensical. Why would the light electron do this and not the >electron? This sounds reminiscent of Mitchel Jones' protoneutron theory. >High energy electrons don't form obitals upon approach of a nucleus, they >radiate. Electrons forming orbitals emit energy when dropping into the >orbital. Too energetic and they simply go on by. Why the l- can do this and >not the e-? Aren't they almost indistinguishable at high energies? > It does seem nonsensical doesn't it? You got me talking to myself. However, if you started with an electron it's relativistic gamma would put it's mass out of sight at v^2 = c^2. But, if you start with out with a l- (light electron)with a rest mass of Me/137^3, Me/137^2, or Me/137, where the relativistic gamma (or 0.511 Mev of energy) brings the mass up to the mass of the regular electron, then it approaches a situation similar to a muon interaction with a proton or deuteron. Anyhow that is the way it seems to my muddled thinking, a different ballgame. The Larmor synchrotron radiation loss, .66*q^2*a^2/[4(pi)eo*c^3] * (1 - v^2/c^2)^-4 is of no minor concern to say the least, but who knows if this applies across the board? >> >>I think that the proton (or deuteron) can provide the energy long enough for >>this neutral entity to tunnel into a heavy nucleus. > >So it is a momentary "orbital"? If so, same theory should apply similarly >to the electron? I don't think so, for the reason stated. > > >> >>If the light electrons-positrons are made by friction, photons, or in >>plasmas, and electron bombardment, you have what you need for the "CF" >>effects as soon as the charged protons or deuterons are "seen" by a light >>electron, if there is one around. >>> >>>However, all that said, I don't see any reason various non-orbiting pair >>>systems can not form, as is possible with the electron. The big new >>>possibility of your hypothesis is the mixed particle pairs of unequal >>>charge will not self annihilate. True, and the light electron would have to come out of the tunneled species to maintain charge balance.It is only acting as a "catalyst" the same as the muon. >> >>You can get the same simple harmonic motion, SHM as an orbiting electron >>from a linear bounce of the electron off the proton like dribbling a >>basketball. > >That's not "proton" I used above, it's some positive form of the electron. The heavy 931*Me or twice that for the deuteron where there is some available rest mass-energy that could be shared to pull this off is the positive entity that I would bank on. > >Not so similar. The e- and e+ radiate in their death spiral until >annihilation. l+ and e- (or e+ and l-) would have similar masses, thus >should have similar spirals, resulting in radiating away massive energy, >until the l's slowed down enough to manifest as significantly different, >i.e. a having a larger quantum waveform. True? Same Church different pews. All a moot point until the light electrons are proven to exist. > >> >>Regards, Frederick > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 11:07:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA02163; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:56:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:56:18 -0800 Date: 22 Feb 97 13:53:23 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Murray's Miley Critiques Message-ID: <970222185322_72240.1256_EHB78-3 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AoDDp.0.SX.85q3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4420 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry writes: Personally, I still hope CETI's device does work . . . I am sure it does. I observed it working. Cravens, Miley and Bowles have independently verified it over several man-years. I think their calorimetry is impeccable. If you know of any reason to doubt it, I suggest you tell them. . . . and if they ever do release beads that produce excess heat, I'll gladly test them in my device. Until then, my experiment has proven their is little value in trying to independently replicate their work. NO ONE has done so (Miley included). Miley and his colleagues at the material sciences department independently fabricated thin film beads. Under some circumstances, at low power levels, these beads performed even better than the one made by CETI. I cannot imagine why you think this is not an independent replication. Barry's work proves that 'their' is little value in trying to do the experiment with beads fabricated by people who have not read the patents and who have no idea what is required. The right materials are essential to cold fusion. Good thin films are difficult to fabricate, according to Patterson and Miley. With the wrong materials, Barry's experiment is roughly equivalent to making a fission bomb out of iron instead of uranium. (Barry did not make the beads. The fellow who did partly used my money, I regret to say.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 11:20:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA02145; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:56:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:56:09 -0800 Date: 22 Feb 97 13:52:45 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Joule Thompson effect Message-ID: <970222185244_72240.1256_EHB78-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"B91Xv.0.OX.85q3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4419 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Russ George asks: Can someone post a solution to the heat generated by an outgassing hydrogen gas from a small highly pressurized (~1000atm) void ~2 cubic microns in volume buried in a metal lattice. What is the time frame the such an event could take place in (how fast can the hydrogen leave.) Nate Hoffman's book, "A Dialog On Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects," has a chapter devoted to this subject, p. 67 - 76. It is rather confusing and contradictory, but I gather he concludes that the fastest release would take about 20 minutes and produce 1.8 watts. See Figure 6.3, p. 72, "Maxiumum watts that can be from 2180 joules of Joule-Thompson adiabatic expansion heat." The 2180 comes from: "an upper limit to the total watts associated with the Joule-Thompson heating because pores within the palladium cannot be pressurized to greater than 20% of the shear modulus . . ." (p. 68). This is with what he calls a "typical" 10.6 gram Pd cathode. That seems atypically large to me. See also my review of the Hoffman book, I.E. #3, p. 58. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 11:53:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA12402; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:40:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:40:54 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Vacuum Tubes and Light Electron-Positron Pairs? Cc: hheffner corecom.net Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: <19970222194005.AAA10463 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"N-usW2.0.R13.1lq3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4421 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The well known effect of production of secondary electrons in vacuum tubes where the yield peaks out at around a coefficient of 1.35 on nickel at about 550-600 volts, might also be a source of light electron-positron pairs. One might consider an old pentode that has an external access to the suppressor grid (like a 6BA6 and many others) to be a veritable off-the-shelf vacuum system laboratory. Could the production of light electron-positron pairs in the tubes be part of the problem of tubes that "failed" because of being "gassy"? I suppose a clever experiment with the proper potentials on the tube elements, especially with a good electrometer might find the positive light electrons. The data on bombarding magnesium oxide (crystals)with 1300 volt electrons shows a peak of 24 "secondaries" per incident electron. Could there be pair production going on here also? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 13:01:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA20804; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:10:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:10:46 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702222010.MAA00652 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Japanese borrow words To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:10:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <970222173748_100433.1541_BHG9-1 CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Feb 22, 97 12:37:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ITCeI3.0.t45.2Br3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4422 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Why does the electromagnetic potential (A) in quantum mechanics > > have a very physical interpretation (requiring invariance under a > > gauge transformation), but in classical EM it is considered to be > > merely a mathematical convenience -- and therefore allowed to have > > gauge freedom? > > I give up. Why DOES the electromagnetic potential (A)... > Chris I sure don't know why either, and am only trying to point out that it is a major contradiction in modern physics that might be more easily resolved if people could clearly and easily communicate -- outgrow the curse of Babel. Maybe in good time we will. For example, the internet offers enormous social benefits in this regard. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 13:32:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04898; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:21:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:21:17 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:23:39 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"uOe7X.0.OC1.ADs3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4425 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [snip] > All a moot point until the light electrons >are proven to exist. [snip] >Regards, Frederick So true. Best wishes for success in your hunt. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 13:32:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04858; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:21:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:21:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:23:34 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"tteRh3.0.dB1.2Ds3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4423 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 3:07 AM 2/22/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > As soon as the light electron (it doesn't matter >which one)gets the energy from the proton or deuteron it's mass will shoot >up to the mass of the electron, or more. V = q/[4(pi)eo*r] at 2.81E-15 >meters = 0.511 Mev mass. Thus given, the relativistic mass it will act as >the muon does and "orbit" close in. > >The de Broglie wavelength h/Mr*c will be equal to the Compton wavelength >(2.427E-12 meters)also, and the radius of this "quasi-neutron" will be 2.81 >fermi, ie., 2.81E-15 meters the same as the classical radius of the electron. This seems nonsensical. Why would the light electron do this and not the electron? This sounds reminiscent of Mitchel Jones' protoneutron theory. High energy electrons don't form obitals upon approach of a nucleus, they radiate. Electrons forming orbitals emit energy when dropping into the orbital. Too energetic and they simply go on by. Why the l- can do this and not the e-? Aren't they almost indistinguishable at high energies? > >I think that the proton (or deuteron) can provide the energy long enough for >this neutral entity to tunnel into a heavy nucleus. So it is a momentary "orbital"? If so, same theory should apply similarly to the electron? > >If the light electrons-positrons are made by friction, photons, or in >plasmas, and electron bombardment, you have what you need for the "CF" >effects as soon as the charged protons or deuterons are "seen" by a light >electron, if there is one around. >> >>However, all that said, I don't see any reason various non-orbiting pair >>systems can not form, as is possible with the electron. The big new >>possibility of your hypothesis is the mixed particle pairs of unequal >>charge will not self annihilate. > >You can get the same simple harmonic motion, SHM as an orbiting electron >from a linear bounce of the electron off the proton like dribbling a >basketball. That's not "proton" I used above, it's some positive form of the electron. Not so similar. The e- and e+ radiate in their death spiral until annihilation. l+ and e- (or e+ and l-) would have similar masses, thus should have similar spirals, resulting in radiating away massive energy, until the l's slowed down enough to manifest as significantly different, i.e. a having a larger quantum waveform. True? > >Regards, Frederick Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 13:33:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04910; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:21:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:21:20 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:23:29 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"RHTSV1.0.pB1.3Ds3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4424 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Gnorts, oops & sorry, got distracted. :-( > >If a light electron chose to "orbit" a proton or deuteron, since F centripetal >Fc = mv^2/r = F electrostatic Fes q^2/[4(pi)eo * r^2], wouldn't it orbit at >a distance of around 2 fermi, 2E-15 meters or so at a velocity very close to c? Don't think so. Mu meson orbits close in because of high m/e. The light electrons would orbit at longer distances. Electrons orbit (if you can really call it that) at velocity of about 1/100 c. Lights would still be light at that speed and have big orbitals at lesser speeds. Also, in the case of l+ orbiting an e- the situation is far more complex due to the fact you really can't simplify the two body nature of the interaction due to the close (1/137) mass ratio. Might be able to treat the lighter lights (1/137^2 etc.) OK though. > >How does one solve the wave equation for this, based on light electrons of >rest mass of 9.1E-31/137, 9.1E-31/137^2, or 9.1E-31/137^3? And a >relativistic mass of 9.1E-31 kg. What would the de Broglie wavelength h/mv >be in these cases? Could a "quasi-neutron" formed in this way allow >tunneling of Hydrogen or Deuterium into a heavy nucleus? > >Regards, Frederick As far as I know the de Broglie wavlength of a system, like an atom, is based on the atom system's linear momenum relative to the observer (the particle with which it interacts.) That is because, exuding relativistic shift in mass due to extreme angular momentum, rotational motion averages the velocities of the component parts of the system to the average velocity of the system. Anyway any relativistic mass added to the system due to angular momentum is reflected in the sysem momentum as mass. More important maybe is the fact that any atomic or molecular system is really a single quantum waveform. I believe confirmation of the action of an atomic system as a quantum waveform was first achieved by David Prichard at MIT in 1988. Prichard et al also managed to pass sodium molecules through a silicon nitride grating and do the molecular equivalent of the two slit experiment in 1996. However, all that said, I don't see any reason various non-orbiting pair systems can not form, as is possible with the electron. The big new possibility of your hypothesis is the mixed particle pairs of unequal charge will not self annihilate. So what is to stop e- and l+ from forming a mutually upside down pair, just like electrons. Same with e+ and l-, though less likely due to rarity of positrons, unless you buy the newly proposed model of the electron as not having a 1/r^2 electric field and being surrounded by e+ and e-. What would you call such lepton pairs? Electro-neutrons? The enormous binding force of such a pair should easily allow it to slip into a nucleus. Only tunneling would ever permit such a particle t break up. That could only happen with significant probability inside a nucleus. There is also the matter of the corresponding neutrinos. Every lepton has it's neutrino. How about the lights? Seems like they would have little purpose without a collection of light hadrons to go around. So, why not a light proton? Well, there's some more babbling from yours truly, the presently mind boggled amateur physicist. Hope it helps stimulate your thinking, even if it is not all accurate. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 15:13:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA25408; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:03:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:03:54 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:03:38 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques In-Reply-To: <970222185322_72240.1256_EHB78-3 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"QhCgh.0.wC6.Pjt3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4426 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 22 Feb 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Barry writes: > > Personally, I still hope CETI's device does work . . . > > I am sure it does. I observed it working. Cravens, Miley and Bowles have > independently verified it over several man-years. I think their calorimetry > is impeccable. If you know of any reason to doubt it, I suggest you tell > them. > I've told them (or at least Miley) through email. When making claims of incredible Science, one must double and triple check one's methods through multiple redundant techinques with different systematic uncertainties. I've heard second hand (through you) that he considered such ideas as "without merit". He never responded to me directly. Frankly I find this very strange. I would not go out on a limb without thoroughly checking my systematics. It reminds me of the sort of logic that prevented doctors from taking seriously advice that they should wash their hands before child birth. "I don't want to have been responsible for the deaths of all those women therefore I won't try this". To me Miley's actions are "I've already gone out on a limb, I don't want to prove myself wrong." It's not that hard or expensive to make the checks given the resources he apparently has. Look at Scott Little's dual method calorimeter. It has an accuracy of a fraction of a watt in both flowing electrolyte and static calorimetry at elevated temperatures. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 15:24:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27187; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:14:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:14:03 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:13:52 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques In-Reply-To: <970222185322_72240.1256_EHB78-3 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"aEYJz.0.ie6.ust3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4427 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 22 Feb 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > The right materials are essential to > cold fusion. Good thin films are difficult to fabricate, according to > Patterson and Miley. With the wrong materials, Barry's experiment is roughly > equivalent to making a fission bomb out of iron instead of uranium. (Barry > did not make the beads. The fellow who did partly used my money, I regret to > say.) > This appears to be a rewrite of history. I recall the circumstances as Scott Little hunting around for somebody who could plate insulating beads. He found a good chemist who could plate glass beads and offered the people in this forum the opportunity to get in on the replication effort. You Jed appeared to be whole-heartedly behind this effort and offered to buy $500 worth of beads. He hardly ripped you off as your tone implies. The fact that they don't workdoesn't mean the effort is wasted. At the least they can be used for controls for transmutation experiments. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 15:27:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27876; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:16:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:16:54 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:16:43 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702222316.RAA06080 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Resent-Message-ID: <"gWRRw1.0.Tp6.avt3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4428 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:19 PM 2/21/97 EST, Jed wrote: >Therefore, Little & Merriman's work proves nothing. Jed, you weaken your position as an scientific reporter with erroneous statements like the above. Our experiments demonstrated that glass beads coated with 1 micron layers of Ni, Pd, and Ni respectively do not produce significant excess heat when run under a protocol essentially identical to the usual Patterson protocol. This is a useful piece of information in the investigation of the Patterson effect. >I have pointed this out time after time, yet >Murray and even Merriman himself persist in claiming that Merriman has done a >meaningful replication! This is like saying that a South Pacific cargo-cult >contraption made from packing crates and coconuts is a "meaningful >replication" of a U.S. Navy radar set. This kind of exaggeration detracts significantly from your credibility, Jed. Our experiments used the same metals, in the same layer thicknesses as the most publicized versions of the Patterson cell. Most of the constructive speculation about the Patterson effect has focussed on the benefits of thin easily-loaded layers of metal and on the containing effects provided by the Ni top layer. I think it is rather surprising and significant that the substrate material is a critically important part of the Patterson recipe. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 15:35:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29879; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:26:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:26:06 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:27:35 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Japanese borrow words Resent-Message-ID: <"SWMEW1.0.mI7.D2u3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4429 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> > Why does the electromagnetic potential (A) in quantum mechanics >> > have a very physical interpretation (requiring invariance under a >> > gauge transformation), but in classical EM it is considered to be >> > merely a mathematical convenience -- and therefore allowed to have >> > gauge freedom? >> I don't know much about A in quantum mechanics. However, I think that oone is still free to choose the gauge of A for convenience. What is important, unless there is something I am not aware of---and there might well be, is that the EQUATIONS purporting to describe the physical situation be gauge invarient. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 15:40:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA30980; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:30:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:30:51 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:32:23 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark experiment a blunder Resent-Message-ID: <"17Yyg3.0.-Z7.f6u3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4430 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Well, I just replaced the xenon bulbs with 10 M ohm resistors. The scope >trace remained basically unchanged. The source of the HF signal is not the >xenon bulbs. This circuit is just history in my lab book. > This is good science. Ask questions. Doubt your setup. Check, check, check! From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 15:48:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA32751; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:38:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:38:23 -0800 Message-Id: <199702222342.PAA27949 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:40:27 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702222316.RAA06080 natashya.eden.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"ES63S1.0.c_7.iDu3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4431 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott says his replications of the Ceti cell are useful and he's right. I for one cannot imagine the difference between his beads the CETI's . Who is to say that the CETI beads work and not Scott's. Perhaps a different point of view is required. Scott's calorimetry works and CETI's does not. Based on the evidence presented I find it impossible to tell which is correct. Control runs of Scott's beads in a CETI style calorimeter and CETI's in a different calorimeter are required to answer this one. Opps the latter has already been done without success. Hmmm.. Scott how about running your beads through the NAA proceedure! Russ George From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 16:11:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA04956; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:00:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:00:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199702230005.QAA01984 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:02:50 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Survey for interest in lab devices Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"9oB_83.0.ID1.cYu3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4432 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As many readers here know various labs with working devices producing dramatic effects are considering selling laboratory devices. CETI has already done so with a "kit" for ~$4000, though I don't know how they afford to do so at that price. E-Quest is just now completing design work on it's first laboratory device which will use the E-Quest cavitation technology (patents pending) to reproduce excess heat of some tens of watts and various other nuclear signatures. The device is a laboratory "test bed" style of device which is suited to being interfaced with a wide variety of analytical devices. Devices will ship as very capable stand alone calorimeters with computer data acquisition hardware and software. They are ideally suited to screening of various experimental protocols for study of materials, reaction rate and control, and nuclear products (solid, liquid, and gaseous states - so far no penetrating emissions have been seen by us). It will be possible to adapt the device to various user hardware including on-line mass spectrometers, immersion calorimeters, mass flow calorimters, on-line radiation measurement, and just about anything you might think of. The terms of sale will be via a limited research use license with various strings attached on derivative improvements as are typical for similar new technology. This is NOT a "kit" and not suited to hobbyist use and will require a serious scientific commitment of funds, manpower, and resources. Like any high quality laboratory device such as a mass spectrometers, electron microscopes, gas phase tritium scintillation counters, etc. the E-Quest devices will carry a price tag, depending on various options, in the range of $50,000 (U.S.) perhaps slightly less under some circumstances. Extensive training and tech support will be provided. If you are monitoring this list and believe your organization has a serious interest in pursuing work in this area you are invited to contact Russ George at E-Quest Technologies via e-mail at rgeorge hooked.net. You may read about the technology and efforts leading to this laboratory product line at http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/sonof.html. Tire kickers ought to look elsewhere. Russ George From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 17:12:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01715; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:00:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:00:52 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:00:44 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <33157b22.26315848 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970221120721.AAA4723 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970221120721.AAA4723 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DFne-2.0.jQ.1Rv3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4433 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:07:23 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >The cloud chamber pictures of C.D. Andersons discovery of the >electron-positron pair were made with the electrons-positrons moving at >around 23 Mev in a magnetic field of 0.08 tesla (800 gauss) are you sure >that these were not light electrons? [snip] I was under the impression that pair forming only occurs when the gamma-ray has sufficient energy to produce the mass of both an electron and a positron. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 17:39:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA07658; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:25:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:25:56 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:23:52 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702230123.TAA14581 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Survey for interest in lab devices Resent-Message-ID: <"CGiY8.0.Hs1.3ov3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4434 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:02 PM 2/22/97 +0000, Russ George wrote: >...the E-Quest devices will carry a price tag, >depending on various options, in the range of $50,000 (U.S.)... That is a very stiff price for unconfirmed technology, Russ. However, it might be palatable with a money-back performance guarantee. Will you offer such? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 17:40:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA07783; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:26:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:26:29 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:24:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702230124.TAA14603 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Resent-Message-ID: <"0HnB_2.0.nu1.cov3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4435 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:40 PM 2/22/97 +0000, Russ G wrote: >Control runs of Scott's beads in a >CETI style calorimeter and CETI's in a different calorimeter are required to >answer this one. >Opps the latter has already been done without success. Hmmm.. What work are you referring to, here, Russ? >Scott how about running your beads through the NAA proceedure! I should...but it will take repeating the experiment with ultra-pure Li2SO4 in order to control the impurities. In all my original work I used ACS grade Li2SO4 which has relatively high levels of impurities. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 18:25:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA00556; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:14:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:14:48 -0800 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:14:40 -0600 Message-Id: <199702230214.UAA18376 postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu> X-Sender: g-miley ux1.cso.uiuc.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "George H. Miley" Subject: FZ - Diffusion Barrier for CF Electrodes Resent-Message-ID: <"XBFZf3.0.c8.NWw3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4436 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: FZNIDARSIC aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: diffusion barrier for CF electrodes Frank - I agree with you about the problem of preventing outward diffusion during the loading process- this is an important issue that I also thought about earlier. That is why I tried plasma implantation with a plasma focus -- thus driving energetic deuterium ions into a palladium target through a thin chromium film surface coating such that the thermalized deuterium could not easily diffuse back out. I reported this in an ICCF meeting several years ago. It may have worked (?), but there was too much electrical noise from the focus pulsed-power source to do the definitive low level measurements needed - so I gave up this particular approach. We did however, get repeated positive exposure from the target on x-ray film after pulsing, suggesting a possible reaction (?). (Use of a conventional accelerator for loading, as done at NRL and Colorado Sch Mines in those days, allowed easier diagnostics, but they apparently did not try the barrier approach.) At any rate, I believe the outward diffusion issue is the reason others using electrolytic methods have obtained better results by added various compounds (Si, etc) to the electrolyte, or by allowing Si to leach out of the glass cell. The electrode initially loads with deuterium before the additive in the electrolyte builds up significantly on the electrode surface; then as the additive continues to deposit on the surface, a diffusion barrier forms, reducing outward diffusion losses, and allowing a higher d or p loading. This approach is not well controlled, however. The timing of the surface coating buildup vs the loading rate is crucial, but will vary, causing a wide range of loadings from experiment to experiment -- hence poor reproducibility -- a continuing problem for CF experimenters. What do you think about this? Regards, George Miley From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 20:31:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA29894; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:21:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:21:24 -0800 Message-Id: <199702230420.VAA29466 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Cc: "Cohen Cenright" Subject: The York - Merriman - Champion Transmutation Kits now for SALE! Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:20:53 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YnaEp2.0._I7.2Ny3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4437 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: After numerous requests we finally decided to provide what every cold fusioner wants -- a successful transmutation kit at an affordable price for even the most modest of budgets. The kit is not complete, for you must purchase your own chemicals. However, it does come with a complete set of operation instructions and for those with deeper pocket books we have the no fail, guaranteed models! The basic kit consist of a 2 pound coffee can for $8.00 US. This is a "true" do it your self kit, which means you must remove the original contents. For those not wanting the mess, we will remove the original coffee for an additional $2.00. (add $.50 extra if you require decaf can) For the guaranteed, not to fail, impress your friends, colleagues and peers ultima model, we offer you a 2 pound coffee can LACED with gold, your favorite platinum metal and/or you most desired isotopic anomaly at prices out of this world! Prices vary on this model due to your personal salting requirements. All sales are final and due to the limited license agreement, cans may only be used once. Shipment is F.O.B. Dallas, Los Angeles or Phoenix. ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 21:32:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05426; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:22:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:22:38 -0800 Date: 23 Feb 97 00:20:40 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Murray's Miley Critiques Message-ID: <970223052039_72240.1256_EHB50-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rdxzY.0.dK1.TGz3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4438 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I wrote that the fellow who fabricated the beads did not see the patent, and that I regret I helped pay for the work. Martin Sevior responded: This appears to be a rewrite of history. I recall the circumstances as Scott Little hunting around for somebody who could plate insulating beads. He found a good chemist who could plate glass beads and offered the people in this forum the opportunity to get in on the replication effort. You Jed appeared to be whole-heartedly behind this effort and offered to buy $500 worth of beads. He hardly ripped you off as your tone implies. You misunderstand. This is history that you and other readers of this forum were not privy to. Scott is not at fault, but the situation is regrettable. If I had known the man doing the fabrication would not see the patents and perhaps also consult with CETI, I would have advised Scott to give it up. I have been told by Patterson, Cravens, Miley and others that a blind replication has no significant chance of success. I believe CETI may have put pressure on the man to desist, so in order to avoid any suspicion of patent violations he deliberately avoided seeing them. (In the computer software business, he would be called a "code virgin.") The fact that they don't work doesn't mean the effort is wasted. At the least they can be used for controls for transmutation experiments. No, they produce no excess heat, so they are not transmuting. In every case that I am aware of the two go together, although not in fixed proportions. I am afraid the beads are useless. In spite of his expertise, Patterson produced many sets of beads over the years that do not work, so it is not surprising these are useless. Russ George writes: I for one cannot imagine the difference between his beads the CETI's. The difference is manifest: anyone can see it with the naked eye. CETI's beads hold together under high loading, Scott's beads fall apart. We know from previous experiments that the metal must withstand high loading with good structural integrity, and it must absorb far more hydrogen than ordinary, untreated nickel will. This is true of palladium as well, which is why there is interest in palladium-silver alloys. The detailed reasons *why* one thin film holds together well and absorbs large amounts of hydrogen, while another does not, are over my head. But the proximate cause of the difficulties are well understand and widely described in the literature. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 21:50:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA08356; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:41:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:41:18 -0800 Message-Id: <199702230545.VAA25711 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:43:25 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Survey for interest in lab devices Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702230123.TAA14581 natashya.eden.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"ZctNq1.0.O22.xXz3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4439 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Of course not. No money back guarantees. You can of course get a money back guarantee from Walmart for a toaster oven. Maybe that will suit your scientific needs. There are other advantages to using a toaster oven in science you won't get mired in controversy over the results. Our equipment works. If it doesn't there are more than ample legal avenues for any customer to take to obtain relief. This will all be covered in the agreements, the lawyers simply charge by the hour for drafting and negotiating agreements, you have no problem paying people for their services do you. But hey if this is a stiff price I'll tell you what I'll trade you for an accellerator based TOF mass spec, also not completely proven technology. Or if that's a problem how about a trade for a nice Cameca dynamic SIMS device, that's a deal ... a far from leading edge workhorse piece of scientific equipment for state of the art new technology hardware with no peer. Of course since the trades won't provide any cash to pay the lawyers you'll have to pick up the tab there. Should I send you the phone number of our corporate and intellectual patent legal firms. I'm sure they will happily send you their rate sheet and accept a retainer to cover anticipated costs. This field has not yet evloved to the point where there are used cold fusion markets on every other street cornor. Don't worry though it will eventually be that way and you'll be able to do risk free science by simply following the cookbook. Hey maybe they'll even give out more cookie cutter degrees for whipping up a batch of whatever by closely following the recipie. That ought to be worth something. Of course I see here on Votex you can buy a coffee can and bag of home made gunpowder from Joe and he'll even empty the coffee out for you. I'm sure he'll throw in a money back guarantee if you don't make buckets of Iridium. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 22:05:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA10574; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:53:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:53:46 -0800 Message-Id: <199702230558.VAA27945 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:55:55 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <970223052039_72240.1256_EHB50-1 CompuServe.COM> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"LtbXC3.0.8b2.fjz3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4440 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It is pretty well standard form and well and extensively covered in patent and literature that Pd coating of metals such as nickel dramatically improves diffusion of hydrogen into the metal. There is still no data here showing that the beads that Scott and others tried did not produce transmutations. The idea that excess heat using Patterson's particular variety of beads is the key requirement is pure speculation not based on any controlled scientific analysis. Of course if that is the definition of impeccable work then great, it makes life very easy. This is not to criticize the fine work of George Miley it merely it to point out that wild speculations about the useless character of materials that have not been examined is hardly science. Maybe we see the start of a new religion here. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 22:59:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA21114; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:49:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:49:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199702230648.XAA09543 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: Cc: "Dan York" , "Vortex-L" Subject: Re: Survey for interest in lab devices Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:48:48 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"J_ian2.0.q95.dX-3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4441 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- > From: Russ George > Of course I see here on Votex you can buy a coffee can and bag of home made > gunpowder from Joe and he'll even empty the coffee out for you. I'm sure he'll > throw in a money back guarantee if you don't make buckets of Iridium. > Sorry Russ, please don't start any rumors. You have no concept as to how hard it is to put 2 pounds of coffee back in a "Holy Can." Besides, after paying our own movie rights we net less than 25 cents per system. So for $8.00 you get a two week supply of caffine and one shot at the big time. To my knowledge, unless you are replicating my work, or have a tap on my phone, I do not remember talking about iridium in cyberspace. The bad part is -- there is no real ecconomic value to iridium now. ___________________________ Joe Champion JChampion transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Feb 22 23:15:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA24255; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:04:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:04:24 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Vacuum Tubes and Light Electron-Positron Pairs? Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 07:04:28 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3313b32b.13338512 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970222194005.AAA10463 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970222194005.AAA10463 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"s9NOs1.0.pw5.tl-3p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4442 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:40:08 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >The data on bombarding magnesium oxide (crystals)with 1300 volt electrons >shows a peak of 24 "secondaries" per incident electron. Could there be pair >production going on here also? [snip] KB x-rays from Mg have an energy of 1295.59 eV. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 00:53:50 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA02693; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:44:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:44:36 -0800 Message-Id: <199702230842.IAA21175 buttons.ihug.co.nz> Reply-To: From: "natvita.co.nz" To: Subject: Re: Vacuum Tubes and Light Electron-Positron Pairs? Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:46:22 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wOZV3.0._f.oD04p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4443 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, (re Robin van) your URL does not seem to work. Have you alternative? ---------- | "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." I did wait for quite a while. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 06:48:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA00864; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:25:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:25:27 -0800 From: RMCarrell aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 07:47:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970223074715_-1005328317 emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Spark Phenomena Resent-Message-ID: <"P2LG_1.0.MD.MD54p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4444 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I haven't followed this discussion closely, but what is being discussed seems very close to Randell Mill's findings of hydrogen atoms catalyzed into energy states lower than the nominal ground state, with yields of strong deep-UV radiation lines which he claims to see both in hte sun's corona and in his reactors. The electron can assume orbits very close to the proton, forming a sort of pseudo-neutron which can slip easliy into a metal lattice, past the coulomb barrier. Mills interprets the CF heat phenomena in terms of this obital srinkage, rather than fusion, and does not comment on the reported transmutations in his book. There is reason to believe that Mills' company, BlackLight Power, will have some device announcements in the near future. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 06:56:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA04201; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:33:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:33:34 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:13:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702231413.IAA15169 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Resent-Message-ID: <"9VQM5.0.Y11.yK54p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4445 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:20 AM 2/23/97 EST, Jed wrote: >The difference is manifest: anyone can see it with the naked eye. CETI's beads >hold together under high loading, Scott's beads fall apart. I had a number of runs in which the splitting of the bead coatings was not severe, especially when I loaded the beads very gently (20mA) at room temperature as CETI typically does. These "good runs" also did not show excess heat. What substantiation do you have for the first part of your statement above, "CETI's beads hold together under high loading"? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 07:12:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA09252; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:49:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:49:38 -0800 Message-ID: <33103FB4.6974 microtronics.com.au> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:31:40 +1030 From: Greg Watson Reply-To: gwatson microtronics.com.au Organization: Greg Watson Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, Newman-l Subject: Re: Patent searching References: <97022222144415957 emachine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ScfDQ2.0.LG2.-Z54p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4446 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Newman-l wrote: > > From: vcrepair bbs.industrynet.net > Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:00:10 -0500 > Subject: Patent searching > > Patents can be researched at web site: http://patents.cnider.org/ > A search for patent 5,436,518; the Kawai patent that has been > mentioned on this newman-l emachine.com mailing list found the > following information and abstract. (Please excuse any typos) Hi All, The entire patent may be downloaded for free from the IBM patent search engine on : http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/ This is the source of the Kawai patent I have posted to many of you. You may also be interested in the following : 5,402,021 Magnetic Propulsion System (1995) 4,877,983 Magnetic Force Generating Methods and Apparatus (1989) 4,215,330 Permanent Magnet Propulsion System (1980) -- Best Regards, Greg Watson, Greg Watson Consulting, Adelaide, South Australia, gwatson microtronics.com.au From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 09:08:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA01681; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:49:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:49:41 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:41:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970223114107_-871292783 emout17.mail.aol.com> To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, billb@eskimo.com, jdecker@keelynet.com, NEWMAN-L emachine.com, david@ibg.uu.se, zingg@centralnet.ch, vortex-l eskimo.com cc: bauer.d krypta.aball.de, omicron@cwo.com, bshannon@tiac.net, epitaxy LocalAccess.com, crosiar@goldrush.com, otecnor@emirates.net.ae, Byrun_fox mindlink.ca, ddeleo@ix.netcom.com, catware@worldonline.nl, fepps mail1.halcyon.com, rognerud@best.com, gwatson microtronics.com.au, gary.depietro@dlbbs.com, ine@padrak.com, hheffner anc.ak.net, harti@bbtt.de Subject: New OVERUNITY dedicated server Resent-Message-ID: <"pLYRB3.0.1Q.YK74p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4447 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I am glad to announce you, the birth of a new server dedicated to Overunity and Electro-Gravity Experiments. at---> http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.html I have decided today, to share my own lab's experiments in a Web server. You will find in this server : - How to build an Electrodynamic device, - the tests and schemes of Bedini G-field generator, - the tests and schemes of an Adams motor/generator, - the tests and schemes of a Scalar battery charger, - my useful electronic schemes library for overunity experimenters...... ( High voltage commutator for Back EMF recovery test, Charge blocking devices...) with many color pictures and detailled diagrams for experimenters. My web server is updated quite often, as soon as I have completed new experiments.... I hope that these informations will help you in your Quest of Overunity, Truly, Jean-Louis Naudin Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.html Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 10:07:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA16327; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:58:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:58:29 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:00:58 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Vacuum Tubes and Light Electron-Positron Pairs? Resent-Message-ID: <"CfKMq2.0._-3.2L84p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4448 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:40 AM 2/22/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >The well known effect of production of secondary electrons in vacuum tubes >where the yield peaks out at around a coefficient of 1.35 on nickel at about >550-600 volts, might also be a source of light electron-positron pairs. > >One might consider an old pentode that has an external access to the >suppressor grid (like a 6BA6 and many others) to be a veritable >off-the-shelf vacuum system laboratory. Could the production of light >electron-positron pairs in the tubes be part of the problem of tubes that >"failed" because of being "gassy"? > >I suppose a clever experiment with the proper potentials on the tube >elements, especially with a good electrometer might find the positive light >electrons. > >The data on bombarding magnesium oxide (crystals)with 1300 volt electrons >shows a peak of 24 "secondaries" per incident electron. Could there be pair >production going on here also? > >Regards, Frederick I was going to let go of the subject of light electrons on vortex due to its wildly speculative nature and lack of experimental content, but the above is very interresting and has experimental content. Suppose there is a source of electrons and light electrons S, and a magnetic field B into the page: S (S at voltage V0) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grid G1 at V1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grid G2 at V2 Light electron resonating cavities _____________________________________________ Plate P at V0 The above arrangement could be cylindrical. Grid G1 is set so V1 - V0 is a positive voltage required to extract the electrons from S and accelerate them downward (axially). G2 is set slightly more positive than plate P which is at V0, or only slighly positive of V0. In this way, B can be set so electrons will tend to reach the plate P by a direct or slightly curved path, while light electrons will tend to oscillate numerous times, due to their much lower m/e ratio as they approach near zero velocity at plate P. It would be possible to dispense with grid G2 (and even G1) at the expense of reducing the relative size of the effective resonating portion of the gap which is just prior to P. Increased size of this gap helps by giving each light electron more cyclotron oscillations at low relative mass before hitting the plate P. The ouptut signal could be greatly enhanced by providing geometric cavities designed to resonate at the frequency of the light electrons. One means of doing this might be to replace or remove to a distance the doughnut magnets on a magnetron tube. One way to do this "removing to a distance" would be to build an iron replacement "goughnut" core for the magnets and then vary B by varying the gap between the core and magnets in a magnetic circuit until a seconday resonance is found in the microwave output. Measure B to confirm mass of the light electron. It might take a custom microwave tube with grids to do the job sufficiently. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 10:13:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17356; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:04:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:04:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:07:15 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Vacuum Tubes and Light Electron-Positron Pairs? Resent-Message-ID: <"Yjc513.0.6F4.mQ84p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4449 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: S (S at voltage V0) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grid G1 at V1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grid G2 at V2 Light electron resonating cavities _____________________________________________ Plate P at V0 I suppose it is obvious, but I neglected to mention that if G1 and G2 are removed then P would have to run at an elevated voltage, V1. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 10:42:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA22527; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:32:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:32:42 -0800 Message-ID: <33108D64.2356 interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:33:08 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: ELECTRONS-IN-A-FENCE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4k5nw.0.uV5.9r84p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4450 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If your not familiar with it, check out the IBM STM picture of electrons in a fence of 48 iron atoms on a copper crystal: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/stm.html I had not seen it before and found it fascinating. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 10:53:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23804; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:43:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:43:30 -0800 Message-Id: <199702231848.KAA12037 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:45:40 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: The HOLY COFFEE CAN Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702230648.XAA09543 nz1.netzone.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"YgRy62.0.sp5.H_84p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4451 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Come on Joe you know all of our phone lines are tapped. On topic two the only reason the world doesn't use lots of Iridium is that it's too expensive. However I do agree that putting coffee back into the Holy Coffee Can is a chore. I think you can coax the buying public to ante up more than 25 cents net profit for you. Of course the one issue I've never quite gotten a handle on is why you haven't become a rich man. Now I know why I'm not rich but I can't make precious metals. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 11:50:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA00988; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:40:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:40:38 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:39:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970223143948_1315790000 emout18.mail.aol.com> To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, billb@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, NEWMAN-L emachine.com Subject: New OVERUNITY dedicated server Resent-Message-ID: <"FvpkK2.0.IF.qq94p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4452 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi All, I am glad to announce you, the birth of a new server dedicated to Overunity and Electro-Gravity Experiments. CORRECT URL Adress ---> http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.htm I have decided today, to share my own lab's experiments in a Web server. You will find in this server : - How to build an Electrodynamic device, - the tests and schemes of Bedini G-field generator, - the tests and schemes of an Adams motor/generator, - the tests and schemes of a Scalar battery charger, - my useful electronic schemes library for overunity experimenters...... ( High voltage commutator for Back EMF recovery test, Charge blocking devices...) with many color pictures and detailled diagrams for experimenters. My web server is updated quite often, as soon as I have completed new experiments.... I hope that these informations will help you in your Quest of Overunity, Truly, Jean-Louis Naudin Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.htm Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 13:43:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA22668; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:30:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:30:55 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:33:17 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Light electrons, CF calorimetry, and anode spots Resent-Message-ID: <"OGb3x3.0.ZX5.9SB4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4453 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If light electrons exist, then they would most likely be created from the vacuum in an extreme gradient like that found near a point or fine wire cathode. If light electrons exist then sparks or even some glow discharges or electrolytic currents may at least partialy consist of them. It is well known that protuberances grow on electrolytic cathodes and that enormous field gradients can be produced at sites on cathode surfaces. If light electrons (l-) are created at a cathode, then the corresponding l+ particles, being nearly indistinguishable from electron holes, could be expected to move around the circuit, and might accumulate at the anode, assuming it is not pointed like the cathode. Such an accumulation would result in anode spots or anode destruction due to a preponderance of l+,l- annihilations right at the anode surface. It is an interresting question as to whether the l+ could actually make it to the anode, due to the glacial drift speed of electrons in solid or liquid state conductors. If the l+ superconduct, or at least move at near light speed in conductors, then they should immediately accumulate in the anode, provided it is shaped or managed so as to present less of a surface gradient than the cathode. An l+ accumulation in the anode surface would result in exceptional anode pitting and heat in the anode due to annihilation of the l- current by the l+ in the anode. Even if the l+ did not conduct that fast, but slowly drifted like electrons, they might eventually get together with the l- in the circuit, due to either continued current, or due to diffusion, and annihilate. If that be the case, one would expect both heat and a "heat efter death" effect in at least some of the components of any circuit creating light electrons. Such an effect would be delayed, and the amount of the effect would be a function of the total operating amp-seconds of the circuit in terms of light electrons generated, and the physical length and conductive area of the ciruit. In either a vacuum or electrolyte, the l+ might leave the anode and recombine somewhere in the anode-cathode gap. The resulting photon emission would ultimately be manifest as heat, unless means for photon escape is provided. The potential of letting the photons escape gives possibility to the infinite Isp spacecraft inertial drive. One point about CF experiments, especially the flowing electrolyte experiments, is that the heat measurements do not provide separate accounting for heat generated in the cathode vs electrolyte vs anode, vs the rest of the electric circuit. It seems like such measurements would be prudent to answer not only questions about light electrons, but also questions which have been raised in the past about heat pump mechanisms, and simply to nail down the assumed fact that the excess heat really is coming from the cathode as assumed. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 15:19:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA06241; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:08:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:08:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:07:40 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques In-Reply-To: <970223052039_72240.1256_EHB50-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"nKy2a3.0.NX1.OtC4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4454 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 23 Feb 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > The fact that they don't work doesn't mean the effort is wasted. At the > least they can be used for controls for transmutation experiments. > > No, they produce no excess heat, so they are not transmuting. In every case > that I am aware of the two go together, although not in fixed proportions. I > am afraid the beads are useless. In spite of his expertise, Patterson produced > many sets of beads over the years that do not work, so it is not surprising > these are useless. But that's why they're perfect! If funny elements appear in them you know you've got a contamination problem. That's what controls are for. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 15:41:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA10493; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:29:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:29:32 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:32:04 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: A simple test for l+ conduction Resent-Message-ID: <"-bssK2.0.rZ2.OBD4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4455 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If light electrons can be created from a vacuum, and have conduction characteristics similar to electrons, a simple test to prove this is available. The l+ should be thermionicaly ejected from an anode just like an electron. Therefore a diode tube, where the plate is the cathode, filament the anode, should conduct the l+ only. The test cosists of attaching the cathode of an l+ generator as closely as possible (shortest possible wire length) to a diode tube (e.g. 1B3) filament. Wait for the l+ to migrate through the wire and observe the current increase. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 16:29:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA19348; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:18:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:18:20 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:17:25 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Light electrons. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"eyJnh3.0.2k4.1vD4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4456 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There has been a lot of speculation about the existance of new light "electrons". I would suggest that before people spend a lot of time and money serching for these that they review the extensive searches that have already been performed to look for things like this. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 17:04:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA28246; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:52:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:52:43 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:54:08 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Gratitude and the 'Kawai' Patent Resent-Message-ID: <"ToXY6.0.5v6.LPE4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4457 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From: "Ken G. Brown" >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:52:38 -0700 >Subject: Re: Kawai Patent > >I for one am trying to find something of substance on this list. The Kawai >Patent is something of substance and I wish to thank Greg for making it >available. Other junk such as below I feel serves little useful purpose. I >think we need to concentrate on bringing useful knowledge of substance to >the world. That seems to be the best way to keep it from being squashed by >the large vested interests. Keep up the good work Greg. > >Ken G. Brown >----------------------------------------------------------- >>From: Bobby Matherne >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:24:35 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Kawai Patent >> >>Newman-l wrote: >>> >>> From: Greg Watson >>> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:29:29 +1030 >>> Subject: Re: Kawai Patent >>> Organization: Greg Watson Consulting Dear Ken, I would agree that the 'Kawai' Patent is something of substance: it does in fact substantiate the intellectual plunder of the dedicated life's work of another human being. Moreover, the conceptual developments and innovations of said human being are so far beyond the scope of the 'foundations' underlying the 'Kawai' Patent as to make the 'work' of the Japanese national ludicrous by comparison. And as I have said before, the ultimate fault of this intellectual plunder lies _not_ with 'Kawai' -- or any other such "johnny-come-lately." The ultimate fault lies with the American patent office -- and specifically certain patent office bureaucrats -- who have failed to live up to the integrity standards intended for that office by our Founding Fathers. And so as to give every such bureaucrat proper credit, a significant amount of the credit for such (current) intellectual plunder should be afforded that proven technical incompetent and ex-patent examiner: DONOVAN F. DUGGAN I am sincerely sorry, Ken, if you may detect a note of bitterness underlying my words. Actually 'bitterness' would be an understatement. I have nothing but the highest contempt for any human being who would attempt to steal the lifework of another. And why, one may ask? Is it out of respect for the victim? In part, yes. But the "victim" --- in this case innovator Joseph Newman --- only has to suffer while he lives. The destructive effects of such intellectual plunder continues long, long after the plundered innovator dies. Such destructive effects serves to stifle the incentive of future innovators which, in turn, is damaging to the progress of all humanity. THIS is why I am bitter. THIS is why I have contempt. I guess I've been hoping to avoid this discussion -- particularly because I am personally and truly happy that Greg Watson, I believe, has begun to have his own insights into the underlying fundamental nature of Joseph Newman's Technology which the latter began innovating in the early 1960s. I fully recognize that the term "DNMEC" --- "Direct Nuclear Magnetic Energy Conversion" is original (as far as I know) to Greg. And the fact that he uses this particular descriptive terminology is indicative to me that he has begun to understand the essential nature of Joseph Newman' Technical Process. Yes, you see, while the words DNMEC _are_ original to Greg -- and _do_ represent HIS intellectual property -- the discovery of the effect Greg describes belongs to Joseph Newman. Just as Isaac Newton is recognized as the innovator of the Theory of Gravitation, so too is Joseph Newman the innovator of the Theory of the Gyroscopic Particle. In other words, Greg's term, DNMEC, is Joseph Newman's Gyroscopic Particle. If Greg's particular phraseology helps others to better understand Joseph Newman's technical process -- so much the better. Speaking only for myself, I have always found the words "Gyroscopic Particle" useful because, as such, they simply __operationally___ define the nature of the phenomena in question. And, as has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout the history of Science -- operational definitions are the most durable and useful for the progress of Science. The words "Gyroscopic Particle" define the fundamental mechanical nature of the phenomena. DNMEC refers to a "process" involving these fundamental mechanical phenomena. In this sense, IMO, the latter term is less fundamental -- but perhaps conceptually useful to some of those trying to understand the _process_ involved. For those who may be later arrivals to these lists with respect to this discussion, allow me to state that early last Spring (1996) I began to present introductory material regarding Joseph Newman's work on another list. It was met with great resistance and hostility from some list members. This was not surprising to me since historically many ideas presented in Science were greeted with the same reception. The reaction of some of these list members may have also been due in part to my description of Joseph Newman's work mechanically and not mathematically. While I realize that this may present conceptual problems to those trying to understand the Technical Process, I can only sincerely hope that Joe, like Faraday, will soon find his "Maxwell." I believe Greg would agree that he also expressed hostility at the time to some of the ideas of Joseph Newman which I presented on that list. [At one point the interchange did indeed become a bit 'heated'! :-)] Greg appeared to me, at that time, to have difficulty in understanding the "Braking Effect" which Joseph Newman describes on page 58 of his fundamental book (THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN) beginning with Section 21. This Braking Effect was the reason why one could not "simply feed the generated, output current back into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery." (or other voltage source -- my words). Time passed. Months passed. Posts regarding Joseph Newman's work were made to that and other Lists. Later in the year [I'd have to check my Archives, but I believe it was in late December], certain discussions began to ensue between Greg, Stefan, and others regarding flux gates and related topics. I followed the discussions on a day-to-day basis. I was personally hoping that the discussion would enable someone in the List discussion to _really_ began to understand Joseph Newman's work. [Aside: it probably would have accelerated certain aspects of the discussion if all participants had the opportunity to read Joseph Newman's book; Greg has not read Joe's book as he indicated to me.] Anyway, as the days passed and the discussion intensified, with Greg being very helpful in providing the results of the flux simulation tests, the following post was made: _____________________________________________ Thu, 9 Jan 1997: Greg Watson: "I now believe I can explain why a Newman motor works as in does."* Thursday, Friday, Saturday ... more intense discussion between the individuals involved. Then on Sunday, the following: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 Greg Watson wrote: "Today I think we own Mr. Joseph Newman an apology. I have just shown his motor does work. It does produce over unity operation and I believe I have explained all the funny side effects we have all read about. "Mr. Joseph Newman, you were right. Your motor does work. But why did you and Evan cloud the issue with talk about things in left field? "Why have I had to reinvent the wheel today? Why don't I own my own Newman based power source? "There is no need to invent new physics." [*Once again, while I respect the intensity and quality of Greg's thought processes, my question would be: why not also read the writings of the inventor in his own language? I will postulate that this is ultimately what is needed if one wants to more securely "stand upon her/his shoulders" _and_ "see farther."] Also, I should state that one can thank the "DONOVAN F. DUGGANs" of the world for why you "don't own your own Newman-based power source." And we are working hard to change this. As for the words "cloud the issue with talk about things in left field": when a subject is not presented sequentially -- as Joseph Newman does in his fundamental book -- then it may sometimes appear to one who has not read the book, as though various postings-out-of-context on a given List may jump from topic to topic "about things in left field." _____________________________________________ Yes, I would agree that Greg 'reinvented the wheel' -- at least with respect to one aspect of the general Technology. But this is not to denigrate his accomplishment. And yes, I would agree that there is _no_ need to invent new physics: The fundamental Gyroscopic Particle Theory of Joseph Newman represents a further understanding of the extension of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy into the electromagnetic domain. As Joseph Newman said when he first published his book over 12 years ago, and as he wrote extensively during the 1960s and 1970s, the fundamental Gyroscopic Particle is indeed the __literal mechanical equivalent__ of Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2. In one sense, the nature of the equivalence of the mechanical energy involved is more like a "physical transference" rather than a "conversion." This is a subtle, but I believe important distinction. Yes, Greg has reinvented (one aspect of of) the 'wheel.' But if this is what is required for him to better understand the Technology of Joseph Newman, so be it. The mechanically-gifted gentleman in Philadelphia (who independently constructed his own Newman Motor/Generator) -- very quickly grasped the fundamental mechanical nature of the Gyroscopic Particle (as described above) after reading Joseph Newman's book. 'Different strokes for different folks' as they say. Let me provide perhaps a useful story in this context: About 20 years ago I heard one of many Lectures by astrophysicist Andrew J. Galambos in which he related his personal excitement as a very young teenager when he "discovered" something remarkable in mathematics. He was personally convinced that his discovery would contribute to significant mathematical progress. He explained in mathematical detail how he personally arrived at his conclusions. What he later learned was that he had rediscovered Newton's Binomial Theorem (The general formula [arbitrary _n_] was first given by Newton in letters to H. Oldenburg dated June 13, 1676). When Galambos learned this he was both sad and happy. He was sad because someone had already accomplished his "monumental feat" over 250 years earlier. But he was happy because he believed he still had the intelligence to come to such a mathematical conclusion _on his own_. Well, not exactly. And here's the important point, which Dr. Galambos proceeded to discuss relative to the nature of "true independency of an idea" and "intellectual property" (Primary Property, to use Dr. Galambos's exact words) in general: Dr. Galambos added that while his "work" in developing the Binomial Theorem was indeed original to him, the fact that he was born into a "Newtonian Universe" made it a bit easier for him to arrive at his mathematical conclusions. Dr. Galambos was not "born into an ideological vacuum" --- the entire culture in which he was immersed (and much of the mathematics he studied) were (in large measure) a result of Isaac Newton's "Thoughtprints" (another Galambos term in this context). Moreover, as he stated, when all was said and done, Mr. Newton had accomplished it earlier. But did this inhibit Dr. Galambos's thinking??? Certainly not. He was pleased of his personal accomplishment in mathematics and out of gratitude recognized that Isaac Newton's own innovations would hopefully someday permit Dr. Galambos to see "farther than others" because he "stood on the shoulders of giants" -- Isaac Newton being one such giant. I am sorry Greg -- Bobby -- and everyone else concerned. I realize that Joseph Newman may appear to be "touchy" with regard to the intellectual property which he has innovated following decades of personal struggle and research. But I would invite some to consider that this personality trait may not be "touchiness" but rather "sensitivity" --- there is a fine distinction (AJG's). Being sensitive to intellectual property will lay the foundation for a high quality civilization which in turn will foster and encourage innovations that will enrich all of our lives. I ask you to even realize that this "touchiness" or "sensitivity" -- however you prefer to view it --- ___is only a direct result of the years of injustice__ to which Joseph Newman has suffered (and I have personally witnessed 14 of the years). Bobby has also been a witness to these many years of injustice. It is a direct result of the injustice of patent office bureaucrats -- especially my favorite technically-incompetent, ex-examiner *DONOVAN F. DUGGAN*. [Yes giving credit where due -- positive or negative -- is important.] I with to pay gratitude to Doyle Henderson for expressing his valuable thoughts about Primary Property with the following words: _______________________________________________ "It is customary today in our society to agree upon certain rules of conduct to enhance each person's security although doing so comes with the expense of significant losses on personal freedom. It seems we have long ago passed the optimum cross-over point in these "exponentially varying" functions. "Initially, those first rules/laws were clearly beneficial. "For example, most of us have agreed not to murder or maim one another, to respect one another's real property, money, family, and belongings..... "Yet, strangely, society has failed, as yet, to respect one another's ideas. Patents do not do that either. "Yet, there is something intrinsically wrong about this failure.... It is certainly, logically, morally, and ethically wrong to steal another's ideas just as it is to steal the fruits of his physical labors.... It is especially wrong now that intellectual labors may produce ideas of great significance. "I for one, of many as I know, do subscribe to the idea that ideas are personal property and should not be stolen, taken, used or passed on to others without the consent of the originator.... and with appropriate payment to him as he may request. "I do not coerce you in any way to accept this idea, but give it to you as it was given to me. It is valuable ... and abiding by it may give you a tremendous internal feeling of strength and worth ... and of integrity and fairness. "Cogitate upon it." _______________________________________________ It is still too soon to accurately predict this [another century would be helpful! :-)] --- but it is the DONOVAN F. DUGGAN's of the world --- when mistakenly placed in a responsible position of interfacing with humanity's greatest benefactors --- the innovators --- that such a technical incompetent as Duggan has incredible power at his disposal (whether he realizes it or not): by Duggan's actions/or lack there of, his positive or negative leverage is considerable. By this I mean that, in a negative sense, an incompetent examiner like Duggan can discourage one single innovator whose subsequent disincentive and dejection has the potential to damage the progress of civilization as much as an outright coercer such as an Adolph Hitler. Such disincentive and dejection can cause the innovator to retreat from the world, and hence we are all deprived of her/his innovations. It is a _far_ more subtle form of damage --- but, in the long run, just as real for all of us. I know that some may perceive that I have strayed off the original course of this post --- but you see, just like the Universe itself: everything is indeed related to everything else. It is up to us to discover how! :-) Gyroscopically yours, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 18:08:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA27351; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:58:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:58:42 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:01:20 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Light electrons. Resent-Message-ID: <"gyP_M3.0.1h6.GNF4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4458 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >There has been a lot of speculation about the existance of new light >"electrons". I would suggest that before people spend a lot of time and >money serching for these that they review the extensive searches that have >already been performed to look for things like this. > >Martin Sevior It would be nice to hear a little about the extensive searches. 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 19:44:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05752; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:32:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:32:43 -0800 Date: 23 Feb 97 21:37:57 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: More about beads Message-ID: <970224023756_72240.1256_EHB31-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"IDC-H3.0.WP1.JlG4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4459 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: I had a number of runs in which the splitting of the bead coatings was not severe, especially when I loaded the beads very gently (20mA) at room temperature as CETI typically does. These "good runs" also did not show excess heat. That's a good technique. Recommended by all. But the fact that many of them split indicates that they do not have enough structural integrity for high loading. They have be able to stand up to it, and load evenly, just as Pd foil cathodes have to load without bending or cracking. Even when you have a batch in which 90% survive rough treatment, it is still a good idea to start with gentle loading. If you test the ones that did not split, you might find they have the opposite problem: they are not even loading. They have to do both! Cathodes do not load for a wide variety of reasons. Because they are dirty, or they have many microscopic cracks that allow outgassing, etc. Everything has to be just right, or it's no go. What substantiation do you have for the first part of your statement above, "CETI's beads hold together under high loading"? I am not sure what "substantiation" means. My statements are based on four things: 1. The used CETI beads I have seen up close (with a magnifying glass) that have been subjected to high loading were intact. Beat up, but intact. 2. Miley's microphotos showed remarkably intact used beads. 3. It has been widely observed that beads which crack excessively or shed their film never produce excess heat. 4. Statements made by Patterson, Miley and others. High loading is also critical. This is described in the first and second patents, with the loading curves. I do not think that that Scott's beads have been tested for this. I suspect they are "ballooning up" instead of loading. With thin film this is impossible to measure directly. With a Pd foil and a micrometer you can measure it. Storms says total deformation must not exceed 3%. (Or was it 5%?) Let me emphasize again that the detailed metalurgy and physics which ensure high loading and structural integrity are over my head. I know what is needed; I have no idea how you go about achieving it. Experts say it is difficult. I wrote that I have never heard of beads that produce transmutations but no heat. Martin Sevior responds: But that's why they're perfect! If funny elements appear in them you know you've got a contamination problem. That's what controls are for. Yes, they are fine for that purpose. And as calorimetry controls too. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 20:35:48 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA15608; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 20:26:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 20:26:36 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970224042701.0066ce24 sparc1> X-Sender: kennel sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:27:01 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Re: Joule Thompson effect Resent-Message-ID: <"hP73A2.0.op3.xXH4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4460 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Russ George asked: >> Can someone post a solution to the heat generated by an outgassing hydrogen gas from a small highly pressurized (~1000atm) void ~2 cubic microns in volume buried in a metal lattice. What is the time frame the such an event could take place in (how fast can the hydrogen leave.)<< The available heat would be PV. P in pascals = 10^8, V = 2 x 10^-18 m^3 E = 2 x 10^-26 Joules. (This is a very small number!!) If you assume that the hydrogen is contained in metal, and then the metal suddenly fractures, the gas will come out at roughly sonic speed. This is not an easy problem to model in detail; however sonic speed is given by v = SQRT(kRT/m) or about 1350 m/sec for H2 at ambient temperature. So you could use a very rough time constant t ~ r/v where r is based on the radius of your initial volume r =(3V/4pi)^^(1/3) = 8 x 10^-7 m. Thus t ~ 0.6 nanoseconds. The power would be something like 3 x 10^-17 Watts. A previous responder estimated 1.8 Watts. So I think between the two of us we've succeed in bounding the question within seventeen orders of magnitude--another example of a clear consensus within Vortex! Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 22:42:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA02071; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:33:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:33:05 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:35:32 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Better light electron test Resent-Message-ID: <"PPCgc2.0.oV.UOJ4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4461 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A more definitive light electron test: ------------------------ X | Electron gun ::::::::::: X---------------- + ------------------------ . X . - - - -.- - - - - - Collector Grid ------------- | | - Collector plate | ----------------- | | | | \/\/\/ ------- ------ /\/\/\ | | | | A1 A2 | | ----------------- | - Supply Bombard target XXX with stimulating radiation. F. Sparber suggested 550 - 600 V on nickel target, or 1300 V on magnesium target. Other forms of stimulation (x-ray gamma etc.) and targets are feasible. If a later potential gradient is maintained on collector plates as shown, several things can be determined. Most significant is that, given a sufficient vacuum, if there is any current to the negative collector plate, then there may be low energy pair formation on the target. If raising the grid potential terminates the current flow from the negative collector plate then it seems fairly conclusive that low energy pair formation has occurred. There are basically three possibilities at the negative collector plate: (1) an l+ current occurs through the conductor supplying the negative plate, (2) l+ and e- unite and form a neutral entity, thus electrons will flow into the plate, or (3) l+ accumulate on the plate until the potential is nullified. To determine which is the case, place two vacuum diodes in parallel but opposite directions as above, with ammeters Ai in each leg. This will determine which of the three processes is happening at the negative collector plate. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 22:57:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA03778; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:41:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:41:55 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:44:24 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Better light electron test Resent-Message-ID: <"4z5Rr1.0.sw.nWJ4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4462 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Prior post should have said "magnesium oxide target", not "magnesium target." Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Feb 23 23:27:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07878; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:05:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:05:01 -0800 Message-Id: <199702240702.HAA06489 buttons.ihug.co.nz> Reply-To: From: "natvita.co.nz" To: Subject: Re: Light electrons. Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:06:45 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KU8Ks1.0.0x1.RsJ4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4463 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: man will go on making searches in the hope that man has missed something, it is a habit of man. regards, Robert Beasley. | >There has been a lot of speculation about the existence of new light | >"electrons". I would suggest that before people spend a lot of time and | >money searching for these that they review the extensive searches that have | >already been performed to look for things like this. | >Martin Sevior | It would be nice to hear a little about the extensive searches. 8^) | Regards, | Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 01:56:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA13548; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 01:33:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 01:33:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:38:32 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <33115395.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: The name of the difference. Resent-Message-ID: <"zz8uP2.0.RJ3.z1M4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4464 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The difference between working and non-working Patterson type and like beads has a name: catalytic. The mechanical properties as compactness and adherence are only a substrate for the vital process of forming active sites. I think now Scott can get some relevant but incomplete information by using scanning electron microscopy to compare his beads and the genuine ones. To understand the difference you need technological culture in the field of surface finishing, metal coating is a true magical art; minor changes in parameters and trace quantity additives can alter very profoundly the texture, structure, crystallinity etc. etc of the thin metal layers. Based on my own experience, I am ready to bet that Patterson uses pulse current electrolysis as one of the tricks necessary to obtain working beads. To obtain catalytically active beads you also need a great quantity of know-how, from an other field of technological culture: catalysis. I think therefore that it is very easy to obtain negative reproduction of the beads..the number of definitory characteristics is very great. Scientific research is one thing, technological research is an other thing, correlated with the first but different. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 05:24:20 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA01144; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:14:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:14:43 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:24:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: red/blue shift, Einstein, any refs? Conservation Laws. In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970221190445.0068d4ac world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"faWBW.0.YH.-GP4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4465 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > In fact, as Einstein showed in a thought experiment, > when one considers both red and blue shift, and > then adds both of them together, there is a slight difference from > two photons emitted without the shifts. > > If memory serves when we last repeated that on an envelope back, > that difference can be defined as an amount, epsilon, which > when cracked through the equations in that Gendanken experiment is > (and what led Einstein to the equation) E=mc2. Try it. > > Hope that helps. > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > > Sorry Vo, I'm not familiar with this derivation. I though E. took the bold step of saying that Lorentz transformation was right and operationally/physically true and not just some maths trick with Maxwell's Eqns. Reworking old mechanics, E=mc2 dropped out when considering k.e. I'll try it, but any refs? What made him want to do that approach? Was it an after thought? If he associated energy of photons to mass, at that point in history was he using the classical notion of wave energy being proportional to intensity? (One photon can still red/blue shift). { Aside What about E=hf, how does something discrete end up continuous? Excuse pretentions, some physicists say ALL of physics should be discretely formulated - a man called Tom Etter I think - I don't claim to understand any of his work or philosophy. They don't use diff. calculus but something a step above that diff. calc. is an approximation to (Domain of maths wizzes. Yeah, I say, give us something we can measure above the Planck length :-) . } Is anyone still with the idea that both ref. frames need to be considered (source and sink) to get correct First Law because sink could view o-u or u-u? (Don't get me wrong about o-u, too many good people with good results now. Just what is being conserved, does anybody believe in conservation laws? What does lack of conservation laws do to physics, engineering and just philosophically? The Universe would appear to be creating itself now (not then ie. Big Bang) out of nothing at all...) Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 05:44:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA07009; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:35:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:35:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:35:23 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702241335.HAA04096 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: The name of the difference. Resent-Message-ID: <"AnV8a1.0.Rj1.eaP4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4466 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:38 AM 2/24/97 GMT, Peter wrote: >I think therefore that it is very easy to obtain negative reproduction >of the beads..the number of definitory characteristics is very great. I hope you are right, Peter....that there IS a way to make the results come out positive. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 06:07:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09649; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:50:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:50:50 -0800 Date: 24 Feb 97 08:49:32 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Joule Thomson effect Message-ID: <970224134932_72240.1256_EHB58-3 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"N7w8f2.0.hM2.uoP4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4467 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex It turns out that is spelled Thomson, without the "p." I think it is Sir Joseph John Thomson, 1856-1940. Elliot Kennel writes: Thus t ~ 0.6 nanoseconds. The power would be something like 3 x 10^-17 Watts. A previous responder estimated 1.8 Watts. So I think between the two of us we've succeed in bounding the question within seventeen orders of magnitude--another example of a clear consensus within Vortex! That was me, but I was just quoting Nate Hoffman. I don't know anything about it. I do not trust his judgment, but he does seem to know about this subject. The 1.8 watts is the extreme end of the scale, and it depends on many unlikely assumptions ("a real stretch," in Hoffman's words) like a pit a full millimeter in depth and pressures of ~2.4 million psi. 1.8 watts assumes the fastest possible release of gas; most of the points fall at about 0.2 watts. The important thing to remember about the Joule Thomson effect vis-a-vis calorimetry is that with a properly designed calorimeter you never see it. It is a heat-pump effect; it warms the electrolyte as it cools the metal. Hoffman and others point this out. Hoffman adds: The only surface characteristics that have been definitely linked with minor heat production is the volcano crater morphology associated with pore rupture that we discussed under Joule-Thomson expansion heating. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 07:42:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26156; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:23:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:23:50 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:22:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970224102230_1449584330 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, little@eden.com Subject: which beads? Resent-Message-ID: <"cbulm2.0.IO6.3AR4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4468 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little writes: I had a number of runs in which the splitting of the bead coatings was not severe, especially when I loaded the beads very gently (20mA) at room temperature as CETI typically does. These "good runs" also did not show excess heat. .............................................................................. ........................................... Scott was this with the beads you made yourself or with the RIFLEX beads directly from CETI? Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 08:19:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA02959; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:00:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:00:33 -0800 Message-ID: <3311BB35.7B2F interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:00:53 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The name of the difference. References: <199702241335.HAA04096 natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"CJvdm1.0.8k.UiR4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4469 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > (snip) > I hope you are right, Peter....that there IS a way to make the results come > out positive. Gee, Scott, this sounds a little ominous! - or is it just my normal CF paranoia leaking out? (No answer expected) Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 09:31:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA15184; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:53:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:53:48 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:55:17 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: More about beads Resent-Message-ID: <"M3E5x1.0.7j3.PUS4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4470 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: {snip] >High loading is also critical. This is described in the first and second >patents, with the loading curves. I do not think that that Scott's beads have >been tested for this. I suspect they are "ballooning up" instead of loading. >With thin film this is impossible to measure directly. With a Pd foil and a >micrometer you can measure it. Storms says total deformation must not exceed >3%. (Or was it 5%?) > I think Storms said 2%. However, all his loading studies were done in Pd-D2O systems. I am not aware of _anyone_ measuring loading in Ni or Ni-coated Pd films in a Patterson cell. Patterson's patent talks about loading pure Pd. For that matter, I can't recall any report of H loading of Ni from _any_ cold fusion group. I think we have all _assumed_ that high loading is necessary in Ni cold fusion, by analogy with Pd-D2O, but I don't think there is any relevant experimental data. I did a quick look through some literature about 3 yearas ago, after learning about Patterson's results, and what litle I found seems to suggest that Ni is very hard to load with hydrogen. So, any cold fusion with Ni might be surface, rather than bulk, effects? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 10:02:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA25515; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:35:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:35:08 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Light Electron Chase. Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:30:06 +0000 Message-ID: <19970224173004.AAA12452 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"QwmIB3.0.wD6.55T4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4472 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Any cathode ray tube (oscilloscope) Vietnam Era? might be used to look for the proposed lght electrons. One could use an adaptor socket on an existing CRT and possibly reverse the high voltage power supply potential. At 5 kilovolts the light electrons should deflect about 4 times as much as the regular electrons; Deflection = e/Mr*v^2 * k) if they are not picked up by the beam-forming elements first. Hard to say if there would be enough of them to make much of a spot on the phosphor. A really dark room perhaps? A magnet held next to the CRT? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 10:12:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28513; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:46:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:46:54 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:48:26 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: FZ - Diffusion Barrier for CF Electrodes Resent-Message-ID: <"_TWXS1.0.Rz6.CGT4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4473 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Z posted some good observations from Miley about loss of deuterium (D) from Pd. Here are some additional comments, gleaned from various hot and cold fusion information sources over the years. The high loading of D into Pd is achieved in electrolytic cells as a consequence of the atomic D formed by the cathode reaction. A pair of D atoms has about 5 eV energy above molecular D2. D2 at STP loads only up to 0.6 or so. D atoms a great energy advantage over D2, so they can force their way into the Pd, even when it is highly loaded. The practical limitation on loading is set by the rate with which D escapes from the Pd. Normally the D loss rate is not set by outward diffusion, but by surface chemistry. In order to leave the Pd, the D atoms have to recombine back into D2. On a 'good' Pd surface without flaws, this recombination is very slow, and the Pd can be loaded to high internal D concentrations. The D atoms sit stably in sites on the surface, but only rarely recombine. However, surface flaws and species incident on the surface can permit two neighboring D to combine into a D2, which promptly pops off the surface and into the liquid solution. Certain thin layers on the Pd can reduce the number of recombination sites. I think we do not actually want a "diffusion barrier", because then D from the electrolyzing solution could no longer enter. We want to reduce surface recombination, yet have a thin layer through which freshly generated D can diffuse into the Pd. The layer does not have to have such a high diffusion coefficient as does Pd; so long as the layer is sufficiently thin and not too impeding of D diffusion, it will serve. Pons and Fleischmann, and also Lonchampt et al., made it clear at ICCF6 that in their cells, which have borosilicate glass walls, dissolution or leaching of some substance(s) from the walls is responsible for depositing some kind of layer on the cathode, and that this is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for excess power. Perhaps this is why cold fusion experiments done with high purity ingredients and Teflon-coated cell walls show little or no excess power. The layer in P&F cells is very resistive, and the parasitic RI^2 loss goes up several-fold when it forms. This resistive rise is what first raises their cell temperature to boiling. However, this is inefficient use of input power. I hypothesize that their power multiplication factor could be improved by finding and controlling a coating process that would still inhibit D recombination while being less resistive. The coating also has to be permeable to atomic D from the electrolyte. I also suspect that, in order to be long-lived, the coating has to be self healing and self renewing, much like the dielectric layer in electrolytic capacitors. If there are flaws, either in the Pd bulk or on the Pd-antirecombination coating interface, then the D will recombine locally. This is not directly a problem if the D2 gas could be contained at high pressure (thousands of atmospheres) in equilibrium with the high D concentration in the Pd. However, the high gas pressure can sometimes expand the flaw and eventually open a path to the surface, which then becomes a channel for losing D. This is one reason why the metallurgical state of the Pd is so important, yet so difficult (so far) to control. Also, a successful coating must be strongly adherent. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 10:50:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA31128; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:56:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:56:35 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702241152.ZM2933 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:52:04 -0600 In-Reply-To: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) "3D oscillon device" (Feb 22, 3:51am) References: <199702220954.BAA32060 Au.oro.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: tessien oro.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 3D oscillon device Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"1ZrN-.0.Ec7.IPT4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4474 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Feb 22, 3:51am, Ross Tessien wrote: > By using a saturated water vapor in a chamber (say a 3 foot cube), one can > induce acoustic vibrations in the vapor by vibrating (~200Khz) the 6 > opposing walls of the chamber. This is analogous to the vibrating of the > table under the beads in the current apparatus. > > In this case, however, a structure of acoustic nodes will form throughout > the chamber. If the waves leaving the walls are planar, then the nodes > will form into essentially a rectilinear structure of high and low > pressure nodes very much like the patterns observed in 2 dimensions in the > beads. Different frequencies will likely create different "tiling" > patterns in 3D. > > I have supposed that if you send into the chamber, in addition to the > above resonances, what would be considered a phased array sort of > convergence of acoustic energy, that one ought to be able to induce a > condensation of the water vapor in a region at the focal point of such an > added convergence. If this resonance can phase and frequency match to the > driving oscillations of the walls, (or match to every other cycle like the > oscillations), then the resulting condensed node may be able to be pumped by > the surrounding structure of acoustic standing waves. The reason is > because the vapor ought to condense as the density of molecules forced > into the node exceeds the condensation density. Such a condensation > process constitutes a non linearity in the vapor, and should reflect the > incident wave energy and thus maintain the convergent resonance just like > the oscillation is maintained by the table vibration in the vertical > direction. Ross- Sounds similar to the test bed I suggested not too long ago. I see you still want to play with water vapor though. I still think you'll overly complicate the analysis if you have to take into consideration temperatures, pressures, and atmosphere saturation levels with respect to the anticipated phase changes of the water vapor for confirming data. Consistent repeatability could fast become a sticking point on any discoveries or realizations. Too many unnecessary variables. If you recall I was talking about using a inert gas (He), and remotely monitoring expected pressure changes due to converging resonance to observe/record nodal structure creation. For the record, I think there is alot of spin-off application potential there too. Can't say I am actively working on it, but the idea tickled my imagination when we first discussed it, and I have since scribbled a few concepts down. I am in the process of getting some costs together for the needed equipment to do such an experiment. Some outfits have been a bit slow in getting me literature, but I am expecting some info soon. I was planning to put together a schematic and generating build drawings using off the shelf equipment, but not sure when I will get to it. Items on my "want to do" list seem to breed like bunnies. Not even sure what it is going to cost yet, and that may be the biggest deciding factor on proceeding for me. I have no problem collaborating if you want. My involvement would strictly be as an independent as I'm only doing it because it sounds like fun anyway. If something useful can be gleamed from it, all the better. -john -- John E. Steck - Motorola Inc. johnste ecg.csg.mot.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 11:00:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA24711; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:32:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:32:11 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702241731.JAA00390 shell.skylink.net> Subject: ELECTRONS-IN-A-FENCE To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:31:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <970222173748_100433.1541_BHG9-1 CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Feb 22, 97 12:37:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YhI511.0.026.O2T4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4471 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger writes: > If your not familiar with it, check out the IBM STM picture of electrons > in a fence of 48 iron atoms on a copper crystal: > http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/stm.html It is amazing, and so are the other images at this site. Here's some masterfully prepared understatement from IBM that goes with the image. "The discovery of the STM's ability to image variations in the density distribution of surface state electrons created in the artists a compulsion to have complete control of not only the atomic landscape, but the electronic landscape also. Here they have positioned 48 iron atoms into a circular ring in order to "corral" some surface state electrons and force them into "quantum" states of the circular structure. The ripples in the ring of atoms are the density distribution of a particular set of quantum states of the corral. The artists were delighted to discover that they could predict what goes on in the corral by solving the classic eigenvalue problem in quantum mechanics -- a particle in a hard-wall box." It seems IBM has made a break through of the infamous boundary between the classical and "quantum" worlds. Maybe there is no boundary, except that which results from limits of our instrumentation and imagination. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 11:19:18 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA11261; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:43:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:43:50 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970222185322_72240.1256_EHB78-3 CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:41:37 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Resent-Message-ID: <"fUdCc1.0.-j2.45U4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4475 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell writes: >Barry writes: > > Personally, I still hope CETI's device does work . . . > >I am sure it does. I observed it working. Cravens, Miley and Bowles have >independently verified it over several man-years. I think their calorimetry >is impeccable. If you know of any reason to doubt it, I suggest you tell >them. Here Jed repeats his theory that the combined flow calorimetry technique is beyond doubt and describes the results obtained from it as impeccable. I think that it is worthwhile to take a few minutes to examine this technique. The combined flow calorimetry technique consists of combining the electrolyte used for the alleged CF reaction with the water that is used for flow calorimetry. All the impressive claims of excess heat production by CETI, Cravens, Miley and Bowles have used this combined technique. Static calorimetry has been used in most cases and the results show no significant excess heat. The investigators know that a standard and accepted calorimetry technique produces no excess heat so they then choose to use a new nonstandard technique, accepted by no researchers competent in the field of calorimetry, in order to obtain the desired positive result. Right from the start there is a reason to doubt the combined technique because it is an untested and unaccepted technique that gave positive results whereas an accepted technique gave negative results on the same cell. Jed often makes reference to the 200 year history of flow calorimetry. However this history refers to what has been come to be called "pure water flow calorimetry". The "pure" here indicates that the water being used for the heating calculations has not been combined with the reacting chemicals and thus is pure. I think that a study of this 200 year history will show that the term "pure water flow calorimetry" has only been used in the last two years in order to distinguish normal flow calorimetry from the combined flow technique. It is truly remarkable that in the 200 year history of flow calorimetry no one had been so incompetent as to propose combining the chemical reactants with the cooling water, and thus these new terms were not required, until CETI invented the combined technique because it was the only way to give an excess heat result. This reminds me of a scene from a movie on the life of the Marquee de Sade. In this scene the Marquee's mother is speaking with him and she is most displeased because for all of future time the family name will be associated with a form of perversion. Perhaps for all of time the term "combined flow calorimetry" and the forced dichotomy term "pure water flow calorimetry" will be associated with gross incompetency of CF advocates. The combined flow calorimetry analysis of CETI cells has never shown a convincing heat excess that exceeded the limit of what would be possible within the Carnot Cycle limit. The presence of chemicals in the cooling water allows the possibility of exchange of thermal and potential energy and this exchange is limited by the Carnot Cycle efficiency. No tests or controls have been done and reported upon to account for this possibility. The only response by the combined flow advocates is to state that they see no way that an exchange of thermal and potential energy could be occurring in a CETI cell. But this is just a statement of their incompetency. So the argument comes down to: "I am incompetent therefore CF works". Something better is required. The NHE people want to see "pure water flow calorimetry" of a CETI like cell. Scott Little's system uses pure water. So lets see if any excess heat may be produced from a pure water system. Something like that is believable. It is based upon the 200 year proven history of normal flow calorimetry Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 12:58:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA14063; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 12:42:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 12:42:30 -0800 Date: 24 Feb 97 15:35:41 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Diffusion Barrier / More about beads Message-ID: <970224203541_72240.1256_EHB145-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"vPeJT1.0.7Q3.LqV4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4476 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Schaffer wrote a splendid short summary of the diffusion barrier problem and D2 formation. Make it longer, Mike! Publish it in I.E! We need more summaries. Mike writes: The layer in P&F cells is very resistive, and the parasitic RI^2 loss goes up several-fold when it forms. This resistive rise is what first raises their cell temperature to boiling. Right. And if it didn't (when it doesn't) they turn up the power directly to raise the temperature and trigger a reaction. That's how you kick off a CF heat burst in fully loaded Pd. Mike describes the surface treatments that people hope will act as a kind of one-way door, letting hydrogen in easily, but not out. Some people say surface treatments that prevent D2 formation may also prevent the CF reaction. Kunimatsu gets high loading with "a surface modified by thiourea" but it seems to kill the excess heat. When I asked McKubre and others why that might be, they said that the thiourea probably pushes D2 formation away from the metal surface, and this formation may be essential to the CF effect, for reasons unknown. Kunimatsu has to split the anode and cathode with an ion exchange membrane, to keep the thiourea from oxidizing. See "Material/Surface Aspects of Hydrogen/Deuterium Loading Into Pd Cathode," ICCF5 proc., p. 383. Regarding beads, Mike writes: I think Storms said 2% [excess volume]. However, all his loading studies were done in Pd-D2O systems. Yup, it's 2%. That's in section III of his paper "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect." I am not aware of _anyone_ measuring loading in Ni or Ni-coated Pd films in a Patterson cell. Patterson's patent talks about loading pure Pd. Right again! It was Pd, I was mixed up. For that matter, I can't recall any report of H loading of Ni from _any_ cold fusion group. I think we have all _assumed_ that high loading is necessary in Ni cold fusion, by analogy with Pd-D2O . . . I think it is a more solid than an analogy. Srinivasan showed that when you prevent loading, the Ni does not produce heat. It is true that loading is harder to measure with Ni than Pd, because Ni absorbs much less. . . . but I don't think there is any relevant experimental data. There's gotta be some, but I can't put my finger on it at the moment . . . I am a little woozy with novocaine. I also suspect that, in order to be long-lived, the coating has to be self healing and self renewing, much like the dielectric layer in electrolytic capacitors. Or the enamel on teeth, which is supposed to be self-healing, but it never seems to work with my teeth, speaking of novocaine. I did a quick look through some literature about 3 years ago, after learning about Patterson's results, and what little I found seems to suggest that Ni is very hard to load with hydrogen. That's what people say. (A helpful comment!) So, any cold fusion with Ni might be surface, rather than bulk, effects? Surface or near surface -- that's the consensus. But you still need "spongy nickel." It has to absorb to some extent. For that matter, the only person I know who is convinced Pd CF is a bulk phenomenon is Martin Fleischmann. I do not know why he thinks so. We should ask him. If the high energy chemical reactions of D2 formation turn out to be essential to the CF reaction, I suppose that means it must be a surface reaction. Right? - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 13:36:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23016; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:14:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:14:32 -0800 Message-ID: <3311BE6B.262B tiac.net> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:14:35 +0000 From: Bob Shannon Reply-To: bshannon tiac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Sa5l1.0.lc5.UIW4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4477 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > > Jed Rothwell writes: > > >Barry writes: > > > > Personally, I still hope CETI's device does work . . . > > > >I am sure it does. I observed it working. Cravens, Miley and Bowles have > >independently verified it over several man-years. I think their calorimetry > >is impeccable. If you know of any reason to doubt it, I suggest you tell > >them. > > Here Jed repeats his theory that the combined flow calorimetry technique is > beyond doubt and describes the results obtained from it as impeccable. I > think that it is worthwhile to take a few minutes to examine this > technique. The combined flow calorimetry technique consists of combining > the electrolyte used for the alleged CF reaction with the water that is > used for flow calorimetry. All the impressive claims of excess heat > production by CETI, Cravens, Miley and Bowles have used this combined > technique. Static calorimetry has been used in most cases and the results > show no significant excess heat. Errr, just why is it that the standard, accepted form of calorimetry do not show excess heat if it is indeed being produced? Does CETI have any reasonable explaination of why a different form of measurment is used? Is there any valid reason here? This sounds a lot like figuring the power of an AC waveform by multiplying the current and voltage without reguard for phase angles. > The combined flow calorimetry analysis of CETI cells has never shown a > convincing heat excess that exceeded the limit of what would be possible > within the Carnot Cycle limit. The presence of chemicals in the cooling > water allows the possibility of exchange of thermal and potential energy > and this exchange is limited by the Carnot Cycle efficiency. No tests or > controls have been done and reported upon to account for this possibility. > The only response by the combined flow advocates is to state that they see > no way that an exchange of thermal and potential energy could be occurring > in a CETI cell. But this is just a statement of their incompetency. So > the argument comes down to: "I am incompetent therefore CF works". Just beccuase they cannot see any way in which an exchange of thermal and/or potential energy is taking place in no way precludes such an exchange. Clearly this must be addressed by CETI people. I would not go so far as to claim this demonstrates incompetency, unless CETI cannot, or does not offer some reasonable justification for the measurment methods used. How about it? > Something better is required. The NHE people want to see "pure water > flow calorimetry" of a CETI like cell. Scott Little's system uses pure > water. So lets see if any excess heat may be produced from a pure water > system. Something like that is believable. It is based upon the 200 year > proven history of normal flow calorimetry > > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 13:42:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23416; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:16:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:16:07 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Light Bulbs & Light Electrons? Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:12:09 +0000 Message-ID: <19970224211207.AAA13946 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"vr_mS.0.ci5.rJW4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4478 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One can take an ordinary fluorescent light bulb into a darkened room and grasp it with one hand while grabbing or rubbing it with the other. There will be flashes of light in the bulb. Rubbing with a dry cloth is also effective. Assuming that the friction is removing or adding charge to the glass envelope, what is the real source of the electric field that can excite the "plasma" in the bulb? I can't see how such a good insulator is giving up or taking on that much electric charge, the possibility of light electron (or other)pairs being created. A related goody is to briskly rub an ordinary incandescent bulb with similar results. These bulbs are usually prepressurized to about 2/3 atmospheres with nitrogen and/or argon. There must be som pretty good electrostatic fields built up to cause ionization-light in these. A hazardous but interesting display can be achieved by putting an incandescent bulb in a microwave oven (2.45 GHz) with power on for a FEW SECONDS ONLY unless you want the job of cleaning up the glass fragments from the explosion. Burned out bulbs are cheaper. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 13:46:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23794; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:17:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:17:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:15:19 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702242115.PAA22453 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: The name of the difference. Resent-Message-ID: <"ij-rc1.0.uo5.ALW4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4479 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:00 2/24/97 -0500, Frank S wrote: >Gee, Scott, this sounds a little ominous! - or is it just my normal >CF paranoia leaking out? (No answer expected) Answering gives me an opportunity to say something important. It's true that I have doubts about the validity of the CF effect, mainly because I have never observed it. However, I continue to try to observe it because the work of others gives me hope. Recently I got a big shot of hope by visiting Ed Storms at his house in Santa Fe. Ed is an amazingly competent experimentalist doing real science in CF. He is studying the Pd-D2O system with a comb so fine-toothed it is almost unbelievable. He has performed hundreds and hundreds of experiments, recording numerous parameters in great detail....all with the goal of trying to find out just what it is that makes Pd "stand up and sing" every once in a while in a CF cell. I regret to report that he has not found any secret ingredient yet but, on the other hand, he has amassed a great deal of circumstantial evidence that allows him to characterize Pd. He can now sort Pd samples into two piles: (1) those that might produce excess heat and (2) those that will never produce excess heat. The difference is surely subtle and Ed is hot on its trail. He is absolutely, 100% convinced that the excess heat effect is real because he has personally observed it several times (out of hundreds of experiments) in his own highly qualified calorimeters. Coming from him, that gives me hope to continue. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 14:35:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA03480; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:18:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:18:20 -0800 Date: 24 Feb 97 16:45:59 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Murray's Miley Critiques Message-ID: <970224214559_72240.1256_EHB95-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rD2wx2.0.Hs.fEX4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4480 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: The combined flow calorimetry technique consists of combining the electrolyte used for the alleged CF reaction with the water that is used for flow calorimetry. All the impressive claims of excess heat production by CETI, Cravens, Miley and Bowles have used this combined technique. That's incorrect. As I have pointed out many times previously, CETI also used static and thermoelectric calorimetry. Static calorimetry has been used in most cases and the results show no significant excess heat. Nope. It showed four times input. The investigators know that a standard and accepted calorimetry technique produces no excess heat so they then choose to use a new nonstandard technique, accepted by no researchers competent in the field of calorimetry . . . To the contrary, all of the researchers I know who are competent in the field of calorimetry accept the flowing-electrolyte technique. McKubre tested it, found it works, and reported his results in detail at ICCF6. Little and Merriman tested it and found it works. Patterson, Cravens, et al. do calibration runs and they see the expected balance of input and output. There is no evidence that the technique does not work, and no reason to think it would not. Be fair, Larry. I just listed the people who tested this technique and found it works. Now *you* tell us who tested it and found a problem. And what was the problem? Right from the start there is a reason to doubt the combined technique because it is an untested and unaccepted technique . . . It is very well tested! That's what calibration is all about. How else can you test it? What does "testing" mean in this context? You test with no-working beads and with a joule heater. I think that a study of this 200 year history will show that the term "pure water flow calorimetry" has only been used in the last two years in order to distinguish normal flow calorimetry from the combined flow technique. It is truly remarkable that in the 200 year history of flow calorimetry . . . A minor point, but flow calorimetry was invented early in the 20th century. People used static calorimetry before that. Obviously they did not only use pure water! How do you suppose we know the specific heat and other thermodynamic properties of all those other fluids? . . . no one had been so incompetent as to propose combining the chemical reactants with the cooling water . . . There are no chemical reactions in the cell, except electrolysis. There are no chemically active substances in the cooling water. And even if there were, no chemical reaction could produce even 1% of the observed excess heat. This reminds me of a scene from a movie on the life of the Marquee de Sade . . . Perhaps for all of time the term "combined flow calorimetry" and the forced dichotomy term "pure water flow calorimetry" will be associated with gross incompetency of CF advocates. Very funny! But perhaps not appropriate to this forum. The combined flow calorimetry analysis of CETI cells has never shown a convincing heat excess that exceeded the limit of what would be possible within the Carnot Cycle limit. We have been over this many times. There is no conceivable input of energy. Sorry, you cannot get 1200 watts out of a 30 watt pump. No Can Do. The presence of chemicals in the cooling water allows the possibility of exchange of thermal and potential energy and this exchange is limited by the Carnot Cycle efficiency. No tests or controls have been done and reported upon to account for this possibility. Well . . . you are free to do any tests you like. Mix up some electrolyte, pump it around, and look for magic crystals & thermal anomalies. But most of us feel that no test is required to prove that you cannot get a steady 1200 watts of power from a 30 watt pump and 1.2 watts of electrolysis. That's a gross violation of the conservation of energy, and we don't see any need to check for such things. So lets see if any excess heat may be produced from a pure water system. Something like that is believable. It is based upon the 200 year proven history of normal flow calorimetry 90 year proven history. But they have already checked with the 200 year old static technique and the 50 year old thermoelectric technique, as noted. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 15:25:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA09046; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:40:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:40:13 -0800 Date: 24 Feb 97 17:36:41 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Yeah, Ed does a great job Message-ID: <970224223641_72240.1256_EHB38-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Lm2Hm1.0.DD2.8ZX4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4481 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: Recently I got a big shot of hope by visiting Ed Storms at his house in Santa Fe. Ed is an amazingly competent experimentalist doing real science in CF. Well, Ed is certainly one of my favorite CF scientists too. But what does this term "real science" imply? Are you suggesting that people like McKubre, Kunimatsu, Gozzi, Miles, Mizuno, Celani, Claytor or Lonchampt are NOT doing real science?!? At the ICCF conferences people give dozens of extremely impressive papers. Many of them are every bit as definitive as Ed's best work. So if you are looking for more "big shots of hope" I suggest you read some of these other papers, and talk to the authors too. He is studying the Pd-D2O system with a comb so fine-toothed it is almost unbelievable. He has performed hundreds and hundreds of experiments, recording numerous parameters in great detail....all with the goal of trying to find out just what it is that makes Pd "stand up and sing" every once in a while in a CF cell. I regret to report that he has not found any secret ingredient yet . . . Well, I wouldn't say that. I think he has found lots of ingredients. And they aren't secret either: many have been described by Fleischmann, Cravens and others. It is all laid out in Ed's papers, particularly "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect." He can now sort Pd samples into two piles: (1) those that might produce excess heat and (2) those that will never produce excess heat. The difference is surely subtle and Ed is hot on its trail. Not so subtle, I think. A lot of it is common-sense stuff like measuring the expansion of a foil with a hand-held micrometer. It is complicated, yes. It requires a lot of time and skill to measure the differences between good Pd and bad Pd, and even more skill to repair the bad Pd. But the differences are not subtle and I am sure that other CF scientists would achieve greater success if they would pay attention to Ed's techniques. Unfortunately, most of them ignore him. He is absolutely, 100% convinced that the excess heat effect is real because he has personally observed it several times . . . And because other people have seen it, hundreds of times. If he was the only person who sees it I think he would have grave doubts. But I must point out that many other good scientists, like Dave Nagel (Naval Research Laboratory), have *not* seen the effects after years of hard work, yet they are 100% convinced because *other people* have seen it. As Dave says, the world is not limited to one laboratory in one branch of the NRL. It is not an uncommon circumstance in science to be convinced by other people's work, even when you yourself cannot replicate it. Most physicists believe that Fermilab observed a top quark, even though no one else has the equipment to replicate it. Few biologists will quarrel with the recent announcement a sheep cloning, even though others have been trying for years without success, and it will be months (perhaps years) before others can replicate. You will not see accusations that the data is fake, the sheep is stuffed, or DNA testing does not work. Because cold fusion is so controversial people are irrational; they argue that simple, proven 200-year-old calorimetry cannot distinguish the difference between 30 watts and 200 watts. Yet nobody would claim that a DNA test does not prove a sheep is the twin of another. In technology we often accept evidence from other people's work even when we are incapable of reproducing, and we cannot witness the test firsthand. Nobody I know can replicate a Pentium chip, a massively parallel supercomputer, or an Apollo rocket, but we all believe they exist, because we see them in action, or because we get reliable reports from unimpeachable sources that Intel did, in fact, achieve terraflop performance; and that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. When the French AEC reports that they got massive, 300% excess heat using a method that I am sure works, I -- for one -- believe them implicitly, just as quickly as I believe Intel or NASA. . . . in his own highly qualified calorimeters. Coming from him, that gives me hope to continue. I quite agree. But when similar top-notch science comes from McKubre, Miles or Lonchampt, should you be any less hopeful? Their calorimeters are superior to Ed's, and their results are just as convincing. (His calorimeter is fine.) - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 15:42:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA15716; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:05:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:05:32 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <33121EA6.446B9B3D math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:05:10 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"10gjr3.0.Nr3.vwX4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4482 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Recall: several weeks ago Joe Champion posted details of the coffee can ignition experiment that a Texas highschool student carried out, following the protocol of Champion & Bockris's Texas A&M experiments; also, Joe mentioned I was an observer of that experiment (and Joe was 1000 miles away :-). Given that, I feel compelled to update folks on its status. The experiment "worked" in the manner Joe said it would, in that there was clearly gold in the finished product (at the level of a few ppm, verified by fire assay and XRF), and there also appeared to be nearly twice as much silver in the finished product as what was put in initially (5.0 grams in, about 8+/-.5 grams out, based on 5 fire assays of material samples, including the first two done by me immediately following the experiment). To determine if the gold was truly anomalous will require detailed assays of the initial ingredients; the assays done so far have not located sufficient amounts of gold in the input ingredients, but more need to be done to be certain. To verify the reality of "excess silver", all the residue material must be assayed---i.e. complete collection---which can't be done til after the science fair is over (the assays done have used about 1/5 of the total material). However, the one thing that would be definitive is isotopic analysis: if the final silver really is around 30% transmuted, we would expect there to be a significant shift in istopic abundances in it. Normal silver has istopes 107 and 109 in nearly equal amounts (52%, 48%). If "transmuted" silver has deviant isotopes, a lump of silver that is 66% natural and 33% transmuted would also show a major isotope shift. E.g., if it were all in one isotope, as Champion claims to have seen in some of his prior work, you would get something like a 70:30 split instead of the natural 50:50. Also, note that in the Bockris Texas A&M experiments, they never did mass spectrometry on their samples, so they never checked for such deviations (though Bockris says in retrospect he wished they had). Cut to the chase: I had mass spectrometry done on the input and output silver in the experiment, here at UCLA's mass spectrometry lab (low resolution Fast Atom Bombardment on a dissolved sample, for the afficianados). In short, the mass spectra of the input and output silver are identical, within a tolerance of about +/- 1% (the resolution of the output spectra graphs). Thus there are no apparent isotopic anomalies. What does it mean? Well, there will still be an anomaly if more than 5.0 gm of silver is recovered from the residue in the long run, or if the initial ingredients assay as not having sufficient gold content. However, it makes it considerably more difficult to make an argument for "transmutation" at this time, and it also makes one suspicious of the transmutation hypothesis, since it "seems unlikely" that an arbitrary transmutation would yield silver in the natural form. Remark: as far as assaying the initial ingredients for gold: I of course tried this myself recently. In both assays, using samples of the materials that went into the volcano experiment, I found traces of gold which under some possible scenarios could account for all the observed gold (the assay samples I used were biased towards certain ingredients, and therefore extrapolation back to the gold content of the real mix is not completely certain). Howver, these assays themselves were undermined by an anomaly: in the two assays on the material (which is "active"---i.e. its like gunpowder), in addition to a bit of gold, I got a total of 1 gram of silver from 30 grams of material (1/2 from each assay), even though in principle only about 50 milligrams of silver was put in. Champion suggests this is a tranmutative event, but the yield seems suspiciously large to me. I have reassayed the collected silver to verify that it is indeed silver, and it is. I unfortunately have no more of the original material to assay. However, I made replica material using fresh reagent grade chemicals, and three attemtps have not yielded this effect. Thus, it will remain an anomaly of unkown origin. Transmutation seems unlikely, since this is of a yield much greater than that claimed for any of Champions standard processes. Also, it had perfect repeatability, which is uncharacteristic of Champions processes. It is possible, the someone intentionaly or unintenionally put some extra powdered silver into the sample bags, for example. We will never know. Well, not quite. A friend of mine is getting a ICP mass spectrometer, so we can do a mass spec on the anomalous gram of silver. If that is deviant, it would prove something---tho it seems unlikely given the above mass spec. Beyond this, we will never know. A friend of mine who is a professional assayer says that sort of thing happens every once in awhile, and you are never able to repeat it in a controlled fashion, whatever may be its cause. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 15:47:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA22933; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:32:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:32:07 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:31:43 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"_TqLg2.0.2c5.nJY4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4484 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Larry Wharton wrote: [lots snipped] > The combined flow calorimetry analysis of CETI cells has never shown a > convincing heat excess that exceeded the limit of what would be possible > within the Carnot Cycle limit. Actually if you take the data at face value the SOFE demonstration did excede the Carnot limit. I think you even admitted as much. Let's see, look up John Logajan's Home page (I love the internet): OK. Current = 0.02 Amps Volts = 3 V Power in = 0.06 Watts. Measured temperature difference = 4.5 degrees, on top on a room temperature device, say 25 Celecius = 298 Kelvin. then Maximum Carnot efficiency for a heat pump (which has never been realized) is: 302/4.5 = 67 Power in * Carnot efficiency = 0.06*67 = 4.02 watts. So the SOFE demo data does excede Carnot, but only just. Martin Sevior (Can't help stirring the pot) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 16:00:40 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA21684; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:28:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 15:28:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:27:51 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702242327.RAA09296 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: new writeup Resent-Message-ID: <"sAZje.0.jI5.AGY4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4483 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have just updated the EarthTech web page with a new, detailed description of our Dual-Method Calorimeter. Of particular interest is Figure E which depicts a simulated excess heat event. As little as 0.1 watts of "real" excess heat is clearly visible simultaneously in both measurement channels. Criticism of this writeup and the calorimeter it describes is desired. We want to establish the Dual-Method calorimeter as an accepted instrument for measuring CF experiments. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 17:00:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA04910; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:36:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:36:08 -0800 Message-Id: <199702250040.QAA23782 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: Scott Little Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:38:02 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Scott's Calorimter Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702231406.IAA14988 natashya.eden.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"bfrQ62.0.eC1.rFZ4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4485 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott, Did Ed Storms give you some materials and equipment to run tests with in your calorimeter. It would be nice to see some CF results in your set up. It's all very fine to have a good calorimeter for "cold fusion" but it must be frustrating to never have the cold fusion fairy caught by the toe to measure. A conundrum many have suffered is knowing whether the reason one doesn't see CF is because it isn't there or because they can't create it. Steve Jones is the most legendary of those trapped in this loop, I would say without any hesitation that he is the acclaimed worst cold fusion chemist in the entire known universe. Without ever having a positive effect for comparison all one can ever have is a null effect. A negative requires a positive. Ed Storms ought to be able to get you something to see in your device. Or perhaps John Dash. I'll even donate a piece of the finest Japanese Tanaka Pd that is the same as what Takahashi used for his very interesting results some years back. I presume since your postings on Vortex betray no new enthusiasm for CETI you've not seen a hint of heat in their Rifex kit within your calorimeter. Russ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 19:12:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA10906; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:58:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:58:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:58:12 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: The Challenge, from Zenergy (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"IZSqW3.0.Eg2.KLb4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4487 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I just received this via NEOTECH list. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:58:32 -0800 From: Patrick Bailey Reply-To: neotech xbn.shore.net To: Multiple recipients of list NEOTECH Subject: The Challenge, from Zenergy http://www.zenergy.com/challeng.htm The Challenge, from Zenergy $100,000 for the "Demonstration of a Free Energy Machine". "Here is our open offer to any individual or company that can demonstrate a working free-energy machine. Therefore, we offer to pay any individual or corporation $100,000 who can demonstrate a working machine as per the terms [on this web site page]. We also offer a commission of $5,000 to anyone who can convince the individual or corporation into taking this challenge." The "Terms of the Zenergy Machine Challenge" are included. Dr. Patrick G. Bailey President, Institute for New Energy http://www.padrak.com/ine/ -> Neotech Mailing list -> Post to: listserv xbn.shore.net -> Subscribe neotech From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 20:23:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA25663; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:55:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:55:58 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:55:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702250355.VAA05481 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Scott's Calorimter Resent-Message-ID: <"8WYeP1.0.lG6.ABc4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4488 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:38 PM 2/24/97 +0000, Russ George wrote: >Did Ed Storms give you some materials and equipment to run tests with in your >calorimeter. No but only because he doesn't have any really select material at the moment...he's still sorting thru lots and lots of mediocre Pd. >Ed Storms ought to be able to get you something to see in your device. Or >perhaps John Dash. I'll even donate a piece of the finest Japanese Tanaka Pd >that is the same as what Takahashi used for his very interesting results some >years back. I'm definitely interested in all of that, but first.... >I presume since your postings on Vortex betray no new enthusiasm for CETI >you've not seen a hint of heat in their Rifex kit within your calorimeter. not yet...but then they have repeatedly told me that's exactly what I should expect from the Rifex kit. I'm just playing along, trying to be a good scientist and measure things right. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 20:33:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA28678; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:07:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:07:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199702250412.UAA24785 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:09:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Challenge, from Zenergy (fwd) Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"Udnm7.0.y_6.AMc4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4489 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This doesn't appear to be a challenge to demonstrate an energy technology as much as a sucker bait offer to buy a licenese to such technology and the right to act as an agent for such technology for a pretty ridiculously low sum. If the test proves the technology is working then it represents a major breakthrough in the $800 billion per year energy market place. This is rather like saying to some silicon chip designers if you prove you have a new chip that is faster and better than anything Intel or Motorola have on the drawing boards as far as ten years out we'll pay you $100,000 for the opportunity to share in the riches it produces. In the Silicon Valley that $100,000 buys a detached garage on the typical $300,000-$500,000 home. Hey it even covers the latest reported one year of tuition of $73,000 at Cal Tech plus burgers and a dorm room. What a deal. WOW!!!! Where do I sign. Palo Alto From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 20:49:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA00366; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:25:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:25:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199702250430.UAA00241 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:27:43 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re-charging those Heart Shaped Mylar ballons Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19970224173004.AAA12452 LOCALNAME> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"t0sXr.0.a5.4dc4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4490 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK for those of you following the ballon saga I've been waiting and waiting and waiting and finally the myler heart shaped ballon I bought for Valentines day is drifting about 2 feet off the floor. Now how do I make it rise. I tried the following incantation. "RISE heathen ballon. Rise up I beseech you. Rise up I say. Rise. Rise. Rise!!!!" It didn't seem to work so I guess that's proof there is no God, on to the next hypothesis. What diameter wire and how much juice do I have to add to that sucker to get it to rise again. What it the cat chases it as she's apt to do. Russ George From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 21:39:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA20115; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:28:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:28:29 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970225052740.0068252c world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:27:40 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: No missing (redshift) or gained energ Resent-Message-ID: <"JuYgU1.0.Aw4.vXd4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4491 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:20 PM 2/21/97 -0800, Hank Scudder wrote: >Mitchell > This is macroscopic stuff, photons are more or less >microscopic. ? At 60 Hz line voltage, at AM, at FM, at TV, and many microwavelengths, the photons wavelengths are macroscopic. Smaller, higher energy, photons are involved in a classification system that actually might depend upon what ones definition of what the threshold for "microscopic" actually is. Certainly by the optical, UV, and x-ray regions they are microscopic from our point of view. >What is a good mathematical expression for a photon? >I've always thought of them as an electric field E(x,y,z,t) >wuth an associated perpendicular magnetic vector H as an >envelope, possibly gaussian for convienience, both >in space and in time. For one going outward in the +Z direction >with velocity c and amplitude A, wavelength lamda, >frequency c/lamda.. > >E(x,y,z,t) = A*exp(-(x^2 +y^2)/width^2)* >exp(-(t-z/c)^2/lifetime^2)*sin(w(ct-z/lamda + phase) > >Is that similar to what you think a photon is like? Hank, not exactly, although some of the formalism is commonly used for optical beams, and electrodynamics. Do you remember the Prell comercials where a pearl was dropped into a bottle of shampoo? there are two ways in which to view the kinetics of the event involving the falling of the pearl within the shampoo. One way is to view the entire shampoo in Eulerian coordinates which is a very complicated mathematics involving fluid mechanics in spherical coordinates. The second way is to use Lagrangian coordinates and view the system as the vacancy moving through the solution. The pearl represents the absence of the solution and is thus treated as a vacancy. The second method is easier, but yields the same solution. I view a photon as that quasi-particle of coupled electric and magnetic fields moving through space between the two boundary conditions involving discrete differences in energy at either atomic or nuclear sites. The issue of the magnetic field is more complicated but involves and requires a definition of free-space impedance. It results from the special relativistic effects of a moving electric charge (ie. that the E-field intensity points to the charge, (or from for opposite charge) but movement necessarily is not perceived at distance until the change propagates out at the speed of c). Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Feb 24 21:44:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA21959; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:34:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:34:08 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Light Bulbs & Light Electrons? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:33:52 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <19970224211207.AAA13946 LOCALNAME> from "Frederick J. Sparber" at Feb 24, 97 09:12:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"R3g5_3.0.xM5.Bdd4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4492 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick Sparber writes: > I can't see how such a good insulator is giving up or taking on that much > electric charge, the possibility of light electron (or other)pairs being > created. I wouldn't assume that fluorescent tube glass is a good insulator (at high voltage.) So you could probably have micro-amps at just a few kV. For its intended use, it is more important to make the glass physically resiliant than to have infinite resistance. On one of the usenet newsgroups, someone once mentioned to me that the usefulness of glass jugs as Leyden jars varies quite a bit due to the variation in the conductivity of the glass used -- he seemed to think that most modern glass is more conductive. In a (literally) stove top experiment I once conducted, I was disappointed when the glass frying pan I was using (intended as an insulator) was leaking its high voltage charge into the metal stove top. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 00:55:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA02759; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:45:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:45:23 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: rvanspaa netspace.net.au From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Water Separation & Browns Gas. Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:28:30 +0000 Message-ID: <19970225072828.AAA7822 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"aV91Z3.0.qg.UQg4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4494 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin: However, if there were light electron pairs that came from solar production of either 3760 ev, 27.2 ev,(above the ozone layer) or 0.2 ev pairs in the water that that was used for electolysis, then the high temperature H2-O2 combustion of Brown"s Gas with these species in it might be annihilating and releasing their energy. A pair of 27.2 ev light electrons-positrons (54.4 ev) on one out of a thousand water molecules could release appreciable amounts of O-U energy. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 00:54:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA01988; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:44:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:44:41 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Hello, Dolly! Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:06:12 +0000 Message-ID: <19970225010610.AAA19608 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"GcH8F2.0.wU.sPg4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4493 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If you look closely, doesn't the cloned sheep, Dolly,suspiciously resemble one of the guys on the cloning team? FJS From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 01:08:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA02958; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:45:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:45:41 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: rvanspaa netspace.net.au From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Water Separation & Brown's Gas. Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:24:13 +0000 Message-ID: <19970225062411.AAA15857 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"0hj0G.0.Oj.kQg4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4495 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin: In response to your asking if I think that there is a possibility of "light" particles being involved in Brown's gas, I have to say that I plead ignorance on the subject. However, having pursued the production of hydrogen from biomass via the thermochemical processes as opposed to electrolytic production, I can assure you that thermochemical production is much more energy efficient that going through electrolysis of water. If you did get "light electron" pair production in the process I can't see any pairs above 0.40 ev being produced. This would represent energy lost from the system, unless the hydrogen combined with the light electron (minus) and this allowed reaction of this "quasi-neutron" with a metal that the combustion torch was applied to. Given the low neutron capture cross section of deuterium, oxygen, or hydrogen, I don't think there would be much chance of reactions of a "light electron Quasi-neutron" with these. Combustion of hydrogen and oxygen is a wild Free Radical process and can proceed in a great many pathways. Here are some back-of-the-envelope figure on possible free radical reactions and the energy released in Kilocalories/Mole. 1, OH + OH = H2O + O (73) 2, OH + H = H2O (65) 3, OH + H2 = H2O + H (65) 4, OH + HO2 = H2O + O2 (61) 5, HO2 + H = H2O + O (60) 6, O + H2 = H2O (57) 7, HO2 + H2 = H2O + OH (52) 8, OH + OH = H2O2 (41) 9, OH + H2O2 = H2O + O2 + H (40) 10, OH + H2O2 = H2O + O2 + HO2 (37) 11, H2O2 + H2O + O (32) 12, HO2 + HO2 = H2O2 (31) 13, HO2 + H = H2O2 (28) 14, H + H2O2 = H2O + OH (24) 15, OH + O2 = HO2 + ) (5) 16, OH + O = HO2 (5) Gibbs Free Energies Used, in Kilocalories/Mole: HO2 = 3, OH = 8, H2O2 = -25, H2O = -57, H&H2 = 0, O&O2 = 0. If I didn't goof somewhere, this gives a good idea of the possibility of getting heat release that might tend to look like over-unity in the combustion of H2 + O or O2. The current efficiency of most water electrolysis cells, gets close to 100% and the cell voltages are usually at 2.5 volts. Thus, a 10,000 ampere cell will produce a pound of hydrogen in an hour. Thus it takes about 25 kilowatt-hours per pound of hydrogen(at the cell terminals}. And you should get 8 pounds of oxygen along with every pound of hydrogen generated. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 03:48:55 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10009; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 03:38:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 03:38:26 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970225113754.008f97d4 freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:37:54 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Resent-Message-ID: <"A_O0A2.0.JS2.myi4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4496 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:05 PM 2/24/97 -0800, Barry wrote: >original material to assay. However, I made replica material using >fresh reagent grade chemicals, and three attemtps have not >yielded this effect. I have not run these experiments so I cannot say why these replicated materials did not work except that solid-solid reactions require thorough mixing of fine powders. Did you grind each reagent (except the silver) separately (do not grind the final mixture!) to a fine powder? Mixing of the reagents can easily be done by rolling the coffee can containing the mixed materials. This should be done for an extended period of time. >Also, it had perfect repeatability, which is uncharacteristic of >Champions processes. Does "it" refer to the successful experiments? Isn't this to be expected if runs were made from a batch of premixed materials known to work? I can see repeatability problems occurring if each experiment was done with a separately mixed batch. >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 04:54:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA22811; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:45:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:45:12 -0800 Date: 25 Feb 97 07:42:29 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Hello, Dolly! Message-ID: <970225124228_100433.1541_BHG122-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"shM-R3.0.Ka5.Mxj4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4497 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frederick, > If you look closely, doesn't the cloned sheep, Dolly,suspiciously > resemble one of the guys on the cloning team? "Animal husbandry" remains something of a problem in the UK, where my lawyer cousin claims to defend several cases each year - but not, I'm told, as bad as in the Antipodes. It's said that those wishing to visit "singles bars" in New Zealand should first ensure that they are not allergic to wool. Of course, this technology - for no very clear reason blithely dismissed as "impossible" as recently as a week ago - is a bit scary. Perhaps some wealthy person, obsessed with wanting to live forever, might choose to have a clone raised as a source of perfect transplant material? Or perhaps to have a transplant of his central nervous system into new body? By the way, can I check that I have a definition correct? Crackpot, n., (1) A person who gives credence to a scientific theory not generally accepted; (2) A person who performs a scientific experiment (other than one designed to prove the correctness of accepted theory). Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 05:17:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA27761; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:08:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:08:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 07:08:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970225071110.221fa818 mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: danyork mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Resent-Message-ID: <"q4Q0a1.0.dn6.6Hk4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4498 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 03:05 PM 2/24/97 -0800 Barry Merriman wrote: >Recall: several weeks ago Joe Champion posted details >of the coffee can ignition experiment that a Texas highschool student >carried out, following the protocol of Champion & Bockris's >Texas A&M experiments; also, Joe mentioned I was an observer >of that experiment (and Joe was 1000 miles away :-). Given that, >I feel compelled to update folks on its status. > >The experiment "worked" in the manner Joe said it would, in >that there was clearly gold in the finished product (at the >level of a few ppm, verified by fire assay and XRF), and there >also appeared to be nearly twice as much silver in the finished >product as what was put in initially (5.0 grams in, about 8+/-.5 >grams out, based on 5 fire assays of material samples, including >the first two done by me immediately following the experiment). What Barry explained above is exactly as it happened. I was also there involved in the experiment. Every step of the procedure of mixing the ingredients was overseen by Barry. He was aware of where all the materials purchased for the experiment came from. He visited the store where we purchased most of the ingredients. He either weighed each sample himself or observed the weighing. He personally collected all his samples of all the materials used for later analysis. Barry performed fire assays immediately following the experiment. Barry selected the all the samples himself being very careful to make sure they were representative of the entire batch of material. There is one difference between the material that Barry assayed and the later assays I performed along with Roberto Monti. At the time Barry took his samples all that was done to remove the material stuck to the inside of the can was to pound on the can with a hammer. Of that material Barry looked it over and selected, weighed and ground the material he selected for assay. Along with Barry after he had selected his samples we observed thousands of very tiny metallic beads stuck to the interior of the can. During and after when Barry was doing his fire assays I carefully scraped the tiny silver beads from the can being careful to try and remove only the beads without scratching the metal of the can. Those beads were then added back to the main sample. Prior to doing the later assays with Roberto Monti the remaining material from inside the can was finely ground and thoroughly mixed. It was from this thoroughly ground and mixed material that the additional three fire assays were done. Two of those assays showed a slightly greater amount of silver present than the assays that Barry did. In the assay that did not show a greater amount of silver present the cupel cracked in the furnace. The assay weight on that bead was within a few percent of the same weights that Barry got. One thing that Barry did not mention was that separate assays were done on the material that was inside the can following the burn and the material that was ejected from the can during the burn. There was a noticeable difference in the amount of gold left after dissolution of the beads in nitric acid. The silver from inside the can contained significantly more gold that the silver reclaimed from the ejected material. >To determine if the gold was truly anomalous will require >detailed assays of the initial ingredients; the assays done >so far have not located sufficient amounts of gold in the >input ingredients, but more need to be done to be certain. > >To verify the reality of "excess silver", all the residue material >must be assayed---i.e. complete collection---which can't be done >til after the science fair is over (the assays done have used >about 1/5 of the total material). All of the material from the experiment except for the portions the student used for display purposes and the portions consumed in the experiment have been kept tightly sealed and will be fully reduced and all of the metals recovered when the science fair competition is complete. In about a week the regional science fair competition will be held in the convention center here in Dallas. >However, the one thing that would be definitive is isotopic >analysis: if the final silver really is around 30% transmuted, >we would expect there to be a significant shift in istopic >abundances in it. Normal silver has istopes 107 and 109 >in nearly equal amounts (52%, 48%). If "transmuted" silver >has deviant isotopes, a lump of silver that is 66% natural >and 33% transmuted would also show a major isotope shift. >E.g., if it were all in one isotope, as Champion claims to >have seen in some of his prior work, you would get something >like a 70:30 split instead of the natural 50:50. Also, >note that in the Bockris Texas A&M experiments, they never did >mass spectrometry on their samples, so they never checked for >such deviations (though Bockris says in retrospect he wished they had). > >Cut to the chase: I had mass spectrometry done on the input and >output silver in the experiment, here at UCLA's mass spectrometry >lab (low resolution Fast Atom Bombardment on a dissolved sample, >for the afficianados). > >In short, the mass spectra of the input and output silver >are identical, within a tolerance of about +/- 1% (the resolution >of the output spectra graphs). Thus there are no apparent >isotopic anomalies. > >What does it mean? Well, there will still be an anomaly if >more than 5.0 gm of silver is recovered from the residue in the >long run, or if the initial ingredients assay as not having >sufficient gold content. However, it makes it considerably more >difficult to make an argument for "transmutation" at this time, >and it also makes one suspicious of the transmutation hypothesis, >since it "seems unlikely" that an arbitrary transmutation would >yield silver in the natural form. > >Remark: as far as assaying the initial ingredients for gold: I >of course tried this myself recently. In both assays, using >samples of the materials that went into the volcano experiment, >I found traces of gold which under some possible scenarios >could account for all the observed gold (the assay samples >I used were biased towards certain ingredients, and therefore >extrapolation back to the gold content of the real mix >is not completely certain). Howver, these assays themselves >were undermined by an anomaly: in the two assays on the material >(which is "active"---i.e. its like gunpowder), in addition to >a bit of gold, I got a total of 1 gram of silver from 30 grams >of material (1/2 from each assay), even though in principle >only about 50 milligrams of silver was put in. Champion suggests this >is a tranmutative event, but the yield seems suspiciously large to >me. I have reassayed the collected silver to verify that it is >indeed silver, and it is. I unfortunately have no more of the >original material to assay. However, I made replica material using >fresh reagent grade chemicals, and three attemtps have not >yielded this effect. Thus, it will remain an anomaly of unkown >origin. Transmutation seems unlikely, since this is of a yield >much greater than that claimed for any of Champions standard processes. >Also, it had perfect repeatability, which is uncharacteristic of >Champions processes. It is possible, the someone intentionaly or >unintenionally put some extra powdered silver into the sample >bags, for example. We will never know. I disagree strongly with Barry's above statement that someone intentionally or unintentionally might have put some extra powdered silver into the sample bags. That simply did not happen. Other than Barry and his wife Susan I was the only other one that handled the material or the bags he set aside as samples. I know for an absolute fact that I did not salt his or any other samples and I do not believe that Barry could honestly say he thinks that I did. I did not have any powdered silver on hand to use in the experiment. The silver used was plated out from reclaimed xray film. We (Barry and I) weighed out the sample to be used and then powdered it ourselves. If I had powdered any additional sliver during the time when Barry was present there was no way I could have done so without him being aware of it. In my opinion there is no viable explanation for the amount of gold found in the material from the thermal experiment other than transmutation or salting and from my perspective since I know I did not salt the materials that only leaves Barry or his wife Susan as possible culprits and I do not believe that they would do it either. There were a couple of other people present at the time the experiment was done but they did not handle the materials. However there is one way remaining that Barry can test his theory. Barry also physically did the set aside of the unburned sample material that the student is now using as part of her fair display. That material has not been altered in any way. In the science fair exhibit is it tightly sealed in a glass container. Because of the nature of the mixture it has not been left unattended where anyone could open it. Since it qualifies as being largely gun powder the student and the school officials have been quite careful in it's handling. When the fair is over I will send the still sealed sample of unburned material unopened to Barry for testing. As all the samples were set aside at the same time any salting of the pre-burn material would have to have occurred prior to when Barry set the materials aside and he knows that was not possible. So there is one more sample of the unburned material that I can give to Barry for testing. Any attempt on my end to tamper with that sample would surely show up as different from his other testing done on the pre-burn material. There is also a slight possibility that Bill Stehl might also have some of his pre-burn material left. If so I will ask him to send it directly to Barry. As for consistent perfect repeatability, I seriously doubt that Barry will get that, at least not until we learn considerably more about the actual mechanism that is facilitating the transmutation. I occasionally get the same results in sequential tests but that is not the norm. I have had results that have varied from doubling or tripling of seed material to an extreme in the other direction. In one series of experiments I performed using a full ounce of Johnson Mathey certified 24k gold as seed material, all but 4g was lost. It was present and had increased in one operation (by fire assay) but then it all but disappeared in later operations which Barry witnessed. In the other extreme in the last series of experiments I ran I have recovered over 35g of gold using no seed gold at all. I can attest to the fact that as carefully as I possibly can I have followed the exact same formula and procedures multiple times and have still had results that ranged from tremendous to terrible. As for the reality of transmuting base metals into platinum group elements there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it is real. Even though not all tests produce the same quantity results, in all but a few instances such as my single worst case that I reported above, every process I have run has created or increased the content of platinum group metals. I have had enough experience at this point to know how to do a proper fire assay and I am quite sure I know what I am talking about here. The type and volume of tests that I am doing leave absolutely no possibility of contamination being the culprit as is the case in almost all the experiments I heard discussed last September in College Station or those discussed on this list. I generally keep quiet on this list and lurk in the background. I have found it far more fruitfull to quietly read and attemp to learn rather than pontificate. However since Barry's post inferred at least the possibility if not the probability that I had salted the materials that he took for sampling I decided to post this statement in answer. I have thought from the beginning of my involvement with these transmutation processes that Joe was making a mistake by unnecessarily discussing it in this venue. I continue to have that same opinion. I will now return to lurk mode and keep my mouth/fingers shut on this subject. Dan York From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 06:21:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA08218; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:10:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:10:43 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:10:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Crackpot definition in Hello Dolly! In-Reply-To: <970225124228_100433.1541_BHG122-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KEJxd3.0.J02.XBl4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4499 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, On 25 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Crackpot, n., (1) A person who gives credence to a scientific theory not > generally accepted; (2) A person who performs a scientific experiment > (other than one designed to prove the correctness of accepted theory). > > Chris > Dammed if you do, dammed if don't believe it and even consider it worth of inquiry. This isn't science. Great Dolly jokes! Is that your sheep? Are you shearing? No, sod off, clone your own. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 06:52:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA14635; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:39:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:39:16 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Hello, Dolly! Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:36:56 +0000 Message-ID: <19970225143654.AAA26916 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"T84uD1.0.aa3.Icl4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4500 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:42 PM 2/25/97 +0000, Chris Tinsley wrote: >Frederick > >Of course, this technology - for no very clear reason blithely dismissed >as "impossible" as recently as a week ago - is a bit scary. Perhaps >some wealthy person, obsessed with wanting to live forever, might choose >to have a clone raised as a source of perfect transplant material? Or >perhaps to have a transplant of his central nervous system into new >body? Sure does make the movie; The Boys From Brazil, look prophetic,doesn't it? >By the way, can I check that I have a definition correct? > >Crackpot, n., (1) A person who gives credence to a scientific theory not >generally accepted; (2) A person who performs a scientific experiment >(other than one designed to prove the correctness of accepted theory). > >Chris > I think that you called that one right. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 06:55:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA14975; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:41:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:41:13 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Light Electrons & The water history of the platinum group metals. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: <19970225143850.AAA27626 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"RHVeu1.0.vf3.7el4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4501 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: VorTexuns, Invariably, the platinum group metals are extracted-concentrated with "wet chemistry", possibly followed by solution in copper or lead and then more "wet chemistry", then worked by rolling or other cold working processes. Seems to me that this might actually be a means of storing light electrons in these materials,or possibly, even creating light electron pairs in the materials. Electroplating the palladium onto beads or other substrates might also trap light electrons in the materials. Following this, loading the materials with hydrogen sets up the conditions for the observed effects. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 07:04:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA17599; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:54:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:54:11 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199702242327.RAA09296 natashya.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:53:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: new writeup Resent-Message-ID: <"x9Dml3.0.rI4.Iql4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4502 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I have just updated the EarthTech web page with a new, detailed description >of our Dual-Method Calorimeter. Of particular interest is Figure E which Scott, Your calorimeter design is excellent. The combined flow calorimetry technique is not acceptable until the question of potential energy changes between the cell inflow and outflow is answered. Your calorimeter will provide that answer beyond any doubt. The static calorimetry may be calibrated with flow calorimetry through a control or inactive cell and the flow calorimetry through an active cell may be checked with the static calorimetry. Despite claims to the contrary by Jed Rothwell, the electrolyte flow appears necessary for the CETI cell to work. I think I will go back and look up some quotes, many made by Jed himself, stating that the flow is necessary. I also remember an extended discussion as to why the flow was required. As I recall Jed's theory was that the flow was needed to carry away hydrogen bubbles on the beads. These bubbles on the beads were thought to allow hydrogen to escape from the bead surface. So the flow is required and you have it. Then the static calorimetry provides a check on the questionable combined flow calorimetry. The concept and implementation is outstanding. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 07:20:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA21406; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:10:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:10:41 -0800 Message-ID: <01BC22F2.C1918220 ip43.ts2.phx.inficad.com> From: Reed Huish To: "'rgeorge hooked.net'" Cc: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: The Challenge, from Zenergy (fwd) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:53:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"IY-W72.0.JE5.l3m4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4503 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- From: Russ George Sent: Monday, 24 February, 1997 13:09 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Challenge, from Zenergy (fwd) This doesn't appear to be a challenge to demonstrate an energy = technology as much as a sucker bait offer to buy a licenese to such technology and the = right to act as an agent for such technology for a pretty ridiculously low = sum. If the test proves the technology is working then it represents a major breakthrough in the $800 billion per year energy market place.=20 No one has to take up our challenge -- we are not forcing anybody. At = least we are putting our money where our mouth is. Obviously $100k is a = low initial sum for a working device, but the agreement with the = challenger would stipulate minimum royalty and licensing fees to be paid = to the challenger (inventor) during the commercialization process. He = has to agree to those levels or we don't do the challenge. Isn't that = fair? A performance agreement that both parties have to live up to. - Reed -------------------------------- Zenergy Corporation 390 South Robins Way, Chandler, Arizona 85225 Telephone: 602.814.7865 Facsimile: 602.821.0967 =20 General Email: info zenergy.com Internet Home Page: = http://zenergy.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 07:41:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA25659; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:27:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:27:40 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:06:29 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3312fffc.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: CF driven by exceptions Resent-Message-ID: <"0DL041.0.nG6.gJm4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4504 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, It seems slowly many of us are accepting that CF reactions for Ni based systems are located on the very surface of the cathode. I am convinced that for palladium the same thing happens and the much fetishized high D/Pd ratio is only a means to eliminate the competition for deuterium between the hungry bulk and the creative surface. High local deuterium concentrations are developing only if the bulk is over-saturated. I have emphasized the complexity of the concept of "surface" including many forms of outer and inner surfaces. However the basic idea is that (my English is not good enough for an exact formulation, please help!) that CF is not a rule- driven phenomenon but critically depends on EXCEPTIONS. The working areas..active sites are differing essentially from the rest of the material and represent a very, very small fraction of the inactive rest. I would say under 0.1 % of the surface is working. In matters of creativity, something similar happens with the humans. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 08:08:59 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA29606; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:46:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:46:08 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970225234259.3f7fd00a po.pacific.net.sg> X-Sender: mpowers8 po.pacific.net.sg X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mpower Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:45:08 +0800 Resent-Message-ID: <"_fRWu2.0.WE7.-am4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4505 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:08 1997.02.25 -0600, you wrote: >At 03:05 PM 2/24/97 -0800 Barry Merriman wrote: >>Recall: several weeks ago Joe Champion posted details >>of the coffee can ignition experiment that a Texas highschool student >>carried out, following the protocol of Champion & Bockris's >>Texas A&M experiments; also, Joe mentioned I was an observer >>of that experiment (and Joe was 1000 miles away :-). Given that, >>I feel compelled to update folks on its status. >> >>The experiment "worked" in the manner Joe said it would, in >>that there was clearly gold in the finished product (at the >>level of a few ppm, verified by fire assay and XRF), and there >>also appeared to be nearly twice as much silver in the finished >>product as what was put in initially (5.0 grams in, about 8+/-.5 >>grams out, based on 5 fire assays of material samples, including >>the first two done by me immediately following the experiment). . . >>yielded this effect. Thus, it will remain an anomaly of unkown >>origin. Transmutation seems unlikely, since this is of a yield >>much greater than that claimed for any of Champions standard processes. >>Also, it had perfect repeatability, which is uncharacteristic of >>Champions processes. It is possible, the someone intentionaly or >>unintenionally put some extra powdered silver into the sample >>bags, for example. We will never know. . 'We will never know ?!?!" This implies that no 'reputable authority' has either ability or inclination to attempt to replicate what sounds like a rather simple process. It also insinuates that anyone who attempts replication would somehow lack credibility, as the term 'we' implies some sort of Us/Them demarcation. . >As for consistent perfect repeatability, I seriously doubt that Barry will >get that, at least not until we learn considerably more about the actual >mechanism that is facilitating the transmutation. I occasionally get the >same results in sequential tests but that is not the norm. I have had >results that have varied from doubling or tripling of seed material to an >extreme in the other direction. . . This is a venue for exploring anomalous events, or so I thought... . >I generally keep quiet on this list and lurk in the background. I have found >it far more fruitfull to quietly read and attemp to learn rather than >pontificate. However since Barry's post inferred at least the possibility if >not the probability that I had salted the materials that he took for >sampling I decided to post this statement in answer. >I have thought from the beginning of my involvement with these transmutation >processes that Joe was making a mistake by unnecessarily discussing it in >this venue. I continue to have that same opinion. I will now return to lurk >mode and keep my mouth/fingers shut on this subject. > >Dan York Dan and other like-minded experimentors: I also lurk, but it sure would be convenient if I could discuss aspects of what I am working on. I am compelled to wonder if there might not be quite a few others who feel the same way, that the projects they are working on are so removed from 'conventional wisdom' that any descriptions would bring ridicule, derision and insinuation of fraud. For example: I got involved in trying to work up alternatives to Joe's methods, based on the scant info I read about here. I was not interested in the production of gold or platinum, but that someone had possibly done so seemed to indicate some possible solutions to a certain problem set I am working on. The experiments I conducted and their offspring have brought me some distance from the intent of producing gold, but that journey has proven just as fruitful. One of the various experiments demonstrates how the judgement passed by various 'authorities' misses the mark regarding those little magnet sets people are sold to protect their plumbling with. Dare I or anyone else reveal the secret in this little marvel of low-tech engineering ? Not a chance ! I would rather let that little gem go on being called a scam rather than let it go on being called a scam that I support. There's more... but I consider it prudent to reserve it for those who don't throw rocks at anomalies. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 08:40:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA31942; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:02:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:02:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199702251607.IAA14362 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:04:38 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: The Challenge, from Zenergy (fwd) Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <01BC22F2.C1918220 ip43.ts2.phx.inficad.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"74iRU1.0.to7.Oqm4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4506 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You are correct in the point that no inventor need to take your offer. And that the $100K is part of a larger "agreement" that both inventor and your company have to negotiate. In that case good luck, you'll need a lot. I presume you want some rather extensive disclosures during the negotiation of the agreement terms on payments for royalties and licenses. I suspect that's where you'll run into great difficulty finding anyone with brains enough to have such technology to bite. There is a constant fairy tale that runs around here on Vortex and elsewhere that a patent application or even a granted patent protects an invention and it's inventor. Anyone who has dealt with real new technology other than widget technology will tell you that it is the know how gained by being taught the art and not the patent that confers the opportunity. Patents for adding new colors to frisbees excluded of course. Those simply pay off right away. But for significant new technology what makes money is not some kind of magic piece of paper issued by the patent office but hard work and effort to make a good opportunity flourish. A good idea will come with numerous legal challenges to the intellectual property ownership most probably invalid but perhaps not all. It's a big world and a lot of inventors are working in a lot of garages. Having a stout ship that can weather that legal storm and others is what it takes to make something of a commercial opportunity. You've also got to be able to pay canal fees if you find you must traverse someone elses country (or pay the cost to develop a ship capable of sailing around that obstacle.) So in the meantime disclosures to organizations place inventors in a difficult position. Well found or large companies never make disclosures on new important technologies without large up front fees and very tightly worded and signed agreements aimed at preventing the organization receiving the disclosure from ever making use of any aspect of the technology or derivitive technology without the original teachers (disclosers) agreement. Those same well founded companies find it easy to make the deals to co-develop the technologies that really work. But if you can find miraculous new energy technology that will change the world energy marketplace and pay only $100K for the opprotunity go for it. You describe on your web site Zenergy being squarely between the inventors and the outside world. Since your offer has been around on the net for many months now I presume you've had no takers yet. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 09:08:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA11455; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:51:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:51:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:51:09 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702251651.KAA22460 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: RE: The Challenge, from Zenergy (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"SZf672.0.Uo2.TYn4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4508 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:53 2/25/97 -0700, Russ wrote: >This doesn't appear to be a challenge to demonstrate an energy technology as >much as a sucker bait offer to buy a licenese to such technology and the right >to act as an agent for such technology for a pretty ridiculously low sum. and Reed said: >No one has to take up our challenge -- we are not forcing anybody. At least we >are putting our money where our mouth is. Russ, maybe you guys ought to go for the prize!? Oh...never mind, Reed probably wants you to prove the device works BEFORE you get the money. Scott From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 09:11:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA13148; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:58:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:58:41 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:57:27 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702251657.KAA23285 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Resent-Message-ID: <"AaPAr1.0.sC3.nen4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4510 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 23:45 2/25/97 +0800, Mpower wrote: >One of the various experiments demonstrates how the judgement passed by >various 'authorities' misses the mark regarding those little magnet sets >people are sold to protect their plumbling with. >Dare I or anyone else reveal the secret in this little marvel of low-tech >engineering ? I would be interested in seeing results of a scientific study (including control experiment) of such a device. Just because I can't see any possible way for it to do anything to the water, doesn't mean that it doesn't.....(triple negative for emphasis). Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 09:12:47 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA10034; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:46:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:46:34 -0800 Date: 25 Feb 97 11:44:32 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: new writeup Message-ID: <970225164431_72240.1256_EHB138-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0E4zr2.0.iS2.eTn4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4507 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: Despite claims to the contrary by Jed Rothwell, the electrolyte flow appears necessary for the CETI cell to work. I think I will go back and look up some quotes, many made by Jed himself, stating that the flow is necessary. I also remember an extended discussion as to why the flow was required. This is entirely imaginary. To set the record straight: 1. The flow is recommended but not necessary. Contrary to Larry's claims, I have never speculated about why it is recommended. I could not care less about that issue. If there was an extended discussion I skipped it. If I wanted to know I would ask Patterson or McKubre. McKubre did a thorough analysis of the CETI cell recently, and his graduate thesis was on a related subject, he says. 2. I reported that they turned the flow down to a fraction of a milliliter per minute and did static calorimetry. In fact, Patterson seldom bothered to do any other kind of calorimetry. In a heat-after-death cell they stopped the flow and did thermoelectric calorimetry. As I recall Jed's theory was that the flow was needed to carry away hydrogen bubbles on the beads. Not my theory, but it sounds plausible. It might be a good idea to purge the hydrogen. But why speculate? If you so curious, why not ask CETI? So the flow is required and you have it. No, it is not, as I have said about a hundred times. Larry, why do you keep asserting things that I and other people have told you are incorrect? Nobody connected with the experiment and nobody with first hand information about it has ever asserted that a flow is necessary. You should at least acknowledge that you are making this claim contrary to our assertions. You might say "I believe a flow is required" or "in my opinion it is required" for thus and such reason (and tell us the reason). Speculation is fine, but please do not put your speculation in Patterson's mouth -- or mine. When you make up an argument or assertion and then claim that we said it, that is a "strawman" argument. It isn't good form, and it isn't polite. Then the static calorimetry provides a check on the questionable combined flow calorimetry. The concept and implementation is outstanding. Yes, well . . . Patterson did that five years ago, as I reported umpteen times. And Takahashi, Gene and I did it three years ago. The concept is good, but it is old hat. Everyone knows about it, and just about every flow calorimeter I have seen employs this technique to double check results. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 09:14:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA12917; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:57:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:57:23 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:58:21 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Resent-Message-ID: <"LkFwU.0.b93.bdn4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4509 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: One more place to look for a possible source of trace elements is the wall of the coffee can. My preferred blend comes in cans that look to be 'tin' plated in the traditional way, not enameled. Tin melts at low temperature, but it has a low vapor pressure and does not vaporize quickly, so there ought to be some detectable Sn in the product. Furthermore, the Sn would carry and impurity or alloying elements it might also contain into the reaction mass. No metal is obtained in absolutely pure form. Although unlikely, it is possible that the 'tin' plate had a bit of Au in it. Anyway, the pre-burn coffee can plate should also be analyzed. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 09:24:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA17179; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:09:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:09:10 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:09:03 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light Bulbs & Light Electrons? Resent-Message-ID: <"yvA1c3.0.jA4.Von4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4511 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Frederick Sparber writes: >> I can't see how such a good insulator is giving up or taking on that much >> electric charge, the possibility of light electron (or other)pairs being >> created. > >I wouldn't assume that fluorescent tube glass is a good insulator (at >high voltage.) So you could probably have micro-amps at just a few kV. > >For its intended use, it is more important to make the glass physically >resiliant than to have infinite resistance. > >On one of the usenet newsgroups, someone once mentioned to me that the >usefulness of glass jugs as Leyden jars varies quite a bit due to the >variation in the conductivity of the glass used -- he seemed to think >that most modern glass is more conductive. > >In a (literally) stove top experiment I once conducted, I was disappointed >when the glass frying pan I was using (intended as an insulator) was >leaking its high voltage charge into the metal stove top. Two points here: 1. There are hundreds of commercial glass formulations with product numbers and specification sheets, and undoubtedly there are thousands of unspecified formulations used in non-critical applications. 'Glass' does not tell us much about the material actually used. Neither does J. Patterson's phrase, 'industrial strength glass'. 2. While glasses are good electrical insulators for most practical applications, as a group they are more conductive than most 'good' insulators. Furthermore, like all insulators, their conductivity increases approximately exponentially with increasing temperature. Since glasses start with greater conductivity than most insulators, they become noticeably condiucive at lower temperatures. (This is not to say that they become 'good' conductors in any ordinary sense of the word; just that their resistivity falls rapidly with increasing temperature.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 11:11:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA04343; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:14:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:14:51 -0800 Message-Id: <199702251818.KAA25830 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:14:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Virtual Theater, best thing about this one act play is you can m Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702251651.KAA22460 natashya.eden.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"gA5MS1.0.c21.4mo4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4512 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > At 07:53 2/25/97 -0700, Russ wrote: > > >This doesn't appear to be a challenge to demonstrate an energy technology as > >much as a sucker bait offer to buy a licenese to such technology and the right > >to act as an agent for such technology for a pretty ridiculously low sum. > > and Reed said: > > >No one has to take up our challenge -- we are not forcing anybody. At > least we are putting our money where our mouth is. > > Russ, maybe you guys ought to go for the prize!? Oh...never mind, Reed > probably wants you to prove the device works BEFORE you get the money. > > Scott Yeah he would no doubt want to have us subsidize an expensive series of experiments in his lab so he could learn all there is to learn before even making a decision as to whether he'd negotiate to pay us any money. We've heard that one so many times it begins to sound like a broken record. It always goes something like this. On no not again, how do I unsubscribe from this list. But wait there may be an alternative! PRESENTING THE VORTEX VIRTUAL THEATER Come one come all. You can participate in a virtual world of science and technology development. Instructions: 1. Read and use your imagination. Enjoy or not. 2. If ACT 1 isn't enough for you simply select the parts that you like. Select and Copy those. Move the cursor to the bottom of the script. Type "ACT 2" Hit paste 3a. Start reading ACT 2 3b. Alternatively you can write ACT 2 yourself. THE PREMISE: Two Vortexian's engage in friendly(?) but endless drivel about the same thing. THE VORTEX VIRTUAL THEATER: FUSION FROIDE ACT 1 The scene: a virtual or not so virtual encounter between two Vortexians. Inventor(s): Here's what we have done and our hypothesis. We believe this is a great discovery and that it provides a wonderful opportunity. You can come visit us and we'll spend days preparing and days telling you about our 7-8 years of work. All we ask is a commitment to move ahead together if you decide you believe in what we have done and are doing. Commitments cost money, there is professional time, legal fees, lots of different costs involved. We'll have to share the burden of those costs. Straw man: OK so you've worked for seven or eight years developing expertise and experience in calorimetry and performing hundreds of experiments with controls and calibration heaters. I won't believe any of it until you do it my way because of course your calorimetry is not only incompetent but it is different than what I would do. Inventor: Well that's a bit hard to take but OK if you want to see it in your shop you can. Lets work out the details on how much it will cost to help you do so. You understand of course that this is an expensive effort in both time and money. We'll have to protect the people who have invested in our work of course with binding legal agreements that protect the intellectual property and know how. These are very standard agreements that are signed every day here in the world of science and technology. We don't want to re-invent everything so we'll go with standard industry practice on the business requirements. Strawman: OK so you've had major scientific laboratories with the finest reputations for calorimetry as any in the world spend months with your apparatus in their labs. That doesn't cut it since my calorimetry is better than theirs and yours. Just having major sectors of the industrial world stand behind your work isn't good enough for me because they are big and they move glacially slow. Three guys in a garage will be able to move faster. Inventor: Fine but we still have to come to some basic level of understanding on the costs involved and the necessary legal environment. Can we start on that in some professional manner. By the way we have more than simple calorimetry as evidence of the nature of the reactions we produce. Strawman: OK so you've had four different highly acclaimed labortories search for and find the signature of nuclear reactions via products like 3He, 4HE, and tritium at orders of magnitude above the background. Since you can't find those signatures every time their work and your work is suspect. I won't believe it until I can reproduce it on my own. And by the way you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars helping me do so without any commitment what-so-ever on what I'll do with that knowledge once I have it. Maybe we won't get along in which case I simply go it alone and let you sue me if you can. That's the right way to do things isn't it. NO of course I won't give you any prior legal paper that would help your enforcement of your rights if it went to the courts. Inventor: So what you are saying is that you won't spend a few thousand dollars to pay for the costs of putting some kind of workable agreement in place but you still want to work with us. Strawman: OK once I see it in my lab and have had the free education in the art I'll be a good guy I won't do anything that is my interest even if it runs against your interests. I promise. NO I won't pay to put that in writing. NO NO NO just believe me I'm an honest person. I would never take advantage of anyone. Inventor: But I thought we had agreed early on that this was not a process that could go on without spending money. Strawman: Of course we'll spend money at our place. We'll even buy lunch. But share in paying the lawyers, the secretaries, the scientists, the machinists, the programmers, the businessmen, overhead, NO NO NO I never thought we'd actually have to put some hard cash on the table. I thought you were going to make all those expenses a gift to us out of gratitude for our unencumbered promise to help. Besides we can do all that work better than the so called professionals you have had doing this for years just tell us everything and well do it for you. End of ACT 1 to read ACT 2 you'll have to follow the instructions at the start of the play. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 11:55:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA02162; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:41:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:41:09 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702251920.LAA00516 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Hello, Dolly! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:20:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <19970225010610.AAA19608 LOCALNAME> from "Frederick J. Sparber" at Feb 25, 97 01:06:12 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hCKDp2.0.BW.31q4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4516 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > If you look closely, doesn't the cloned sheep, Dolly,suspiciously resemble > one of the guys on the cloning team? > FJS Maybe folks in Montana would not mind much if we change the stupid joke to: Life science laboratories -- where men are men and sheep are nervous. And if most people are willing to believe the insistent claim that of course no one is ever going to clone human beings -- God bless their naivete. Good breeding is important in some circles, don't you know. Yet it's nothing compared to the great value and robustness of genetic diversity. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 11:57:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA03080; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:43:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:43:08 -0800 Message-Id: <199702251904.MAA10412 nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: XRF of Coffee Can by Mark Hugo Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:05:44 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cbksO3.0.Yl.x2q4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4517 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- > From: Hugo, Mark D > To: Joe Champion > Subject: RE: 600 kW Plasma Torch > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:20 AM > > Joe: > > Just a note: I used a portable XRF on a "coffee can". This XRF can do > .1% Au or Ag quite handily, thank you. It gave 88% Fe, 11.5% Sn, and .5% > Mn....NOTHING else. You must be picking up real "magic" coffee cans to > have so much Au and Ag in the plating. > ---------- From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 11:57:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01907; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:40:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:40:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:22:41 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Light Bulbs & Light Electrons? Resent-Message-ID: <"NL3H-.0.3T.s0q4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4515 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:09 AM 2/25/97, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: [snip] > Furthermore, like all insulators, their conductivity increases >approximately exponentially with increasing temperature. Since glasses >start with greater conductivity than most insulators, they become >noticeably condiucive at lower temperatures. (This is not to say that they ***** >become 'good' conductors in any ordinary sense of the word; just that their >resistivity falls rapidly with increasing temperature.) Higher? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 12:08:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA05440; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:49:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:49:16 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:22:36 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Light Electrons - how to get on experimental track? Resent-Message-ID: <"17FaP1.0.EK1.k8q4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4518 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I printed off the correspondence regarding light electrons and was surprised to get about a half inch stack of paper. On reviewing I see many topics were raised but not addressed, and variuous obvious mistakes crept into the discussion. I can only say for my part it was due to lots of excitement at a new idea with such broad application, and lack of proper attention due to being simultaneously very busy with several projects as well as personal problems like a wrecked car. Also, there is the matter of trying to keep on an experimental track. There seem to be too many mistakes to rehash, but the most notable of my mistakes was assuming atomic or molecular systems, though having a single quantum waveform, would have anything meaningful in the way of a de Broglie wavelength. This is obviously nonsense, especially if you consider a DNA or polymer quantum waveform. Also, I mentioned the 1B3 series diode tube as a possible means for detecting l+ conduction, but I seem to recall that tube had mercury in it. I don't know much about tubes but it would be useful to locate a low cost high vacuum HV (7500 PIV or more) tube still in the marketplace. It seems important to address the subject of light neutinos. If there are no light neutrinos, then there cannot be any weak reactions invoving the light electrons (which seems to me to be a useful quality,) true? The light electrons could/would only act as catalysts in breaching the coulomb barrier to the nucleus. It seems like there might also be a need for a light photon. Do quanta place a limit on m/e (mass to charge), and can such a limit disprove the hypothesis, or at least eliminate some of the light candidates? Most important, it would be useful to have spelled out necessary and sufficient conditions for creation of each of the light electrons. At his stage of conceptualization they could be seen in every phenomenon involving energy transfer and as an answer to every unanswered or difficult question regarding EM force mediated energy exchanges. It seems there are some cheap experiments that can be done by amateurs like me who have an interest, but it would be good to have a specific generally agreed upon means of generating the lights spelled out. Some "specific maybes" mentioned are 550 - 600 V on nickel target, or 1300 V on magnesium oxide target. Then there are the "wet chemistry" possibilities: >Invariably, the platinum group metals are extracted-concentrated >with "wet chemistry", possibly followed by solution in copper or lead and >then more "wet chemistry", then worked by rolling or other cold working >processes. > >Seems to me that this might actually be a means of storing light electrons >in these materials,or possibly, even creating light electron pairs in the >materials. > >Electroplating the palladium onto beads or other substrates might also trap >light electrons in the materials. Following this, loading the materials with >hydrogen sets up the conditions for the observed effects. It seems to me a sufficient field gradient (e.g. at a point tip of a conductor in a vacuum) should work. All these are supposition, though, and the necsessary and sufficient conditions for producing light electrons at a specific flux level seems illusive. Maybe a place to start is two parallel charged plates in a vacuum, with gap d, charged at voltage V, and area A? What kind of light electron current flow, extracted by pair production from the vacuum, would be expected as a function of V? And what about any requirement for/presence of photons? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 12:21:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA12911; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:11:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:11:00 -0800 From: JNaudin509 aol.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:10:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970225150715_-1876141909 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: G Strain Energy Absorber test Resent-Message-ID: <"FzeTY.0.Z93.FTq4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4519 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, I have built and tested SUCCESSFULLY a "G strain energy absorber circuit". I have updated my Overunity web server at http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.htm with the schematic diagram and detailled results. It is easy to build, you need only basics electronics components. It is too early to conclude anything, I need your feedback and comments about my test. Truly, Jean-Louis Naudin Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.htm Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 12:49:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA16627; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:22:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:22:55 -0800 Message-Id: <199702252027.MAA15335 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:24:45 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Hello, Dolly! Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702251920.LAA00516 shell.skylink.net> References: <19970225010610.AAA19608 LOCALNAME> from "Frederick J. Sparber" at Feb 25, 97 01:06:12 am X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"RwaiB3.0.h34.Seq4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4520 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Of course people are cloning people. If you think for a moment that no one has done this yet gee I think I can find an old bridge you might like to buy. The technique used for the sheep is not particularly new. People cloned frogs 20 years ago and there really isn't that much difference between frogs and people. I could go on with endless Canadian jokes eh but that would get tiring fast. So what's the problem with clones. We could finally do the definitive experiment to find out whether genes or environment make the big difference in people. I propose we get some of Newt's genes and clone a few raising them in different environments. If they all turn out just as arrogant, greedy, and insensitive we will know genes are everything. We can splice in some lethal disease genes that will end the experiment at about 25 years just so it cannot create more chaos. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 13:28:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA28706; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:08:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:08:56 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:09:53 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: The Disclosure Barrier Resent-Message-ID: <"aIAZr.0.y_6.OJr4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4521 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "Russ George" wrote: snip--- >PRESENTING THE VORTEX VIRTUAL THEATER > >Come one come all. You can participate in a virtual world of science and >technology development. > >Instructions: > snip--- >Strawman: OK once I see it in my lab and have had the free education in the >art I'll be a good guy I won't do anything that is my interest even if it runs >against your interests. I promise. NO I won't pay to put that in writing. >NO NO >NO just believe me I'm an honest person. I would never take advantage of >anyone. > >Inventor: But I thought we had agreed early on that this was not a process >that >could go on without spending money. > snip-- Dear Russ -- A cleverly written piece -- and right on target! What your "Theater" highlights for me is yet another example of the Disclosure Barrier -- which occurs as a result of low Volitional Science technology. I believe a long-term solution may be found in raising up the standards of such technology to be commensurate with our level of Physical Science technology. One could probably 'write a book' on the lack of sensitivity most people have to innovators/inventors --- especially major innovators. My own sensitivity in this regard came from studying and working with an astrophysicist (Dr. Andrew J. Galambos) for over 12 years. I believe that this particular astrophysicist will someday be recognized (in my humble opinion) one of the major innovators of this century for his own remarkable innovations. But that is quite another story in itself. The point is that via this astrophysicist --- through a long study of the history of science via his work --- I came to began to understand the problems that Innovators in general must confront as a result of low volitional technology. Professor Galambos called the basic vehicle by which ideas are transformed into reality: THE IDEOLOGICAL PROGRAM. THE IDEOLOGICAL PROGRAM simply consists of the following: THE IDEOLOGICAL PROGRAM HOT END COLD END _________________________________________________________ | /|/ | | | | /|/ | | | | /|/ | | | | I /|/ E | A | M | | /|/ | | | | /|/ | | | | /|/ | | | _________________________________________________________ D.B. ___________________________________________ >>>> Flow of Time Where, I = INNOVATION E = EDUCATION A = ADVERTISING M = MAINTENANCE D.B. = DISCLOSURE BARRIER [Ideological Program Prototyped by Dr. Andrew J. Galambos, 1961-present] The above simple diagram represents the historical development of any product. FIRST, someone has to conceive of it. (INNOVATION) SECOND, the process of informing others about the nature of the technology (EDUCATION) by disclosing it to at least one other (via the DISCLOSURE BARRIER) THIRD, the process of telling the "masses" about the product. (ADVERTISING) FOURTH, the process of insuring repeat purchases of the product. (MAINTENANCE) The First Step is the most difficult; the Fourth Step is the least difficult. "HOT END" signifies the quantity/quality of the intensity of intellectual innovation necessary to bring the new paradigm into existence and to began to lay the foundations of product generation. "COLD END" signifies the least amount of such intellectual intensity. There is also implied a more fundamental relation here in physics both to the flow of time direction and to the fact that heat flows from "hot" to "cold." The DISCLOSURE BARRIER depicted above between Steps 1 and 2 is the ___*SINGLE GREATEST STUMBLING BLOCK*___ to the progress of civilization and _ultimately_ accounts for all types of volitional disorder: from divorce to wars. [But this could be a major topic of discussion in-and-of-itself.] The real challenge, I believe, is to develop a high volitional technology that will, as Dr. Galambos once stated, enable the "Disclosure Barrier" to be transformed into a "Disclosure Shield." Russ, I just wanted to share the above with you -- especially as a result of your "on target" remarks. Best regards, Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.infochase.com/us/master/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 13:55:57 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA31826; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:20:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:20:20 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3313573E.41C67EA6 math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:18:54 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn References: <2.2.16.19970225071110.221fa818 mail.airmail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-GYMX1.0.Ym7.4Ur4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4522 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dan York wrote: > Barry wrote: > > It is possible, the someone intentionaly or > >unintenionally put some extra powdered silver into the sample > >bags, for example. We will never know. > > since Barry's post inferred at least the possibility if > not the probability that I had salted the materials that he took for > sampling I decided to post this statement in answer. I did not mean to suggest that I suspect you salted the materials. I meant to suggest only that I had not specifically controlled for anyone (including myself) accessing the sample bags and putting something additional in them, for whatever reason. Thus this possibility cannot be ruled out from a scientific point of view. >From a personal perspective, unless Dan York is schizophrenic or has an evil twin, I don't think he tampered with the samples in any way. But that is personal opinion, not science. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04979; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:41:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:41:21 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970126134055.009baa70 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:40:58 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: XRF of Coffee Can by Mark Hugo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mEruZ1.0.jC1.Ynr4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4523 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:05 PM 2/25/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >---------- >> From: Hugo, Mark D >> To: Joe Champion >> Subject: RE: 600 kW Plasma Torch >> Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 11:20 AM >> >> Joe: >> >> Just a note: I used a portable XRF on a "coffee can". This XRF can do >> .1% Au or Ag quite handily, thank you. It gave 88% Fe, 11.5% Sn, and .5% >> Mn....NOTHING else. You must be picking up real "magic" coffee cans to >> have so much Au and Ag in the plating. >> ---------- > > ah shucks, you are such a spoilsport. I thought we had a new way of acquiring immense riches with gold - ie from malaysian or somebody's tin. durn it. Michael W. Mandeville Environmental Tune-Up Inc. mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm/enviro/tuneup.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 15:07:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA21727; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:41:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:41:19 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner corecom.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:53:12 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: G Strain Energy Absorber test Resent-Message-ID: <"9FEwF.0.2H5.ifs4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4525 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 3:10 PM 2/25/97, JNaudin509 aol.com wrote: >Hi All, > >I have built and tested SUCCESSFULLY a "G strain energy absorber circuit". >I have updated my Overunity web server at > > http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/index.htm > >with the schematic diagram and detailled results. It is easy to build, you >need only basics electronics components. >It is too early to conclude anything, I need your feedback and comments about >my test. > >Truly, > >Jean-Louis Naudin Very nice presentation on your web page! I looks like there may be a problem of insufficient resolution in your scope. It is 50 MHz, but you are doing V*I calcs over a 700 ns interval. This could cause significant errors to crop up. For example, in the NLPG11 - Feb 1977 chart, (see around 0.30 us) there are intervals where both V and I are positive yet power is shown as negative. Is this a resolution problem, or am I misinterpreting the chart? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 17:41:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA29101; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:28:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:28:13 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: XRF of Coffee Can by Mark Hugo To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:27:24 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970126134055.009baa70 aa.net> from "Michael Mandeville" at Jan 26, 97 01:40:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rESKM2.0.F67.Y6v4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4528 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Michael W. Mandeville wrote: > >> From: Hugo, Mark D > >> Just a note: I used a portable XRF on a "coffee can". This XRF can do > >> .1% Au or Ag quite handily, thank you. It gave 88% Fe, 11.5% Sn, and .5% > >> Mn....NOTHING else. You must be picking up real "magic" coffee cans to > >> have so much Au and Ag in the plating. > > ah shucks, you are such a spoilsport. I thought we had a new way of > acquiring immense riches with gold - ie from malaysian or somebody's tin. > durn it. I can't say home much gold and silver there is in a coffe can lining, but one ought not be surprised to find presence of such minerals in concentrations too low to make them economically attractive sources for extraction. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 17:51:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA31795; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:37:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:37:21 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:35:54 -0500 From: uban world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199702260135.AA04634 world.std.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Resent-Message-ID: <"LVjgq2.0.nl7.vEv4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4529 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Per Barry Merriman's recent interesting post: > In short, the mass spectra of the input and output silver > are identical, within a tolerance of about +/- 1% (the resolution > of the output spectra graphs). Thus there are no apparent > isotopic anomalies. > > . . . However, it makes it considerably more > difficult to make an argument for "transmutation" at this time, > and it also makes one suspicious of the transmutation hypothesis, > since it "seems unlikely" that an arbitrary transmutation would > yield silver in the natural form. Perhaps it is well too early to assign even the hypothesis of "seems unlikely" to these processes? Early in the sense that we really haven't any idea how transmutations are being carried out in the physics. It may be just as likely that when nature produced all the Silver now extant, the branching ratios which produced the various isotopic concentrations are the same ones operative in these apparent transmutation experiments. Thus, no isotopic shifts would be the norm! Jim From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 17:56:54 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01611; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:44:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:44:52 -0800 Message-ID: <33139545.7B25 interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:43:33 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light Electrons - how to get on experimental track? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uJhxv1.0.DO.tLv4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4530 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > I don't know much about tubes but it would be useful to > locate a low cost high vacuum HV (7500 PIV or more) tube still in the > marketplace. Horace, I happen to have a high-voltage rectifier tube (1945-1955 vintage??) that I could spare for some serious research. On the tube envelope there is: JAN CRP705A VT255 made in usa RAYTHEON X4825 The tube is about 5 inches high, 2 1/4 inch O.D. with the anode pin dressed out the tippy-top of the tube. This tube is CUTE! - it reminds me of R2D2. The filament must be tungsten, 2.5 volt, maybe 10 amp centertapped. The top-connected plate is cylindrical, about 1/2 inch diameter, about 1 inch long, with three equi-spaced radiator fins. These fins have SHARP corners. the filament is a double, wire helix about 3/16 overall dia. down the axis of the anode cylinder. It would be easy to set up a magnetic field parallel to the anode axis using a wire coil. The tube is, of course, a diode BUT it's a 4-pin base tube and only 3 of the pins are used. The 4th pin extends into the lower region of the envelope about 3/4 inch and has a blunt end with a sharp 45 deg. edge. (about 0.050 in. dia. wire) My 1962 copy of "The radio amateur's handbook" does not list the 705A's characteristics - maybe some other vortexian out there has a specific listing? I think the tube has as much as a 20,000 volt PIV rating but I am not sure! Let's see, I have used these tubes as: 1. Rectifiers (duh) 2. 50 to 100 kilovolt X-ray tubes 3. Neat demos of the thermionic potential - using a high imp. voltmeter. Let me know if this tube gives you any ideas. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 18:43:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA00287; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:17:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:17:23 -0800 Message-Id: <199702260217.SAA21635 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:19:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199702260135.AA04634 world.std.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"gKoSQ1.0.P4.pqv4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4531 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Indeed the isotopic ratios found on earth ought to be due to cold fusion reactions which appear likely to be more prevalent than hot fusion reactions in the universe. Poor old cold fusion isnt' quite the shining example as hot fusion but like the old fable the slow and steady often beats the fast and flashy. Now this will undoubtably cause an affront to all those who thought that their team were the only stars. However we might still expect to see some anomalies due to local conditions which have a lot to do with cold fusion rates and products. Over time these all average out to observed abundance ratios but in our short time frame we might see some very strange anomalies. Russ George ps. hey if makng precious metals is so easy why isn't everyone doing it. I know I tried and failed. Of course I was distracted by the bulldog lawyers someone set to bite my butt for merely trying the experiments. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 19:33:46 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA23173; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:20:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:20:20 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 03:18:03 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <33168d47.28236049 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970224214559_72240.1256_EHB95-1 CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <970224214559_72240.1256_EHB95-1 CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RDpjq1.0.4f5.Hlw4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4532 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 24 Feb 97 16:45:59 EST, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] > The combined flow calorimetry analysis of CETI cells has never shown a > convincing heat excess that exceeded the limit of what would be possible > within the Carnot Cycle limit. > >We have been over this many times. There is no conceivable input of energy. >Sorry, you cannot get 1200 watts out of a 30 watt pump. No Can Do. [snip] You have indeed. And I have yet to see you both meet on the same level. It might be more accurate to say that you had both passed one another many times, without managing to communicate once. As I see it, Larry is saying that it is possible with 30 watt input to measure a temperature differential and flow rate that would under normal circumstances indicate a 1200 watt output, while in fact not producing any *excess* energy. In other words, the 1200 watt actually represents energy that is just going around and around in the system, but showing up in the form of heat in the cell. This implies of course that little or no real energy can be extracted from the system (while there is not "cold spot"). Jed (and apparently everyone else who has tested these systems) on the other hand is saying that Larry's mechanism doesn't exist. Jed also contends that the CETI devices tested up till now do in fact generate palpable excess heat. Which if I understand Larry correctly, shouldn't be possible if his purported process were real, and in fact responsible for the measured temperature differential. It seems to me that if Larry's process is indeed real, then it could be adapted to make quite an efficient heat pump. Given that there is a ready market for efficient heat pumps in air-conditioning and refrigeration, perhaps Larry should do some experiments of his own in this area. If he is correct, he stands to make a fortune. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 19:34:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA23637; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:22:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:22:05 -0800 Date: 25 Feb 97 22:15:59 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Gravity Shielding Message-ID: <970226031558_76016.2701_JHC93-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UrbtY.0.Jm5.3nw4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4533 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At the equator, I'm moving through space at roughly 1000 miles per hour due to the rotation of the earth. If I am standing over a gravity shield, I retain all my mass and inertia but become lighter due to the lack of gravitational effects. At what percent of shielding do I begin to float upwards? Wouldn't I float up at some angle to the ground? Of course, the angle would be a function of my mass too. I should be able to figure this out but seem to be having some mental block. Could be the Newcastle Brown. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 20:23:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA04845; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:13:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:13:30 -0800 Date: 25 Feb 97 23:11:04 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Isotopic anomalies Message-ID: <970226041103_72240.1256_EHB92-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"x8CUg1.0.VB1.bXx4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4534 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Chris Tinsley and others have raised this point, but Jim Urban says it eloquently: . . . we really haven't any idea how transmutations are being carried out in the physics. It may be just as likely that when nature produced all the Silver now extant, the branching ratios which produced the various isotopic concentrations are the same ones operative in these apparent transmutation experiments. Thus, no isotopic shifts would be the norm! If it is happening at all, it breaks many rules. I think it is a mistake to make assumptions about such a bizarre phenomenon. Conventional man-made transmutations are caused by shifting one element into another. The new element has the same distribution of isotopes as the original. That's a brute force method. It seems to me that if the alchemical methods work they must be doing something radically different, somehow throwing all of nuclei into a pot and gently drawing them out again as different elements, with the same distribution as was supposedly caused when a supernova blew up (or whatever fashionable fairy tale accounts for the origin of heavy elements). By "gently" I mean with a million times less energy per reaction than conventional transmutation. If alchemy is real, my gut feeling is that it must be unrelated to metal lattice CF (the Pons-Fleischmann effect.) There is increasing evidence that CF *does* make peculiar isotopes. So, if: 1. Alchemy *does* make gold & silver, but 2. The isotopes are natural, then Alchemy <> CF. Of course the evidence is still tentative and subject to rapid revision. Joe Champion thought there were isotopic anomalies in the samples he sent me, but he was wrong. I don't know what he thinks now. As I said the other day, if he actually has any macroscopic metal samples that might be anomalous, he could gain instant worldwide credibility by putting one in an envelope and mailing it Mizuno. For that matter, if he could really make large amounts of gold, as he has sometimes claimed, he would be a millionaire. It isn't fair to judge a scientific claim by the personality or even the actions of the claimant, but it is only human to have doubts about people who act so inexplicably. Many aspects of Joe's personal condition and finances, and statements by his associates combine to hurt his credibility. A reasonable person can only wonder why he acts this way, if any of the claims are true . . . It is self destructive. (And poor Joe Newman is a thousand times worse.) Russ George makes a brave attempt to reconcile potential Alchemy with CF: Indeed the isotopic ratios found on earth ought to be due to cold fusion reactions which appear likely to be more prevalent than hot fusion reactions in the universe. I do not know of any evidence for naturally occurring CF. There are well known planetary thermal anomalies, starting with the heat of the earth's core. I believe the conventional explanations -- primordial heat and fission -- have been called into question. Perhaps CF plays a role, per Steve Jones' mother earth hypothesis, but I know of no hard evidence for that. The tritium from the Hawaiian volcanoes may point to some kind of unusual fusion reaction, but who knows if it is CF. Given the inherent difficulties in making a CF reaction in a test tube, natural CF seems unlikely. Kind of like biologically formed radio receivers or Nicad batteries. There are some things Mother Nature cannot manage. Russ goes on: However we might still expect to see some anomalies due to local conditions which have a lot to do with cold fusion rates and products. Over time these all average out to observed abundance ratios but in our short time frame we might see some very strange anomalies. I do not see how this would work. This implies that every spot in the earth in which CF is occurring must eventually experience every condition in the same proportion. CF products vary with current, voltage, temperature, the make-up of the cathode material, and other unknown factors. How could every spot undergo exactly same average temperatures and voltages over time? If anything, you would expect increasing divergence. You would expect radically different isotopes in deep rocks held at high temperatures for millions of years compared to rocks near the surface. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 20:44:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09714; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:32:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:32:00 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:30:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970225233047_-1708333246 emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: spin spin Resent-Message-ID: <"3R1Ds1.0.UN2.qox4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4535 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I my paper "The Zero Point Interaction" in the Journal of New Energy Vol #1 No 2 1996 I have stressed that the fundamental property of a zero point system is its angular momentum. In a superconductor, for example, 1/2 spin electrons pair to form spin one Bosons. This pairing can be considered to be a sharing or exchange of angular momentum. The quantity that condenses is SPIN. It appears that this spin coupling involves the nucleus as well. How? The interaction must be electronic. A coupling between the condensed electron cloud and an electromagnetic dipole or quadrapole moment in the nucleus must occur. Exactly what moment or how? I don't know! This coupling fixes the nuclear magnetic moment in one spatial direction. According to the Hysenberg Uncertainty Principle the displacement of the ANGULAR moment in the other spatial dimensions becomes indeterminate within the dimensions of the electron cluster. What then is exchanged between nucleons..again ANGULAR MOMENTUM. I believe that the condensation allows the angular momentum vector associated with ISOSPIN to be exchanged between nucleons. Fusion or fission does not occur. Isospin is exchanged. As the Isospin quantity is exchanged neutrons and protons exchange position. This exchange of Isospin is in the direction favoring even numbered nucleons. (even protons and even electrons) Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 20:58:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA13680; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:47:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:47:28 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970126204835.0099faa0 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:48:36 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"2UO0k3.0.eL3.R1y4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4536 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:11 PM 2/25/97 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >which CF is occurring must eventually experience every condition in the same >proportion. CF products vary with current, voltage, temperature, the make-up >of the cathode material, and other unknown factors. How could every spot >undergo exactly same average temperatures and voltages over time? If anything, >you would expect increasing divergence. You would expect radically different >isotopes in deep rocks held at high temperatures for millions of years >compared to rocks near the surface. > >- Jed > > Indeed many mysteries here and I certainly can't explain them. I will observe related to thought above, Roberto Monti's Alpha-Extended model predicts shifts in whole increments of an alpha particle, basically shifts of minimum of 2 pts on the scale (size of helium element), a sort of transmutation quantum requirement. Factor that in to see what kinds of ratios of isotopes you would expect. What makes this really complex of course, and basically undecidable, is what mix of elements are you starting out with...which is why this whole business could benefit from being taken down into ultra pure plasmas so you know where you are starting from - IF THE PROCESS CAN BE MADE TO WORK THERE. Michael W. Mandeville Environmental Tune-Up Inc. mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm/enviro/tuneup.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 21:14:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA17492; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:00:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:00:18 -0800 Date: 25 Feb 97 23:55:44 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Murray's Miley Critiques Message-ID: <970226045544_72240.1256_EHB119-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ny8GY.0.4G4.CDy4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4537 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Robin van Spaandonk writes: As I see it, Larry is saying that it is possible with 30 watt input to measure a temperature differential and flow rate that would under normal circumstances indicate a 1200 watt output, while in fact not producing any *excess* energy. In other words, the 1200 watt actually represents energy that is just going around and around in the system, but showing up in the form of heat in the cell. Umm . . . sorry, but that would call for a complete rewrite of thermodynamics. The same energy cannot "go around" and cause the water to get hot and cold and hot again. It gets used up. The first 30 watts lasting one second (30 joules) can heat up the water between the inlet and outlet thermocouples once and only once. When you see a continuous 16 deg C Delta T, and a continuous flow of water at about a liter, something is adding 1000+ watts of power to the water continuously. No two ways about it. And the thing adding the power cannot be a 30-watt motor or a 5-watt Radio Shack transformer. I think Larry would agree with this. When he talks about CETI cells that are close to the Carnot limits, he is only referring to the itty-bitty 1 watt demos. He takes performance data from these experiments and massages it to fit his hypothesis, throwing away high end performance, heat-after-death, and other major inconveniences. Then he invents magical energy input from the pump at a level about 1000 times greater than any real pump could deliver, or that anyone can measure using conventional techniques, or compute based on pressure and flow equations and other boring physics. He does not attempt to explain the 1300 watt demo at all. Perhaps he thinks I made that one up, or I was hallucinating. I expect he would agree that if the big demo was real, his hypothesis must be wrong. The only way my 1200 watt measurement could be wrong -- by the standards of conventional science -- would be if one of the three parameters was a hundred or a thousand times off. In other words, the flow would have to be a drop every minute instead of a liter; or the 5 watt Radio Shack power supply would have to deliver a thousand watts for hours; or when I mixed up the water samples in a cup and measured the temperature with two thermistors, a thermocouple and a thermometer they all four magically went wrong by exactly 16.2 degrees, and then 15.8 and 10.1, and so on, exactly in synch to the nearest tenth degree, in test after test over three days. I regard these hypothetical errors as so outlandish, and so utterly unlikely, that I dismiss them out of hand. But other people do not. People will argue until the cows come home that yes, four temperature measuring devices *can* go wrong in synch; and yes, a person watching water splash into a bucket *can* mistake one drop for one liter. It seems to me that if Larry's process is indeed real, then it could be adapted to make quite an efficient heat pump. Given that there is a ready market for efficient heat pumps in air-conditioning and refrigeration, perhaps Larry should do some experiments of his own in this area. If he is correct, he stands to make a fortune. If Larry's process is real, he will not only make a fortune in the heat pump business, he will also instantly win Nobel Prizes in physics & chemistry. He will overthrow thermodynamics going back to James Watt, and demonstrate that all measurements of specific heat are wrong, and all calorimetric techniques do not work. This would constitute a far greater scientific revolution than Pons and Fleischmann's modest claims of nuclear reactions in a metal lattice. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 22:33:53 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA03047; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:23:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:23:23 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:22:46 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702260622.AAA20770 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Resent-Message-ID: <"MRfWH2.0.Pl.HRz4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4538 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:15 PM 2/25/97 EST, Terry B wrote: >At the equator.... centrifugal acceleration is given by rw^2 where r is 4000 miles, and w is 2pi times the rotational frequency of the Earth, once per day. This works out to .0035g. Thus a 250 lb person weighs about .87 pounds less at the equator than he does at the poles, all else being equal. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com (email) http://www.eden.com/~little From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 23:29:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA03767; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:18:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:18:17 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:38:18 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3313da62.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: CF driven by exceptions Resent-Message-ID: <"xhEIf3.0.Rw.gE-4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4539 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:00:58 -0800, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > Peter, > I beg to differ. I do not think that CF is an entirely surface effect whether > the surface is defined as true surface of surfaces of grains. It may be that > flux is the key rather than loading but the two are closely tied. Certainly > there is good evidence for bulk effects. Take for instance events that occur > that involve tens of millions of nearly simultaneous nuclear reactions. I find > it harder to conceive of those taking place on a surface as opposed to within a > bulk lattice region. The surface is two dimensional and there for limiting the > bulk is three dimensional and more accomodating to large numbers. > Russ George Dear Russ, I want to follow this discussion systematically and in the frame of a global vision, that's for all known CF devices. I have always considered your sonofusion generator as an extreme case-- with the greatest energies used to open the gateways to the triggering source i.e. the energy of the vacuum. Therefore the nuclearity of your system is the highest..and here I want ask you if the nuclear ash(es) can explain 100% of the excess energy? In my understanding in the case of sonofusion, active surfaces and sites are continually created by the cavitation bubbles and by the (destructive and non-destructive) penetration of deuterium in the metal. I well know that the proper place for such a discussion is your lab with some generators working nearby not an electronic forum but.. One of my axioms is that differences in opinion attract clever people and repel only those who are not..and I am ready to donate this axiom to vortex. (* nuclearity--the ratio of nuclear energy to the total excess energy; a real CF fundamentalist believes that it is 100% and is ALL fusion, a second rate fundamentalist believes that it is 100%.) The Mills, Dufour, Griggs/Potapov and Patterson systems have eliminated such a fundamentalist explanation for the "field", I think. Excess energy has non-nuclear components too. Best wishes, Peter PS. A question: what active 'space'is necessary for 10 exp7 i.e. tens of millions of nuclear reactions, almost simultaneous? In the case of chemical catalysis, which is clearly surface and active sites located you can obtain high productivities in commercial plants.. products sold for hundreds of billions of dollars per year. -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 23:35:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA08047; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:25:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:25:39 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970226072500.006678e8 sparc1> X-Sender: kennel sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:25:00 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Pan Global Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"i2-EW.0.cz1.lL-4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4540 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin quoting Jed quoting Larry: > The combined flow calorimetry analysis of CETI cells has never shown a > convincing heat excess that exceeded the limit of what would be possible > within the Carnot Cycle limit. > >We have been over this many times. There is no conceivable input of energy. >Sorry, you cannot get 1200 watts out of a 30 watt pump. No Can Do. The key word is "convincing." It depends who you ask. I think I agree that the heat pump interpretation contains at least as many problems as the nuclear hypothesis. As far as I know, no one has been able to disprove Dennis Cravens' work. However, there hasn't been a final opinion on the reality of excess heat from either LANL or SRI at this point either. Certain calorimeters have evidently yielded very reproducible positive results, other calorimeters have yielded reproducible null results. Everybody has a favorite explanation for why this is so, but to my mind no explanation is completely satisfactory, at least for now. The CETI device, like Cold Fusion, remains an enigma. I would compare it to flying over the Bermuda triangle in a fog. Suddenly, the captain tersely announces that some of the instruments are going crazy, but other instruments are reading normally. On this plane, it turns out that all the passengers have very definite opinions about which instruments to believe, and which are incorrect, and are highly critical about any attempts to resolve the contradictions. Some of the passengers think that everything is fine, since they have never been in a plane wreck and assume that they can't happen. Others, knowing something about the Bermuda Triangle, believe that something wonderfully exciting may be happening, such as an abduction by extraterrestrials, or falling into a black hole, and are urging the flight attendants to break out the champagne to celebrate. Still others think that the captain is incompetent, or being paid by another airline, and are urging the other passengers to mutiny and take over the plane. In the meantime, the crew is trying to check the instruments and prepare for all eventualities, but almost no one thinks that that is a good idea. Each passenger wants to prepare for only one possibility, but almost no one can agree on what that is. Well, thank you for flying Pan Global Vortex. I hope you are all enjoying the flight at least... Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 23:56:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA12309; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:45:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:45:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:48:07 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: spin spin Resent-Message-ID: <"hTcAJ.0.C03.he-4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4541 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:30 PM 2/25/97, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > I my paper "The Zero Point Interaction" in the Journal of New > Energy Vol #1 No 2 1996 I have stressed that the fundamental > property of a zero point system is its angular momentum. In a > superconductor, for example, 1/2 spin electrons pair to form > spin one Bosons. [snip] > > Frank Znidarsic Just checking my understanding. Isn't this a violation of the Pauli exclusion principle? Don't the two electrons have to have opposed spin, i.e. be mutually flipped, i.e. net spin zero? What am I missing here? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Feb 25 23:57:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA12380; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:45:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:45:57 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:48:03 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Resent-Message-ID: <"dmjZo2.0.713.oe-4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4542 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At the equator, I'm moving through space at roughly 1000 miles per hour due to >the rotation of the earth. If I am standing over a gravity shield, I >retain all >my mass and inertia but become lighter due to the lack of gravitational >effects. As far as I know it is not proven you keep all your inertia, but it is assumed so. >At what percent of shielding do I begin to float upwards? Wouldn't I float up >at some angle to the ground? Of course, the angle would be a function of my >mass too. The "angle" is not a function of mass if the sheilding is based on a percantage as published. If there were no atmosphere you would simply go in a straight line (tangent to the point of departure.) The shield, if remaining at the point of departure would have to be continually angled toward the west to support you. If this were feasible at all (to point the shield beam) the sheilding would be expected to diminish as your angle to the point of departure increased, so you would quickly come back down at some point to the west. It would be a rather sudden landing since if you went very far you would be over the horizon before landing plus the beam would be almost horizontal before you disappered below the horizon (ouch!) With an atmosphere, the atmosphere moves with the earth so you would tend to remain above the beam for a long ways, excluding wind effects. You wouldn't start the tangential drift to the west until way up there (double ouch!) Also, the bouyancy of the atmosphere would help you lift. If the beam affected the atmosphere in a prism projected all the way into space, then the bouyancy (wind) effect could be up to 15 lbs per sq. in. (with 100% sheilding) and you might be expelled into space at up to the speed of sound depending on whether the atmosphere also lost it's inertia in the beam as well as weight. At the very least you would be riding a tornado due to the air rushing into the beam to replace the atmospheric column as it is ejected into space. > >I should be able to figure this out but seem to be having some mental block. >Could be the Newcastle Brown. > >Terry The centripetal acceleration at the earth's equator is a = v^2/r, where r = 6.38x10^6 m, so v = (2)(pi)(6.38x10^6 m)/((24)(60)(60) s) = 464 m/s (about 1038 mi/hr.) This give the centripetal acceleration of a=(464 m/s)^2/(6.38x10^6 m)= 0.0337 m/s^2. Using g = 9.8 m/s^2 for the earth that gives a weight reduction of 0.0337/9.8 = 0.344 percent. So, you would weigh roughly .34 percent less at the equator than at the poles, assuming the earth is round. To answer your question, the sheilding required would be 99.656 percent, less any bouyancy due to the atmosphere. What is Newcastle Brown? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 00:21:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA16012; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:09:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:09:38 -0800 Message-Id: <199702260807.IAA24492 buttons.ihug.co.nz> Reply-To: From: "natvita.co.nz" To: Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:11:35 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MGaIv.0.6w3.1_-4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4543 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I work with liquid colloids (starting with distilled water to which is added certified pure elements). I am developing a process which presently drives a fanned metal disk previous to a trailing vortex beneath. My fascination is not the free energy but the results after atomic spectroscopy determines the significant presence of elements that have not been added to the original distilled water. No heat or other energy is applied. No chemical changes are intentionally being made. Brownian movement has been confirmed. Now none of this is stated to disagree with any science or person. It is stated for a general discussion in the hope that the mix of sciences represented in the group might help me solve or get close to what is happening. regards, Robert Beasley ---------- | . . . we really haven't any idea how transmutations are being carried | out in the physics. It may be just as likely that when nature produced | all the Silver now extant, the branching ratios which produced the | various isotopic concentrations are the same ones operative in these | apparent transmutation experiments. Thus, no isotopic shifts would be | the norm! | | If it is happening at all, it breaks many rules. I think it is a mistake to | make assumptions about such a bizarre phenomenon. Conventional man-made | transmutations are caused by shifting one element into another. The new | element has the same distribution of isotopes as the original. That's a brute | force method. It seems to me that if the alchemical methods work they must be | doing something radically different, somehow throwing all of nuclei into a pot | and gently drawing them out again as different elements, with the same | distribution as was supposedly caused when a supernova blew up (or whatever | fashionable fairy tale accounts for the origin of heavy elements). By "gently" | I mean with a million times less energy per reaction than conventional | transmutation. | | Indeed the isotopic ratios found on earth ought to be due to cold fusion | reactions which appear likely to be more prevalent than hot fusion | reactions in the universe. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 00:43:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA21516; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:33:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:33:19 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Light Electrons - how to get on experimental track? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:35:13 +0000 Message-ID: <19970225213511.AAA25392 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"bpbSp2.0.tF5.BL_4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4544 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:22 PM 2/25/97 +00 Horace Heffner wrote: >I printed off the correspondence regarding light electrons and was >surprised to get about a half inch stack of paper. On reviewing I see many >topics were raised but not addressed, and variuous obvious mistakes crept >into the discussion. I can only say for my part it was due to lots of >excitement at a new idea.... Never let your excitement outweigh your common sense. > >There seem to be too many mistakes to rehash, but the most notable of my >mistakes was assuming atomic or molecular systems, though having a single >quantum waveform, would have anything meaningful in the way of a de Broglie >wavelength. A good place to start when speculating in this manner is to get a feel for the energy levels involved. The 1.06 Million Electron Volts needed to create an electron-positron pair is about 1.5 picojoules. Thus the energy involved in the proposed light electron-positron pairs is in the femtojoules or less range. The kinetic energy of the highest energy particles in the tevatron accelerators are about the same asthat of a mosquito in level flight. It takes one calorie or 4.186 joules to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C or K. So, striking a match, running a comb through your hair and getting sparks of "static electricty", or getting microcavitation from turbulence in water, atomizing oil etc., dwarfs the energy required to possibly create electrons-positrons of any level, or for that matter hydrogen atoms. This without resorting to speculation on spontaneous creation of matter from the vacuum, or invoking thoughts of abstract wave functions etc. The 1.3 kilowatts/meter^2 (1,300 joules/second)from the Sun has, and will continue to support the major portion of the energy that is sustaining all life on the Earth. > >It seems there are some cheap experiments that can be done by amateurs like >me who have an interest, but it would be good to have a specific generally >agreed upon means of generating the lights spelled out. Some "specific >maybes" mentioned are 550 - 600 V on nickel target, or 1300 V on magnesium >oxide target. Then there are the "wet chemistry" possibilities: > >It seems to me a sufficient field gradient (e.g. at a point tip of a >conductor in a vacuum) should work. > >All these are supposition, though, and the necsessary and sufficient >conditions for producing light electrons at a specific flux level seems >illusive. Maybe a place to start is two parallel charged plates in a >vacuum, with gap d, charged at voltage V, and area A? What kind of light >electron current flow, extracted by pair production from the vacuum, would >be expected as a function of V? And what about any requirement >for/presence of photons? The moment you apply the voltage to the plates there is a "displacement current" I = C dv/dt, and you have created an electromagnetic wave (photon?0 so now you are implying that air or vacuum dielectric capacitors are creating particles. Interesting thought, but the energy is coming from the battery, ie., the Sun, unless you are tied in to a fission power plant. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 00:43:56 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA22063; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:34:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:34:07 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: XRF of Coffee Can by Mark Hugo Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:07:07 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226020705.AAA9093 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"0Qyk42.0.LO5.uL_4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4545 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:27 AM 2/26/97 +0000, John Logajan wrote: > >I can't say home much gold and silver there is in a coffe can lining, >but one ought not be surprised to find presence of such minerals in >concentrations too low to make them economically attractive sources >for extraction. > In the mid-eighties I was involved with a project that used a 5,000 hp gas turbine that used an external combustion chamber to burn sawdust. We wanted to see how well it would do on feedlot manures. The high concentration of ash and it's low fusion temperature caused problems on the high temperature turbine blading. Thorough chemical analysis of the manure ash showed significant quantities of silver. Every "clowed" has a silver lining. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 00:45:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA23240; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:35:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:35:28 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:04:31 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226050429.AAA9013 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"pFj-V2.0.wf5.7N_4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4546 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:15 AM 2/26/97 +0000, Terry Blanton wrote: Hi Terry: Planning on leaving, or just heading off on a tangent? >At the equator, I'm moving through space at roughly 1000 miles per hour due to >the rotation of the earth. If I am standing over a gravity shield, I retain all >my mass and inertia but become lighter due to the lack of gravitational effects. >At what percent of shielding do I begin to float upwards? Wouldn't I float up >at some angle to the ground? Of course, the angle would be a function of my >mass too. > >I should be able to figure this out but seem to be having some mental block. >Could be the Newcastle Brown. > I'd try Force centripital (Fct) = mv2r = Force gravitational (Fg) G*M*m/r^2 At the equator Fc = 0.0313 newtons/kg and of course Fg = 9.8 newtons/kg. Vector sum? Not much happening at the poles though, so I guess you'll be sticking around, so to speak. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 05:49:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA30199; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:35:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:35:58 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970226133505.006a4234 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:35:05 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: 3 Equations relating to anomalous heat in the solid state Resent-Message-ID: <"pm7p32.0.mN7.ym35p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4547 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:25 PM 2/26/97 +0900, Elliot Kennel wrote: >Certain calorimeters have evidently yielded very reproducible positive >results, other calorimeters have yielded reproducible null results. >Everybody has a favorite explanation for why this is so, but to my mind no >explanation is completely satisfactory, at least for now. > The CETI device, like Cold Fusion, remains an enigma. I would >compare it to flying over the Bermuda triangle in a fog. Suddenly, the >captain tersely announces that some of the instruments are going crazy, but >other instruments are reading normally. On this plane, it turns out that >all the passengers have very definite opinions about which instruments to >believe, and which are incorrect, and are highly critical about any attempts >to resolve the contradictions. > >Elliot Kennel Elliot, and colleagues: There are two problems. Material and Experimental. IMHO here are some equations that may help to explain the differences. Thoughts? CF: Real, but the peak activity of samples [PI(max)] vary from piece to piece, and each sample to observe PI(max) must be "driven" in the correct fashion. Both the sample's initial activity, and how it is "driven" effect its actual output. Thus the actual observed power gain [pi] of each sample is that peak factor diminished by the failure to drive to the sample optimally. The second factor is <1. pi (power gain factor) = PI(max) * (factor a function of "drive",etc.) see ref(1) Furthermore, some samples - even if sufficient loading is achieved by controlling the microscopic reversibility of loading at the interface (cf. ref 2) - can have their peak obtainable power destroyed by the testing, and/or reactions, so the peak power gain is time-variant. PI(max) = PI(function of time) see ref(3) Calorimetry: Non-flow and horizontal flow calorimetry (HFC) can generally be semiquantitative with appropriate controls and initial time base. However, even given that the thermometry is correct, and the time base issue and controls correctly done, vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) can amplify the output perhaps a thousandfold- because it can add in Bernard instability to total heat transport, thereby yielding false derivations of "heat" generated. When this effect occurs, the observed "heat" decreases or disappears in a static or HFC system. Furthermore, the apparent gain of a sample derived by such vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) is correctable as Apparent gain = Real Gain/ (1-[fraction of heat vertically transported by Bernard instability]) see refs(4,5). Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) ----- refs ------------------- 1. SWARTZ, M., "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material", Fusion Technology, vol 31, 63-74, January (1997). 2. SWARTZ, M., "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992). 3. Swartz, M., "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN ELECTRODE", Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994) 4. SWARTZ, M., "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold Fusion", Vol. 4, Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research, December (1994). 5. Swartz, M, " Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) 6. SWARTZ, M., "IMPROVED CALCULATIONS INVOLVING ENERGY RELEASE USING A BUOYANCY TRANSPORT CORRECTION", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 05:49:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA30243; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:36:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:36:06 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970226133515.0067f6dc world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:35:15 -0500 To: "Scudder,Henry J" , vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: No missing (redshift) or gained energ Resent-Message-ID: <"bZwY61.0.PO7.3n35p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4548 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:34 AM 2/25/97 -0800, you wrote: >Mitchell > Can you put this idea into a mathematical form? Hank: For info on the mathematical formalism of these issues, try Re: Eulerian and Lagrangian Coordinates: J. R. MELCHER, "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press, Cambridge, (1981) Re: Electrodynamics: Adler, R.B., Fano, R.M., L. J. Chu, "Electromagnetic Energy Transmission and Radiation", Wiley (1966) or Fano, R.M., L. J. Chu, R. B. Adler, "Electromagnetic Fields, Energy, and Forces", Wiley (1967) Hope that helps. BTW what is boeing or rocketdyne or yourself working on these days in these matters? Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 06:00:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA32281; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:51:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:51:00 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970226135002.006a0db8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:50:02 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: 3 Equations relating to anomalous heat in the solid state Resent-Message-ID: <"6o9av2.0.Iu7.1_35p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4549 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ( oops 2nd mailing with corrected reference citations. sorry for the error in first post ... m ) At 04:25 PM 2/26/97 +0900, Elliot Kennel wrote: >Certain calorimeters have evidently yielded very reproducible positive >results, other calorimeters have yielded reproducible null results. >Everybody has a favorite explanation for why this is so, but to my mind no >explanation is completely satisfactory, at least for now. > The CETI device, like Cold Fusion, remains an enigma. I would >compare it to flying over the Bermuda triangle in a fog. Suddenly, the >captain tersely announces that some of the instruments are going crazy, but >other instruments are reading normally. On this plane, it turns out that >all the passengers have very definite opinions about which instruments to >believe, and which are incorrect, and are highly critical about any attempts >to resolve the contradictions. > >Elliot Kennel Elliot, and colleagues: There are two problems. Material and Experimental. IMHO here are some equations that may help to explain the differences. Thoughts? CF: Real, but the peak activity of samples [PI(max)] vary from piece to piece, and each sample to observe PI(max) must be "driven" in the correct fashion. Both the sample's initial activity, and how it is "driven" effect its actual output. Thus the actual observed power gain [pi] of each sample is that peak factor diminished by the failure to drive to the sample optimally. The second factor is <1. pi (power gain factor) = PI(max) * (factor a function of "drive",etc.) see ref(1) Furthermore, some samples - even if sufficient loading is achieved by controlling the microscopic reversibility of loading at the interface (cf. refs 2,3) - can have their peak obtainable power destroyed by the testing, and/or reactions, so the peak power gain is time-variant. PI(max) = PI(function of time) see ref(4) Calorimetry: Non-flow and horizontal flow calorimetry (HFC) can generally be semiquantitative with appropriate controls and initial time base. However, even given that the thermometry is correct, and the time base issue and controls correctly done, vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) can amplify the output perhaps a thousandfold- because it can add in Bernard instability to total heat transport, thereby yielding false derivations of "heat" generated. When this effect occurs, the observed "heat" decreases or disappears in a static or HFC system. Furthermore, the apparent gain of a sample derived by such vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) is correctable as Apparent gain = Real Gain/ (1-[fraction of heat vertically transported by Bernard instability]) see refs(5,6). Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) ----- refs ------------------- 1. SWARTZ, M., "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material", Fusion Technology, vol 31, 63-74, January (1997). 2. SWARTZ, M., "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992). 3. Swartz, M., "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN ELECTRODE", Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994) 4. SWARTZ, M., "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold Fusion", Vol. 4, Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research, December (1994). 5. Swartz, M, " Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) 6. SWARTZ, M., "IMPROVED CALCULATIONS INVOLVING ENERGY RELEASE USING A BUOYANCY TRANSPORT CORRECTION", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 06:21:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA00594; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:57:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 05:57:20 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Isotopic anomalies Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:51:13 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226135111.AAA19469 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"O9hIV2.0.C9.-445p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4550 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert Beasly wrote: >It is stated for a general discussion in the hope that the mix of sciences >represented in the group might help me solve or get close to what is happening. It is all very simple, Robert. The hydrogen in the hydrosphere (oceans)is absorbing light electrons (created by sunlight or agitation of the seawater)and becoming momentarily neutral and going into an element and increasing it's atomic number (Z) and atomic mass (A) by one. You can see this in the tables of the concentrations of the elements in sea water where the sodium is going to magnesium, magnesium to aluminum etc. What is of concern is the transmution of chlorine into argon which is already at one percent in the atmosphere and diluting the twenty-one percent oxygen concentration to the point that eventual suffocation will result. :-( Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 06:38:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA06902; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 06:27:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 06:27:40 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 09:26:06 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Pan Global Vortex Message-ID: <970226142605_72240.1256_EHB76-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"HKYji2.0.mh1.PX45p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4551 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; Elliot Kennel >INTERNET:kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp Elliot Kennel writes: The key word is "convincing." It depends who you ask. Okay, Elliot, let's ask you. There are three parameters: flow, Delta T temperature, and input electricity. Why one do you think I got wrong by a factor of 1000? Was it a combination of the three? Did I mistake a milliliter for a liter? Did all four of my thermometers go wrong? Or did the Radio Shack transformer produce miraculous levels of power? Have I missed a parameter? Is there anything beside flow, temperature and input power? People have come up with other objections -- perhaps you agree with one of them. Mitch Swartz, for example, thinks that thermocouples detect different temperatures when the flow is vertical versus horizontal, even when in-line mixers are used with a high flow rate. Chris Tinsley and I pointed out to him repeatedly that I took samples of both inlet and outlet water into cups and mixed them with the thermometers, but he never responded. Perhaps he asserts I stirred in the wrong direction or I held the thermometer at the wrong angle, but I am convinced that the water temperature in the cup was uniform and it was definitely 16 degrees C hotter coming out of the cell than going in. I found the demo about as convincing as the explosion of a nuclear bomb: definitely beyond chemistry. If you not convinced, please tell us why. If you people are going to dispute this, you owe us a scientific explanation. Saying "it depends who you ask" or "it's a matter of opinion" does not cut the mustard. Calorimetry is not based on opinions, it is based on elementary physical principles. Which one have I got wrong? Which principle, or which observation? If you cannot say, you should not argue. I am sorry to get shirty (as the Brits say), but when I write a scientific exposition I do not expect people to dismiss it by saying "well, it's a matter of opinion." Are your experimental results also a matter of opinion? Would it be alright to go around telling people: "The NHE lab actually got tons of excess heat, they just don't understand, it depends on who you ask." Does *your* data mean anything *I* want it to mean? Or is the interpretation strictly limited by the laws of physics? I think I agree that the heat pump interpretation contains at least as many problems as the nuclear hypothesis. The cells produce copious nuclear products and transmutations, which is proof of the nuclear hypothesis. There is no evidence at all for the heat pump interpretation, which would be a gigantic violation of both the First and Second Laws. The calorimeter, including the reservoir, was much warmer than the surroundings, therefore the heat pump hypothesis is a violation of the Second Law. It would call for ice in the reservoir and freezing mist on the side, like a refrigerator coil. As far as I know, no one has been able to disprove Dennis Cravens' work. Nobody has even touched it. You would have to prove that 1 ml = 1 liter. Certain calorimeters have evidently yielded very reproducible positive results, other calorimeters have yielded reproducible null results. With different beads! Everybody has a favorite explanation for why this is so, but to my mind no explanation is completely satisfactory, at least for now. The only significant difference between the experiments is the beads. Patterson made many sets of beads that did work. Everyone knows that Pd CF works with some materials and not others. The only plausible explanation is that some beads work, and some do not. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 07:56:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA24148; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:44:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:44:56 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Hugo, Mark D" From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: XRF of Coffee Can by Mark Hugo Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:38:15 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226153813.AAA6177 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"A_LOj1.0.6v5.hf55p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4552 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:41 PM 2/26/97 +0000, you wrote: >Was the manure from horses fed in a "western" state, such as Colorado, >or Montana? > >Not really surprising then, that result...as silver is found in the >local geology and >tends to move with water flows... > No Mark, the cattle feedlots in the West Texas, Eastern New Mexico (they don't smell pretty)region get most of their water from the Ogalala aquifer that runs east of the Rockies from Nebraska south. However, the biomass is a good collector of minerals and the feedlots bring in their feeds from the four corners of the Earth depending on the best price they can get them at. You get 250,000 head of cattle or more on a feedlot producing 10 lbs/day or more of manure and the ash is running 20% with 20-40 ppm silver, do you think that there is an opportunity there? The external combuster gas turbine can competitively turn that waste into about 1.5 milliom kw-hr per day if the new electric power wheeling laws hold up. Based on 40 ppm, the ash could yield up to about 20 pounds of silver/day. With that, one might consider going to a Sterling Cycle powered generator. No Bull? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 08:26:33 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA30913; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:03:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:03:54 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970226160250.00681448 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:02:50 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Pan Global Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"iOmag3.0.xY7.dx55p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4553 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:26 AM 2/26/97 EST, Jed wrote: > Mitch Swartz, for example, thinks that thermocouples detect >different temperatures when the flow is vertical versus horizontal, even when >in-line mixers are used with a high flow rate. .... > >- Jed > > Jed, This is not true, and would greatly appreciate you not misquoting me again. I have repeated this over and over. The difference is a calorimetric error and not a thermometric error. Thermometry: Thermocouples have errors of accuracy, precision, and sensitivity to other factors (like electric fields). Thermometry may have been handled, but it is the calorimetry which may be incorrect in a vertical flow system. Calorimetry: Non-flow and horizontal flow calorimetry (HFC) can generally be semiquantitative with appropriate controls and initial time base. However, even given that the thermometry is correct, and the time base issue and controls correctly done, vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) can amplify the output perhaps a thousandfold- because it can add in Bernard instability to total heat transport, thereby yielding false derivations of "heat" generated. When this effect occurs, the observed "heat" decreases or disappears in a static or HFC system. Swartz, M, " Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) Furthermore, the apparent gain of a sample derived by such vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) is correctable as Apparent gain = Real Gain/ (1-[fraction of heat vertically transported by Bernard instability]) SWARTZ, M., "IMPROVED CALCULATIONS INVOLVING ENERGY RELEASE USING A BUOYANCY TRANSPORT CORRECTION", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) Thanks for listening. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 08:31:08 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA02472; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:19:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:19:37 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9702261014.ZM15772 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:14:53 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Wireless residential phone service Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"065Gr.0.Sc.LA65p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4554 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Votexians- The following article was delivered to me this morning and I felt it relevent to earlier discusions on phone networks and switching. Not sure if anyone else got it. I had to share. -john --- Forwarded mail from cbell mx.merc.com (Mercury Mail) by Frank Barnako ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** AT&T announces residential wireless AT&T Tuesday announced the invention of what it calls "revolutionary fixed wireless technology to carry high-speed digital communications directly to most households." In a news release, the company explained it has acquired licenses in the 10 MHz radio spectrum, at FCC auctions, and owns enough authorizations to provide the new technology to customers in almost 93% of the United States. In remarks before the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in Washington, DC, AT&T president John Walter called the development "the communications medium for the 21st century." He said it "will initially provide each household with two phone lines and the capability for high-speed Internet access at 128 kilobits per second." The company will begin a beta test in metropolitan Chicago later this year. ====================================================================== Closing Bell is a trademark of Mercury Mail, Inc. (c) 1997 * If you'd like to subscribe to other Closing Bell products or change your basket of securities, simply update your Closing Bell profile. Visit http://www.merc.com/cb/cgi/cb_merc.cgi?action=enter * If you do not have web access, or if you have any problems or suggestions, send e-mail to our help desk at feedback merc.com ---End of forwarded mail from cbell mx.merc.com (Mercury Mail) -- John E. Steck Motorola Inc. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 08:53:17 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA07022; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:37:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:37:11 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:36:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970226113623_-1407081251 emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: reply to Horrace Resent-Message-ID: <"RPUMP2.0.cj1.oQ65p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4555 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horrace asks "Should not the spin of a Cooper Pair be zero?" True the electrons spins combine resulting in a net spin of zero. There is, however, another component of angular momentum; the orbital angular momentum l. Factoring in this term will result in a net spin of one. The important criteria is that the spin is an integer. ....................................... What is Isospin? Isospin in the property that separates a neutron from a proton. Exchange Isospin and a neutron and a proton can, in effect, exchange locations. Such reactions are isobaric which means they conserve nucleon number. Frank Stenger has made the comment that cold fusion reactions appear to be Isobaric in nature. In the case of a two deneutrons exchange of Isospin will disintegrate the deneutron resulting in free neutrons and free protons. .............................................. Can Isospin be exchanged? I say yes. Two protons and two neutrons do not bond due to there anti-parallel Isopins. They repel each other. Large nucleons contain extra neutrons. These nucleons are most stable when they contain even numbers of neutrons and protons. This suggests that within these nucleons neutrons combine with neutrons and protons combine with protons. What is going on? Particles with like isospins should repel? I believe that the answer may be found in the exchange of Isospin. Within nucleons protons share Isospin with neutrons. Due to this effect extra neutrons may be added. The nucleon becomes unstable when there is not enough proton Isospin to go around. .......................................... Given that intra-nucleon exchange of Isospin is possible, is intra-nucleon exchange of Isospoin possible? I believe it is possible in systems contains condensed charges. The Isospin component of angular momentum is exchange by phonos. ................................ What else would I say. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 10:11:37 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03960; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:47:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:47:32 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 12:33:20 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Pan Global Vortex Message-ID: <970226173320_72240.1256_EHB90-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Yu_I22.0.nz.oS75p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4557 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Korrekshun: 3. This [Swartz sideways test-tube] hypothesis does not apply to the big CETI experiment, because I verified the temperatures by stirring the fluid in a cup. It does NOT ^^^ apply to the smaller CETI experiments, because Dennis verified temperatures with a mercury thermometer in the buret, which was well stirred by dripping and by people tapping the glass. Forgot Not. You *know* Dennis is going to test for that kinda thing. You can't fool him. He wasn't born yesterday! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 10:12:00 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA06546; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:59:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:59:07 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 12:26:36 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Message-ID: <970226172635_76016.2701_JHC83-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zlYMM3.0.jb1.Yd75p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4558 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks to everyone who responded. I was trying to show a friend that gravity shielding alone cannot result in "levitation". Yes, Fred, I guess I'll still be sticking around. Kudos to Scott for guessing my weight! Horace, Newcastle Brown is mead of the gods made in Newcastle-on-Tyne, also the home of Chris Tinsley -- which might explain his particle/wave duality questions. Terry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 10:22:19 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09256; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:07:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:07:11 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 12:27:10 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Pan Global Vortex Message-ID: <970226172710_72240.1256_EHB35-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"whlo02.0.HF2.uk75p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4560 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mitch writes: This is not true, and would greatly appreciate you not misquoting me again. . . . I have repeated this over and over. The difference is a calorimetric error and not a thermometric error. Oops. Sorry about the confusion. However, even given that the thermometry is correct, and the time base issue and controls correctly done, vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) can amplify the output perhaps a thousandfold- because it can add in Bernard instability to total heat transport, thereby yielding false derivations of "heat" generated. When this effect occurs, the observed "heat" decreases or disappears in a static or HFC system. So you say, Mitch. However: 1. Nobody I know agrees with you. Not Fleischmann, McKubre or any other expert in calorimetry. 2. I do not think you have any experimental evidence to support this hypothesis. You had none last year, when I repeatedly asked for some. You could easily set up a desktop demonstration of this alleged phenomenon. If you can turn a calorimeter 90 degrees on its side and show a thousand-fold artifactual change in results, people will take your hypothesis seriously. I promise I.E. will send someone around to watch! This artifact should be much easier to demonstrate than other artifacts like streamlining, because it is so much larger. 3. This hypothesis does not apply to the big CETI experiment, because I verified the temperatures by stirring the fluid in a cup. It does apply to the smaller CETI experiments, because Dennis verified temperatures with a mercury thermometer in the buret, which was well stirred by dripping and by people tapping the glass. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 10:23:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09095; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:06:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:06:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199702261728.JAA15550 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:31:19 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: CF driven by exceptions Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net CC: peter itim.org.soroscj.ro Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3313da62.itim itim.org.soroscj.ro> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"oj0G41.0.3D2.ck75p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4559 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Peter, We can in some experiments find sufficient 4He to account for about 1/3 of the energy anomaly more often it is much less than this. Conducting an inventory on the helium is difficult to say the least. Arata believes he has more 4He than works with a D+D to 4He reaction explanation for the heat. So far his inventory methods are the best I know of. Since more than one reaction pathway is apparent looking for 4He is not always going to be successful. As the reaction parameters vary and so do the products. Whether there is any non chemical or non nuclear component to the energy anomaly is so far as I know impossible to measure. I've yet to have anyone demonstrate a means of identifying zero point energy as different from other more mundane energy. Until ZPE theorists can turn themselves into experimentalists and show a method to measure it in a complex system I can't give it any more credibility that any other religious based explanation. Hence it serves no purpose in real experiments and ought to remain in the realm of pure fantasy. However so far as chemistry and nuclear mechanisms we have many good working methodologies to make definitive measurements. Regarding the size or scale of nuclear active regions this can be derived through the use of mathematical models that are as simple or as complex as you'd like to make them. The starting and end points are known so filling in the in between is just time consuming. Gasp. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 10:46:07 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA13487; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:20:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:20:55 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:23:30 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Cooper pair spin Resent-Message-ID: <"kMlDm3.0.XI3.5y75p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4561 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:36 AM 2/26/97, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > Horrace asks "Should not the spin of a Cooper Pair be zero?" > True the electrons spins combine resulting in a net spin of > zero. There is, however, another component of angular momentum; > the orbital angular momentum l. Factoring in this term will > result in a net spin of one. The important criteria is that the > spin is an integer. [snip] > > Frank Znidarsic >  It doesn't seem that a Cooper pair orbital spin of 1 could be maintained and yet have a condensate form for two reasons: (1) the condensate is the total overlapping of quantum waveforms which avoids electrostatic repulsion (any distance preserved via orbital rotation would permit the Coulomb barrier to drive the two electrons apart) and (2) orbiting at a short distance should cause radiation of photons similar to the e-,e+ annihilation process. If this orbital preservation is feasible it seems to have implications to ball lightning, condensed charge, and the light electron questions. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 10:49:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17306; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:36:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:36:03 -0800 Message-ID: <33148294.4B2F interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:36:04 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pan Global Vortex References: <2.2.32.19970226160250.00681448 world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DQ9UW3.0.6E4.6A85p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4563 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) > can amplify the output perhaps a thousandfold- because > it can add in Bernard instability to total heat transport, thereby yielding > false derivations of "heat" generated. Mitchell, I have to go along with Jed on this one. I AM a mechanical engineer and what you say above sounds rediculous! My degree is about 40 years old so I may need to be updated. Could you post a simple diagram to illustrate the basic model for your above claim? It seems to me that a "clutz" would need to work real hard to get a 50% error, - much less, A THOUSAND FOLD ERROR! Baffled in Ashtabula, Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 11:01:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA13513; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:21:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:21:04 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:23:34 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Resent-Message-ID: <"_Qgjk2.0.yI3.9y75p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4562 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:51 AM 2/26/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >It is all very simple, Robert. The hydrogen in the hydrosphere (oceans)is >absorbing light electrons (created by sunlight or agitation of the >seawater)and becoming momentarily neutral and going into an element and >increasing it's atomic number (Z) and atomic mass (A) by one. > >You can see this in the tables of the concentrations of the elements in sea >water where the sodium is going to magnesium, magnesium to aluminum etc. > >What is of concern is the transmution of chlorine into argon which is >already at one percent in the atmosphere and diluting the twenty-one percent >oxygen concentration to the point that eventual suffocation will result. :-( > >Regards, Frederick Any idea how fast this should be occuring? Is the pair creation due to light hitting the water? If so, it should be possible to verify by exposing various salt solutions to intense light and then performing chemical analysis. Could also try the l+ conduction experiment via electrolysis. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 11:04:27 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA21268; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:50:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:50:47 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:53:21 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Resent-Message-ID: <"zk0R52.0.7C5.3O85p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4564 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I work with liquid colloids (starting with distilled water to which is >added certified pure elements). I am developing a process which presently >drives a fanned metal disk previous to a trailing vortex beneath. My >fascination is not the free energy but the results after atomic >spectroscopy determines the significant presence of elements that have not >been added to the original distilled water. No heat or other energy is >applied. No chemical changes are intentionally being made. Brownian >movement has been confirmed. Now none of this is stated to disagree with >any science or person. It is stated for a general discussion in the hope >that the mix of sciences represented in the group might help me solve or >get close to what is happening. >regards, >Robert Beasley [snip] You might want to check the isotopic (or at least chemical) makeup of the metal disk, since surface cavitation can create million degree plus bubbles right on the surface of the disk. This vaporizes small pockets of metal but also could create nuclear reactions. Depending on concentrations, there may be no real surprises or unconventional science. It would be interesting to hear more specifics about what elements are found, concentrations, and how their presence is determined. If you are not concerned about letting one go maybe someone here with appropriate equipment would be willing to run your gadget and do a before and after isotopic analysis. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 11:12:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA22241; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:55:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:55:34 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:49:01 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226184859.AAA28845 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"-IoWI.0.QR5.ZS85p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4565 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:26 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Terry Blanton wrote: >Thanks to everyone who responded. I was trying to show a friend that gravity >shielding alone cannot result in "levitation". Yes, Fred, I guess I'll still be >sticking around. Kudos to Scott for guessing my weight! Horace, Newcastle >Brown is mead of the gods made in Newcastle-on-Tyne, also the home of Chris >Tinsley -- which might explain his particle/wave duality questions. > >Terry > I was under the impression that Chris Tinsley was, or is The Sheriff of Nottingham. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 11:44:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA31448; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:30:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:30:45 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970226192940.00686ae0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:29:40 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Pan Global Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"yP-my2.0.Ah7.Tz85p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4566 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:27 PM 2/26/97 EST, Jed wrote: > However, even given that the thermometry is correct, and the time base > issue and controls correctly done, vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) can > amplify the output perhaps a thousandfold- because it can add in Bernard > instability to total heat transport, thereby yielding false derivations > of "heat" generated. When this effect occurs, the observed "heat" > decreases or disappears in a static or HFC system. > >So you say, Mitch. However: > >1. Nobody I know agrees with you. Not Fleischmann, McKubre or any other expert >in calorimetry. > Jed, 1. I dont believe you, both because others do agree, and because Fleischmann and probably McKubre do understand the potential role of Bernard instability in fluid mechanics and mass and heat transfer. 2. Anyone who understands what a Bernard instability is, or who takes the time to investigate contributions to the miniscule temperature differential you are seeing, may have more interesting comments than you hand-wave denial. 3. Is it not true that BOTH McKubre and CETI have found that the "kilowatt" disappears with either static or horizontal flow calorimetry? Have there been others, Jed? How many excuses do you have for why the "kilowatt" disappeared in horizontal and static calorimeters? bubbles? Do you have proof in these reasons, or could it be possible that the Bernard instability contribution does play a role? Have you tried to subtract the contribution after you measured it in your system? Did it match what you get in the static and horizontal flow calorimeters? Or do you just take the best measurement and ignore that it doesnt work the other two ways to "kilowatt" levels. 4. QED, the prediction as discussed in the two published papers, and the theoretical observations which you prefer to just publically demean or privately ignore, is actually consistent with what both of these experimental groups have purported reported. ============================================= >2. I do not think you have any experimental evidence to support this >hypothesis. You had none last year, when I repeatedly asked for some. Wrong again, Jed. I gave you, and published, the experimental support for these effect. It appears that you do not like calculations which upset your "kilowatt"-applecart but they hold. Furthermore, you should not be discouraged because I assure that 400 milliwatts of real excess is more important than a "kilowatt" of non-calibrated signal. ============================================= > If you can turn a calorimeter 90 degrees on its side and show a thousand-fold >artifactual change in results, people will take your hypothesis seriously. Actually since both CETI and McKubre find the calculated "kilowatts" disappear with either horizontal flow calorimetry OR static, the facts of the Bernard instability do appear to stand. Dont they? ============================================= >3. This hypothesis does not apply to the big CETI experiment, because I >verified the temperatures by stirring the fluid in a cup. It does apply to the >smaller CETI experiments, because Dennis verified temperatures with a mercury >thermometer in the buret, which was well stirred by dripping and by people >tapping the glass. Sorry Jed, but it DOES apply to CETI because I spoke with Dennis Cravens by phone both the month before and the month after he began the vertical calorimetry system. The month before he had conventional anomalous heats (i.e. to 200 or so % excess) but only after putting the reactor in a different calorimeter did he get the calculated "kilowatts". Jed, why would an identical system get a few hundred milliwatts excess heat in a horizontal flow calorimeter or static calorimeter, but then get "kilowatts" in a vertical flow calorimeter? Are you saying that the calorimeter effects the reactor? Are you saying that we should measure things with the detector the gives the highest readings? Why not measure gold with the single scale that gives the highest readings of weight, Jed? ..... because it is not accurate or fair. Isnt that right? Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 11:49:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA32584; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:35:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:35:23 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970226193423.006920d8 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:34:23 -0500 To: fstenger interlaced.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Pan Global Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"dGMv62.0.wy7.r195p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4567 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:36 PM 2/26/97 -0500, Frank Stenger wrote: >Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> > vertical flow calorimetry (VFC) >> can amplify the output perhaps a thousandfold- because >> it can add in Bernard instability to total heat transport, thereby yielding >> false derivations of "heat" generated. > >Mitchell, I have to go along with Jed on this one. I AM a mechanical >engineer and what you say above sounds rediculous! My degree is about >40 years old so I may need to be updated. Could you post a simple >diagram to illustrate the basic model for your above claim? It seems to >me that a "clutz" would need to work real hard to get a 50% error, - >much less, A THOUSAND FOLD ERROR! > >Baffled in Ashtabula, Frank Stenger > > First, did you read either paper, Frank? Suggest you do. Second, it could be a 0.1% error. Its magnitude depends upon the ratio of heat transport by bouyancy to total heat transport. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 11:56:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01940; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:43:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:43:25 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:36:08 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226193606.AAA19262 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"VWNCU1.0.2U.L995p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4568 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:23 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 4:51 AM 2/26/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>It is all very simple, Robert. The hydrogen in the hydrosphere (oceans)is >>absorbing light electrons (created by sunlight or agitation of the >>seawater)and becoming momentarily neutral and going into an element and >>increasing it's atomic number (Z) and atomic mass (A) by one. >> >>You can see this in the tables of the concentrations of the elements in sea >>water where the sodium is going to magnesium, magnesium to aluminum etc. >> >>What is of concern is the transmution of chlorine into argon which is >>already at one percent in the atmosphere and diluting the twenty-one percent >>oxygen concentration to the point that eventual suffocation will result. :-( >> >>Regards, Frederick > > >Any idea how fast this should be occuring? Is the pair creation due to >light hitting the water? If so, it should be possible to verify by >exposing various salt solutions to intense light and then performing >chemical analysis. Could also try the l+ conduction experiment via >electrolysis. > You could use sea water or salt water solutions that were thoroughly purged of gasses by pulling on a few liters of the solution with a cold-trapped vacuum system, and then use a mass spectrometer arrangement to shoot the off gasses into a phosphor target where you could observe the scintillations-mass while exposing the solution to about a kilowatt/meter^2 of "artificial" sunlight. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 12:21:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA07810; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:00:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:00:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:01:49 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Resent-Message-ID: <"Cvh1x2.0.Bv1.xO95p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4569 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Thanks to everyone who responded. I was trying to show a friend that gravity >shielding alone cannot result in "levitation". Yes, Fred, I guess I'll >still be >sticking around. Kudos to Scott for guessing my weight! Horace, Newcastle >Brown is mead of the gods made in Newcastle-on-Tyne, also the home of Chris >Tinsley -- which might explain his particle/wave duality questions. > >Terry Don't forget, the Tampere effect may not be "gravity shielding" alone - there could be inertial effects, and if so these could easily be used to levitate, reduce air friction, and propel vehicles. There has been evidence posted of a lateral exclusion force in the beam. In case you haven't seen it, a concrete example of an inirtial lift device is encluded below. Apologies to those who have seen it, but it is easily ignored. Aha, mead. I used to brew that with friends when I was young. We got very creative too, adding strawberry, bannnas and various other things. It came out a bit like champagne, very dry, bubbly, and explosive. We bottled it in magnum champagne bottles. I've never been the same since, so this could explain a lot for me too! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If the Podkletnof/Schnurer devices reduce momentum, inertia, i.e if a rotating wheel placed partially in the beam tends to throw the wheel out of the beam by a force proportional to centrepital force, then there is possibly a means of levitation even if the beam is only vertical, and even if the effect is only about 4% of mass. Vertical lift is achieved by having two wheels spin on an angle to the beam: \ / \ / M\ /M \ / \/ ==== \ or / - spinning wheel, side view (2) wheels shown M - motor and shaft attached to spinning wheel ==== - antigravity/anti-inertia device The significant part of the diagram is the "====", which is the Tampere device or similar device exhibiting exhibiting inertia reduction in a beam or corridor above itself: That part of the premise that is a very big "if" is that inertia is affected within the gravity reduction field, the gravity shadow of the Tampere device. It is a long stretch of the imagination, but it is very easily tested because careful weighing/measuring is not required. A very small reduction in momentum will result in a very large force for a high rpm wheel. To test simply stick a running motor into the field. The above should provide a Cadillac smooth ride, no bump and grind. Nothing to make for oscillation, vibration, etc, All the two wheels do is rotate. There might be a problem if it turned a corner suddenly, but no need to do that to get into orbit. Suppose you have shielded at 4% about half of each of the 1 meter radius wheels or drums which are each at an angle theta from the vertical, 0.5 m thick runnning at 3600 rpm, or 60 rps. The mass of each wheel is primarily between 0.5r and r, where r is the radius of the wheel. Assume each wheel is roughly the density of iron (7.9 g/cm^3). The area A of a wheel is (3/4)(pi)(r^2) = 2.4 m^2 = 2.4x10^4 cm^2. The volume of a wheel is 1.2x10^6 cm^3 so the mass is 9.5x10^7 g or about 10,000 kg. The average rotational velocity of the mass of a wheel is v=(3/4)(2)(pi)(r)(50)= 283 m/s. The outer (max) acceleration is a=4(pi^2)(r)(60s^-1)^2 = 1.4x10^5 m/s^2, or about 1400 g's. Every second about 10,000 kg x (60rps) = 60,000 kg/s mass enters the non shadowed section of the wheel at 283 m/s and exits at -283 m/sec, for a delta v of 566 m/s per second. The effective (net) mass doing this is 0.04 x 60,000 kg/s = 2400 kg/s. The resultant force is F = (566 m/s)(2400 kg/s) = 1.35x10^6 N. Converting to kg force (kgf) we get F = (1.26x10^6N)(1/9.8 kgf/N) = 13,900 kgf. Suppose the supporting framework, underlying Tampere cells, and power supply etc. can be placed using 1,000 kg per wheel. This give a total vehicle weight of 22,000 kg. The lifing force L = (13,900 kg)*2(cos(theta)) = (27,800)cos(theta). To hover we have the lifting force L equal to the craft weight of 22,000 kg, which results in cos(theta) = (22000/27800) = .791 and the angle from vertical is cos-1(.791) = 37.7 deg. This is all marginal, but achieving an 8% shielding would definitely give you a VTOL SST orbiter. So would being able to run the wheel at 2800 g's. Lateral thrust as well as attitude could be controlled by insertion of horizontally rotating wheels different depths into the beam. The above is mainly concerned with hovering, SSTO etc. However, any repulsion of a rotating wheel from the anit-gravity beam proportional to the wheel rpm means maybe you can build an Isp infinty spacecraft for use in space. That is an important test. A better test would be to rotate a heavy wheel horizontally through the antigravity beam and support the entire appartus on a wheeled platform to see if the platform and all can be made to move laterally. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 12:55:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA17329; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:36:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:36:08 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970127100123.00a0c2d0 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:37:23 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: reply to Horrace Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"MKKeS.0.VE4.lw95p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4570 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:36 AM 2/26/97 -0500, you wrote: > > .......................................... > Given that intra-nucleon exchange of Isospin is possible, is > intra-nucleon exchange of Isospoin possible? I believe it is > possible in systems contains condensed charges. The Isospin > component of angular momentum is exchange by phonos. > ................................ > What else would I say. > > Frank Znidarsic >  > perhaps you would also be kind enough to tell me where the bottle of isoprofin is.? Michael W. Mandeville Environmental Tune-Up Inc. mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm/enviro/tuneup.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 13:08:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA20326; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:46:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:46:18 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:47:25 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Resent-Message-ID: <"yxpJp3.0.Sz4.M4A5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4572 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:36 AM 2/26/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] > >You could use sea water or salt water solutions that were >thoroughly purged of gasses by pulling on a few liters of the >solution with a cold-trapped vacuum system, and then use a mass >spectrometer arrangement to shoot the off gasses into a phosphor >target where you could observe the scintillations-mass while exposing >the solution to about a kilowatt/meter^2 of "artificial" sunlight. > >Regards, Frederick No estimates of how fast the process should be occuring in sea water? What *is* the evidence for the isotopic shift in sea water anyway? Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 13:42:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA20038; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:45:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:45:11 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 20:36:13 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226203611.AAA17171 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"4p5o71.0.fu4.G3A5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4571 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:53 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: (To Robert Beasley) > >You might want to check the isotopic (or at least chemical) makeup of the >metal disk, since surface cavitation can create million degree plus bubbles >right on the surface of the disk. This vaporizes small pockets of metal but >also could create nuclear reactions. I maintain that the "million degree plus bubbles" are stimulated annihilation of light electrons-positrons. Annihilation of a pair yielding 54.4 ev would be around 630,000 K localised temperature at the solid-liquid interface.Annihilation of a 7440 ev pair that could also "migrate" down from the ionosphere would be around 90 million deg K. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 13:51:05 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA31946; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:31:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:31:20 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 16:24:15 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Sideways hypothesis Message-ID: <970226212414_72240.1256_EHB140-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"G3Ez03.0.-o7.XkA5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4573 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Mitch writes: 3. Is it not true that BOTH McKubre and CETI have found that the "kilowatt" disappears with either static or horizontal flow calorimetry? Nope, is isn't a bit true. I asked them. They thought I was crazy. Have there been others, Jed? Nope. It has never happened. Nobody has ever observed anything like that, as far as I know. Sorry Jed, but it DOES apply to CETI because I spoke with Dennis Cravens by phone both the month before and the month after he began the vertical . . . You mean, you spoke to him on a day that he was getting no excess heat. Later on he got it, right? Whether the flow is vertical or horizontal makes no difference because the water is well stirred. In point of fact, he measures in just after it turns a corner from horizontal to vertical, where it passes through the in-line stirrers. Does that make it vertical or horizontal? Jed, why would an identical system get a few hundred milliwatts excess heat in a horizontal flow calorimeter or static calorimeter, but then get "kilowatts" in a vertical flow calorimeter? It wouldn't. That never happens. Furthermore, Mitch, for the VERY LAST TIME, let me remind you: I MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OUTSIDE OF THE CALORIMETER IN A CUP!!! I STIRRED THE WATER. THE OUTLET SAMPLE WAS 16 DEGREES HOTTER THAN THE INLET AND RESERVOIR SAMPLES. The cup was flat on the table, open end up. I don't know if you consider that vertical or horizontal but when you hold a cup in any other orientation (sideways or upside-down) you will find the water pours out. I do not recall what angle I held the thermometer and thermocouples or which direction I stirred. Probably clockwise facing down. Does it matter? Perhaps Frank Znidarsic recalls . . . I was standing or sitting vertically at the time. Next time I shall try it prone, or standing on my head. I note that if you hold a digital thermometer the wrong way, "16" looks like "91," but the mercury thermometer does not suffer from this problem . . . This has got to be the craziest discussion I have ever seen. Over And Out - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 14:31:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA07588; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:03:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:03:21 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: <19970226215554.AAA22023 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"ck42j3.0.Ds1.PCB5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4574 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:47 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Horace Heffner wrote: > >No estimates of how fast the process should be occuring in sea water? >What*is* the evidence for the isotopic shift in sea water anyway? If I don't succeed in painting myself into a corner it looks like you will do it for me. Try mulling over these values of "average" crustal abundance of the elements versus the abundance in sea water. Element Sea water (mg/liter) Average crustal abundance (ppm) F 1.3 550 Na 10,500 21,000 Mg 1,350 17,800 Al 0.01 78,000 Si 3.0 294,000 P 0.07 875 S 885 1,200 Cl 19,000 122 K 380 22,500 Ca 400 47,000 Ti 0.001 6,000 V 0.002 134 Cr 1E-5 88 Mn 0.002 810 Fe 0.01 48,000 Co 0.00027 20 Ni 0.0054 56 Cu 0.003 50 Have fun. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 14:43:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA11661; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:15:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:15:33 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970226221333.006a99c0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:13:33 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Sideways hypothesis Resent-Message-ID: <"wL04g1.0.Xq2.iNB5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4575 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:24 PM 2/26/97 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Mitch writes: > > 3. Is it not true that BOTH McKubre and CETI have found that the > "kilowatt" disappears with either static or horizontal flow calorimetry? > >Nope, is isn't a bit true. I asked them. Exactly who measured a kilowatt of excess heat in the bead-Patterson system by isoperibolic calorimetry, Jed? Both Michael McKubre you say, and exactly who at CETI? You claim McKubre got excess heat of one kilowatt in a static or his own calorimeter using nickel and light water, eh Jed? Really? ================== > They thought I was crazy. No, Jed, you are just using the wrong equation. ================== > Sorry Jed, but it DOES apply to CETI because I spoke with Dennis Cravens > by phone both the month before and the month after he began the vertical > . . . > >You mean, you spoke to him on a day that he was getting no excess heat. Later >on he got it, right? Whether the flow is vertical or horizontal makes no >difference because the water is well stirred. In point of fact, he measures in >just after it turns a corner from horizontal to vertical, where it passes >through the in-line stirrers. Does that make it vertical or horizontal? You are wrong about when he and I spoke, and you are wrong about the arrangement of the CETI system, too, because it is shown in their drawings as vertical. Here you claim it is horizontal. Is that true? Every drawing I have seen is vertical. Care to recheck at their website? Please tell me who tested the Patterson-bead system in a horizontal arrangement (not vertically like the drawings at the CETI web site and in the ICCF5 paper) in a static (non-flow) system and got evidence of 1 kilowatt of excess heat, Jed? That should settle it? Are you claiming Michael McKubre again? ================== Here is another issue often ignored, which is consistent with there having been less than 1 kilowatt for hours: Certainly you realize that a kilowatt would make your 100 milliliter cell boil rather quickly, not to mention possibly destroying quite a bit of equipment. The only "damage" I have ever seen is a kink in the plastic coil in a photo at one of the web sites. Jed, a soldering iron is about 25 watts, and a soldering gun is about 45 watts. When my systems get heats of that order of magnitude there is on occasion significant damage to system components, often very destructive. Where is any damage or evidence in your kilowatt system? It all looked pretty clean to me in the photos. Did you char any material, Jed? Melt any plastic? ================== > Jed, why would an identical system get a few hundred milliwatts excess > heat in a horizontal flow calorimeter or static calorimeter, but then > get "kilowatts" in a vertical flow calorimeter? > >It wouldn't. That never happens. Furthermore, Mitch, for the VERY LAST TIME, >let me remind you: > >I MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OUTSIDE OF THE CALORIMETER IN A CUP!!! I STIRRED >THE WATER. THE OUTLET SAMPLE WAS 16 DEGREES HOTTER THAN THE INLET AND >RESERVOIR SAMPLES. > Yell all you want Jed, but remember: this has nothing to do with thermometry. It is calorimetry. If the equation is wrong -- and it is in a vertical system to the degree that there is any Bernard instability -- you can get the thermometry perfect, but the equation is wrong to that degree, as is any derivation dependant upon it. Unfortunately, I don't think you have a clue what this is about given that you keep confusing how you removed some water, stirred it and measured the temperature. But good luck in your studies, and think about under what conditions the simplistic equation you use might be in error. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 15:32:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29006; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:17:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:17:14 -0800 X-Sender: wharton 128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33168d47.28236049 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <970224214559_72240.1256_EHB95-1 CompuServe.COM> <970224214559_72240.1256_EHB95-1 CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:15:20 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Murray's Miley Critiques Resent-Message-ID: <"nVl3i3.0.l37.RHC5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4576 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk's comments are valid and quite perceptive, >It seems to me that if Larry's process is indeed real, then it could be >adapted to make quite an efficient heat pump. Given that there is a ready >market for efficient heat pumps in air-conditioning and refrigeration, >perhaps Larry should do some experiments of his own in this area. If he is >correct, he stands to make a fortune. and indeed I have not overlooked the possible application of this technology. My premiss has been that working CETI devices produce far more apparent excess heat energy than could be accounted for the electrolysis and pump input power. I think it is out of the question that CETI and the confirming investigators have all been faking the results. I also think that the decline of the claimed excess heat from the zenith of 1300 watts at the Power Gen 95 to the current value of less than the error of measurement (and this includes Scott Little's result with his CETI reflex cell apparently showing no excess heat to within the .1 watt error) is a direct result of the discovery that there really was no excess energy just an apparent excess heat as I had proposed. Now I do feel some responsibility for this startling decline as I was the most outspoken critic of the failure to test for any potential energy changes across the cell and pointed out, properly I think, that this oversight constituted extreme incompetency. It appears that the CETI investigators have corrected this oversight and have found no significant excess energy (that is energy now not heat, energy is heat energy plus potential energy). The investigators being embarrassed at their oversight then just dropped their excess heat claims and instead promoted only the alleged nuclear transmutations. The current CETI reflex kits are "not optimized" for heat production and Scott Little is now finding out just how efficient this non optimization for heat production actually is. I can understand the embarrassment of these CETI investigators but I must emphasize that there really was an apparent excess heat and an invalid identification as an energy excess should not detract from the underlying reality and significance of the device. I would compare this business to an incompetent miner who announces that he has found a large gold deposit. He then finds out that the deposit is really platinum and since he is embarrassed at his mistake he ignores his find and doesn't even file a claim or tell anyone where it is. So the CETI heat excess really is a big deal and the potential applications are enormous. I don't like to see this business of nothing on the heat front. The stories of corporate partners working to develop heating applications appear to be pure imagination. The only actual collaboration announced has been the agreement with the Desert Research Foundation which basically is a big zero. Robin has suggested that I go ahead and research this. I just may do that or if not myself some one else will do it. I have done some theory and my calculations indicate that the CETI technique is far from optimal and the end product may be so different that CETI and their patent protection may end up worthless. Going back to the miner story, suppose some other person figured out where the platinum mine was and he went there and filed a claim. Then the original miner really is the fool. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 15:35:28 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01280 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:34:47 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:34:47 -0800 X-Envelope-From: 101256 wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov Wed Feb 26 15:33:52 1997 Received: from wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov (wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov [128.165.140.3]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA00855 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:33:41 -0800 From: 101256 wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov Old-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:33:30 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Message-Id: <970226163330.1652e wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov> Subject: Re: XRF of Coffee Can by Mark Hugo X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: r jj From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 17:08:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA03250; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:56:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:56:07 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970227005609.00668ed4 sparc1> X-Sender: kennel sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:56:09 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Re: Pan Global Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"pnx-h2.0.do.akD5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4579 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed writes: >>There are three parameters: flow, Delta T temperature, and input electricity. Why one do you think I got wrong by a factor of 1000? Was it a combination of the three? Did I mistake a milliliter for a liter? Did all four of my thermometers go wrong? Or did the Radio Shack transformer produce miraculous levels of power?<< Gee, Jed, I have no idea. Maybe you did all the experiments correctly. But I would like to have a lot more careful experimentation by a number of researchers before making up my mind. But no single researcher is infallible, and no single measurement (or class of measurement) is beyond reproach. In particular, I don't know you well enough to judge your work. I will say that I liked your idea of using bulb thermometers to double-check the electronic boxes. Moreover, there's no need to assume personal responsibility for CETI's claims. These are difficult experiments; CETI understands this, and they've enlisted a LOT of good people to investigate them; they're making good progress, but more work needs to be done before they go to Oslo to pick up their Nobels (via Pan Global Vortex Airlines, of course). Sorry if you're upset, but that's what I believe. Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 17:18:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA02484; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:52:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:52:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3314DAEE.26AF interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:53:02 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sideways hypothesis References: <2.2.32.19970226221333.006a99c0 world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"J6VSH1.0.fc.PhD5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4578 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > (Mitchell to Jed:) > But good luck in your studies, and think about under what conditions > the simplistic equation you use might be in error. > Mitchell, you scolded me for not reading the reference papers on the subject - do I have to dust erasers after school too? Is the simplistic equation in question: Thermal power, watts = (kilograms/sec) x (joules/kilogram-degC) x (delta T, degC) ? This equation is pretty good for evaluating the thermal power of ANY liquid phase heat exchanger - no matter how complex the internal dynamics of the device. Sure, we need to correct for electrochemically induced changes in the fluid stream, but is this a question for the rigs discussed? I have assumed that the experimenters have used at least half a brain to get good mixing and temperature readings! Is this in question? I checked my encyclopedia of physics, and it lists Bernoulli, Gibbs, Kelvin, Maxwell, Prandtl, Reynolds, Navier, Stokes, etc. but no Bernard! If I could answer anyone's question on this list in a paragraph or two - I would! I wouldn't feel it necessary to refer them to ponderous papers filled with masticated minutiae. Can a kilowatt- level heat and mass balance be all that complicated? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 18:49:32 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA29015; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:36:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:36:53 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 21:34:06 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Pan Global Vortex Message-ID: <970227023405_72240.1256_EHB147-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"A2DeN3.0.g27.oCF5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4580 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Elliot writes: Moreover, there's no need to assume personal responsibility for CETI's claims. These are difficult experiments . . . That was *my* experiment, performed with CETI's equipment, very much against their wishes. I had to twist their arms into knots before they let me do it. I wrote the report and I take full responsibility for it. There are many difficult experiments in cold fusion, but these are not among them. These are dead simple and irrefutable. Similar experiments are routinely performed in grade school and junior high school science classes and science fairs in DeKalb County, Georgia. Chris Tinsley did a similar quick test on his electric hot water heater and found the results Bang On (as the Brits say). Maybe he'll tell you about it when he recovers from what ails him. Anyone who argues that such simple, fundamental -- even primitive -- physical experiments are in some sense "difficult" or that the results are "questionable" has a screw loose. That is like saying that Galileo's experiment of dropping different masses from a great height is "difficult." Nothing in physics could be easier. (Nothing in Cornell physics was remotely this easy!) Other people, who think you can make 1300 watts of power disappear into thin air by turning a cell on its side, have two screws loose. All of you who have these crazy ideas should go back and do some grade school science, and reorient yourselves to reality. As Arthur Clarke says, Over And Out! - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 18:50:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA28900; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:36:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:36:45 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 21:33:51 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Sideways hypothesis Message-ID: <970227023350_72240.1256_EHB147-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ljbmZ1.0.j27.nCF5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4581 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I have bowed out of the discussion, but I will correct this misunderstanding. Mitch wrote: Certainly you realize that a kilowatt would make your 100 milliliter cell boil rather quickly, not to mention possibly destroying quite a bit of equipment. The only "damage" I have ever seen is a kink in the plastic coil in a photo at one of the web sites. The flow calorimeter reservoir holds 2.5 liters and the flow rate is set between 1.0 and 1.5 liters per minute. The cell is 10 cm long, 2.5 cm in diameter, containing roughly 40 ml of beads. See my report, "CETI Demonstrates 1,300 Watt Cold Fusion Reactor." - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 19:50:38 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA10305; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:27:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:27:56 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3314FEF0.1CFBAE39 math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:26:40 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: How to make big dT without really trying (was Re: Sideways hypothesis References: <970226212414_72240.1256_EHB140-1 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZkqKi.0.CW2.dyF5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4582 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here's one fun artifact I discovered with my CETI-like cell. You can make an impressive "fake" delta T signal in the flow calorimeter as follows: work in the preheated fluid mode; reach a steady state, and then kill power to the preheater. The effect then is that hot fluid is being cleared from the cell, while cold fluid is being pumped into the cell. For the duration of the time it takes to clear the cell of hot fluid and conduct out the stored heat in the cell (couple minutes), you will see a spurious large delta T reading (up to 5 degrees C or so at the scale I was operating). A good way to impress the impressionable, for a few minutes. But obviously it would not explain the CETI demonstrations. I call it: "the Griggs Effect" :-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 19:52:24 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12401; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:34:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:34:03 -0800 Sender: barry math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3315009E.3F54BC7E math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:33:50 -0800 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sideways hypothesis References: <970226212414_72240.1256_EHB140-1 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yyjuo2.0.g13.e2G5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4583 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > I MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OUTSIDE OF THE CALORIMETER IN A CUP!!! > I STIRRED > THE WATER. THE OUTLET SAMPLE WAS 16 DEGREES HOTTER THAN THE INLET AND > RESERVOIR SAMPLES. > Good for you. Its just too bad you happened to be the last outside person who ever got to have hands on experience with the 1000 Watt CETI cell. In fact, I would be worried if I were u---CETI may want you silenced. Its seems to have become of the utmost importance to their master plan that noone know they can produce copious excess heat, even though they were doing the public conference circuit 1.5 years ago. It seems they are withholding this knowledge from Miley, and Dr. Clinton Bowles has been strangely absent this year too. Jed---get out before its too late! :-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 22:10:13 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA08426; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:58:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:58:18 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:45:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970226233535_2028206992 emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: was there Resent-Message-ID: <"dUNsN1.0.j22.W9I5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4584 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I was there when Jed held the therometer upside down. Jed, I wanted to ask, what were you doing with that butane lighter under the thermocouple junction? I did notice that when I set my head down on that the table that the room looked sideways. Could be something to it. Jed could I have my lighter back? Frank Z From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 22:35:16 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA15914; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:25:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:25:43 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970227062422.0068aaf0 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:24:22 -0500 To: fstenger interlaced.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Vertical Flow Calorimetry is Sensitive to Bernard Instability Resent-Message-ID: <"4q_zh.0.Wu3.SZI5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4585 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:53 PM 2/26/97 -0500, Frank Stenger wrote: >Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> >(Mitchell to Jed:) >> But good luck in your studies, and think about under what conditions >> the simplistic equation you use might be in error. >> >Mitchell, you scolded me for not reading the reference papers on the >subject - do I have to dust erasers after school too? > First, I did not scold you. The post only asked: "First, did you read either paper, Frank? Suggest you do." Second, you did not answer, and apparently you have not. Some of the information is also available on the web. (try URL = at http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html Have you looked there? ====================================== >Is the simplistic equation in question: > > Thermal power, watts = (kilograms/sec) x (joules/kilogram-degC) > x (delta T, degC) ? > >This equation is pretty good for evaluating the thermal power of ANY >liquid phase heat exchanger - no matter how complex the internal >dynamics of the device. No. This is a equation which appears to be dimensionally correct, but which may or may not apply to a given set up as discussed in the refs. Do any of these terms ever have multiple components (e.g. like heat flow having a bouyancy component?) ========================================== >I checked my encyclopedia of physics, and it lists Bernoulli, Gibbs, >Kelvin, Maxwell, Prandtl, Reynolds, Navier, Stokes, etc. but no >Bernard! If I could answer anyone's question on this list in a >paragraph or two - I would! I wouldn't feel it necessary to refer them >to ponderous papers filled with masticated minutiae. Can a kilowatt- >level heat and mass balance be all that complicated? > >Frank Stenger > Continuum electrodynamicists and fluid mechanicists are aware of Bernard instabilities. Suggest you might consider getting any book by the late Jim Melcher at MIT Press for a start. J. R. MELCHER, "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press, Cambridge, (1981) There is also a great 3 volume set, too. Have both, but use the latter much more often. The texts cover Quinke rotors and coupled magnetic field devices which are often discussed here, without the formalism that he presents. You will like the books. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 22:37:45 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA16131; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:26:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:26:37 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970227062517.0069d550 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:25:17 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Sideways hypothesis Resent-Message-ID: <"nweDI.0.fx3.JaI5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4586 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:33 PM 2/26/97 EST, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >I have bowed out of the discussion, but I will correct this misunderstanding. >Mitch wrote: > > Certainly you realize that a kilowatt would make your 100 milliliter > cell boil rather quickly, not to mention possibly destroying quite a bit > of equipment. The only "damage" I have ever seen is a kink in the > plastic coil in a photo at one of the web sites. > >The flow calorimeter reservoir holds 2.5 liters and the flow rate is set >between 1.0 and 1.5 liters per minute. The cell is 10 cm long, 2.5 cm in >diameter, containing roughly 40 ml of beads. See my report, "CETI Demonstrates >1,300 Watt Cold Fusion Reactor." > >- Jed > > Thank you Jed. That would heat up about twice as fast, the flow calorimeter reservoir would not play a role in a calorimeter without flow. I added in another factor of 2.5 for more fluid in the gendanken static system. (BTW, suggest you clarify your claims of who has seen what power levels with the CETI beads in which calorimeter since some of your statements are directly at variance with what I have been informed.) Mitchell. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Feb 26 23:16:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA22188; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:59:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:59:51 -0800 Message-Id: <199702270657.GAA12501 buttons.ihug.co.nz> Reply-To: From: "natvita.co.nz" To: Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:01:43 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bGxSc.0.TQ5.Y3J5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4587 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, Where did the sea water come from? regards, Robert Beasley ---------- | >No estimates of how fast the process should be occuring in sea water? | >What*is* the evidence for the isotopic shift in sea water anyway? From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 00:52:30 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA24472; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:14:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:14:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:16:47 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Resent-Message-ID: <"dJBtp1.0.B-5.6HJ5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4588 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:55 PM 2/26/97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >Element Sea water (mg/liter) Average crustal abundance (ppm) >F 1.3 550 >Na 10,500 21,000 >Mg 1,350 17,800 >Al 0.01 78,000 >Si 3.0 294,000 >P 0.07 875 >S 885 1,200 >Cl 19,000 122 >K 380 22,500 >Ca 400 47,000 >Ti 0.001 6,000 >V 0.002 134 >Cr 1E-5 88 >Mn 0.002 810 >Fe 0.01 48,000 >Co 0.00027 20 >Ni 0.0054 56 >Cu 0.003 50 > >Have fun. > >Regards, Frederick Superficially it just looks like elements commonly found in compounds that dissolve easily have more concentration in water. However this is a really complicated issue involving the rise of the Himalayas and all kinds of other current and historical variables. This is fodder for years of debate. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 02:59:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA21131; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:50:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:50:07 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:49:58 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <332465a9.28634682 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970226215554.AAA22023 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970226215554.AAA22023 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UxbrF.0.5A5.TRM5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4590 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:55:55 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >Try mulling over these values of "average" crustal abundance of >the elements versus the abundance in sea water. > >Element Sea water (mg/liter) Average crustal abundance (ppm) >F 1.3 550 >Na 10,500 21,000 >Mg 1,350 17,800 >Al 0.01 78,000 >Si 3.0 294,000 >P 0.07 875 >S 885 1,200 >Cl 19,000 122 >K 380 22,500 >Ca 400 47,000 >Ti 0.001 6,000 >V 0.002 134 >Cr 1E-5 88 >Mn 0.002 810 >Fe 0.01 48,000 >Co 0.00027 20 >Ni 0.0054 56 >Cu 0.003 50 [snip] The only surprise I find in this list is potassium. All the rest are easily explained by solubility of their common compounds in water (or lack thereof). Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 02:59:34 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA21088; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:49:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:49:58 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: XRF of Coffee Can by Mark Hugo Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:49:56 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <33225f35.26981945 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970226020705.AAA9093 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970226020705.AAA9093 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JjwU_1.0.P95.JRM5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4589 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:07:07 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >In the mid-eighties I was involved with a project that used a 5,000 hp gas >turbine that used an external combustion chamber to burn sawdust. We wanted >to see how well it would do on feedlot manures. > >The high concentration of ash and it's low fusion temperature caused >problems on the high temperature turbine blading. Thorough chemical analysis >of the manure ash showed significant quantities of silver. [snip] It is beginning to look more and more like either Joe Champion or David Hudson is onto something. Irrespective of which is correct, we are headed for interesting times. It might pay to keep both theories in mind until definite proof either way is at hand. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 03:36:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA24870; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:27:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:27:07 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:20:27 +0000 Message-ID: <19970227112025.AAA7553 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"0m9Z23.0.W46.9-M5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4591 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:49 AM 2/27/97 +0000, you wrote: >On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:55:55 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >[snip] >>Try mulling over these values of "average" crustal abundance of >>the elements versus the abundance in sea water. >> >>Element Sea water (mg/liter) Average crustal abundance (ppm) >>F 1.3 550 >>Na 10,500 21,000 >>Mg 1,350 17,800 >>Al 0.01 78,000 >>Si 3.0 294,000 >>P 0.07 875 >>S 885 1,200 >>Cl 19,000 122 >>K 380 22,500 >>Ca 400 47,000 >>Ti 0.001 6,000 >>V 0.002 134 >>Cr 1E-5 88 >>Mn 0.002 810 >>Fe 0.01 48,000 >>Co 0.00027 20 >>Ni 0.0054 56 >>Cu 0.003 50 >[snip] >The only surprise I find in this list is potassium. All the rest are easily >explained by solubility of their common compounds in water (or lack >thereof). > It only takes one surprise to find out that you are pregnant. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 03:53:23 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA26703; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:44:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:44:20 -0800 Date: 27 Feb 97 06:37:11 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Dolly, eat your heart out. Message-ID: <970227113711_100433.1541_BHG119-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"r7YKn3.0.3X6.JEN5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4592 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts, all, For those still reeling from the news of the Dolly clone, I present this report to show that such fantastic advances are not confined to the UK. Only the most churlish would suggest that this is a further indication that some people keep their brains in their pants. Chris --------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Telegraph (UK) 26 Feb, page 1 Heated underwear turns dunces into smarty pants By Robert Uhlig, Technology Correspondent ELECTRONICALLY-heated underpants may help children get better exam results, Euro MPs will be told today. A report by the European Socialist Group claims that the pants would regulate pupils' temperature in the classroom and keep them at their most comfortable for learning. "The pants exist in prototype form in America, and are an illustration of the way things are happening in educational technology in ways you would never dream of," said Tony Robinson, the group's spokesman. "Education technology is about far more than computers and CD-roms." Details will be outlined in Brussels tomorrow by the Labour Euro-MP Eluned Morgan who said that some of the technologies in the report, Education and Culture in the Information Society, were so advanced that children need never fail exams again. "Just as with the Titanic, we can only see the tip of the iceberg that we are approaching with the information society," she said. Mrs Morgan is one of four Socialist Group members who will formally present reports for discussion next month. She said that technology such as the heated underpants should not be discounted purely because it is outlandish. MEPs will be told that the underwear responds to temperature controls in the classroom that are set at the best level for the pupils. "We have to steer a clear course. The future of information technology is fraught with many dangers, but also offers fantastic opportunities," she said. A European Parliament official said that developments such as heated underwear "will make the issue of whether or not to use calculators pale into insignificance". He said yesterday: "Other advances in classroom equipment will mean kids have a much better chance of getting good marks, but of course that poses new problems for exam adjudicators." Mr Robinson insisted that heated underpants would not become a mandatory Brussels diktat. "It would be entirely wrong to think Eluned is suggesting everybody in Europe should have a change of electronic underwear but it is an idea worth considering.' [end] From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 06:32:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA00655; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 04:51:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 04:51:16 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:51:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Red/blue. You look for a phenomena. EXISTENCE PROOF. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"jjGMR3.0.9A.2DO5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4593 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vortexians, Pretentions aside, I'm just a engineer with quite good analytical 'muscles' and a good overview of physics (hopefully developing well in thermodynamics because that is my area of study now). I lack the depth and technique of advanced physics scholars - but I do like to ask questions... and get around to solving them myself sometimes. How do I work in this crackpot arena of ours. I look for a phenomenon, consider it, model it and say (hopefully) there!, it was possible all along. Your Laws don't have to be broken - they could be extended though... Cutting to the chase (an Americanism I not quite sure of), the point of this email is the nature of an EXISTENCE PROOF. You see, you have the establishment by the short and curlies when you say - LOOK! This doesn't break you Laws. My work on Constant Entropy systems comes from a simple observation of 1st Order Phase Change and hygroscopic substances (I was initially trying to make an exhaust filter that used water of combustion to scrub particulates). I believe I can devise a first order phase changing catalyst in a CONSTANT ENTROPY CYCLE - First and Second Laws obeyed. Sure, I believe that the Second Law can be broken - break it to them slowly though. So I believe general macroscopic perpetual motion is possible via HEAT REUSE having established (hopefully) a precedent. Now similarily, on over-unity and C.F. devices one looks for an existence proof in very conventional physics - no? If the red/blue shift phenomena demonstrates o-u or u-u dependent on reference frame, that's it, you've got a proof using 'bog standard' theory. THEY'LL FIND IT HARD TO SILENCE YOU WITH THAT THEY HOLD DEAR. Oh! you haven't done your sums properly. Make it mind-bendly standard. Get text books, lift the approach and make your jump - and say see, that wasn't so painful. So may be we have two systems of infinite energy production (or recycling): Overunity and Constant Entropy. So why am I trying to help my competitors? Machevillian politiking is for little people. I want the truth. .......................................................................... I believe constant entropy systems are applicable to balanced environments where you don't want to be generating anymore heat e.g. our Planet - Arthur C. Clark's view on heat re-use. Over unity one needs in space where the heat would just radiate away and besides, as far as I know, if you want to move in space, you've got to propel matter from your back end (I hope someone proves this wrong too). .......................................................................... So my point is, with my lack of time, experience and technique, I am trying this red/blue shift problem but I've done some sums and can't get what I want. I think its going to take a bit more than a superficial manipulation of equations without knowing their true depth and the unity of physics, e.g. when to bring in other concepts - this will take time. It would be nice to have a proof that is very general (hence widely applicable), without getting bogged down in mechanisms (e.g. worrying about e.m. fields) - just using Relativity in a phenomlogical approach (am I right, Rel. never talks mechanisms?). That way you'll get the ingrained 'its all been discovered before bunch'. Shock them with their own science, publish. When they come back with 'an incoherent rant' (apologies to my rev. 66!) you might be getting somewhere... Calling all physics scholars, do this for your friend engineers? I take the view, 'It can be done - until I really know better' Remi. P.S. On patents, I don't believe in rabid market cornering - its just a way of securing finance for current and future projects. If you believe in capitalism, why should anyone fund you - what's in it for them? Money's, people's time etc. is not mine by right. P.P.S. Also trying to write a report on the implementation of my proposed technology. Everything is guess work when experimenting, but prior planning might cut off false avenues. Report will be cc'ed by snail to those interested who have contacted me. P.P.P.S. I'd also like to know what you Americans gain from your 'first to invent system' that everyone keeps telling you to ditch. The other system of filing and deadlines takes your time and money, you might have well disclosed anyway and have no hope of reward or steering of your project. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 06:33:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA01580; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 04:57:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 04:57:21 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:57:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dolly, eat your heart out. In-Reply-To: <970227113711_100433.1541_BHG119-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"EPtWC1.0.ZO.mIO5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4594 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Er, Shouldn't this have been in the Sunday Telegraph under 'Spirits of the Age' or the Review. Isn't Tony Robinson 'Baldrick' from Blackadder? Remi. On 27 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Daily Telegraph (UK) 26 Feb, page 1 > Heated underwear turns dunces into smarty pants > > ELECTRONICALLY-heated underpants may help children get better exam > results, Euro MPs will be told today. > > A report by the European Socialist Group claims that the pants > would regulate pupils' temperature in the classroom and keep them > at their most comfortable for learning. > > "The pants exist in prototype form in America, and are an > illustration of the way things are happening in educational > technology in ways you would never dream of," said Tony Robinson, > the group's spokesman. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 06:52:15 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA21481; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:41:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:41:19 -0800 Date: 27 Feb 97 09:39:19 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: was there Message-ID: <970227143918_72240.1256_EHB85-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"l0gPE1.0.KF5.0qP5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4595 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex That turncoat Frank Z writes: I was there when Jed held the thermometer upside down. Look, I explained that's a hexadecimal display. The numbers run: 6, 8, L, 9, S, h, E, (backwards) S, 1, 0. It's supposed to be like that. Jed, I wanted to ask, what were you doing with that butane lighter under the thermocouple junction? That's part of it. Essential. Stop asking so many questions. Jed could I have my lighter back? No! We still have worlds to conquer, and miles to go before we sleep. Don't count your chickens until the cows come home. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 06:54:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA15848; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:32:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:32:41 -0800 Date: 26 Feb 97 19:10:12 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Message-ID: <970227001012_100433.1541_BHG65-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SF6Li.0.vs3.IOD5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4577 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frederick, > I was under the impression that Chris Tinsley was, or is The > Sheriff of Nottingham. I'm resident in that dump - dodging arrows every time I go out - but it isn't my home town. From Newcastle, for those interested in technology, came the incandescent lamp (Swan and Edison agreed to join forces rather than argue), the phosphorus match, the railway locomotive, the steam turbine, the lead-acid battery and many other similar wonders. Its Science & Technology Museum (conveniently placed by the brewery in which the notorious "Broon" is produced) is worth a visit. The said Newcastle Brown Ale is readily available in many boozoria in the US of A. And it is not mead. Mead is brewed from honey. I note from today's papers that the lamb "Dolly" is so named because she was cloned from a mammary cell, and the researchers felt that she should be named for the owner of "the world's finest collection of such cells," a certain Ms Parton. Chris From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 07:21:03 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA27541; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:05:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:05:42 -0800 Message-ID: <01BC2484.556819E0 ip86.ts3.phx.inficad.com> From: Reed Huish To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Re: Challenge Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:00:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"hkZaO.0._j6.sAQ5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4596 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- From: Russ George Sent: Tuesday, 25 February, 1997 01:04 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: RE: The Challenge, from Zenergy (fwd) But if you can find miraculous new energy technology that will change = the world energy marketplace and pay only $100K for the opprotunity go for = it. You describe on your web site Zenergy being squarely between the inventors = and the outside world. Since your offer has been around on the net for many = months now I presume you've had no takers yet. Actually we just signed an agreement with someone for the challenge. In = addition to which we have had about a half-dozen emails of interest. We are also developing our own technologies, as our vision is for a = multiple energy technology umbrella, with a global marketing structure = needed to deploy dozens of technologies, not just one. - Reed -------------------------------- Zenergy Corporation 390 South Robins Way, Chandler, Arizona 85225 Telephone: 602.814.7865 Facsimile: 602.821.0967 =20 General Email: info zenergy.com Internet Home Page: = http://zenergy.com -------------------------------- Zenergy Corporation 390 South Robins Way, Chandler, Arizona 85225 Telephone: 602.814.7865 Facsimile: 602.821.0967 =20 General Email: info zenergy.com Internet Home Page: = http://zenergy.com From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 07:54:51 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA32594; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:28:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:28:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199702271526.HAA09196 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:29:21 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"8BfjR1.0.cy7.vVQ5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4597 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace says: > Superficially it just looks like elements commonly found in compounds that > dissolve easily have more concentration in water. However this is a really > complicated issue involving the rise of the Himalayas and all kinds of > other current and historical variables. This is fodder for years of > debate. Fodder did I see you mention fodder. Did you check that fodder for precious metals content. If we are talking fodder I think we ought to move this thread over to the Bullshit thread. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 08:06:21 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03629; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:45:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:45:55 -0800 Message-ID: <3315ABE1.744D interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:44:33 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mitchell Swartz CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Vertical Flow Calorimetry is Sensitive to Bernard Instability References: <2.2.32.19970227062422.0068aaf0 world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"v7LJG3.0.Ut.EmQ5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4598 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > (snip) > The texts cover Quinke rotors and coupled magnetic field devices which > are often discussed here, without the formalism that he presents. > You will like the books. > Thanks for the information, Mitchell! I think the comments in my posts reflect the frustration of your typical "sidewalk superintendent" in the CF game. Many things are just complex by nature and that's that. Perhaps CF calorimetry is such a thing. It just seems to me that if I were using flow calorimetry for anything, the FIRST thing I would do would be to try to design the flow system so the simple form of the subject equation would provide good (maybe not perfect) data. BTW, I did find reference to Benard convection in my copy of "MHD Instabilities" by Bateman. I have also watched in fascination as I bring my humming bird sugar-water to a boil. If anyone doubts the complexity of "pot heating", try this: 1. Put a quart of warm water in a small sauce pan on the stove. 2. Pour in a cup of sugar so it settles to the bottom. 3. As the pot is brought to a boil, watch the amazing rise of the stratification interface and the regional convection cells that develop. 4. Cool the solution and feed it to the birds! Mitchell, it still seems unlikely to me that complex flow cells in the LINES going into and out of a test volume would give a problem in the steady-state, unless the experimenter were REALLY green (as in duh). However, maybe I better quit while I'm behind! Sincere thanks for your patience, Mitchell. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 09:14:35 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02713; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:00:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:00:55 -0800 Message-Id: <199702271700.JAA14837 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:02:40 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Challenge Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <01BC2484.556819E0 ip86.ts3.phx.inficad.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"Z8DHU3.0.Fg.3tR5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4599 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Good luck the world needs all the energy it can get. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 14:58:04 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA09525; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:41:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:41:09 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:36:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970227173434_-1172299863 emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com, jewel@sgi.net, RVargo1062@aol.com, peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, reed@zenergy.com, 72240.1256 compuserve.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, CldFusion aol.com Subject: web site update Resent-Message-ID: <"60Cf52.0.MK2.orW5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4600 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: web site updated to show picture of Johnstown test setup. Pick the Lanl Icon which is the first Icon to the right. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com 481 Boyer St. http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html Johnstown, Pa. 15906 Automatic links: Home_Page Send_E-mail From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 16:13:12 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26075; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:36:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:36:56 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:22:52 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding In-Reply-To: <970227001012_100433.1541_BHG65-1 CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"6536J2.0.DN6.7gX5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4601 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 26 Feb 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > I note from today's papers that the lamb "Dolly" is so named because she > was cloned from a mammary cell, and the researchers felt that she should > be named for the owner of "the world's finest collection of such cells," > a certain Ms Parton. > Methinks the Scientists in question are rather gullible. There is much speculation about whether Ms Parton's apparent "collection of mammary cells" are also the result of Medical Technology. Martin Sevior (My wife was an adict of National Enquirer before we left Canada. I used to send her to the other end of the Supermarket checkout's in case we were seen together.) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 16:19:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA32535; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:02:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:02:47 -0800 Date: 27 Feb 97 18:03:44 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Stats from Sci. Am. Table Message-ID: <970227230344_72240.1256_EHB120-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"bzT6N1.0.Px7.K2Y5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4602 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Here are some interesting energy statistics derived from: G. Davis, "Energy for Planet Earth," Scientific American, September 1990, table, p. 59 Numbers in second column are millions of barrels of oil equivalent per day, worldwide. This is 1985 data. INPUTS - Oil 59 36% Coal 41 25% Natural Gas 29 17% Hydropower 9 5% Nuclear power 6 4% Other 22 13% TOTAL: 166 100% OUTPUTS - Transport 27 22% Industry 42 34% Residential 43 35% Nonenergy 11 9% (Plastic feedstock etc.) TOTAL: 123 100% (of OUTPUTS) Waste 43 26% (of INPUTS) Sorces of waste - Oil refinery overhead 4 Gas transmission 3 Electric Generation 33 Electric Transmission 2 TOTAL: 42 (Doesn't quite add up) Oil use breakdown - Nonenergy oil: 8 14% Refinery loss 4 7% Transportation 26 44% Electric generation 6 10% Industry 7 12% Residential & Commer. 8 14% TOTAL: 59 100% Electric generation input is 48, output 13; losses include 33 to conversion, 2 to transmission Electric losses - Compared to world total energy input: 20% Compared to electricity energy input: 69% (In other words, 31% of the original input energy gets to customer) Does anyone know how to convert Barrels of Oil (42 gallons) to Metric Tons? How much does crude oil weigh? Can anyone convert Barrels to BTU or MJ? Annual world total energy consumption is equivalent to 6.7 billion metric tons of oil from all fuels, according to: R. Stobaugh, D. Yergin, "World Energy Supply," Microsoft Encarta, 1996 edition, 1987 data. That's 18.3 million metric tons per day. I want to cross check the numbers. - Jed From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 16:56:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA03803; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:15:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:15:11 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:59:13 +0000 Message-ID: <19970227155911.AAA16173 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"XRBo-.0.fw.tDY5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4603 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:10 AM 2/27/97 +0000, Chris Tinsley wrote: > >I note from today's papers that the lamb "Dolly" is so named because she >was cloned from a mammary cell, and the researchers felt that she should >be named for the owner of "the world's finest collection of such cells," >a certain Ms Parton. > Well, that just about negates the whole claim of cloning. The mammary glands produce adaptation cells that pass on information to the offspring so that they can evolve in such a way as to adapt to their environment. If it is cold, for instance, you will see the second generation born with body hair and possibly even electronically heated underwear etc. Just watch. Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 17:01:14 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA03918; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:15:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:15:33 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Options Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:31:00 +0000 Message-ID: <19970227173058.AAA27006 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"DqqtS3.0.Vy.DEY5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4604 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The local Walmart is within walking distance, but, I prefer to drive. One cold morning apparently the the relay that works all of the electrical devices off the ignition switch on my two-year-old vehicle didn't throw. So I had to push the car all the way to Walmart and back? By the same token if getting Cold, or Hot, Fusion to work is all that much trouble........ Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 17:48:09 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA26778; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:32:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:32:11 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Dolly, eat your heart out. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:30:10 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <970227113711_100433.1541_BHG119-1 CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Feb 27, 97 06:37:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aEGpW2.0.7Y6.2MZ5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4605 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris Tinsley writes: > this report to show that such fantastic advances are not confined to > the UK. Only the most churlish would suggest that this is a further > indication that some people keep their brains in their pants. > > Daily Telegraph (UK) 26 Feb, page 1 > Heated underwear turns dunces into smarty pants > A report by the European Socialist Group claims that the pants > would regulate pupils' temperature in the classroom and keep them > at their most comfortable for learning. I believe the Chinese were ahead on this educational efficiency thing, as is attributed to Confucius: "Cross-eyed teacher cannot control pupils." -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 18:33:49 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA06283; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:17:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:17:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:39:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re. Hello Dolly pt. II, 'Smarty Pants' Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Z1p5-3.0.JX1.W0a5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4606 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Vo, Following Chris' brief I.Q. boost effect electropant-dynamics report, To get around stringent European non-corporal punishment laws, one could momentarily overcurrent the pants, thus causing the little darlings bottom's to smart. It would add a whole new visuality to the expression 'your arse is on the line'. Line here could mean line voltage. To ensure adequate load balancing, 2 more naughty children could be disciplined together. Invariably this occurs and goes to prove the saying that trouble comes along in threes. Remi. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 18:51:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA09439; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:29:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:29:29 -0800 Message-Id: <199702280227.SAA27690 mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:29:38 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding -> cell collections Reply-to: rgeorge hooked.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19970227155911.AAA16173 LOCALNAME> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52) Resent-Message-ID: <"8_A-A2.0.5J2.kBa5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4607 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Now we are getting somewhere with these threads. I think an equally terrific collection of such cells has been in the possession of Sophia Loren. But I am not your typical Californian who actually prefers elastomeric enhanced collections. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 19:42:22 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA03727; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:27:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:27:30 -0800 Message-ID: <33165000.EFC interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:24:48 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stats from Sci. Am. Table References: <970227230344_72240.1256_EHB120-2 CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EH4wg1.0.4w.X2b5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4608 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > (snip) > How much does crude oil weigh? Can anyone convert Barrels to BTU or MJ? Jed, I get: 7.4 lb/US gal x 42 gal/barrel x 1/2204.6 lb per metric ton = 0.141 metric ton per barrel. So, 166 x 10^6 barrels is about 17.3 million metric tons per day, 1985. Compare with your 18.3 million metric tons per day in 1987. Looks pretty good! 42 gal/barrel x 7.4 lb/gal x 18,500 BTU/lb = 5,750,000 BTU/barrel = about 6065 MJ/barrel. I Think! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 19:42:39 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA04294; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:29:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:29:45 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970228023353.00667884 sparc1> X-Sender: kennel sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:33:53 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Re: Pan Global Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"Wznu-.0.y21.d4b5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4609 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed writes: >>All of you who have these crazy ideas should go back and do some grade school science, and reorient yourselves to reality.<< I'm doing my best, but these grade schools in Japan are pretty tough, and I'm having trouble keeping up! Anyway, you can have the role of Final Authority on Cold Fusion if you want it. I'll continue to do my grade school research on stuff I don't understand (which includes just about everything, I guess). Have a good time in Oslo, but do pause to think about your less intelligent and less fortunate colleagues. Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 19:54:01 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08579; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:41:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:41:02 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:27:18 +0000 Message-ID: <19970228012716.AAA27144 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"kxq3M3.0.x52.BFb5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4610 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:22 PM 2/27/97 +0000,Martin Sevior wrote: >Methinks the Scientists in question are rather gullible. There is much >speculation about whether Ms Parton's apparent "collection of mammary cells" >are also the result of Medical Technology. You would be amazed at how well endowed the young maidens in the Ozark-Appalachian mountains are. Even in their early teens. Something in the water perhaps? Or Estro-Gin from the many moonshine stills in those areas? Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 20:02:25 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08726; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:41:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:41:11 -0800 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Stats from Sci. Am. Table Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:52:00 +0000 Message-ID: <19970228015158.AAA8338 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"IifPQ1.0.482.KFb5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4611 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:03 PM 2/27/97 +0000, Jed wrote: >Does anyone know how to convert Barrels of Oil (42 gallons) to Metric Tons? >How much does crude oil weigh? Can anyone convert Barrels to BTU or MJ? >Annual world total energy consumption is equivalent to 6.7 billion metric >tons of oil from all fuels Figure 5.5 lbs/gallon and 23,000 Btu's/lb. The 1997 World Almanac and Book of Facts, (an indispensible reference) pages 228-234 gives a good breakdown of these figures. They give the U.S. nuclear as around 22%. I gave out many copies of the Almanac as Christmas gifts this year, ($9.95 a copy at Walgreens). I gave one to a Russian scientist-friend who is in the U.S. as a consultant on the TOPAZ space power reactor. He reads it religiously. He mumbled something about, "better intelligence in there than the KGB got." Regards, Frederick From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Feb 27 21:50:02 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05832; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:39:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:39:28 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC aol.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:38:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970228003842_985200778 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: ZPF Resent-Message-ID: <"ksdYs2.0.-Q1.D-c5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4612 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At least someone likes my work. --------------------- Forwarded message: From: aw577 lafn.org (Gregory Glenn) To: fznidarsic aol.com Date: 97-02-27 23:04:42 EST I read with great interest and excitement about your theories and experiments with ZPF. Lately, Hal Puthoff, Harold Aspden and others (including yourself) are converging on a grand unified theory, which will have far reaching consequences, that of controlling gravity and a source of infinite energy. I have worked for the past 11 years as a photovoltaic panel engineer for Hughes Electronics (Spectrolab subsidiary). Our solar cells are becoming more and more efficient (over 30% efficient), but at a higher and higher cost. What the world apparently needs is a clean, alternative source of energy, which is affordable. I believe you are on the right track. If you know of any proven technology advances, which utilize ZPF principles, I would appreciate it if you could notify me. I think it's time for me to get out of photovoltaics while I still can!! Thank you, and good luck with your efforts. --Greg Glenn aw577 lafn.org From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 01:26:29 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA10150; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:04:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:04:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:07:25 -0900 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravity Shielding Resent-Message-ID: <"KHwcq.0.VU2.c-f5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4613 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 11:22 PM 2/27/97 +0000,Martin Sevior wrote: > >>Methinks the Scientists in question are rather gullible. There is much >>speculation about whether Ms Parton's apparent "collection of mammary cells" >>are also the result of Medical Technology. > >You would be amazed at how well endowed the young maidens in the >Ozark-Appalachian mountains are. Even in their early teens. > >Something in the water perhaps? Or Estro-Gin from the many >moonshine stills in those areas? > >Regards, Frederick There have been two sources for diet induced estrogin like effects identified. The major source is hormones fed to chickens in the US. Another is "estrogen like" molecules in the white plastic lining placed in some cans, like stew, for mostly cosmetic reasons. These molecules were traced down by looking for the cause of recent excessive sterility in males and other estrogen like effects. BTW, I am pretty sure I saw Dolly admit in a TV interview to having silcon enhancement early in her career. She also had a reduction recently. Still looks great. Just a little Americana. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 01:47:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA13962; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:25:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:25:51 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Electromagnetic waves Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:25:51 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3317617d.18039660 mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sMy7N2.0.0Q3.TIg5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4614 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: If a standing electromagnetic wave is created with a wavelength of 1 meter, would one expect magnetic and electrical components of this wave to be in phase as they are supposed to be in a travelling wave? The wave could be created between a transmitting antenna, and a reflective plate. For the sake of avoiding "antenna effects", I would suggest that maybe 10 waves in between the two would be a reasonable number. My reasoning for all of this is that I would imagine that with a vertically polarised wave, when using a metal rod as an antenna, it should be possible to detect the nodes in the standing signal wave by moving the rod along the Poynting vector of the signal wave (the rod is held vertical). The distance from the nodes to the source (reflector) can then be measured. If the electric and magnetic waves are in phase, then the nodes will be at different distances from the end than when they are 90 deg. out of phase. Has anyone ever done such an experiment, and what was the result? Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 01:59:43 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA15422; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:37:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:37:59 -0800 From: rvanspaa netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Isotopic anomalies Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:38:01 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <331ba754.35921415 mail.netspace.net.au> References: <19970227112025.AAA7553 LOCALNAME> In-Reply-To: <19970227112025.AAA7553 LOCALNAME> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.371 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"iOGQh.0.um3.sTg5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4615 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:20:27 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >It only takes one surprise to find out that you are pregnant. That would be a surprise...I'm male. > >Regards, Frederick > > Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 05:24:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA03370; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:01:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:01:11 -0800 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:00:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970228080012_-2109229113 emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Notoya & NHE Lab Resent-Message-ID: <"rMe9i1.0.Wq.ISj5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4617 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For Elliot Kennel Elliot: What contact does the New Hydrogen Energy Lab have with Reiko Notoya? Has the NHE Lab been able to test one of Notoya's cells yet? Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 05:24:26 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA03250; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:01:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:01:02 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:59:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Pants, a wicked slur. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Mdtem2.0.io.ASj5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4616 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vo, The newspaper headline could have read: 'Left Leaning Europeans Interfere in our Children's Pants' Give us your "Alternative-alternative comedy" or Counter-counter establishment homour. Ridicule is a powerful weapon as you Vortexers are probably aware. Remi. ........................................................................ Don't get mad, get witty. ........................................................................ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 09:54:31 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA01763; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:27:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:27:06 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:56:36 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electromagnetic waves Resent-Message-ID: <"7UlNe.0.tQ.DLn5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4619 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >If a standing electromagnetic wave is created with a wavelength of 1 meter, [snip] >The wave could be created between a transmitting antenna, and a reflective >plate.[snip] >My reasoning for all of this is that I would imagine that with a vertically >polarised wave, when using a metal rod as an antenna, it should be possible >to detect the nodes in the standing signal wave by moving the rod along the >Poynting vector of the signal wave (the rod is held vertical). The distance >from the nodes to the source (reflector) can then be measured. [snip] >Has anyone ever done such an experiment, and what was the result? Yes. The technique is as old as electromagnetic experimentation. Hertz developed it to measure the wavelength of his waves. Standing linearly-polarized waves reflecting between metal plates exhibit electric field (E) nodes and magnetic field (H) nodes every half wave. The E and H nodes are displaced 1/4 wave from each other. At the plates there are E nodes and H maxima. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 10:00:42 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA00232; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:21:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:21:37 -0800 From: Puthoff aol.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:20:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970228122028_476119393 emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electromagnetic waves Resent-Message-ID: <"YdlP81.0.L3.OGn5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4618 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, Aren't you basically talking about the standing-wave-mode patterns in a standard (e.g., microwave) cavity? Hal From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 10:43:41 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA13506; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:05:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:05:07 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:58:56 -0500 (GMT) From: Carlos Henry Castano Reply-To: Carlos Henry Castano To: Mitchell Swartz , Dieter Britz , Schaffer gav.gat.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Proof about materials. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"d3nj-2.0.BH3.zun5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4620 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Medellin, February 28 of 1997. I will thank any comment, criticism or observation about of this proof. ______________________________________________________________ EXPERIMENT SUGGEST BY Mitchell Swartz, (mica world.std.com). Description: In conductivity water (deionized and reverse osmosis water), I submerged the different glues, and then I measured how the conductivity varied with the time; when the conductivity was very high I wash the piece of glue and submerged this in fresh water again. I was looking for the time of stability of the glue (glue stop to free ions). The samples were put in a polypropylene beakers (Mallinckrodt) and cover with aluminum paper. The conductimeter was a CRISON 524, with temperature compensation at 20 oC (TC = 2.0), the TC of distillate water is greater of 2.0, but the error was little because here the temperature is near to 20 oC. All time the experiment was inside a closet, in order to avoid the dust. The glues are: Water: The Standard, for purpose of control. Acrylic: A piece of transparent acrylic. Pegadit TM.(upon Acrylic): An epoxic transparent glue, this dry in 10 minutes, is a couple of components that are mixed before of application. Rally TM.: It is an Epoxic Putty of gray color, dry in 2 hours Silicon 732 TM. (Dow Corning): A type of silicone that support from -70 to 230 oC, and chemical attacks, dry in 24 hours. Date Time Temp. | Water | Acrylic|Pegadit|Rally Silicon 732 TM. (oC) Jan. 24 19:30 - 1.5**** 1.2 1.1 Jan. 27 10:25 21.4 1.4 1.1 15.8(W)1.4 Jan. 27 17:32 24.3 1.5 - 6.5 1.9 * Jan. 28 11:00 22.2 1.6 - 15.1(W)1.1 20.2(W)1.1 Jan. 29 9:00 20.8 1.7 - 10.9(W)1.1 4.4(W)1.1 Jan. 29 19:43 - 1.5 - 6.1 1.6 Jan. 30 14:39 24.2 1.6 - 13.3(W)1.1 2.2(W)1.1 Jan. 31 15:06 24.2 2.0 - 8.7 1.6 Feb. 3 14:13 24 1.8 1.0 21.2(W)1.1 1.9(W)1.1 Feb. 4 16:07 24.3 2.0 1.1 1.2** 6.1 1.1 Feb. 5 18:31 23.9 2.1 0.8 9.9 1.1 Feb. 6 18:39 23.8 2.2 0.8 12.9 1.0 Feb. 7 17:20 25.2 2.3*** 0.8 15.2 0.9 Feb. 10 17:37 25.1 2.3 0.8 21.0 0.8 Feb. 14 10:45 23.5 2.5 0.7 26.0(W)1.2 0.8 Feb. 18 18:00 25.1 2.6 0.8 6.8 0.8 Feb. 25 9:48 22.3 3.2 - 12.7 0.8 *(6 hours of dry up) ** (20 minutes of dry up) ***(change of cover) **** The conductibity are in microSiemens-cm2 (W) = Washed and change of water again. Format: XXX(W)YYY, XXX: conductivity before of wash. YYY: Conductivity After of wash. Conclusions: Acrylic and Pegadit: Good materials to use inner of the electrochemical cell. Epoxic Putty: Not recommended. Silicon: if are dry about of 10 days, are good material of work. Observation: The cover of standard water had accidentally a little hole, and may be the dust in at the beaker. Cordially, Carlos Henry Casta~o Giraldo. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin. Laboratorio de Electroquimica. (chcastan perseus.unalmed.edu.co) _____________________________________________________________________________ hay mas cosas en el cielo y en la tierra que ideas en la mente de los hombres ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are more things in heaven and earth that dream in the mind of the people _____________________________________________________________________________ From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 11:00:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23378; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:34:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:34:49 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702281833.KAA00548 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Electromagnetic waves To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:33:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Schaffer@gav.gat.com" at Feb 28, 97 08:56:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7W61z2.0.4j5.-Ko5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4621 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Schaffer writes: > Standing linearly-polarized waves reflecting between metal plates exhibit > electric field (E) nodes and magnetic field (H) nodes every half wave. The > E and H nodes are displaced 1/4 wave from each other. At the plates there > are E nodes and H maxima. Why is the standing wave different than the traveling wave? In the travelling wave, the E and H waves are in-phase (at least according to the standard textbook solution). There have been on-going arguments and discussions questioning this. Is it possible to make a travelling wave in which the E and H fields are in time-quadrature? Also, it is known to be possible to make a standing wave in which the E and H fields are parallel to each other, rather than orthogonal in space. Is it also possible to make a travelling wave having parallel E and H fields? And, what about a tavelling or standing wave having either the E or H field parallel to the direction of propagation rather than transverse? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 11:04:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA24233; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:37:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:37:40 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:31:42 -0900 To: Carlos Henry Castano , Mitchell Swartz , Dieter Britz , Schaffer gav.gat.com From: hheffner corecom.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Proof about materials. Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"wzg1N2.0.uv5.RNo5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4622 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:58 PM 2/28/97, Carlos Henry Castano wrote: >Medellin, February 28 of 1997. > >I will thank any comment, criticism or observation about of this proof. >______________________________________________________________ > >EXPERIMENT SUGGEST BY Mitchell Swartz, (mica world.std.com). This is a rally good and useful experiment. What a welcome contribution. Just a thought brief thought: I notice that the control creeps upward and thus am wondering if there is maybe an ion exchange going on with the plastic beakers. One suggestion would be to normalize the beakers by putting deionized water in them and measuring conductivity for several days until it stablizes. That way each beaker acts as its own control. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 11:17:58 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25765; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:42:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:42:43 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199702281841.KAA00566 shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Pants, a wicked slur. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:41:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Remi Cornwall" at Feb 28, 97 12:59:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"imRTP1.0.7H6.5So5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4623 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > Ridicule is a powerful weapon as you Vortexers are probably aware, and a two edged sword. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 12:27:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA19918; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:07:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:07:08 -0800 From: Schaffer gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:06:42 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electromagnetic waves Resent-Message-ID: <"Ua90c1.0.Os4.Dhp5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4624 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Michael Schaffer writes: >> Standing linearly-polarized waves reflecting between metal plates exhibit >> electric field (E) nodes and magnetic field (H) nodes every half wave. The >> E and H nodes are displaced 1/4 wave from each other. At the plates there >> are E nodes and H maxima. > >Why is the standing wave different than the traveling wave? In the >travelling wave, the E and H waves are in-phase (at least according >to the standard textbook solution). There have been on-going arguments >and discussions questioning this. Yes, E and H are in phase in a traveling PLANE wave. They are not in phase in standing PLANE waves. It's just a matter of doing the math and seeing how sinusiodal waves add and cancel one another (interference is the technical term). Is it possible to make a travelling >wave in which the E and H fields are in time-quadrature? > >Also, it is known to be possible to make a standing wave in which >the E and H fields are parallel to each other, rather than orthogonal >in space. Is it also possible to make a travelling wave having >parallel E and H fields? > >And, what about a tavelling or standing wave having either the E or >H field parallel to the direction of propagation rather than >transverse? In most WAVE GUIDES, at least one component (E or H) has a component parallel to the direction of propagation. However, the component is not purely parallel; it always has a perpendicular component, too. One component can be temporally out of phase with respect to the others, too. Textbooks have all this, too. Don't anyone get any wild ideas about energy fro free from electromagnetic waves; the Maxwell set of equations in vacuum conserve total energy---always. We've been through all this before here on vortex-l. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 13:19:06 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA17462; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:02:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:02:51 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970126104205.00a12700 aa.net> X-Sender: mwm aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:42:09 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Isotopic analysis of Coffee Can burn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"HBiSn.0.wF4.wSp4p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4514 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:58 AM 2/25/97 -0800, you wrote: >One more place to look for a possible source of trace elements is the wall >of the coffee can. My preferred blend comes in cans that look to be 'tin' >plated in the traditional way, not enameled. Tin melts at low temperature, >but it has a low vapor pressure and does not vaporize quickly, so there >ought to be some detectable Sn in the product. Furthermore, the Sn would >carry and impurity or alloying elements it might also contain into the >reaction mass. > >No metal is obtained in absolutely pure form. Although unlikely, it is >possible that the 'tin' plate had a bit of Au in it. Anyway, the pre-burn >coffee can plate should also be analyzed. > > > You are thinking along good lines but I don't think it will pan out. Nonetheless the analysis should be done. If negative indication of trace precious in the tin plate, we have ruled out a source of contamination. If positive indication is shown anything along the lines of the magnitudes found by Champion and followers we should immediately find out where that tin comes from and buy up as much of it we can because they are ignoring a major value in the tin. Michael W. Mandeville Environmental Tune-Up Inc. mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm/enviro/tuneup.html From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 14:29:10 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA17703; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:51:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:51:56 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:50:10 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702282150.PAA14781 natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: PSview problem Resent-Message-ID: <"VRPE3.0.vJ4.VDr5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4625 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts & Salutations I'm trying to download papers from the LANL physics server so I can print them out locally on my Windows PC. An example paper is located at: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9702026 One of the format options is PostScript and a FAQ on the LANL server instructs Windows sufferers to download PSview to decompress and display these files. I did so (all 4.5 Mbytes of it!) and it installed smoothly and works beautifully, displaying the paper in glorious detail complete with figures.... Except that, when I try to print the paper, PSview somehow stimulates Win95 to announce that there is "no default printer selected". Of course there IS a default printer selected and I can switch to another application and print all I want. I've written the author of PSview but he seems real busy right now. Anybody else run into this? Anybody succeeded in getting those papers printed out from PC's? If so, please advise privately...to save Vortex bandwidth. Anyone else interested in the resolution of this problem can ask me privately as well. Thanks. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. http://www.eden.com/~little Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 18:41:44 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA17520; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:29:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:29:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:29:26 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: SciAm Frontiers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"BAgc7.0.bH4.UIv5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4626 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Anyone here interested in contacting this person? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:38:51 -0500 (EST) To: billb eskimo.com Subject: questions re free energy devices Mr. Beaty: I am writing from a PBS television program called Scientific American Frontiers. I would be interested in talking to you about what free energy inventions you may know of currently being tested or in development. I would also be interested in learning about personal or museum collections of free energy inventions. From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 19:11:11 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA23863; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:57:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:57:19 -0800 Date: 28 Feb 97 21:55:35 EST From: "Eugene F. Mallove" <76570.2270 compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: Re: SciAm Frontiers Message-ID: <970301025534_76570.2270_FHU64-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"f8Qv02.0.lq5.Civ5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4627 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I spoke extensively with the producers of this SciAm program -- they called me today. It will air in the fall. I told them of the mistakes that had been made in the past on covering CF and O/U. I think the researcher took my points. We'll see what happens..... The Saint cold fusion movie airs March 14th -- look for my name in the credits as technical advisor. I hope I rank above "Ms. Shue's make-up person," but I'll be happy to get the microscopic line wherever it is. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Feb 28 23:04:52 1997 Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA15667; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 22:54:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 22:54:24 -0800 Message-ID: <3317E148.4D66 rt66.com> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 00:00:32 -0800 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, rmcarrell@aol.com, rgeorge hooked.net, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, design73@aol.com, drom@vxcern.ch, 74750.1231 compuserve.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, bssimon helix.ucsd.edu, david@ibg.uu.se, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, mica world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, ine@padrak.com, jonesse astro.byu.edu, wireless@rmii.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, ceti onramp.net, jchampion@transmutation.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, bhorst loc100.tandem.com, reed@zenergy.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, davidk@suba.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu Subject: Shanahan comments on CETI cell Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"tvdMG.0.eq3.SAz5p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4628 X-Loop: vortex-l eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: <3317D60F.2423 rt66.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 23:09:03 -0800 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, rmcarrell@aol.com, rgeorge hooked.net, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, kennel@nhelab, .iae.or.jp, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, design73@aol.com, drom vxcern.cern.ch, 74750.1231@compuserve.com, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, david@ibg.uu.se, 76570.2270 compuserve.com, mica@world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, ine padrak.com, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu, wireless@rmii.com, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, ceti@onramp.net, jchampion transmutation.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, bhorst loc100.tandem.com, reed@zenergy.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu Subject: Shanahan comments on CETI cell Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3B4C6D417909" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3B4C6D417909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit February 28, 1996 Dear CF Network, I'm forwarding this post, with Kirk Shanahan's OK, since he is highly qualified in surface science, has made "ersatz" CETI-type beads (Ni on glass) for Scott Little a year ago, has been evaluating the field, and has specific comments on CETI research reports, as well as original, for most of us, information about C in metals reacting with H to make explosive bubbles. If the field is to progress, we must welcome competent criticism and use it to focus our efforts to effectively deal with quite a variety of details. Here are two more comments from Kirk: With regards to sending my message on to others I guess there is no problem with that. I wasn't as conservative as I could have been with it, so I may suffer some of those slings and arrows, but oh well... I myself have passed on very similar messages to Scott Little and Steve Jones also. I located a few selected references on the hydrogen reactions with included C by looking in our library in hydrogen related corrosion books. I found two books in particular that I copied some pages out of for my files. The first is "Hydrogen Effects in Metals", ed. I. M. Bernstein and Anthony W. Thompson, pub. by The Metallurgical Society of AIME, 1981, Lib. Cat. No. TN690.m987, ISBN 0-89520-378-2. I copied the following papers: - The Role of Gas Venting in Hydrogen Attack of Steel, Mark Ransick and Paul Shewmon, p.895 - Effect of Impurity Elements on the Formation of Bubbles by Hydrogen Attack in 2.25Cr-1Mo Steel, Tadamichi Sakai and Haruo Kaji, p. 903 - High Temperature Hydrogen Attack Studies, D. Eliezer, p. 913 - Formation of Hydrogen Bubbles by Pulse Heating, W.Pesch, T. Schober, and H. Wenzl, p.923 (really interesting in light of the current focus on pulsed CF experiments) >From "Hydrogen Damage", ed. Cedric D. Beachem, pub. by American Society for Metals, 1977, ISBN 0-87170-042-5, TN690.2.H93, I copied parts of "Observations and Thoughts on Stress Corrosion Mechanisms" by N. A. Nielsen, p.219. (This book appears to be a collection of previously published monographs. The original ref. on the paper above is J. of Materials, vol. 5 (1970), 794) This certainly isn't an exhaustive search. Also, the idea of O reacting to form H2O may be just speculation, or may be real, I don't know. Hope this helps! Kirk You sent me your Vortex post on SIMS, so I presume you'd like some comments... OK. I agree with all of the comments. I myself have not done SIMS, but my thesis research was in the surface science field. I studied the chemistry of a large variety of chemicals on the basal planes of Ru and Os single crystals. My primar technique was Thermal Desorption Spectoscopy, where a surface is coated with a chemical, and the surface is then heated to drive off that chemical. The deorption is monitored by mass spectrometry, in my case a quadrupole mass spec. That isn't as high tech as the TOF-SIMS instruments, but a lot of the considerations are similar. That's why I can say with some certainty that the comments you forwarded are valid. After I got out of school in '84, I changed fields and haven't done hard-core surface science again, till now. I am in the process of self-training (via videos) in the use of a PHI Model 650 Scanning Auger Microprobe, which is exactly what Miley used for the depth profiling. I am still new enough at this though that I don't know how Miley's instruments relate to my own, so my commentary is on a more general level and not instrument specific. But I have ben contemplating the very issues I raised in light of my own plans...amazing coincidence ain't it? Unfortunately, I think Dr. Miley was nailed by the inherent complexity of surface science. It's much easier to do bulk analysis. when you go to surface analysis, you immediately cut your sample size a couple of orders of magnitude, and that usually throws you into the trace analysis regieme. In fact, that seems to be the problem with most of the CF work I have looked at, it's all being done in the noise. And the principal critisism I have is that the researchers seem unwilling to do the extra level of work required to do trace analysis _and_ the extra work required to conclusively support anomalous chemistry/physics. That's why I labeled the M&P work as 'premature'. The analyses conducted were insufficient to define the situation, but M&P blasted ahead anyway under the favorite set of assumptions. In my book, that's a bit of a problem. Kirk Hope this helps! Rich Murray --------------3B4C6D417909 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: kirk.shanahan srs.gov Received: from gateway1.srs.gov (gateway1.srs.gov [192.33.240.10]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA03197 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:27:47 -0700 (MST) Received: by gateway1.srs.gov id AA28704 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for rmforall rt66.com); Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:24:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199702272024.AA28704 gateway1.srs.gov> Received: by gateway1.srs.gov (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:24:11 -0500 Received: by gateway1.srs.gov (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:24:11 -0500 Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:20:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Miley Papers To: rmforall rt66.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Hi Rich, Got the papers and your critique, thanks a lot! I've even had a chance to study them a bit. More in a sec. With the packet you sent was a letter from George Miley to "Collegue", which was scratched through and replaced by "Richard". This letter looks like the original to me. I can see the pen indentations on the address and note from the back side. Did you send me that by mistake, and would you like it back? With regards to the papers, I was highly disappointed. The intellectual premises in the papers are fatally flawed, and I can use the data presented to _support_ the contamination scenario, instead of the transmutation one. I was working on a critique as well, but I have reached my burn-out point on CF and I doubt I'll finish the job. Briefly, the depth profile data indicate to me a sloppy ion milling job. The "2000A" point is probably not 2000A, but more like 650A. The data table (Table 5) is ambiguous. If you normalize the metal (not incl. C) peaks to total to 100%, the picture becomes very confused, but Mg and Zn seem to clearly be surface contaminants, while Ni increases as you go into the bulk, also indicative of a dirty surface. Net result: as many elements support surface contamination as transmutation. The mass balance data where Miley claims he has generated more new mass than available contaminants is hogwash. He takes the most-likely-to-be- contaminated (or transmuted) beads and extends their properties to _all_ the beads. Sorry, no can do. (You pointed this out too I recall.) But he uses the fictitious numbers he calculates that way to justify no further work on transfer of contaminants from the Ti electrodes to the beads. Yet I think this is the major source of the "new" elements. His analytical data on Ni for fresh beads in Table 4 contradict the data in Table 1. The data on the Ni in the used bead agrees roughly however. That also says the new material has been added from 'outside', not 'created in situ'. In turn, that means the rest of the 'control' experiments he runs aren't valid either. He is neglecting the primary source, and expecting us to believe that that is OK. Nope... Those two points basically form the basis for his transmutation argument, and IMHO his own data don't exclude the alternative. I didn't even consider the rest of the paper in detail, as it was all predicated on the transmutation viewpoint. Your and Dick Blue's comments pretty well finished off the whole issue for me. I conclude it is much more likely to be contamination, but it is unlikely we will see the relevant work out of the M&P collaboration. The second preprint was just more of the same. Except there he says run #8 was on a 2650A film. Man, the guy can't even decide how much Ni he puts down to start with! How can we believe he has defined and eliminated the 'contamination problem'. Answer: we can't. The other controls are not very definitive either. Glass beads but no electrolysis... Sulfonated plastic beads, i.e. ion exchange resin...any contaminant would be swamped out by Li. And what happened to the Pt electrode runs he mentions on the second page? No data on that at all... {{Sigh}} On another front and relating to our prior communications, I have asked a metallurgist I work with about pitting, and he brought up an interesting point, which I have actually tracked down a few papers for. He said that it was known that carbon in steels will react with hydrogen to form methane, which will accumulate in bubbles in the steel until the yield strength of the steel is exceeded. At that point the surface can bubble up, and vents can form in the shell, or the cover of the bubble can blow off, leaving a pit. I even have a paper with stills taken from a movie of these bubbles forming, growing, coallescing, and then erupting! He said that he expected (or maybe knew?) that oxygen in the steel would make water which would do similar things. Some papers had found impurities concentrated inside the bubbles and at the bottom of pits. Sounds like our 'CF bubbles' should have been expected... Overall, I have come to the conclusion after about 18 months of study that the term 'premature' can be liberally applied to most CF claims. Sad but true IMO. I think I will be moving on now to some other interesting things I did note while doing my studies, all mundane chemistry though... Kirk --------------3B4C6D417909--