X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 04:20:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 04:16:13 -0700 Date: 01 Aug 97 07:13:51 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: "\"'vortex-l eskimo.com'\"" , "JoeC transmutation.com" Subject: Re: Hey gang I'm back Resent-Message-ID: <"qrsge3.0.S3.xLSup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9524 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >By the way, commercial transmutation is going GREAT. AND, to my knowledge. >we haven't use prayers, nor ask Higher Powers for direction. That is not >to say that we may not in the future, but personally I will wait until >Barry Merriman writes the mathematical formula which includes the "Divine >Intervention Quotient." That one will out sell that guy (keep forgetting >his name) who said "God doesn't role dice." Joe, Good to hear from you again.... I ujnder stand from a HIGHLY RELIABLE (normally highly skeptical) source known to all the Vortex members that Dan York and colleagues in Dallas are using a lead-based thermal alchemy technique. They are said to be getting production of say 21 grams of gol d for only 7 grams of seed gold put into the melt. More commonly the yield is 7 grams in and 14 out and the runs are said to be repeatable. Would you care to comment and elaborate on this. If this is true and IF the source of the technique is YOU, then do n't you think you should share the glory by telling we MERE radioactivity remediators/transmuters how the gold-making goes? Don't tease us with these exclusive forums! Let's have it on Vortex! Best wishes, Gene Mallove X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 07:17:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 07:08:32 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:00:37 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"cYyQC3.0.v86.VtUup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9525 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Jul 31, 5:14pm, Steve Ekwall wrote: > 1:) initially we were just a hot spinning piece of cosmic spit -NO CRUST- > 2:) cooling throughtout our galactic travel -WE COOL'ed (Are Cooling!) > 2a:) assumming we're still HOT near/at Core = Liquid Core > 3:) Original Question (tried to ask) *IF liquid Core* is it spinning > faster or slower than the now cooled outer crust. I could be mistaken, but current theory calls for a *solid* core that is magnetically polarized. To me, barring external factors, we've had more than enough time out in the vacuum to cool off. What external factors could keep us hot? MM's inferences to the moon could be the missing piece. It seems plausible to me that IF the moon is gravitationall y causing the crust to drag slower than the core spin, THEN you have a simple mechanism for perpetual magma heating - friction. It would become the boundry layer between the solids. The drag would have to very minimal, however, or the crust would be too thin to support life. Plate tectonics (sp?) and crustal slips would then just be thermodynamic byproducts of the heating mechanism, and could be expected. Just a another theory for the wood pile. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 12:36:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:30:10 (-050 Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Priority: normal References: <3.0.1.32.19970730181527.00a3f6d0 spectre.mitre.org> Resent-Message-ID: <"hcTBE1.0.wH7.CcZup"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9538 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rick, Robert, > I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say there. The ocean floor > moves, and the cookie-cutter/conveyer belt floor has a chain of islands and > seamounts stretching from Loiki off the Big Island to the Kamchatka > peninsula. Yup, sorta. > That's what I was getting at. If there had been any major shifts between > the crust and the mantle during those millions of years, there'd be more or > larger discontinuities in the chain of mountains. Umm, you're making some assumptions here that may be incorrect. First you're assuming the hot-spot plume is associated with the mantle. >From what I can tell, this is incorrect. Plumes seem to be associated with structures in the aesthenosphere (the soft, movable part of the lower crust between the mantle and the 'solid' surface-type rocks). That would allow the crust to slide over the mantle without changing the hot-spot location too much. Second, the movement of tectonic plates appears to have no connection with the fluid flow in the mantle. That is, the normal tectonic plate movement is a push-me/pull-you arrangement where the subduction zones (ocean trench areas) are pulling the plates by sucking them downward and the ocean ridges are pushing the plates by emitting new surface material. The tectonic plates slowly move over the aesthenosphere due to these push and pull pressures. However, between the aesthenosphere and the mantle is what seems to be an almost frictionless layer of material. This is why the convection currents in the mantle don't affect tectonic plate movement. This layer also allows the crust to 'easily' slide o ver the mantle when sufficiently disturbed. To recap, the crustal tectonic plates move slowly in relation to the aesthenosphere, which contains the hot-spot plumes, but the coupled crust/aesthenosphere can move quickly over the mantle. > It looks to me like they're going to have to do a little work to get any > crustal pole-shifts occuring between the Cambrian (or the Permian or > whenever) and last Tuesday past the Hawaiian plume situation. Maybe. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 08:16:06 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 08:15:24 -0700 From: "Wes Crosiar" To: Subject: Re: Carbon arc process Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 08:22:55 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"qaGJU.0.mY1.9sVup" mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4640 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Gene: I got excited about the same thing a couple of years ago. After spending time reading the patent I was not nearly as excited. I do not recall if another person told me or if the carbon consumption is mentioned in the patent. However I do remember t hat the device did use more carbon than I was interested in using. You can view the patent for free on the IBM search site. If you like hydrogen I believe patent #5085176 will satisfy you. Check it out. Thanks wes X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 09:21:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 11:04:52 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"jW_kG3.0.lQ6.IjWup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9527 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Jul 31, 10:44pm, Rick Monteverde wrote: > That's one way to reconcile it. I was thinking maybe of an ancient impact > that left enough reactive/radioactive stuff behind to keep the crustal > wound from healing. I think the deep earth "pictures" from soundings from > earthquakes and so forth as a way of probing the mantle do show the plume > as a mantle feature. Yes, it seems there must be a good reason why *there* and not somewhere else. We may both be right in that some event caused a thin spot that is never allowed to repair. Perhaps it is nothing more than a localized geomagnetic or gravitational abnormality. I was only trying to reconcile all knowns with the proposition. Mantle fe ature or crust feature debate sounds to me very much like the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. My present knowledge is sufficiently lacking to effectively argue either way. > Anyway, how would you > know if it is just limited to a crust-only shift? Very hard to. No conclusive evidence, just clues. > Why should it be? Is it > just because it's somehow easier to think of it that way than as a > full-earth tumble? I disagree only because if the entire frame of reference moves, how would you know there has been a change? The only reason this is a topic of discussion is because of observed abnormalities; magnetic signatures, geological and/or archeological similarit ies/disparities, extreme ecological changes and mass extinctions, etc. > I actually find it easier to comprehend the whole thing rolling > against the vacuum of space and the slight stability from an elastic bulge > on the equator than I do with the crust alone moving and dragging on what > must be enormous net fluid viscous friction between the lower crust and > mantle. That magma's kind of sticky, you know. Easier to comprehend if you disregard magnetic flips without terrain modification, and terrain modification without magnetic flips. Again, those are the very reasons we are beginning to suspect something is amiss. I personally suspect the planet core sp in axis to be somewhat gyroscopically stablized through magnetic field interaction with the sun (with geomagnetic flips happening with relation to astronomical events in the system as whole). With core alignment predisposed, any angular momentum changes against the planet would have to be translated against features not anchored to the core that could absorb the energy, like the crust. Yes, the magma is rather sticky. The forces to cause a slip would have to be enormous. BUT, if the needed force was applied, the system would have to give somewhere. The crust would be a prime vehicle for the dissipation of those energies, given the available degrees of freedom afford ed it by the dynamic nature of it's foundation. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 09:35:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 11:10:48 -0500 References: <970801111143_-1809622147 emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"Gp8Ub.0.Fb6.coWup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9528 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 1, 10:06am, HLafonte aol.com wrote: > Do you think people on the list would donate a small amount each to pay > for materals? Sure. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 09:23:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:20:09 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Motorcycle on an Air Slide? Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:19:30 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"k7kYV2.0.Jh4.uoWup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9529 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: Having a mental block as to what would happen if you rode your motorcycle onto a flat sheet-platform on an air slide, locked the front brake and raised the back wheel,"poured the coal to it" with enough "revs" to get to 120 mph and shifted your weight to one side or the other. What sort of "gyrations" would you expect? :-) All responses will be held in the strictest confidence. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 09:37:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:30:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Hey gang I'm back Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:29:04 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"5KppZ3.0.Q67.ByWup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9530 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Good morning Gene, Thanks for the nice note. I under stand from a HIGHLY RELIABLE (normally highly skeptical) source known to all the Vortex members that Dan York and colleagues in Dallas are using a lead-based thermal alchemy technique. They are said to be getting production of say 21 grams of gold for only 7 grams of seed gold put into the melt. More commonly the yield is 7 grams in and 14 out and the runs are said to be repeatable. Would you care to comment and elaborate on this. The above statement was true, Although, this news is somewhat old. We now have a daily production output averaging about 2,265 grams. From this we reclaim about 25% in weight in precious metals. Or, ~560 grams of precious metals are being made daily. These numbers are not internal, but external from a referee laboratory. Another statement that I would like to correct you on is even though Dan and associates don's black robs and conical hats our production transmutation uses lead as the target metal, but the physical transmutation is not thermal, nor electrochemically indu ced. If this is true and IF the source of the technique is YOU, then don't you think you should share the glory by telling we MERE radioactivity remediators/transmuters how the gold-making goes? Don't tease us with these exclusive forums! Let's have it on Vor tex! Gene, I dropped out of this and other groups until I could maintain a handle on things. Many involved in this forum have seen certain anomalous events occur in their laboratory. The problem has been twofold; the major being lack of repeatability and sec ond, the production of sufficient material to fight the claim of background contamination verses transmutation. A third problem exists in trying to explain - how such events could occur. For several weeks now, we are at +99% repeatability with macro quantities of new transmuted metals produced. Two weeks ago we surpassed a total of 100 pounds of material from the reactors. I am preparing to present some notes on my work in the near future. However, if you would allow me a bit of latitude, I have little faith in the Cincinnati Group's claims. This statement is based on 100's of internal observations. That is to say we have found that in these reactions no intense energies are released and protons and neutrons are conserved. Without question radioactive isotopes are easy to transmute. However, the ending products must conform to certain laws. That is the quantity of protons and neutrons in the final product must equal that of the starting isotope. For the record, Bill Stehl was successful in multiple tests last year wherein we took "gram quantities" of thorium nitrate and placed it in a reaction chamber and had +95% reduction in the level of radioactivity. This is a reactor that takes the material as a dry powder and in the ending products we have Bi, Pb, Tl, Hg, Au, ==> W. One gram of thorium nitrate takes about 90 minutes to completely transmute in this apparatus. Prior to releasing a public statement we want to test other radioactive material to insure accuracy's of the system. Joe Champion X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 15:04:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:44:26 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" T o: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:44:18 (-050 Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Priority: normal References: <3.0.1.32.19970730181527.00a3f6d0 spectre.mitre.org> Resent-Message-ID: <"q1peq2.0.QJ6.uYbup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9546 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rick, > I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say there. The ocean floor > moves, and the cookie-cutter/conveyer belt floor has a chain of islands and > seamounts stretching from Loiki off the Big Island to the Kamchatka > peninsula. Arghh. I meant to post my reply to the list, no to you personally. If you'd like, you can forward it to the list (I can't find the reply on my computer for some reason). -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 14:52:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:44:34 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" T o: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:44:19 (-050 Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"r7lK-1.0.9K6.0Zbup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9547 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Fred, > Then again, a water-filled balloon (about 20 cm diameter)attached > to a 3 mm diameter vertical rod and spun with a variable-speed > drill-motor might be interesting,especially as the speed is varied > and the set-up is tilted. Try that with a bowling ball. You won't get wet but you'll have to watch your toes because it will roll all over the place (no stability). The Earth's bulge makes the Earth so little out of round that it's more perfectly globular and smoother than most bowling balls. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 14:53:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:44:36 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" T o: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:44:19 (-050 Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Priority: normal References: Steve Ekwall "Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents" (Jul 31, 12:23pm) Resent-Message-ID: <"mmwkr3.0.GK6.1Zbup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9548 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi John, > From: "John Steck" > Neither. Ultimately an unstable relationship, but core/mantle/crust need to > travel at the same speed and same angular momentum. If the crust didn't sync, > resulting friction would quickly melt it. Perhaps this is why there is a > liquid mantle? The mantle is fluid, not liquid. Just as there is now assumed to be a frictionless layer between the inner core and the outer core of the Earth (assumed because the inner core apparently rotates independently from the outer core/mantle), there is s uggested that there is a frictionless layer between the mantle and the aesthenosphere of the Earth. (The aesthenosphere is the region between the crust and the mantle -- sometimes considered part of the crust, sometimes part of the mantle, depending on wh o you listen to.) This outer frictionless layer is implied by the 'readings' of the convection flow in the mantle. The direction of these flows seem to bear no relationship to the direction of tectonic plate movement, implying no friction between the mantle and the tecton ic plates. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 10:24:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:16:18 -0700 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:16:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Jason Aldo To: Jerry < jdecker keelynet.com> Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Publishing addresses Resent-Message-ID: <"WwG-J.0.vC7.WdXup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9531 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I agree . X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 10:33:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:25:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"eDiBV1.0._n1.anXup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9532 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:11 8/1/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: > Do you think people on the list would donate a small amount each to pay >for materals? I would be the first to donate money and do all the labor for >free. Why don't we just pitch in to pay the costs to ship Joe Newman's best unit here to EarthTech? We would be delighted to conduct an interactive on-line testing program where all the procedures would be discussed first here on Vortex. All the test results would be posted on Vortex and then, finally, we would really know whether or not Newman's claims are correct. The real problem we face is convincing Joe Newman to send us a machine. For some reason he doesn't seem to be interested in our offers of eager cooperation and unlimited development capital. 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) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 18:42:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:24:45 -0700 X-Intended-For: X-Sender: mwm aa.net Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 18:26:30 +0100 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"kcjNx1.0.6I.Sneup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9561 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:04 AM 8/1/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Jul 31, 10:44pm, Rick Monteverde wrote: > >> That's one way to reconcile it. I was thinking maybe of an ancient impact >> that left enough reactive/radioactive stuff behind to keep the crustal >> wound from healing. I think the deep earth "pictures" from soundings from >> earthquakes and so forth as a way of probing the mantle do show the plume >> as a mantle feature. > >Yes, it seems there must be a good reason why *there* and not somewhere else. > We may both be right in that some event caused a thin spot that is never >allowed to repair. Perhaps it is nothing more than a localized geomagnetic or >gravitational abnormality. I was only trying to reconcile all knowns with the >proposition. Mantle feature or crust feature debate sounds to me very much >like the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. My present knowledge >is sufficiently lacking to effectively argue either way. > >> Anyway, how would you >> know if it is just limited to a crust-only shift? > >Very hard to. No conclusive evidence, just clues. > >> Why should it be? Is it >> just because it's somehow easier to think of it that way than as a >> full-earth tumble? > >I disagree only because if the entire frame of reference moves, how would you >know there has been a change? The only reason this is a topic of discussion is >because of observed abnormalities; magnetic signatures, geological and/or >archeological similarities/disparities, extreme ecological changes and mass >extinctions, etc. > bingo >> I actually find it easier to comprehend the whole thing rolling >> against the vacuum of space and the slight stability from an elastic bulge >> on the equator than I do with the crust alone moving and dragging on what >> must be enormous net fluid viscous friction between the lower crust and >> mantle. That magma's kind of sticky, you know. > sticky is relative to force >Easier to comprehend if you disregard magnetic flips without terrain >modification, and terrain modification without magnetic flips. Again, those >are the very reasons we are beginning to suspect something is amiss. I >personally suspect the planet core spin axis to be somewhat gyroscopically >stablized through magnetic field interaction with the sun (with geomagnetic >flips happening with relation to astronomical events in the system as whole). > With core alignment predisposed, any angular momentum changes against the >planet would have to be translated against features not anchored to the core >that could absorb the energy, like the crust. Yes, the magma is rather sticky. > The forces to cause a slip would have to be enormous. BUT, if the needed >force was applied, the system would have to give somewhere. The crust would be >a prime vehicle for the dissipation of those energies, given the available >degrees of freedom afforded it by the dynamic nature of it's foundation. > >-- >John E. Steck >Prototype Tooling >Motorola Inc. > > most people think the earth is a round ball. wrong the earth is a binary planet and its mass behaves as if it were a flying saucer shape the bulge at the equater is not big as a stabilier but that aint all there is to the bulge. there is also a fairly good sized moon out there which is part of the bulge system the space between the moon and earth is one of those illusions just like the soldiity of the rock of the surface is an illusion think of the earth as a flying saucer with the entire edge (the moon) spinning at a different rate than the middle that too is an illusion but closer to the truth or think of two spinning vortices also spinnning around each other (drift is a better word choice) as they also spin around a third (sun) that is much closer to the truth now think of the tail of the earthmoon system. indications from our SOHO satellite is that the charge particle tail of Venus reaches just barely the earth's orbit all of the planets have very long tails. these may end just about where the orbit of the next planet starts. the planets conduct enormous currents from the sun to the outer reaches inotherwords, now think of the earthmoon system as looking rather like a sperm with a verrrrrrry long tail reaching almost to Mars. as far as the heat of the earth, goes, no problem it is perpetually produced as a direct consequence of the gravity well matter down there aint the same as matter up here matter down there stratifies. the atoms change their shapes into cubes and are crystallized into planes. the electrons complain vorciferously, chattering endlessly as they interfere which each other's valance vectors. this chattering sets up chattering of the entire cube which is translated into pretty high infrared which is the same as "heat" and makes it all nominally more molton the deeper you go. but this molton is queer stuff. under pressure it preserves its stratificaton by layer. with this stratifaction comes polarization, hence magnetism is accounted for. when it moves, it slips sideways on raceways of very pissed off electrons with no place to go accept roll with the flow the repulsive power of the crowded excess electrons reduces the frictional coefficient of the magma for lateral movement close to zero. no mechanical friction holds this surface in place. no mechanical friction drives the plates. there is little to none. it may be that there is stickyness from magnetism mutual momentum, ineratia, gravity holds the surface (and all of its pieces - the tectonic plates) "in place" and the shape - the flattend top and the slight bulge and continental mountain root protrusions which dip deeper into the upper mantle. momentum and gravity are constantly varying from external influences the most important is the differential gravity pump of the moon/sun the moon "revolves" at the equater (remember this is an illusion) but the main point is that the gravity mass is centered there and does not alter. as the moon moves relative to the surface on the slow cycle of 28 odd days, this gravity influence raises the surface (a plate) anywhere from a few inches to a few feet (depends on what book you last looked in) and pulling along with it a huge pile of wat er. remember the water - the water is THE singularty on this planet this action pumps the plates in succession, up and down in a very slow dance. also differentially by lattitude, I might add, accounting for the directionality of movement which is set up between the plates. also massages the mantle which no doubt accounts (along with gravity sorting) for the high degreee of perfect ionic mix of the matter in the mantle. the moon causes an indulation to move through the crust to the west. but this pull is not sufficient to cause the crust to rotate with it, which suggests that the crustal system is pretty massive but moon does set up the lateral west/east stresses. we know that the crust is pulled apart at the point of the great rifts and that the rifts are maintained in the role of generating excess crust. you will no doubt be thinking at this point, I am crazy because the moon couldn't do it all. the pulling (separating) force would circle around the globe and cancel itself out from the other direction. True. And you are right, insofar as just the moon as a single factor. We have another big one which we haven't gotton to yet. hang on for a minute. so now we have too much crust caused by the new formation of crust at the great rifts. The bag is getting limp and wrinkly. The excess becomes dimples. ie, the great trenches where the excess crust begins to sink underneath the relatively light contine nts, which almost always float over everthing else, including great rifts in the ocean crust. btw, continents in this schema are not crust. they are floating scum - for the most part they are trivial, irrelent to geo-mechanics, which is a very good thing for we who live upon the pond scum. crust means ocean bottom material (the congealed igneous faction, not the sendiments) notice that the great trenches for the most part are against the eastern side of a continental plate, substantially with a north/south trending (but not always), which is exactly how and where they should be if the crustal skin is being pulled from east t o west, either by the moon, the sun, or as a consequence of lagging the west-to-east spin the sediments on the ocean crust hates to sink, so it stacks up in a dimpling fashion. which creates some of the mountains - all of the mountains at the leading edge of a continent. most of which tend to trend north and south. all of this creeps slow, most of the time, BUT NOT ALL OF THE TIME, in inches per year Okay, you say, we see the patterns, but the moon couldn't do it. it can't form the great rifts and cause them to spread laterally out on both sides. True enough. First notice, that the great rifts do not have to spread laterally with motion on each side. Motion to the west (or could be to the east) on one side is all that is necessary for the spreading to occur. Hold that thought for a moment Enter the sun. Every notice something interesing about the sun? It contantantly changes its apparant rotation to us. which naturually is not its rotation, but ours, the constantly changing appearance in the sky results from the tilt of the axis. We are flying a flying saucer (earthmoon system) which is in a plane of spin ALWAYS AT AN ANGLE TO THE AXIS OF THE SUN, ie, the plane of rotation of the solar system. Here is the differential gravity pump It is a 28 day cycle pump, heavy duty, with lifetime warrenty supplied by god. The sun is contantly moving in and out of correspondance with the moon. At full moon, the moon is on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. At new moon, the moon is on the same side of the earth as the sun is. The sun's gravity adds and substracts , every 28 days, the gravity effect of the moon. So the total gravity effect is constantly changing, with the sun pull beating against the moon pull, and every 28 days in a total tug of war on the crust, pulling from each side. This is how the rifts for m and how they spread and why they leak. During new moon, they can cause one rift on the opposite side of the planet to spread and leak, while closing the one nearest to them. During the full moon they can cause two rifts at 90 degrees from them to sprea d and leak, the ones closest to them closing up. Think also of the moon and the sun as levers, both levers stuck say in the middle of the Atlantic Rift side by side. When the moon is say half full, you have the moon lever pulling in one direction, the sun lever pulling in another. Again, a net spreadi ng force. The pump has two modulations which are ignored by everyone except a few who are successfully predicting earthquake occurrance based on these modulations as they relate to some other factors One is the perigee (closeness) of the moon with the earth, ie, its eliptic orbit, bringing it closer and then futher away from the earth near to a 28 day cycle (actually it is slightly different than the orbital rate so you get a beat effect with the timi ng of perigee constantly changing) Another is the perigee of the earthmoon with the sun which brings the earthmoon closer to the sun on an annual basis. Thus the gravity pump is constantly working, with the varying vectors and resulting motions quite complex in relationship. So much so that no one has modelled it yet. The fact that perigee and sun moon angles can be used to predict earthquakes at the 75% level (look up syzygy.com) is the prima facie evidence that I am barking at the right moon. The syzygy guy hasn't figured out the total sytem yet, like I have, but wh en we get through with this line of thought we will share it with him and his percentile is going to go up to 90% or better. all of this accounts rather well for "normal" plate tectonics - the slow creeps of the slow change of earth The model so far is for what I call Minor Tectonic Events, expressed as earthquakes and maybe a few minor sudden upthrusts, sporadic volcanism, an d such run of the mill stuff. even to this level, the model can get very very complex dealing with issues of ocean water differential loading (the tides) and other factors. Now there is something subtle about all of this motion which everyone misses. And this is the most important factor for Gravity Tectonics. The plane of the tilt of our flying saucer vis a vis the gravity vortex of the sun changes contantly an an annual cycle. During the Winter Solstice, the plane of the tilt is oriented to that the North Pole tilts away from the sun. During the Summer sols tice, the plane of the tilt points towards the sun. This orients the sun progessively 26.5 degrees north of the equator and then the same south of the equator. But during the Solstices for Spring and Fall, the plane of the tilt is at 90 degrees from the sun, the tilting is into the open galaxy and the sun appears right over the equater as if there were no tilt in the plane of earthmoon. In other words, we have another modulation of the gravity pump. This modulation is 26.5 degrees at extremis from both sides of the equater. The average pole shift (movement of the crust) described by Hapgood is about 30 degrees. Coincidence??? Could be. But I smell a connection to the differential gravity pump. Now we are ready for the singularity. Take the water of the oceans and crystallize it in a heap on dry land. What happens? Something will eventually "give". The centrifigual force of the spinning vortex will redistribute that out of balance mass SOMEH OW The water is the only variable on earth which regularly and continually goes out of isostatic balance. (on the current configuration of our planet) Now take the ocean's water and pile it up near the north and south axis poles. The heat budget of solar insolation automatically will do that for you. You don't have to do a thing. Takes about 10,000 years to achieve the maximum feasible pile, after wh ich lateral creeep of the pile sloughes off into the water and remelts. Notice how our piles are off center. The center of Antarctic ice is at least 200 miles north of the south axis. The center of the Arctic Ice is drastically off center on "Greenland" (what a jokster that old Viking was). Look closely at your globe. A clear plastic beach ball "globe" is really great for visualizing all of this stuff and the various vectors. These off center piles are cleverly arranged to reinforce each other's total off-center weight. The off-center south ice mass points directly up at India roughly longitude 80-90 east The off-center greenland ice maass points directly down the Atlantic 30-40 degrees west. In otherwords, they are mirror opposites, nearly 180 degree apart, the south desirous of moving north in the same twisting direction of the globe as the north desires to move south. The next Flight of the Phoenix (pole shift) could not be better appointed. So far, we can conclude that the optimum flight time is: perigee full moon - pulls the north mass down perigee sun (winter) - pulls the south mass up near the winter solstice - maximum solar gravity effect on the southern ice mass There are more layers of the gravity pump, including the planets and the galactic plane (the Egyptians were quite insistant on the importance of the galactic plane in governing the recurring ages) But that is enough gravity for now. Now for the trigger. It has been calculated that the force of a large solar storm - the really big once in a generation big ones, hit the earth with enough force in those protons and electrons to actually slow slightly and briefly the spin the earth. The sun burps, the earth shudders. That is the trigger. The large solar storms are directly correlated with the alignment of the planets. Why? go back to the image of the earthmoon (and all planets) as a sperm with a really long tail. Think also of the electrostatic fields around a highly charged, big Tesla coil. Any experimenter with those knows how the minutest of perterbations in the field c an shape and alter the discharge patterns. Get the picture? The planets are the discharge conductors for the biggest Tesla Coil we are ever going to experience. Since the 1930's electrical weather has been directly predicted by the relative positions of the planets - squares, conjections, and oppositions directly modulate solar storms this is probably what astrology was invented for way back when. So the sun burps, the earth shudders with a breaking effect on the broad surface of the planet, only all of the breaking effect goes into CHANGING THE RELATIVE MOTION OF THE CRUST, it slips not just east and west but also north and south because that is w here gravity wants to pull it, where the centrifugal force wants to hurl it, and not the least because the sun burp comes in a front which is 26.5 degrees south of the equator giving added impetus to the torque effect. Both the Egyptians and the Mayans described the last event. The Egyptian details of the story have not been found or have not been translated. According to Thoth's (a survivor of the last Flight) reputed message, his records of the details have been purposely hidden until someone could find the clues for finding them. Nobody knows for certain what he meant. The Mayan story has some details. It describes a period of 13 days before things settled out. Everything happened. Great quakes day after day, the earth constantly shaking, everything liquifying into rubble, radical sudden wind blowing and scattering e verything, all the Volcanoes around them going off. Some of their land disappeared forever under the ocean, oh, and of course, massive flooding from all of the seas. Here in the Puget Sound we have non-fossilized seashells at 1200 feet elevation, this is in ground which was above sea level and was scoured to the metamorphized bedrock by glaciers 12,000 years ago. Nobody wants to explain this fundamental contridiction , along with tens of thoudands of points of similar contridictory evidence. It is hard to imagine a wall of sea water which can push solid material up to a 1200 foot elevation. Anyway, that is the basic story of Gravity Vortex Tectonics in free form. I have a ton of additional material, citations to choice key bits, etc. I will rework this material and you will see it again in smaller bits, which will be shaped partly by your interaction with it. One last point: this is not a stable planet, probably no binary can be stable, gravity will rework the entire surface over and over again. We could achieve a long run of stability if the poles were both over water far enough from land to avoid ice build up. The geological past seems to show long stable periods. Unfortunately, for the last million years, the north pole has been oscillating back and forth across the arctic sea (giving the illusion of ice ages). The South Pole has never left Antarctica far enough to entirely remelt its ice. So we are stuck in a maximum instability pattern, until enough tectonic change takes place to bring both poles over open ocean. Best wishes, Michael Wells Mandeville "Return of the Phoenix" at http://www.aa.net/~mwm/phoenix/phoenix.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 11:02:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@blue.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex- l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"fcGiZ3.0.WC3.i6Yup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9533 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Butch LaFonte wrote: [snip] > What do you say we pole the list and see how many people we can get to >join in building the 1000 pounds of copper wire Newman motor? [snip] Hi Butch, For my money, it would make a whole lot more sense to build a smaller unit first, and then *if* that worked, perhaps scale it up. I quit the Newman list months ago, so don't know what's current there (npi), but recall that with very large coils there are engineering problems with gigantic back-emf pulses. Larger coils increase that problem, so there is a practical limit to the size of the coil, unless that issue has been resolved. *If* you were to proceed, I would suggest that you try to get the best expert to help engineer it: Joe Newman. They're always clamoring for people to build one - they're more enthusiastic about that than having someone test one of Newman's own machines - so they should be happy to guide you. IMHO, if Greg's PMOD works, it's a far more promising energy source. Newman's technology is very interesting, but it strikes me as very electromagnetically 'dirty' or noisy. Based on my first impressions, I think I'd rather see a PMOD powering an efficient conventional motor than a Newman motor on its own. Of course, the f irst issue is, what really works? But I think a smaller prototype makes more sense. Dan Quickert X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 11:32:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 11:29:21 -0700 Date: 01 Aug 97 14:27:50 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Resent-Message-ID: <"pEU8c2.0.2r3.zhYup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9534 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John, > Yes, the magma is rather sticky. The forces to cause a slip would > have to be enormous. BUT, if the needed force was applied, the > system would have to give somewhere. If a sphere has no axial stability, why would anything need to give? Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 11:53:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 11:41:59 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:41:19 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"6QC5E2.0.aT4.stYup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9535 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:47 PM 8/1/97 +0000, Dan Quickert wrote: >Butch LaFonte wrote: >[snip] >> What do you say we pole the list and see how many people we can get to >>join in building the 1000 pounds of copper wire Newman motor? >[snip] > >Hi Butch, > >For my money, it would make a whole lot more sense to build a smaller unit >first, and then *if* that worked, perhaps scale it up. Mine Too. > >I quit the Newman list months ago, so don't know what's current there (npi), >but recall that with very large coils there are engineering problems with >gigantic back-emf pulses. Larger coils increase that problem, so there is a >practical limit to the size of the coil, unless that issue has been resolved. Anyone experienced with magneto coil sparkover-burnout even on a lawnmower engine or an automotive ignition coil would be pretty skittish about about winding a coil that cost kilobucks and losing it in a flash. >*If* you were to proceed, I would suggest that you try to get the best >expert to help engineer it: Joe Newman. They're always clamoring for people >to build one - they're more enthusiastic about that than having someone test >one of Newman's own machines - so they should be happy to guide you. What happened to the Bureau of Standards (NIST) test results that stated that the "over-unity" results were just an illusion because of "ELI the ICE Man" results. In other words in an inductance L the voltage E leads the current I, thus ELI. With the capa citance C the current I leads the voltage E thus ICE. If this demon gets you with all of that inductance, volts and amperes in versus volts and amperes out means NO OU. > >IMHO, if Greg's PMOD works, it's a far more promising energy source. >Newman's technology is very interesting, but it strikes me as very >electromagnetically 'dirty' or noisy. Based on my first impressions, I think >I'd rather see a PMOD powering an efficient conventional motor than a Newman >motor on its own. Of course, the first issue is, what really works? But I >think a smaller prototype makes more sense. I would prefer to take my chances on the lottery, or Las Vegas. :-) BTW. I have a brand new 12 volt auto ignition coil that I picked up at an auto parts house ($12), That I'll donate for the cost of shipping to anyone in the U.S. , it they want to build a the equivalent of the "points" in a distributor and test it for OU. :-) > > >Dan Quickert > Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 12:08:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:01:17 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 11:56:05 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! References: <970801111143_-1809622147 emout02.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"kQnsm1.0.aP5.x9Zup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9536 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com HLafonte aol.com wrote: > > What do you say we pole the list and see how many people we > can get to join in building the 1000 pounds of copper wire > Newman motor? That is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen on Vortex, which says a lot. If you do this, what you will most likely ultimately end up with is 1000 pounds of used wire. The simple question is, if Newman's motor works, why cannot he himself provide a working loaner demo for some dedicated testing, say at EarthTech. `Nuff said. > Just think what we could do with a Newman motor that size, > that could be moved to any location by a small truck. Yes, that would make it easier to take it to the dump. The test of time shows no reason to think Newman's motors do anything productive. Yes, he has some testimonials from folks with some credentials---but these are all many years old (the folks and the testimonials)...why no follow up, especially if the devi ces can be built for only a few thousand dollars? Personally, I cannot imagine on the one hand a scientist testifying that his tests show convincingly that the device works, and then on the other hand not following it up with a major research push. Must be a screw loose somewhere in there. -- 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 12:16:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:09:35 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:01:40 -0500 References: <970801182749_100433.1541_BHG47-1 CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Resent-Message-ID: <"PsveC3.0.1t5.kHZup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9537 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 1, 1:22pm, Chris Tinsley wrote: > If a sphere has no axial stability, why would anything need to give? I propose the core, although spherical, is somewhat axially stablized through magnetic alignment with the sun (and possibly other members of our solar system). If it isn't, why has the field repeatably flipped only in 180 degree increments coincident to the axis of rotation? Spheres should not exhibit any gyroscopic stability (slight equator bulge not withstanding). Unaligned, geomagnetic drift should be more chaotic than this. I am not saying I am correct in my hypothesis, but such conditions could permit slips and flips without contradicting any known physical evidence (that I am aware of). -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 12:56:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:41:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: "Pig in a Pipe" Conveyer? Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:39:19 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"wA_m12.0.IM.LlZup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9539 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: If one put a strong magnetic plug (or "pig" as they call them in the pipeline trade) in a non-ferromagnetic pipe like 304 stainless, and put this between a pair of tracks with a "carriage" equipped with a strong magnet and pressurized the pipe behind the "pig" with air at a few hundred psi. How long would it take to get the "carriage" from Chicago to Los Angeles (non-stop) at Mach 0.9? On the down side, would Chicago want to export their air to Los Angeles or vice versa? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 13:23:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:19:53 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) F rom: "John Steck" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:12:07 -0500 References: <3.0.1.32.19970730181527.00a3f6d0 spectre.mitre.org> <199708011930.OAA18025 dsm7.dsmnet.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"kr01P1.0.dk1.eJaup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9540 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com More earth structure information: http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/plate/velocity.html http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/plate/composition.html http://bang.lanl.gov/solarsys/earthint.htm -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 13:33:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:23:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:22:26 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: RE: Hey gang I'm back To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"tg1hn2.0.gu1.eMaup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9541 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Aug 1, 1997 Joe Champion, you wrote, >We now have a daily production output averaging about 2,265 grams. >From this we reclaim about 25% in weight in precious metals. Or, ~560 >grams of precious metals are being made daily. These numbers are not >internal, but external from a referee laboratory. >For several weeks now, we are at +99% repeatability with macro >quantities of new transmuted metals produced. Two weeks ago we >surpassed a total of 100 pounds of material from the reactors. Thanks for the update on your technology and congratulations. Somebody in the Australian treasury must have been utterly convinced of it. They dumped a lot of gold on the market recently. Perhaps the U.S. treasury better wise up to it in it's gold hoardings. The specie backing theory of sustaining the value of paper currencies will be going a radical change, of not dumped altogether as your methods becomes ramped up. Gold will become close to the price of lead. :)! Facinating. Has large scale production costs been worked out? -AK- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 14:23:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:14:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vorte x-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"ElpeY.0.zk3.W7bup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9543 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Evan Soule' wrote: [snip] >At present, Joe has his own development plans which he is actively >pursuing. It is his position that producing a _commercial_ product >utilizing his technology will put this aspect of the discussion to rest. >At present he is quite busy pursuing these plans. [snip] >Best regards, > >Evan Soule' >Director of Information >NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS [snip] Well, we've awakened the dragon again... it's fairly civil this afternoon... may I suggest that we leave Mr. Newman and his crew to their own devices, as they apparently desire, and let that be the last word on this thread? Dan Quickert X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 14:43:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:36:41 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:36:00 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"o_SFo.0.5x5.dRbup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9544 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:14 PM 8/1/97 +0000, Dan Quickert wrote: > >and let that be the last word on this thread? > >Dan Quickert > Agreed. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 14:47:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:43:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:42:56 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"3rXXo.0.dG6.fXbup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9545 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 15:50 8/1/97 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: >At present, Joe has his own development plans which he is actively >pursuing. It is his position that producing a _commercial_ product >utilizing his technology will put this aspect of the discussion to rest. >At present he is quite busy pursuing these plans. Thanks for the input, Evan. This is exactly what I would expect him to be doing. How long until we get to see something on the market? 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) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 14:00:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:46:44 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net (Unverified) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:50:25 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"jD6CV3.0._E3.piaup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9542 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >At 11:11 8/1/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: > >> Do you think people on the list would donate a small amount each to pay >>for materals? I would be the first to donate money and do all the labor for >>free. > >Why don't we just pitch in to pay the costs to ship Joe Newman's best unit >here to EarthTech? We would be delighted to conduct an interactive on-line >testing program where all the procedures would be discussed first here on >Vortex. All the test results would be posted on Vortex and then, finally, >we would really know whether or not Newman's claims are correct. > >The real problem we face is convincing Joe Newman to send us a machine. For >some reason he doesn't seem to be interested in our offers of eager >cooperation and unlimited development capital. > > > >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) Dear Scott, [Preface: this is me speaking -- not Joseph Newman; no doubt he would have his own comments to add...]: At present, Joe has his own development plans which he is actively pursuing. It is his position that producing a _commercial_ product utilizing his technology will put this aspect of the discussion to rest. At present he is quite busy pursuing these plans. Re your offer for testing at EarthTech: First of all, I appreciate your offer. I personally have every reason to believe that you are sincere in your offer and that you wish to assist in every way in the progress of "free energy" / "over-unity" / "greate r external energy output than external energy input" / or whatever one wishes to call the process(es). Speaking from what (I believe) would be Joe's perspective: Joe does not personally know you or EarthTech. While you and your company may indeed be very proficient -- even expert -- at what you do, Joe has no reason to believe this (or disbelieve this, f or that matter). I would 'gestimate' that Joe's position, in part, would be: if the so-called "experts" at the NBS (supposedly the nation's premier facility of its kind) proved incompetent to test one of his earlier prototypes, --- after spending over $100,000 of the tax payer's money and taking more than 6 months --- then why should he place his confidence in anyone other than himself....which is why he is so intent upon initiating production of his technology and is actively pursuing steps to this goal. Again, I stress this is _not_ intended by myself as a negative reflection upon yourself and/or EarthTech --- I am only trying to present what I believe would be Joseph Newman's position with respect to this discussion. 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.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic pheno mena is _mechanical_ energy." --- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 15:02:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:59:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:58:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"-JgzQ3.0.-G5.Jnbup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9549 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dan: Try convincing someone who think's he's Napoleon that he's a "Bone Apart". :-) Regards, Frederick (30) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 15:36:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Aug 97 18:27:19 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Resent-Message-ID: <"8iaK81.0.xV6.TEcup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9552 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John, > I propose the core, although spherical, is somewhat axially > stablized through magnetic alignment with the sun (and possibly > other members of our solar system). If it isn't, why has the > field repeatably flipped only in 180 degree increments co incident > to the axis of rotation? For what it's worth (probably not much) I have heard that the Earth's field is some kind of (aarrgghh) homopolar effect. I certainly wouldn't suggest that the core is flipping over just because the field does. You know, Ockham and all that stuff. You don't propose a specific cause for an effect unless the evidence compells you to do that. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 15:39:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Aug 97 18:27:20 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Resent-Message-ID: <"XbDrJ.0.LW6.aEcup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9553 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dean, > Just as there is now assumed to be a frictionless layer between > the inner core and the outer core of the Earth (assumed because > the inner core apparently rotates independently from the outer > core/mantle), there is suggested that there is a fri ctionless > layer between the mantle and the aesthenosphere of the Earth. Horrors that I should suggest such a thing, but is it just conceivable that whoever suggested that had no understanding of the mechanics of rotation of spheres? Perhaps they think there has to be a frictionless layer because they've not studied the subje ct? > The direction of these flows seem to bear no relationship to the > direction of tectonic plate movement, implying no friction between > the mantle and the tectonic plates. Hmmm. Chris (Oh, that's ridiculous. They couldn't possibly be that stupid.) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 16:02:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:52:16 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:43:41 -0500 References: <970801222718_100433.1541_BHG38-1 CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Resent-Message-ID: <"he52H.0.nb1.UYcup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9555 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 1, 5:24pm, Chris Tinsley wrote: > For what it's worth (probably not much) I have heard that the Earth's > field is some kind of (aarrgghh) homopolar effect. I certainly wouldn't > suggest that the core is flipping over just because the field does. > > You know, Ockham and all that stuff. You don't propose a specific cause > for an effect unless the evidence compells you to do that. I agree with your admonishment, but you have to admit somewhat plausible if not homopolar? If the crust can slip, why not the core too? With respect to anything that could cause such an event, what would stop it? The way I see it, if you allow one, you have to include the other. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 15:55:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:49:53 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 15:49:47 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents References: <3.0.32.19970801023822.00ce5260 aa.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"-lVLO2.0.WY1.GWcup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9554 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Uh....why is this thread being discussed so extensively here? I don't see how it has anything remotely to do with the subjects normally pursued on Vortex. While it is interesting science, not all interesting science needs to be discussed here, especially given the lack of expertise in the necessary geophysics (mysel f included) among the vortex readership. I'm not that interested in everyone's ill-formed theories about geodynamics. Can't this thread be put to rest? -- 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 16:15:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:59:01 -0500 References: <3.0.32.19970801023822.00ce5260 aa.net> <33E2680B.528D math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"C9ZNF1.0.Xr.5ncup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9556 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 1, 5:43pm, Barry Merriman wrote: > Uh....why is this thread being discussed so extensively here? > I don't see how it has anything remotely to do with the subjects > normally pursued on Vortex. While it is interesting science, > not all interesting science needs to be discussed here, especially > given the lack of expertise in the necessary geophysics > (myself included) among the vortex readership. I'm not that > interested in everyone's ill-formed theories about geodynamics. > > Can't this thread be put to rest? Sorry Barry. Sure. Got a bit carried away. Perhaps off topic, but much nicer than flame wars for a change, don't you think? Anyway, to try and tie it to something relevant, the discussion somewhat parallels some research I am doing regarding moving magnetic body dynamics. The whole RMOD thing again (it's ultimately all Greg's fault for putting that hell spawn idea in my head! blame him! ). I have something I can almost visualize, but there are still a few fuzzy areas. I'm finally building something. I'll let you a ll know if it works or not. My apologies for perpetuating the discussion. Have learned quite a bit though.......... 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 15:25:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:16:02 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:11:49 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"Phphp2.0.t2.X0cup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9550 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >At 15:50 8/1/97 -0600, Evan Soule wrote: > >>At present, Joe has his own development plans which he is actively >>pursuing. It is his position that producing a _commercial_ product >>utilizing his technology will put this aspect of the discussion to rest. >>At present he is quite busy pursuing these plans. > >Thanks for the input, Evan. This is exactly what I would expect him to be >doing. How long until we get to see something on the market? > > > >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) Dear Scott, Don't know. Joe is busy pursuing a number of actions at this time. He has publicly stated that once he has capitalization in place, he would have the first commercial application produced within 6 months. Whenever such does occur, I will post announcem ents on the net. Best regards, Evan P.S. Hope you had the opportunity to view the A&E Special. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 15:29:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:20:21 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:24:03 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Lets build a BIG Newman motor together ! Resent-Message-ID: <"mFT0f2.0.ZJ.a4cup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9551 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id PAA17413 >Dan: > >Try convincing someone who think's he's Napoleon that >he's a "Bone Apart". :-) > >Regards, Frederick > > Fred, Thanks for the humor!! :-) Evan œ QMPro 1.52 œ "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." --- Arthur Conan Doyle X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 17:08:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:58:28 -0700 Date: 01 Aug 97 19:57:14 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Resent-Message-ID: <"TuUgB1.0.Cc4.YWdup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9557 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John, > If the crust can slip, why not the core too? With respect to > anything that could cause such an event, what would stop it? Right. But before you say *anything* slips, you need evidence for it. I just don't think that magnetic pole reversals are good evidence for that. I'm not saying that there haven't been sudden slips of the whole sphere, or even maybe the crust; maybe even very recent ones. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 17:07:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:58:37 -0700 Date: 01 Aug 97 19:57:16 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Resent-Message-ID: <"4LkB21.0.Fc4.YWdup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9558 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry, > Uh....why is this thread being discussed so extensively here? I could start one about Rumpelstiltskin if you prefer? > Can't this thread be put to rest? OK, but can I have the last word? Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 17:28:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:22:07 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 17:21:56 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c References: <970801235715_100433.1541_BHG57-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"aF_ZY.0.Da5.ksdup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9559 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Barry, > > > Uh....why is this thread being discussed so extensively here? > > I could start one about Rumpelstiltskin if you prefer? > Well, since Rump. was supposedly able to turn straw (i.e. mainly Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen) into Gold through a mechano-chemical process, I'd say that would be fit in fairly well with current CF research trends :-). -- 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 17:45:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:44:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:42:16 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"jbdB91.0.UN4.FBeup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9560 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:21 AM 8/2/97 +0000, Barry Merriman wrote: >Chris Tinsley wrote: >> >> Barry, >> >> > Uh....why is this thread being discussed so extensively here? >> >> I could start one about Rumpelstiltskin if you prefer? >> > >Well, since Rump. was supposedly able to turn straw (i.e. >mainly Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen) into Gold >through a mechano-chemical process, I'd say >that would be fit in fairly well with current CF research trends > >:-). > I'd say chalk one up for the "Rump". :-) >-- >Barry Merriman Regards, Frederick >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 > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 19:43:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:39:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" To: "'Akira Kawasaki '" Subject: RE: Production Costs Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:43:12 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"odsul2.0.iZ2.Jtfup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9564 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Has large scale production costs been worked out? Yes, a chart is available at: http://www.transmutation.com/cost.htm Joe Champion X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 18:58:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:54:03 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 21:55:54 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com References: <3.0.1.32.19970730180127.00a32c10 spectre.mitre.org> <33DA1419.515BF25E@ro.com> <970725225053_2059481044 emout05.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"X8PDe2.0.jW1.wCfup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9562 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:44 PM 7/30/97 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Robert - > > Wrong! The angular momentum has to be > > conserved during any drift. >I thought spheres, and presumably spherical shells, had little or no >inherent stability while rotating. The angular momentum is a vector and is conserved. Even if the continents swap ends every six weeks the momentum vector will still point at (near) Polaris. Now of course I have to put in the caveat that the Earth's bulge does interact with the sun's gravity causing a 24,000 year precession of the axis. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 20:45:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 20:41:22 -0700 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 23:41:02 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward To: "JoeC@transmuta tion.com" cc: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Hey gang I'm back Resent-Message-ID: <"NoBqH1.0.-r7.Xngup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9565 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > Without question radioactive isotopes are easy to transmute. However, the > ending products must conform to certain laws. That is the quantity of > protons and neutrons in the final product must equal that of the starting > isotope. Hi. Could I ask why this must be so? Does this mean that protons + neutrons must be conserved or the number of both the protons and the neutrons. What is your experimental findings? I suspect that there aren't really nuclei. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 19:42:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:37:53 -0700 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 20:44:10 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, vortex-L eskimo.com, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, sarfatti@well.com Subject: [Fwd: CORRECTED "Plasma Injection Transmutation (PIT) ?"] Resent-Message-ID: <"cT8Ok3.0.sJ4.0sfup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9563 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 1, 1997 Hi All, Anyone interested in posting some evaluations of Robert Bass's theory of thorium transmutation? Rich Murray Received: from pahrump.com (root pahrump.com [205.226.146.4]) by finland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA10030 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rbrtbass.pahrump.com (user10.pahrump.com [205.226.146.110]) by pahrump.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21889; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:37:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199706280337.UAA21889 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Robert W. Bass" Cc: "Gus P. Andrews" , "Yeong Kim" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Sandra Ball" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Rich Murray" , "Robert Huggins" , "Russ George" , "Robert D. Eagleton" , "Mike Windell" , "Hal Puthoff" , "Paul Koloc" , "Peter Glueck" , "James T. Lo" , "Dave Nagel" , "Martin Kendig" , "Mike McKubre" , "Tom Van Flandern" , "Larry Vardiman" , "Scott Little" , "Kirk Shanahan" , "Kerry S. Lane" , "Elliott Kennel" , "Steven E. Jones" , "C. D. Johnson" , "James Powell" , "James A. Carr" , "James Bowery" , "Adrian Williams" , "James W. Kincaid III" , "Joseph N. Ignat" , "Horace Heffner" , "Gary Steckly" , "George F. Bass" , "Grant Hudlow" , "Ed Wall" , "Eric Wyse" , "David A. Scott" , "Douglas Morrison" , "Dean I. Radin" , "Wayne Green" , "Daniel A. Hill" , "Charles McNeill" , "Bill Ward" , "Gordon Brightsen" , "John Bockris" , "Barry Merriman" , "Nicholas Palmer" <70374.3025 compuserve.com> Subject: CORRECTED "Plasma Injection Transmutation (PIT) ?" Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:30:34 -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 PLASMA INJECTION TRANSMUTATION (PIT) by Robert W. Bass After I posted the News Release by the Cincinnati Group, in which they claimed to have transmuted one-tenth gram of Thorium into Titanium & Copper (90% Ti + 10% Cu, with an experimental error estimated at less than 7%) I received many _privately-sent_ [N OT posted!] smart-alec catcalls of the type "where is the crater?" and "were they fried by the neutron flux?" and "where is the Tritium? Call in the NRC!" I do not know exactly what occurred in the CG's electrolytic cell. However, it is possible to hypothesize an explan- ation which is consistent with the "[Non-neutral] Plasma Injection Transmutation" (PIT) theory of Hal Fox, Shang- Xian Jin, and Bass (the subject of a pending Patent Applic- ation by Fox, Jin & Bass). Pa pers on the PIT theory have been published in recent issues of _Journal of New Energy_ [a quarterly available for $150/year; 5 issues in print] from Fusion Information Center, P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158-0639, phone (801) 583-6232, FAX ... -2 963. The PIT theory depends upon two empirical discov- eries by Ken Shoulders: (1) that large numbers of electrons, when sufficiently close together, can cohere by some as yet undetermined quantum phenomenon; and (2) these electron clusters can pick up and ca rry a minute fraction of protons after passing through e.g. water or other proton-rich sub- stance. Jin has published a theory of how a toroidal ring of electrons can self-cohere. Earlier Bass [an unpublished paper archived at the Fusion Information Center several years ago] had shown that according to the Rabinowitz theory of superfluidity & supercon ductivity 10^12 electrons at the density in question could form a superconducting superfluid. Suppose now that an electron cluster can carry a minute fraction (say 10^[-6]) of protons. Then each such electron cluster can carry 10^6 protons. Also, as po inted out by Fox & Jin, if the electron cluster is accelerated through an electric potential of 10 eV, then because of the factor of almost 2000 mass-ratio discrepancy between protons & electrons [& rounding off] the protons will be accelerated through ne arly 20 keV!!! (Table-top, dirt-cheap, high-energy proton acceleration!!!) Suppose that a Thorium nucleus is excited by the capture of one or two protons. In the case of one proton we have 90_Th^232 + 1_H^1 = 91_Pa^233, and supposing beta-decay by the emission of 13 electrons one would get 91_Pa^233 => 3(22_Ti^50) + 29_Cu^65 + 9(1_H^2) + 13e^-. Similarly, in the case of two protons we have 90_Th^232 + 2(1_H^1) = 92_U^234, and supposing beta-decay by the emission of 14 electrons one would get 92_U^234 => 4(22_Ti^50) + 17(1_H^2) + 14e^-. Suppose that the second process is twice as likely as the first process. Then multiply the second set of equations by 2 and add to the first set. The net result is that one would get 3(90_Th^232) + 5(1_H^1) = = 11(22_Ti^50) + 29_Cu^65 + 43(1_H^2) + 41e^-. Thus a LOW ENERGY process could bombard Thorium with high-energy protons to yield Titanium, Copper, and 43 deuterons (which would presumably join the solution to make heavy water). Note that the total atomic weight of 11 Titanium nuclei (550) plus one Copper nucleus (65) is 615. Now the weight fraction of Titanium is 550/615 = 0.9 = 90% while the weight fraction of Copper is 65/615 = 0.1 = 10% which is PRECISELY what the mass-spectroscopy disclosed! Finally, adding the 43 neglected deuterons increases the total atomic weight to 701 so that the error percentage is 43/701 = 0.06 = 6% which is within the 7 percent maximum Estimated Error of the national testing company which provided the Third Party Verification Certificate! Of course, Copper has another isotope of atomic weight 63, and Titanium has 4 isotopes lighter than the one considered, so that a more complicated version of the preceding would be required in order to explain the huge discrepancies from natural isotopic abundance ratios which were measured. I leave this as an exercise to the patho- logical skeptics who are stubbornly insisting that Low Energy Nuclear Transformations (LENT), as practiced by the medieval alchemists, and brought into the modern era by Joe Champion and Texas A&M Distinguished Professor of Chemistry, John O'M. Bockris, is flatly "IMPOSSIBLE" and that LENT is "pathological science." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent 29,130 [ex-Prof Physics] Inventor: Topolotron, Plasmasphere, issued; QRT Cold Fusion, pending P.O.Box 1238, Pahrump, NV 89041-1238; phone/FAX (702) 751-0932/0739 Voice-Mail: (702) 387-7213 e-Mail: r brtbass pahrump.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 21:06:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:04:19 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"L_C9A.0.s06.D8hup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9567 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > Uh....why is this thread being discussed so extensively here? > I don't see how it has anything remotely to do with the subjects > normally pursued on Vortex. While it is interesting science, A point to studying geophysics is that the phenomena seem to be similar to those found on electrodes. For example, there is evidence of elemental transmutation in the earth associated with volcanoes, and there is evidence of wave phenomena like earthquak es in and around electrodes. I call it plasmoid waves. www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946 Articles describing geophysical aspect can be found on my web site. It is discussed in the first picture article. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 21:11:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:06:06 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:05:29 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Reply to Barry's comments about big Newman motor (or a day at the dump!) Resent-Message-ID: <"qSLDr3.0.-i.i8hup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9568 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Berry, I will take your advice under consiteration. I must say, you are almost as high strung as me ! I have learned alot from this pole, as it seems Joe is loosing support in some circles do to lack of testing by what appears to be " friendly " forces. There seem to be so many o/u devices being developed right now that it's hard to keep up with them all. I just hope that all these people will allow testing when asked and that we don't end up in the same situation. I know that if I built a device that I believed was o/u, I would ship units to every testing source I thought would be fair. I was once told that for a new product who's selling point was increased effecienty, it would have to be anywhere from 2 to 5 times more efficient than the product that had the market at the time. This was said to be due to the momentum the present pro duct had, the ability of the company to spread disinformation, to put it's large financial resources to use to discredit, influence and in some cases get very nasty if you know what I mean. A good example is the Sintef corporation of Norway who build an auto air conditioner that ran on CO2, it was a little more efficient that the replacement for R12 freon or R12 it's self and the EPA had approved it for use here in the USA. It will never make to market, but I bet if it was twice or 3 times more efficient it would be in use now. I believe that o/u devices are going to be up against the same thing. Until an o/u device can run it's self and put out very large amounts of power, I mean so much that no powers that be can discredit it, it will end up like the Sintef unit. Dupont is not going to just let a CO2 (which is almost free) system knock them out of a multi- billion dollar market. The oil and energy related people are going to have it easy keeping these o/u devices at bay till we see a real "powerhouse" come along and make it clear to all that the days are numbered for these people. I just wish so mething would develope soon, as the change over would be something to see. Thanks for you comments, Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 21:17:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:12:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Rump Roast? Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 04:11:06 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"PnbDu2.0.BE6.3Fhup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9569 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris: I was looking up Rump in the dictionary and the Britannica (not as easy for me as it is for a proctologist using an endoscope). However,I see that there was a "Sitting Parliament"in the early 1600's that got the name for obvious reasons. Other than that, it is defined as the "buttocks of a quadruped mammal" in other words a horse's ass. Do any present MP's get honored with this title? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 21:24:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:20:53 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: CORRECTED "Plasma Injection Transmutation (PIT) ?"] Resent-Message-ID: <"L7Br12.0.vV6.pNhup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9570 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I don't know if Bass will get this. I don't think he's on the list. I've have not been able to get my stuff on superconductivity and elemental transmutation published in periodicals edited by Hal Fox. There are certain points I would like to discuss about the PIT model. " Jin has published a theory of how a toroidal ring of electrons can self-cohere. Earlier Bass [an unpublished paper archived at the Fusion Information Center several years ago] had shown that according to the Rabinowitz theory of superfluidity & superconductivity 10^12 electrons at the density in question could form a superconducting superfluid." One question would be whether big objects of superfluid could travel quickly through glass and plastic. If not, then the objects though perhaps similar to superfluids, are not superfluid as described by Rabinowitz. Ball lightning and plasmoids travel through glass. Another point is that I don't see Bostick's and others articles cited though they covered the same ground. I've only read a few of their articles though. Do they assume that the only way that these objects transmute things is by hitting objects? If this is so, then why does ball lightning, which may travel relatively slowly, evidence energy far above chemical, and also transmutation phenomena? Finally, why are my articles never cited? My theory has remained consistant while Fox's has changed to be more like mine. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 21:35:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:31:22 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 21:31:14 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reply to Barry's comments about big Newman motor (or a day at the dump!) References: <970802000528_917810002 emout02.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"GEj4h1.0.Ik1.PWhup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9571 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com HLafonte aol.com wrote: > > Barry, > I will take your advice under consiteration. > I must say, you are almost as high strung as me ! No offense intended to you, personally, by the way. As anyone who has met me can attest, I'm about as easygoing as a person can be. But I don't hesitate to call a spade a spade. > > There seem to be so many o/u devices being developed right now What you need to appreciate---deeply---is that the above statement has been true for the past several hundred years at least, or several thousand if you lump in alchemy with "o/u". So, at the very least, no need to jump the gun.... > I was once told that for a new product who's selling point was > increased effeciency, it would have to be 2--5 times more efficient Probably true, but that is not the major selling point for "o/u"/transmutation devices. If such devices worked even marginally, they would be of ENORMOUS scientific interest even if they never had economical application. So, in practice a device need only work well enough for convincing scientific demonstration. Since most scientists doubt such devices are possible, that means they will have to be fairly "robust" to be recognized, but no more so than what many proponents already *claim* they can achieve. > The oil and energy related people are going to have it easy > keeping these o/u devices at bay These industies might try to keep such competing technologies at bay if they existed, but right now I can assure you that if anyone is keeping them at bay, it is the progenitors themselves. Note I say "if anyone"---to me it remians quite likely that they are kept at bay because they do not exist, though it is admittedly hard to tell empirically why something is kept at bay, when one can't get to the bay to check it out. -- 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 21:48:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:43:30 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 21:43:20 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Would rad remediation kill CF? Resent-Message-ID: <"LeBDx1.0.aQ2.mhhup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9572 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Perhaps this thread will be sufficiently idle to kill the "radical shift in earth's crust" .... Suppose for the sake of argument that remediation of radioactive waste was real and worked as well as some folks claim. Would this not effectively kill off the "need" for cold fusion? Instead of cold fusion, I simply hook the "exhaust" of my fission plant to the rad waste remediator, and voila', I have a nuclear power plant operating under robust, simple principles and at "room temp", which produces no nulcear waste and has reasonably abundant fuel. No need for "CF". At this point, the only down side to fission power would be the potential for accidents, but with containment vessels and deploying modern inherently safe reactor designs, the risk of that is essentially nil. Perhaps remdiation could even be developed to the point where it could neutralize a rad cloud after an accidental release. Just an amusing thought.... Perhaps CF types wish for decentralized power, but that doesn't seem essential. -- 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 21:57:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:52:25 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 04:51:40 GMT Organization: Improving References: <970730095327_2093668804 emout15.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"nVxKi3.0.2s2.7qhup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9573 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:53:28 -0400 (EDT), Tstolper aol.com wrote: [snip] >of curiosity, I'll second your question: if the baking had been done in air, >would that have converted the residual C to CO2? [snip] It may well have, but would also produce a possibly unwanted oxide layer on the cathode. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:12:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:10:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:07:04 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Fools Gold Resent-Message-ID: <"en2pV1.0.lm3.Mvxup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9585 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert - >Would you buy a used car from this man? No, but I'm strangely fond of that Chupacabra photo on his web page. Re investing in gold - according to those who've been through it, the "currency" that really stays solid during very hard times is/are cigarettes, liquor & chocolate, or guns, ammo & meds. I wouldn't mind one of those St. Gaudens though. Most beautiful coin ever made. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 20:58:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 20:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 22:01:27 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, sarfatti@well.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, rbrtbass pahrump.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, schultr ashur.cc.biu.ac.il, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, yekim physics.purdue.edu, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, JoeC@transmutation.com, design73@aol.com Subject: RE: Transmutation: Blue Critique & Champion note Resent-Message-ID: <"O5FDm.0.7W5._-gup"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9566 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Flaws in Liverside analysis Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:51:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" To: rmforall earthlink.net [Minor typos corrected by Rich Murray] Comments on "3rd Party Verification" by Mr. Robert Liversage: Robert Liversage, in the role of an independent (?) third party, indicates that he is a qualified analytical chemist with access to and knowledge of instrumentation suitable for a verification of claims by "The Cincinnati Group" that they can, by a simple chemical process, deactivate thorium. I would note, however, that Mr. Liversage is not properly trained nor equipped to conduct precise measurements of the thorium activity, as he presumes to do. Although he does comment on certain features of the nuclear fission process, Liversage appears to ignore some of the more obvious direct consequences of the fission he implies is occurring. For example, he says: "If fission of the thorium is occurring, we might expect random fragmentation into lighter isotopes. Random fragmentation may yield altered isotopic abundance ratios." While that statement is basically correct it is in total contradiction with the observations that Liversage claims to have ver ified. The conversion of the bulk of the thorium to just the elements of titanium and copper is clearly not the result of random fragmentation. Indeed the failure of these results to conform to the expected randomness is one clear sign that something is wrong here. How is it that Liversage has failed to note that his own prediction is at odds with the results? For a reasonable approach for the evaluation of claims such as these we can again quote Mr. Liversage: "If either technique produced data which is inconsistent with our expectations, it would raise doubts as to the validity of the transmutation process, a nd further investigation would be required." Of course, it is essential that "our expectations" bear some semblance of being physically reasonable. We should expect, for example, that the transmutation process should conserve the total number of nucleo ns and, more specifically the number of protons and number of neutrons. Any deviation from an absolute conservation of both Z and N would be quite remarkable in light of the seemingly direct and rapid nature of this transmutation. Mr. Liversage asserts that: "The quantitative analysis of the data indicated that the amount of thorium which had undergone transmutation was equivalent to the amount of titanium plus copper which had been formed, within the experimental error." The precise interpretation of this statement may be somewhat vague, but it certainly must mean that somehow the number of nucleons contained in all the thorium that is lost are being accounted for by the production of just these two elements. But that is a physical impossibility! Consider the isotopic makeup of Thorium-232 and the isotopes of titanium and copper that must be "equivalent" as the primary products of transmutation in the following table: Z N Thorium 90 142 Copper 29 34, 36 Titanium 22 24-28 Expectations are (for sound physical reasons) that fission is predominantly a binary process, i.e. each fission produces two fragments. If copper (Z = 29) is one of the fragments there should be in equal numbers a fragment with Z around 61. If titanium i s one of the fragments there should be an equally abundant fragment with Z around 68. If Liversage is to account for the lost thorium by fission why did he not expect to find these heavier fragments? Since he makes no mention of other products of the tr ansmutation we must conclude that binary fission is not occurring. Obviously we must consider more complex transmutation processes than simple binary fission, and Mr. Liversage's introductory remarks which mention fission are seriously off the mark. However, if we attempt to construct a model for this transmutation process that is consistent with the Liversage data as he presents it we immediately note a further difficulty with neutron number. Simply put, the ratio of neutrons to protons in stable nuclei decreases in any transition from heavier to lighter elements. For example, if three stable copper nuclei are to be formed from a single thorium they can accommodate at most 108 of the 142 neut rons present in the original nucleus. There is an excess of 24 neutrons that have not been accounted for! In what sense can Mr. Liversage assert that there is a match between thorium lost and the gain in copper and titanium? He simply cannot reasonably make that assertion. So while Mr. Liversage is content to rest his case for transmutations on what he does find, he has totally overlooked the evidence deriving from what he did not find. He did not find any evidence for expected products for random fissioning, particularly the heavier fission fragments. He did not find a random assortment of transmutation products. He found only a few stable isotopes. Any degree of randomness, especially in light of the surplus of neutrons, would result is the production of at least some new radioactivities. Although Mr. Liversage claims to have made quantitative analyses to account for transmutation products, his report is completely lacking in any quantitative information concerning the counting of thorium activity. He gives us but one number, that fact tha t he counted the activity for 90 minutes. That is, however, informative. Generally there is little to be gained by longer counting intervals unless the count rates are low. Since 10,000 counts should be more than sufficient for the determination that L iversage reports, his choice of 90 minutes of counting probably indicates a rate of perhaps 20 counts per second or less. For the type of measurement he is making there must then be some concern about backgrounds and count-rate stability, two significant factors that Liversage does not mention. It would be much better if the thorium activity were determined by gamma-ray spectroscopy that counts just a specifically identified radiation source. The instrument that Mr. Liversage chose for his measurements provides no means for actually confirming that the activity detected is that of thorium. It is also not clear when and where Mr. Liversage made his activity measurements relative to the processing of the thorium sample. One is left to wonder how the correct quantitative match between the two samples to be counted was maintained. I also wonder what consideration has been given to the activity of the daughters of thorium decay. I see no information relating to Mr. Liversage's qualifications as a radiochemist. I believe he overstates his case when he asserts that "both of the analytical techniques used to evaluate The Cincinnati Group's process indicate that significant transmutation of thorium is occurring in their reaction vessel." Rather the results of his chemical analyses are inconsistent with the thorium fission he suggests has occurred, and his activity measurements lack sufficient definition to provide a basis for the claim that there is a decrease in the concentration of thorium resulting from the re action process. That's my first take on this. I haven't really tried to evaluate his isotopic analyses, but I think his nuclear measurements stink. Dick Blue Subject: RE: Hey gang I'm back Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:29:04 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: JoeC transmutation.com" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" [Minor typos corrected by Rich Murray] Good morning Gene, Thanks for the nice note. "I understand from a HIGHLY RELIABLE (normally highly skeptical) source known to all the Vortex members that Dan York and colleagues in Dallas are using a lead-based thermal alchemy technique. They are said to be getting production of say 21 grams of gold for only 7 grams of seed gold put into the melt. More commonly the yield is 7 grams in and 14 out and the runs are said to be repeatable. Would you care to comment and elaborate on this?" The above statement was true, Although, this news is somewhat old. We now have a daily production output averaging about 2,265 grams. From this we reclaim about 25% in weight in precious metals. Or, ~560 grams of precious metals are being made daily. These numbers are not internal, but external from a referee laboratory. Another statement that I would like to correct you on is even though Dan and associates don black robes and conical hats, our production transmutation uses lead as the target metal, but the physical transmutation is not thermal, nor electrochemically indu ced. "If this is true and IF the source of the technique is YOU, then don't you think you should share the glory by telling we MERE radioactivity remediators/transmuters how the gold-making goes? Don't tease us with these exclusive forums! Let's have it on Vo rtex!" Gene, I dropped out of this and other groups until I could maintain a handle on things. Many involved in this forum have seen certain anomalous events occur in their laboratory. The problem has been twofold; the major being lack of repeatability and sec ond, the production of sufficient material to fight the claim of background contamination verses transmutation. A third problem exists in trying to explain - how such events could occur. For several weeks now, we are at +99% repeatability with macro quantities of new transmuted metals produced. Two weeks ago we surpassed a total of 100 pounds of material from the reactors. I am preparing to present some notes on my work in the near future. However, if you would allow me a bit of latitude, I have little faith in the Cincinnati Group's claims. This statement is based on 100's of internal observations. That is to say we have found that in these reactions no intense energies are released and pr otons and neutrons are conserved. Without question radioactive isotopes are easy to transmute. However, the ending products must conform to certain laws. That is the quantity of protons and neutrons in the final product must equal that of the starting isotope. For the record, Bill Stehl was successful in multiple tests last year wherein we took "gram quantities" of thorium nitrate and placed it in a reaction chamber and had +95% reduction in the level of radioactivity. This is a reactor that takes the material as a dry powder and in the ending products we have Bi, Pb, Tl, Hg, Au, ==> W. One gram of thorium nitrate takes about 90 minutes to completely transmute in this apparatus. Prior to releasing a public statement we want to test other radioactive material to insure accuracy's of the system. Joe Champion X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:30:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: <3.0.1.32.19970730181527.00a3f6d0 spectre.mitre.org> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:24:46 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"pI-cX.0.FN4.w9yup"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9589 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dean - > First you're assuming the hot-spot plume is > associated with the mantle. From what I can > tell, this is incorrect. Well, I admitted I wasn't even absolutely sure of the conclusions I've read about that, let alone that I have no way of knowing if geologists properly understand the nature of the plume. Either way, it seems that the plume would have to move with the shif ts, and that might help illuminate something. So here's the possibilities on the table now(?) : crustal shifts, core shifts, full planet shifts, magnetic shifts, or any of the former in combination. Wow. No wonder there's a band of apparently catastrophically deposited coral debris at around 1000' on all the islands. I'd like to move to the Kona coast - at about 2000'. (Cooler up there anyway, and you can grow your own -er, coffee.) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:37:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:33:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Rick Monteverde "Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents" (Jul 31" Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:30:44 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"-PJKf.0._f4.UFyup"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9590 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John - > I disagree only because if the entire frame of > reference moves, how would you know there has > been a change? By establishing a time frame for the presence or absence of ice sheets in different areas and their related freezing and melting events (floods, etc.). What appears to be developing in the opinion of some is that the northern and southern ice caps relocat ed together at about the same time. See: http://www.netfeed.com/pstevens/delaware1.htm Also for a significant change happening around 7500-10000 or so years ago, there might be man-made structures that point to equinox positions on the horizon, or similar celestial fixtures. These might be clues if they can be correctly dated and reliably i nterpreted. I don't know that any have been yet, despite some claims that have been made. I think it will take a while to tie all these loose ends and threads together consistently, if that's even possible. It's a very big picture that's emerging, and it has to settle against a wide variety of evidence, it's absolutely contrary to conventional thought, and some of its ramifications are even rather unpleasant to consider. Heck, some people don't even want it discussed here, so I'll let it go now too. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:50:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:37:59 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:35:54 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Revised Blue critique of Liversage Thorium transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"UmCeX3.0.-b6.LJyup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9591 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich - > As I have noted before, the failure of these > transmutation reactions to produce a reasonably > random outcome is pretty clear evidence that > these results are bogus. Quintessential Blue. ~~The process in question can't possibly exist; but the process in question would always produce such-and-such result because we already know all about the process in question - even though, as we said, it doesn't exist.~~ Thank you for posting this, Rich. It gives me yet another thing to be truly thankful for in my life: I never learned to "think" like that. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 23:19:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 23:15:15 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" T o: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Hey gang I'm back Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 23:14:46 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"lSplN2.0.UL5.n1jup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9574 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com -----Original Message----- From: lewis edward Could I ask why this must be so? Does this mean that protons + neutrons must be conserved or the number of both the protons and the neutrons. What is your experimental findings? I suspect that there aren't really nuclei. OK, allow me to start with some fundamental findings from my 1990 research. Many have traveled down a one-way street. That is, following the P&F syndrome. Most of the believers in CF and transmutation assume that the reaction is dealing with H. During numerous talks and collaborations with Bockris et al in 1992, I pleaded my case that the reaction was not a hydrogen reaction, but a reaction involving ignit ion (thermal). This reaction can be generated in an electrolysis cell under certain conditions. Allow me to present a few "real" examples: Hg196 + Na23 + O16 > H1 + He4 + O18 + Mg24 + Os188 [+0.001863 mev] Hg196 + Na23 + O16 > H2 + Be9 + N14 + Si30 + Ta180 [+0.000931 mev] Hg199 + Na23 + O16 >+ 2(H2) + Be9 + K41 + W184 [+0.000931 mev] Hg199 + Na23 + O16 > H3 + Be9 + B11 + Cl35 + Hf180 [+0.001863 mev] Hg196 + Na23 + O17 > Li6 + Li7 + N15 + Si28 + Hf180 [+0.000932 mev] Hg201 + Na23 + O17 > H2 + H3 + Li7 + Ca43 + W186 [-0.000931 mev] The reaction occurs with the ignition (rapid oxidation) of the Na when it is in intimate contact with the Hg. Read your history on the cold fusion cells purported to work. Did anyone check to see the potential RF interference (60 hz) at the cathode? Some did, put everyone who performed calorimetry changed the power supply when they saw erroneous signals. And so they should, for how could one calibrate a system with spurious interference? On the other hand, what if you had a superimposed energy which allowed for a not so perfect electrolysis, you could easily load a portion of your electrolyte (Li, Na, K, Sr etc) into the the lattice and O could be presented to the cathode due to the oppos ing energies. Taking for an example a typical P&F Cell you would have: Pd + Li + O which would allow for: Transmute Directed Search! V4.7 Copyright (c) 1996 Joe Champion Absolute value energy limit = 0.0020 mev Minimum input abundunce = 0.0000 mev Start/End fixed input isotope search range: Element Z N Pd 46 102 Element Z N Pd 46 110 Contribution count this range = 1 Start/End fixed input isotope search range: Element Z N Li 3 6 Element Z N Li 3 7 Contribution count this range = 1 Start/End fixed input isotope search range: Element Z N O 8 16 Element Z N O 8 16 Contribution count this range = 1 Running over full output range Minimum outputs = 2-body Maximum outputs = 6-body Start 2-body out calculations... Search for 2 outputs complete... Start 3-body out calculations... Pd104 + Li6 > Li7 + Mg25 + Se78 [+0.001863 mev] Pd102 + Li7 > Na23 + S36 + Ti50 [-0.001863 mev] Search for 3 outputs complete... Start 4-body out calculations... Pd104 + Li7 + O16 > B11 + Si30 + S36 + Ti50 [+0.000000 mev] Search for 4 outputs complete... Start 5-body out calculations... Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + C12 + N15 + Si30 + Cu65 [-0.000931 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > He4 + Li7 + N15 + Cl37 + Ni61 [-0.001863 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > He4 + Be9 + Mg26 + Ar40 + Sc45 [+0.000931 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > He4 + Ne21 + Na23 + Si28 + Ca4 8 [+0.000000 mev] Pd105 + Li6 + O16 > H1 + He4 + B11 + Na23 + Sr88 [-0.000931 mev] Pd105 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + C13 + N15 + Ca46 + V51 [+0.000932 mev] Pd110 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + He4 + Li7 + Cl37 + Se82 [-0.000931 mev] Pd102 + Li7 + O16 > H2 + H3 + N14 + Ca44 + Ni62 [+0.001863 mev] Pd104 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + H2 + N15 + Si29 + Se80 [-0.000932 mev] Pd105 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + 2(H3) + Ca43 + Se78 [-0.001863 mev] Pd106 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + H2 + H3 + Ar40 + Kr83 [+0.001863 mev] Search for 5 outputs complete... Start 6-body out calculations... Pd102 + Li6 + O16 >+ 2(H1) + H2 + He4 + K41 + As75 [+0.000932 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + H3 + 2(He4) + Ti46 + Cu65 [-0.001863 mev] Pd102 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + H2 + He4 + Ne20 + Ca48 + V50 [-0.001863 mev] Pd105 + Li7 + O16 >+ 3(H1) + H2 + K41 + Se82 [-0.000931 mev] Search for 6 outputs complete... This was a little longer of a post than I intended, but I think you get my point. In these reactions you conserve protons, neutrons and mass. The ending result is transmutation without energy - the ultimate in "Cold Fusion." Do some cells show anomalous heat? Of course. However, in the above scheme, you produce many new elements that produce heat from formation to their oxide state (e.g. Na, Ca, Mg). Also, you will see that tritium is formed without heat. For the old time rs here, remember the controversy over that one? The above samples are exemplary and requires more details than I can supply tonight. Just a footnote - compare the above with Miley's empirical data, you may see something interesting. Respectfully, Joe Champion www.transmutation.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 1 23:56:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 23:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 23:38:24 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Production Costs References: <01BC9EB2.6EF5C8A0.discpub goodnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"pK4hY1.0.R63.fRjup"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9575 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Joe E. Champion wrote: >Has large scale production costs been worked out? >Yes, a chart is available at: > > http://www.transmutation.com/cost.htm Almost $13 per ounce. Is it any surprise that so much money is spent on public relations and advertising for sale of gold eagles and krugerands. Another thing often touted is the wonderful investment you can make in gold futures and options. How about tha t recent gold mining stock collapse -- something like $3 billion lost over-night. But probably not much lost by insiders. BTW, you can buy a St Gaudens gold double-eagle from Art Bell for less than "cost" -- but of course there is a limit of one per family. Diamonds is another thing that can be made perfectly in the lab for a few dollars per carat. The main business of deBeers is public deception. What "Diamonds are Forever" really means is once you spend a small fortune for a diamond, you might as well plan to keep it forever. Besides, only a real cheapskate would bother trying to convince his bride that it might be better to save the money. Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 04:44:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 04:42:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Aug 97 07:39:43 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Rump Roast? Resent-Message-ID: <"25nIl.0.ZV3.Dqnup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9577 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick, > Other than that, it is defined as the "buttocks of a quadruped > mammal" in other words a horse's ass. Do any present MP's get > honored with this title? All of them, although they are more usually characterised as the perforation appertaining thereto. In similar vein, a pantomime horse (two men in a costume) ran onto a cricket ground here recently, and the guy at the rear was injured. The papers commented that he was in hospital, in a 'stable' condition... Chris "Seven time, dearest Daphnis," said Chloe, "You have said that my bosom is snowy. You have written fine verse on Each part of my person; Now *do* something, there's a good boe." X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 09:39:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:33:32 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Rump Roast? Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:32:55 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"i2RJO1.0.34.R5sup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9578 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris, > usually characterised as the perforation appertaining thereto. A vortex per se? Wouldn't a cosmologist interpret this as a singularity, ie., a "Black-Hole", perhaps? BTW. Had this dream about some clever folks contriving a way of using the internet to drive down the price of precious metals so that they could *pick up the pieces* for a song, and no one would ever know who they *really* were. :-( Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:25:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 18:22:57 (-050 Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of c Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"wcGY61.0.ED4.Q6yup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9587 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Chris, > > Just as there is now assumed to be a frictionless layer between > > the inner core and the outer core of the Earth (assumed because > > the inner core apparently rotates independently from the outer > > core/mantle), there is suggested that there is a frictionless > > layer between the mantle and the aesthenosphere of the Earth. > > Horrors that I should suggest such a thing, but is it just conceivable > that whoever suggested that had no understanding of the mechanics of > rotation of spheres? Perhaps they think there has to be a frictionless > layer because they've not studied the subject? I suppose that's possible. But since the inner core's independant rotation was first predicted by computer models (but the results weren't initially published because of the 'obvious' absurdity of the result), then the independant rotation was discovered by two different groups of geophysicists. The only way they could figure the inner could be rotating at a different rate and direction from the rest of the Earth was to postulate a frictionless layer between the inner and outer cores -- otherwise they w ould be locked together long ago. > > The direction of these flows seem to bear no relationship to the > > direction of tectonic plate movement, implying no friction between > > the mantle and the tectonic plates. > > Hmmm. > > Chris > (Oh, that's ridiculous. They couldn't possibly be that stupid.) Okay, how could the tectonic plates or crust even exist if there is friction between the mantle flows and the plates? They'd melt from the additional heat, wouldn't they? Until the mantle flows were mapped, it was assumed these flows were in the same direction as plate movement. Otherwise the erosion of the mountain stems which protrude down into the aesthenosphere would be enourmous -- resulting in essentially no mountai n stems. But there are mountain stems (except under the Rockies in the USA), so the mantle flow can't be pushing/eroding these stems. Are they (the geophysicists) and I missing something obvious? What?? -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:38:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:23:20 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" T o: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 18:22:57 (-050 Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"IAV-A2.0.Ds5.c5yup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9588 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Michael, > the earth is a binary planet and its mass behaves as if it were a flying > saucer shape > > the bulge at the equater is not big as a stabilier but that aint all there > is to the bulge. there is also a fairly good sized moon out there which is > part of the bulge system > > that too is an illusion but closer to the truth All of that is true. BUT -- the center of gravity of the Earth/Moon system is within the Earth -- that makes the Moon a satellite of the Earth (isn't that the definition??). Contrast this with the center of gravity of the Sun/Jupiter system, it's outsid e the apparent globe of the sun (by a few million miles). > all of the planets have very long tails. these may end just about where > the orbit of the next planet starts. the planets conduct enormous currents > from the sun to the outer reaches Yup. And this could pose very big problems depending on the configuration of the planets and the state of the sun. These electric currents produce magnetic 'fields' which interact with the fields of the planets. We don't know enough yet (maybe you do?) to figure out what effects there could be. > no mechanical friction holds this surface in place. no mechanical friction > drives the plates. there is little to none. Agreed, mostly. I'm not too sure I agree with your explanation about gravity or the ice 'imbalance' you imply. You say the continents are 'scum,' which is true (more like slag in a blast furnace or the impurities that come to the top of molten metals). You also say this scum is inconsequential to the geo-mechanics of the overall Earth, which is correct. But, this also means the ice masses (which are far less massive than the continents) are also inconsequential. > Now for the trigger. > > It has been calculated that the force of a large solar storm - the really > big once in a generation big ones, hit the earth with enough force in those > protons and electrons to actually slow slightly and briefly the spin the > earth. The sun burps, the earth shudders. That is the trigger. That could be the "straw that broke the camel's back" type trigger, but other factors are required. IMO, what is first needed is something that forces the crust of the Earth to readjust itself due to increase or decrease of mass in one part of the Earth. That is, the tectonic plates have to be thrown out of vertical equilibrium by something. That something could be a large meteorite impact, or it could be (my favorite ) the ice quickly melting or moving off Antarctica (Greenland ice isn't massive enough to do the job). The only thing that could melt the ice off Antarctica is a warming Earth (note: not the air but the ground -- this has nothing to do with the alleged greenhouse effect). There is current evidence from all over that the Earth (NOT the air) is warming. So the preliminary conditions seem to be starting right now. > The large solar storms are directly correlated with the alignment of the > planets. Yup. That was shown to be true in the 40's. But direct alignment (conjunction) wasn't needed. Two groups of planets lined up 90 degrees apart (using the Sun as the apex) seems more significant. > Here in the Puget Sound we have non-fossilized seashells at 1200 feet > elevation, this is in ground which was above sea level and was scoured to > the metamorphized bedrock by glaciers 12,000 years ago. That's interesting. I didn't know that. Are you sure about the glacier scouring (I assume the glaciers were from the Cascade range)? Good message. Do you know of a listserver where these subjects are discussed?? I sure can't find one (and this isn't really the place). -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 11:38:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Transmutation of Radioactive elements Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 11:30:11 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"_RSkq.0.vi6.fstup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9579 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Transmutation of Radioactive Isotopes Using Electrolysis and Thermal Excitation History After making my original claims of transmutation by thermal excitation in 1989, numerous individuals attempted the process. Most met with failure, yet some reported yields. A note of interest -- In 1993, a letter was written to Bockris from the Cincinna ti group stating that they would be able to control the gold market using thermal excitation (Brown's Gas and "gun powder techniques"). This is not of interest at this time, but what many of you are not aware of is - Youell Brown was involved in conversion of complex mineral to precious metals for years prior to my arriving on the scene. In 1992 he met with a good friend of mine Roger Br iggs in the LA area and said that he was no longer converting, but now transmuting metals. This gave way to his ability to transmute (at that time he called it destroy) radioactive material. After introducing the Roberto Monti to the physical characteristics of transmutation he traveled to the Seattle area and worked with Keller to transmute radioactive material. This led to the introduction of the process to Mike Mandeville who prepared an extensive paper on the observation. Following this group we find organizations like CETI and the Cincinnati Group making claims and touting their discoveries. Just a bit of transmutation trivia. The First Commonality of the groups Each claims that they are successful in the transmutation of radioactive isotopes and none of these groups report any generation of excess neutron or thermalizing energies. Problems in providing proof In the case of Keller, Monti and Mandeville the problem resides in the fact that they used lead in their thermal reaction. This could easily lead to encapsulation verses transmutation and difficult to prove. Also, the process expels an enormous amount o f gas. Hence, a portion of the material could be physically moved to another area, in lieu of being transmuted. Also, Brown's system volatilized much of the sample. In the case of electrolytic cells, the major problem you have is with the dilution factor. A small sample of material (thorium nitrate) will disperse through a large volume of electrolyte. This makes residual quantitization extremely difficult. The Second Commonality of these Groups Every one of the above uses multiple elements within their apparatuses to effectuate transmutation. In the thermal experiments (inclusive of Brown's) you have numerous elements associated with the various compounds. The same holds true with the electrochemists. You have two electrodes, H20, an electrolyte and the water-soluble radioactive compound. Initial Observation You have groups who spun off from various starting points who claim that they are able to reduce radiation by applying energy (thermal or electrical) to select isotopes in the proximity of various other elements. The question is - what would allow for such a reaction to work? The reaction chain for the high mass radioactive isotopes is difficult. For you must have elements supporting a large number of protons available to offset the excess amount of neutrons found in the target nucleus (e.g.. thorium). Examples of low energy nuclear transmutation paths for thorium follow: Th232 + Pd108 + Cl35 > H1 + Ni60 + Ge76 + U238 Th232 + Pd110 + Cl35 > H2 + C13 + Yb174 + Os188 Th232 + Ag109 + Cl35 > He3 + C12 + Lu176 + Re185 Th232 + Pd104 + Cl37 > H3 + C12 + Dy160 + Hg198 In each case there is conservation of protons, neutron and mass. More details will be posted on the WEB later this weekend. Joe Champion www.transmutation.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:20:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:05:53 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Production Costs Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:32:44 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"YhhGB.0.RH5.Frxup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9584 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert Stirnman wrote: > Diamonds is another thing that can be made perfectly > in the lab for a few dollars per carat. There is an aesthic difference between industrial diamond dust from a lab and a one-carat gemstone. I don't think gem quality diamonds of any size have been produced synthetically. It takes heat and a LOT of pressure. Almost every other gemstone except opal can be produced synthetically in any reasonable size. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 12:34:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 12:28:53 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" T o: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Calling Scott Little -- Earth Tech Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 12:25:40 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZZNkw1.0.Ba1.qfuup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9580 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hello Scott, It has been some time since our last communication. I thought that you might enjoy the opportunity to see transmutation occur in your facility. I can promise you "no excess heat." I didn't know what your schedule is like, but as the saying goes on Vortex - "If Scott can make it work, anybody can." I have no particular experiment in mind. If interested, we can discuss what you have available in your laboratory and effectuate some form of transmutation. If interested, we can modify one of your CETI lookalikes into something that will at least prove transmutation. Or, if you wish you could make some precious metals. It is my understanding that they still have value. Just a thought, you are always offering to prove and/or disprove concepts. Besides, it is my understanding that Barry will be over this month and he is more negative than you. Just kidding a bit.... Respectfully Joe Champion www.transmutation.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 15:07:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:01:35 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: JoeC transmutation.com, From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Calling Scott Little -- Earth Tech Resent-Message-ID: <"EA32A.0.lx.Iwwup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9581 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott here... At 12:25 PM 8/2/97 -0700, Joe E. Champion wrote: >I thought that you might enjoy the opportunity to see transmutation occur in >your facility. Indeed I would. As you recall I tried your Hg+Na reaction some time ago and, a face value, it appeared to work exactly as you said it would. A great release of heat occurred as the Na amalgamated with the Hg. However, a careful XRF analysis of the reac tants showed no signs of the Pt you predicted would be formed. What do you think went wrong with this experiment? Do you have a better reaction that I could try now? We've got a fairly decent lab and are willing to purchase most any raw materials that you require. If you don't mind, Joe, why don't we conduct the experiment "on-line" so all the members of Vortex can see what's going into it...and what comes out of it? >Just a thought, you are always offering to prove and/or disprove concepts. > Besides, it is my understanding that Barry will be over this month and he >is more negative than you. Just kidding a bit.... I know what you mean but, you should not consider of either Barry or myself as "negative". Both of us are far more "positive" about phringe physics than your average physicist...at least we're willing to try these experiments! Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 15:21:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 15:14:07 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fools Gold Resent-Message-ID: <"KeRCb1.0.Kd1.r8xup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9583 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Would you buy a used car from this man? In today's world of shakey currencies, massive borrowing, and higher interest rates it might be time to get a little old fashioned with your money. Time to buy gold. Most investors know that gold is a good investment during times of inflation. Actually, g old is a hedge against all forms of economic uncertainty. Gold value went up 800% during the inflationary seventies, 15% during the market crash of 87, and 70% during the great depression. The Swiss refer to gold as the ultimate currency since it retains its purchasing power when all else fails. Eventually all paper currencies inflate and fail. Even the celebrated Swiss-Franc has lost over 50% of its buying power since 1945. No paper currency is immune. Gold on the other hand, will buy everything today, that it bought 20, 50, even 100 years ago. So, if you are uncomfortable about the ever growing government debt, perpetual deficits, rising taxes, and their effect on your personal net worth -- its time to face facts. Call North American Trading, 1-800-359-4255, and ask for their free information about buying gold safely and privately. Remember, 1-800-359-4255, North American Trading. America's trusted name in private hard assets. You don't have to be rich to own gold, just smart. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:17:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 16:14:26 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fools Gold References: <33E3B12F.4CD7 skylink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"f_92e3.0.1x3.R-xup"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9586 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert Stirniman wrote: (what follows is the text of a Radio commerical for North American Trading) > In today's world of shakey currencies, massive borrowing, > and higher interest rates it might be time to get a little > old fashioned with your money. Time to buy gold. Most > investors know that gold is a good investment during times > of inflation. Actually, gold is a hedge against all forms > of economic uncertainty. Gold value went up 800% during the > inflationary seventies, 15% during the market crash of 87, > and 70% during the great depression. The Swiss refer to gold > as the ultimate currency since it retains its purchasing power > when all else fails. Eventually all paper currencies inflate > and fail. Even the celebrated Swiss-Franc has lost over 50% > of its buying power since 1945. No paper currency is immune. > Gold on the other hand, will buy everything today, that it > bought 20, 50, even 100 years ago.... I love this commercial when I hear it on the Radio---its so ridiculous. Lets deconstruct it a bit: > Gold value went up 800% during the inflationary seventies The reason the price of gold skyrocketed is that private ownership of gold holdings was made legal in the US and other countries in the early seventies, so demand went through the rough. World gold production also increased enormously during this time, driven by the demand. Thus this has nothing to do with the intrinsic goodness of gold---its just that artificial market controls were released at this time. > gold...retains its purchasing power...the celebrated Swiss-Franc > has lost over 50% of its buying power since 1945. > Gold on the other hand, will buy everything today, that it > bought 20, 50, even 100 years ago.... This one is the best laugh! They slam the franc for losing 50% of its value in 50 years. But gold circa 1978 was $800/oz, while now its down to $320/oz (and slipping). That means that gold has lost $480/$800 = 60% of its *face value* in 20 years! Further, if you correct for inflation, $800 in 1978 is very roughly $1600 in today dollars, so gold has lost around 1300/1600 = 80% of its true value in the past 20 years. I'll take those francs, or just about any other major currency. However, for the sake of truth in advertising, it is true that gold will buy every that it bought 20, 50, even 100 years ago.... its just that its will take a lot more of it. 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 15:21:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:13:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 16:22:07 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, biberian@crmc2, .univ-mrs.fr denmark.it.earthlink.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch Subject: Revised Blue critique of Liversage Thorium transmutation analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"_pnP81.0.Vm2.b4xup"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9582 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Re: Verification of Thorium transmutation Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:47:32 GMT From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Comment by Rich Murray: See the 8/01/97 repost by Rich Murray of Robert Bass's Thorium transmutation theory for ideas on possible nucler reactions. [Minor typos corrected by Rich Murray] As Kurt Foster notes Mr. Liversage omits from his report a number of significant details about his measurements. It is not clear (to me, at least) how "independent" the Liversage work is with respect to whatever it is supposed to "verify." For example, did Mr. Liversage replicate the actual reaction process, witness the process, or merely analyze samples that were sent to him? If his involvement begins with samples prepared by others he is hardly in a position to provide independent verification of anything beyond the analysis of two samples. Although Liversage goes to some length to inform us of his qualifications as an analytic chemist, I find no mention of any qualifications for nuclear chemistry. Yet Liversage does not hesitate to claim that he verified that he had two samples of differing activity. I note that the measurements he describes can not determine w hether the activity observed is due to thorium and thorium alone. While Mr. Liversage suggests that the "process" may involve thorium fission, he does not carry through to see whether his observations are, in fact, consistant with fission. Fission tends to be a binary process, with each fission event producing two frag ments. Should thorium (Z = 90) produce copper (Z = 29) as one of the fragments, we should expect to find in equal abundance a fission fragment with Z around 61. If the Liversage analysis is correct, and there is no candidate for the high Z fragment, we can conclude that no fission is occurring. This fact is something Mr. Liversage somehow fails to appreciate-- probably because he is poorly qualified to evaluate his own experimental evidence with regard to the radiochemistry. Has he never seen the text-book picture of the double-humped distribution of masses of fission fragments? Speaking of distributions, Mr. Liversage does note in his introduction that the products of fission generally show some randomness, yet he is not at all ashamed to present a claim that the randomness is somehow constrained when it comes to the conversion of thorium to copper and titanium. As I have noted before, the failure of these transmutation reactions to produce a reasonably random outcome is pretty clear evidence that these results are bogus. If the dice always come up snake eyes, you would certai nly suspect that something is not quite right at the crap table, so how can you accept the equivalent in a nuclear process? There truly is only one way to get everything to end in stable ground states, and that is to never depart from those states in the first place. In case that is not enough evidence to convict Mr. Liversage, it's worth doing more nuclear counting. The problem with the conversion of thorium to stable copper and titanium is that you can't get the neutrons to balance out. If Mr. Liversage is as good a chemist as he claims to be, I doubt that he would put down a redox reaction without getting the electron count to balance, but somehow he seems unaware that nuclear reactions have similar balances to be maintained. Because the ratio of neutrons to protons is higher for heavier nuclei fragmentation by any mechanism you care to suggest, [such mechanism] has to produce either free neutrons or lots of neutron-rich radioisotopes. Where do these people think all that radi oactive waste from reactors comes from? Do the count yourself. If one thorium were to produce three coppers there would be at least 18 neutrons left over. Where are you going to put those neutrons, Mr. Liversage? What do you mean when you assert that the production of copper and titanium matches the loss of thorium? Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:48:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:41:11 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" T o: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Calling Scott Little -- Earth Tech Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:41:09 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"FqQ0s1.0.Xu6.LMyup" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9592 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com -----Original Message----- From: Scott Little [SMTP:little eden.com] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 1997 3:02 PM To: JoeC@transmutation.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Calling Scott Little -- Earth Tech Indeed I would. As you recall I tried your Hg+Na reaction some time ago and, a face value, it appeared to work exactly as you said it would. A great release of heat occurred as the Na amalgamated with the Hg. However, a careful XRF analysis of the reac tants showed no signs of the Pt you predicted would be formed. What do you think went wrong with this experiment? Damn it Scott, you know as well as I what went wrong! I told you that the only way you would have success is if you wore the black robe and conical hat and Hal was facing the true north (not magnetic) while chanting a Latin prayer. You didn't wear the r obe and Hal walked in a circle humming God Bless America - The experiment was sabotaged. Seriously, it is not an art, but technique. The experiment of Na + Hg is repeatable for us, but the higher yields are from rapid placement of the Na onto the Hg surface. If you don't mind, Joe, why don't we conduct the experiment "on-line" so all the members of Vortex can see what's going into it...and what comes out of it? No problem with me on this one. Let's talk at the first of the week and establish the basic protocol. How much Th do you have on hand? I know what you mean but, you should not consider of either Barry or myself as "negative". Both of us are far more "positive" about phringe physics than your average physicist...at least we're willing to try these experiments! It was unfair to call you negative, but regarding Barry (only kidding). We have a phenomenal working relationship with Barry (or, Dr. B as my son calls him). Let's put your center on the map, for unless you are spinning gold out of straw, I would imagin e that the financiers of your research center would like to see something work :-}. Respectfully, Joe Champion www.transmutation.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 16:51:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:47:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: Rich Mu rray Cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Transmutation: Blue Critique. Resent-Message-ID: <"MdlQ61.0.II5.dTyup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9593 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com While Dick Blue has raised some general theoretical concerns regarding conservation of baryon number (that I share too) I believe he has not addressed the most astounding results. That of the radical shifts of isotopic ratios and the decline in apparent r adioactivity from the sample. It appears that only major mistakes could result in the observed results. Does anybody have any information on the track record of Robert Liversage? Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 17:44:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:36:51 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Production Costs Resent-Message-ID: <"7MF6X1.0.T2.fBzup" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9594 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Robert Stirnman wrote: > >> Diamonds is another thing that can be made perfectly >> in the lab for a few dollars per carat. > >There is an aesthic difference between industrial diamond dust from a lab >and a one-carat gemstone. I don't think gem quality diamonds of any size >have been produced synthetically. It takes heat and a LOT of pressure. >Almost every other gemstone except opal can be produced synthetically in >any reasonable size. Not true. IBM worked out a method ten or twenty years ago. But de Beers got involved and the project was shut down. Not to say it was easy, but it worked according to an expose on the process and on diamonds in general. Diamonds are plentiful and cheap to mine. The only thing holding the value of the little rocks are the vault doors at de Beers which keeps them from flooding out and ruining the market. When some new mine opens up, they either buy it, or threaten to flo od the market with the color of diamond and size diamond that uncooperative mine happens to be producing in abundance. So they artificially set the consumers mind in a direction that this color of diamond is precious, while this other one is rare. The rarity is purely a function of how many of the truckloads of diamonds in the vault they decide to sell during any given year. Actually, this is a well known case study in excellent marketing producing a "need" for something common, and then hoarding producing a low supply and ergo high prices. I don't think I will ever buy another one, because sooner or later the sham has to leak out. Especially since up in Canada and Alaska there are some old volcanic vent tubes that happen to have lots of the cri tters in them. Russia has lots, and so do a number of other countries around the globe. Ross X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 19:58:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 21:52:44 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: JoeC transmutation.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: RE: Calling Scott Little -- Earth Tech Resent-Message-ID: <"131yA3.0.gq5.AD_up" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9599 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:41 PM 8/2/97 -0700, Joe E. Champion wrote: >prayer. You didn't wear the robe and Hal walked in a circle humming God >Bless America - The experiment was sabotaged. oops!...I had forgotten about our little blasphemy! We promise to do it right next time.... >How much Th do you have on hand? We have about 1 pound of Th metal. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 20:12:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 20:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 22:09:24 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Could low inductance to high inductance be the secret? Resent-Message-ID: <"KpMq7.0.Ua6.nQ_up" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9601 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:25 PM 8/2/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: > At any point in these different designs, does the coil or coils go from a >low inductance state to a high indunctance state? There is a high-power pulse generating device developed by the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas in Austin called the Compulsator which employs the opposite effect to achieve very high current output pulses. In the Compulsator, a cur rent is induced in a set of coils at one point in the rotation of the armature and then the armature rotates to a new position where the inductance of these coils is greatly reduced (by a factor of about 7). Conservation of energy (0.5 L*i^2) requires th at the current increase dramatically when this occurs (by a factor of ~49). After this current pulse is output, the coils then rotate to the next position where their inductance is again high and the process repeats. >From a several-year stint working closely on another project with some of the engineers that developed the Compulsator I can assure you that every aspect of that machine was carefully and thoroughly analyzed via FEA computer models before it was constuct ed. Then, during actual testing of the machine, every one of those predictions was checked against the actual performance of the machine and every significant discrepancy was resolved. In other words, their machine didn't do anything unexpected. If o-u energy was generated when the coils went from low to high inductance, they would have noticed it for sure. This is just "one point on the map". I'm not saying that the o-u motor claims are false...just that varying inductance in a generating machine doesn't always produce o-u results. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 21:01:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 20:57:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" To: "'rmforall earthlink.net'" , "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Bass response, Champion posts, Savior Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 20:55:10 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"sgqkW2.0.D61.n60vp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9602 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com 2. Re: Joe Champion's comments: At the request of Distinguished Professor John O'M. Bockris I have included in some of my written remarks that contained historical references the fact that Joe Champion deserves credit for bringing the reality of Alchemy to the attention of Bockr is and others. However, at present Mr. Champion is operating in a mode wherein he makes claims, but offers no concrete evidence, and gives others no chance to replicate (or disconfirm) his claims by independent investigation. Dr. Bass, First, thank you as I communicated with you on the telephone for the honorable mention. In my post earlier, I was being nice. In the case of replication I have been more open that most regarding findings. Furthermore, since you are the one taking the gloves off I offered to meet you my next time to Pahrumb, NV. Being repetitive to our per sonal conversations, I stay at the Saddle West Hotel in Pahrumb. It is the only hotel in your town that has a restaurant. Furthermore, the only reason I visit your lovely city with two casinos is - a mining exploration company outside your town is making their precious metals by transmutation. Of course, Murray likes to stir up the pot. In contrast, the CincyGroup is committed to making a total and full (legally "enabling" disclosure, as that term is used in Intellectual Property Law) in the next issue of Infinite Energy magazine. In that issue they will also offer "do-it-yourse lf" Kits for sale. Therefore the pathological critics will soon be confronted by an army of independent verifiers, able to testify to the truth of their discoveries. I do not intend to comment upon the merely verbal ASSERTIONS of Mr. Champion, unless and until he too makes a full and ENABLING disclosure sufficiently complete to allow others to "make & use without undue experimentation" the inventions which he states he has made. Dr. Robert W. Bass Prof. of Physics & Astronomy, BYU (1971-81) Registered Patent Agent 29,130 P.O.Box 1238, Pahrump, NV 89041-1238; phone/FAX (702) 751-0932/0739 Voice-Mail: (702) 387-7213 e-Mail: rbrtbass pahrump.com With due respect Dr. Bass, you are starting to sound like CETI. Selling kits, is that an omen from the Almighty? I unlike your associates, which by the way are in the same city as the R&D Center for the EPA (not a shabby group of guys who would love to know how to get rid of radioactive waste), will prove my wares. No holds barred, in this contest. I will give full disclosure. I am not an inventor, nor am I a messenger from God. To be honest, I am not on his best side for he is supportive of Miller Lite, while I enjoy the sins of Budwieser (great frog commercial). You are wrapped in LAW, for some reason. I am not concerned about your claims for if you have go to Good Morning America, CETI did. To my knowledge they have not replicated bu third party. Scott Little says he has a pound of thorium. I will make it easy on you. Give him your team's (or their God's) secrets to Scott Little and I will give Scott's mine. To make it easy, there are 453.xx grams in a pound. You take a gram and I will take the rest and give the procedure for transmutation. No dilution, no lead, no conversion to aqueous solutions, that is, unless you need such form to make your technology work. And the winner wins a trip back to Cincinnati to demonstrate to the EPA. Sounds like a plan to me. Respectfully, Joe Champion X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 19:59:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:55:45 -0700 Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 21:02:17 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, sarfatti@well.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, rbrtbass pahrump.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, schultr ashur.cc.biu.ac.il, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, yekim physics.purdue.edu, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, JoeC@transmutation.com, disign73@aol.com, fawolf ix.netcom.com, puthoff@aol.com, JosephHRowe@compuserve.com, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, wireless@rmii.com, bhorst loc100.tandem.com, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, g-miley uiuc.edu, ceti@onramp.net, Danyork@iadfw.net, kirk.shanahan srs.gov, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, david@ibg.uu.se, lucille telis.org, dennis@wazoo.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, bockris@chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, david@iceland.it.earthlink.net, k@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3 llnl.gov, 76002.1473@compuserve.com, harti@harti.com, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su Subject: Bass response, Champion posts, Savior Resent-Message-ID: <"DBCNA1.0.dQ.mC_up" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9600 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Comments by Rich Murray: In these posts, both the Cincinatti Group and Joe Champion promise to make their amazing claims available for independent replication. The initial critique by Dick Blue is fairly well answered, but only independent and reliable replication will really make low energy nuclear reactions a real, if very surprising, field. Some questions: If some of that 1 mm Cu flake is still available, can some other labs run mass spectroscopy on it? Are its isotopic anomalies uniformly deposited? Would Champion make some of his product available for mass spectroscopy, and pay for it? What is the quality of Champion's computer program Transmute Directed Search V. 4.7, and can it be made available? Are any searches being made to determine any product gases, H-2, H-3, He-3, He-4, the nobel gases, etc? [Minor typos corrected by Rich Murray] Subject: Blue & Champion "critiques" Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 23:34:39 -0700 From: "Robert Bass" To: Rich Murray" CC: Stan Gleeson" , "Martha Krebs" , "Philip Stone" , "Bennett Miller" , "Robert W. Bass" Rich Murray: please show this to whoever has seen the "critiques" which you forwarded to me. 1. Re: Dick Blue's comments: Much of what Blue says is correct but is an elaboration of the obvious; however, since he is motivated by the desire to be capricious & critical, he consistently chooses interpretations of whatever was ambiguous that suit his destructive bias. The carefulness with which Mr. Blue read the CincyGroup's "Third Party Verification" Statement by Rob Liversage is shown by Mr. Blue's reference to Rob as "Liverside." The Statement explicitly states that the Thorium mass which disappeared was equaled by the Titanium & Copper which appears "within experimental error." Rob indicated to me that he estimated the error to be about "seven percent." Therefore the ex cess neutrons about which Mr. Blue inquires could have been made up of various isotopes of the lighter elements (Helium, Lithium, Beryllium, Carbon, etc.) which it is my (amateur) understanding are NOT measured in the type of mass-spectroscopy used. Mr. Blue's attempts at _ad hominem_ arguments (instead of sticking to scientific arguments in a professional manner), falsely claiming that Liversage is not qualified, is simply unethical propaganda, designed to impress those foolish enough to waste their time reading Blue's consistent negativity. The fact is that Liversage was originally employed by the _manufacturer_ of the Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) form of quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy utili zed and for _years_ was employed by that manufacturer as a trouble-shooter! Before joining DataChem, he knew that technology inside and out! I will forward Mr. Blue's inanities to the CincyGroup in order that Rob Liversage can enlighten Mr. Blue if he t hinks he can spare the time to reply to such undeserved "pathological skepticism." 2. Re: Joe Champion's comments: At the request of Distinguished Professor John O'M. Bockris I have included in some of my written remarks that contained historical references the fact that Joe Champion deserves credit for bringing the reality of Alchemy to the attention of Bockr is and others. However, at present Mr. Champion is operating in a mode wherein he makes claims, but offers no concrete evidence, and gives others no chance to replicate (or disconfirm) his claims by independent investigation. In contrast, the CincyGroup is committed to making a total and full (legally "enabling" disclosure, as that term is used in Intellectual Property Law) in the next issue of Infinite Energy magazine. In that issue they will also offer "do-it-yourse lf" Kits for sale. Therefore the pathological critics will soon be confronted by an army of independent verifiers, able to testify to the truth of their discoveries. I do not intend to comment upon the merely verbal ASSERTIONS of Mr. Champion, unless and until he too makes a full and ENABLING disclosure sufficiently complete to allow others to "make & use without undue experimentation" the inventions which he states he has made. Dr. Robert W. Bass Prof. of Physics & Astronomy, BYU (1971-81) Registered Patent Agent 29,130 P.O.Box 1238, Pahrump, NV 89041-1238; phone/FAX (702) 751-0932/0739 Voice-Mail: (702) 387-7213 e-Mail: rbrtbass pahrump.com Subject: RE: Hey gang I'm back Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 23:15:15 -0700 Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 23:14:46 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC transmutation.com" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" -----Original Message----- From: lewis edward: "Could I ask why this must be so? Does this mean that protons + neutrons must be conserved or the number of both the protons and the neutrons? What is your experimental findings? I suspect that there aren't really nuclei." OK, allow me to start with some fundamental findings from my 1990 research. Many have traveled down a one-way street. That is, following the P&F syndrome. Most of the believers in CF and transmutation assume that the reaction is dealing with H. During numerous talks and collaborations with Bockris et al in 1992, I pleaded my case that the reaction was not a hydrogen reaction, but a reaction involving ignition (thermal). This reaction can be generated in an electrolysis cell under certain conditions. Allow me to present a few "real" examples: Hg196 + Na23 + O16 > H1 + He4 + O18 + Mg24 + Os188 [+0.001863 mev] Hg196 + Na23 + O16 > H2 + Be9 + N14 + Si30 + Ta180 [+0.000931 mev] Hg199 + Na23 + O16 >+ 2(H2) + Be9 + K41 + W184 [+0.000931 mev] Hg199 + Na23 + O16 > H3 + Be9 + B11 + Cl35 + Hf180 [+0.001863 mev] Hg196 + Na23 + O17 > Li6 + Li7 + N15 + Si28 + Hf180 [+0.000932 mev] Hg201 + Na23 + O17 > H2 + H3 + Li7 + Ca43 + W186 [-0.000931 mev] The reaction occurs with the ignition (rapid oxidation) of the Na when it is in intimate contact with the Hg. Read your history on the cold fusion cells purported to work. Did anyone check to see the potential RF interference (60 hz) at the cathode? Some did, put everyone who performed calorimetry changed the power supply when they saw erroneous signals. And so they should, for how could one calibrate a system with spurious interference? On the other hand, what if you had a superimposed energy which allowed for a not so perfect electrolysis, you could easily load a portion of your electrolyte (Li, Na, K, Sr etc) into the the lattice, and O could be presented to the cathode due to the opposing energies. Taking for an example a typical P&F Cell you would have: Pd + Li + O which would allow for: [computer program] Transmute Directed Search! V4.7 Copyright (c) 1996 Joe Champion Absolute value energy limit = 0.0020 mev Minimum input abundunce = 0.0000 mev Start/End fixed input isotope search range: Element Z N Pd 46 102 Element Z N Pd 46 110 Contribution count this range = 1 Start/End fixed input isotope search range: Element Z N Li 3 6 Element Z N Li 3 7 Contribution count this range = 1 Start/End fixed input isotope search range: Element Z N O 8 16 Element Z N O 8 16 Contribution count this range = 1 Running over full output range Minimum outputs = 2-body Maximum outputs = 6-body Start 2-body out calculations... Search for 2 outputs complete... Start 3-body out calculations... Pd104 + Li6 > Li7 + Mg25 + Se78 [+0.001863 mev] Pd102 + Li7 > Na23 + S36 + Ti50 [-0.001863 mev] Search for 3 outputs complete... Start 4-body out calculations... Pd104 + Li7 + O16 > B11 + Si30 + S36 + Ti50 [+0.000000 mev] Search for 4 outputs complete... Start 5-body out calculations... Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + C12 + N15 + Si30 + Cu65 [-0.000931 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > He4 + Li7 + N15 + Cl37 + Ni61 [-0.001863 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > He4 + Be9 + Mg26 + Ar40 + Sc45 [+0.000931 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > He4 + Ne21 + Na23 + Si28 + Ca48 [+0.000000 mev] Pd105 + Li6 + O16 > H1 + He4 + B11 + Na23 + Sr88 [-0.000931 mev] Pd105 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + C13 + N15 + Ca46 + V51 [+0.000932 mev] Pd110 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + He4 + Li7 + Cl37 + Se82 [-0.000931 mev] Pd102 + Li7 + O16 > H2 + H3 + N14 + Ca44 + Ni62 [+0.001863 mev] Pd104 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + H2 + N15 + Si29 + Se80 [-0.000932 mev] Pd105 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + 2(H3) + Ca43 + Se78 [-0.001863 mev] Pd106 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + H2 + H3 + Ar40 + Kr83 [+0.001863 mev] Search for 5 outputs complete... Start 6-body out calculations... Pd102 + Li6 + O16 >+ 2(H1) + H2 + He4 + K41 + As75 [+0.000932 mev] Pd102 + Li6 + O16 > H2 + H3 + 2(He4) + Ti46 + Cu65 [-0.001863 mev] Pd102 + Li7 + O16 > H1 + H2 + He4 + Ne20 + Ca48 + V50 [-0.001863 mev] Pd105 + Li7 + O16 >+ 3(H1) + H2 + K41 + Se82 [-0.000931 mev] Search for 6 outputs complete... This was a little longer of a post than I intended, but I think you get my point. In these reactions you conserve protons, neutrons and mass. The ending result is transmutation without energy - the ultimate in "Cold Fusion." Do some cells show anomalous heat? Of course. However, in the above scheme, you produce many new elements that produce heat from formation to their oxide state (e.g. Na, Ca, Mg). Also, you will see that tritium is formed without heat. For the old timers here, remember the controversy over that one? The above samples are exemplary and requires more details than I can supply tonight. Just a footnote - compare the above with Miley's empirical data, you may see something interesting. Respectfully, Joe Champion www.transmutation.com Subject: Transmutation of Radioactive elements Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 11:30:11 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC transmutation.com" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Transmutation of Radioactive Isotopes Using Electrolysis and Thermal Excitation History: After making my original claims of transmutation by thermal excitation in 1989, numerous individuals attempted the process. Most met with failure, yet some reported yields. A note of interest -- In 1993, a letter was written to Bockris from the Cincinnati group stating that they would be able to control the gold market using thermal excitation (Brown's Gas and "gun powder techniques"). This is not of interest at this time, but what many of you are not aware of is - Yull Brown was involved in conversion of complex mineral to precious metals for years prior to my arriving on the scene. In 1992 he met with a good friend of mine Roger Brig gs in the LA area and said that he was no longer converting, but now transmuting metals. This gave way to his ability to transmute (at that time he called it destroy) radioactive material. After introducing Roberto Monti to the physical characteristics of transmutation, he traveled to the Seattle area and worked with Keller to transmute radioactive material. This led to the introduction of the process to Mike Mandeville, who prepared an e xtensive paper on his observation. Following this group we find organizations like CETI and the Cincinnati Group making claims and touting their discoveries. Just a bit of transmutation trivia. The First Commonality of the groups: Each claims that they are successful in the transmutation of radioactive isotopes, and none of these groups report any generation of excess neutron or thermalizing energies. Problems in providing proof: In the case of Keller, Monti and Mandeville, the problem resides in the fact that they used lead in their thermal reaction. This could easily lead to encapsulation verses transmutation and difficult to prove. Also, the process expels an enormous amount of gas. Hence, a portion of the material could be physically moved to another area, in lieu of being transmuted. Also, Brown's system volatilized much of the sample. In the case of electrolytic cells, the major problem you have is with the dilution factor. A small sample of material (thorium nitrate) will disperse through a large volume of electrolyte. This makes residual quantitization extremely difficult. The Second Commonality of these Groups: Every one of the above uses multiple elements within their apparatuses to effectuate transmutation. In the thermal experiments (inclusive of Brown's) you have numerous elements associated with the various compounds. The same holds true with the electrochemists. You have two electrodes, H20, an electrolyte and the water-soluble radioactive compound. Initial Observation:You have groups who spun off from various starting points who claim that they are able to reduce radiation by applying energy (thermal or electrical) to select isotopes in the proximity of various other elements. The question is - what would allow for such a reaction to work? The reaction chain for the high mass radioactive isotopes is difficult. For you must have elements supporting a large number of protons available to offset the excess amount of neutrons found in the target nucleus (e.g., thorium). Examples of low energy nuclear transmutation paths for thorium follow: Th232 + Pd108 + Cl35 > H1 + Ni60 + Ge76 + U238 Th232 + Pd110 + Cl35 > H2 + C13 + Yb174 + Os188 Th232 + Ag109 + Cl35 > He3 + C12 + Lu176 + Re185 Th232 + Pd104 + Cl37 > H3 + C12 + Dy160 + Hg198 In each case there is conservation of protons, neutron and mass. More details will be posted on the WEB later this weekend. Joe Champion www.transmutation.com Subject: Calling Scott Little -- Earth Tech Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 12:28:53 -0700 Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 12:25:40 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC transmutation.com" To: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Hello Scott, It has been some time since our last communication. I thought that you might enjoy the opportunity to see transmutation occur in your facility. I can promise you "no excess heat." I don't know what your schedule is like, but as the saying goes on Vortex - "If Scott can make it work, anybody can." I have no particular experiment in mind. If interested, we can discuss what you have available in your laboratory, and effectuate some form of transmutation. If interested, we can modify one of your CETI lookalikes into something that will at least prov e transmutation. Or, if you wish you could make some precious metals. It is my understanding that they still have value. Just a thought, you are always offering to prove and/or disprove concepts. Besides, it is my understanding that Barry will be over this month, and he is more negative than you. Just kidding a bit.... Respectfully, Joe Champion www.transmutation.com Subject: RE: Transmutation: Blue Critique. Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:47:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: Rich Murray CC: vortex-L eskimo.com While Dick Blue has raised some general theoretical concerns regarding conservation of baryon number (that I share too), I believe he has not addressed the most astounding results: That of the radical shifts of isotopic ratios and the decline in apparent radioactivity from the sample. It appears that only major mistakes could result in the observed results. Does anybody have any information on the track record of Robert Liversage? Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 2 21:37:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 21:34:33 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Fools Gold To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:31:57 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"PEpw23.0.J92.Lf0vp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9603 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > World gold production also increased enormously during > this time, driven by the demand. You'll have to clarify what you mean by "gold production." Except for gold that is actually lost to the environment and can't be reclaimed, all existing recoverable gold can be considered to be in a huge fungible pile. (Fungible means that one hunk of gold, derated for purity, is indistinguishable from any other hunk of gold.) Selling gold from the pile doesn't necessarily effect the overal gold price all that much since the pile doesn't change size, just ownership changes hands. Actual mining of new gold from the ground and adding it to the pile does increase the size of the pile and thus should lower the price of gold. However, the existing pile of gold has been accumulating over thousands of years and therefore each year's annual production of new gold is relatively small in comparison. I believe that even at the height of the gold rush years in the mid 1800's, the in crease in the size of the total gold pile was just a percent or so per year. In otherwords, because the existing pile of gold is so huge in comparison to annual gold production, such new production has very little effect on the price of gold. Ultimately the value of anything is dependent on the demand for it, so gold can fluxuate in value. However its usefulness as a currency is based upon its natural "fixed quantity", independent of any other valuation attributed to it. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 00:23:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 00:20:40 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:20:29 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Real fusion research Resent-Message-ID: <"vVXGU3.0.mv.753vp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9604 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com If you want to read some pleasant short articles about whats up in real fusion (i.e. hot fusion) research at UCLA, check out the latest issue of the UCLA Challenge research magazine, which has a special section devoted to fusion research at UCLA. UCLA is one of the centers for academic fusion research, especially innovative research approaches: its at http://www.research.ucla.edu/chal/4.htm These articles are not very technical or long, so perhaps they would educate some members of the vortex group to the fact that excellent scientists are hard at work on fusion and remain optimistic even though they know better than anyone what the pitfalls are. -- 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 04:32:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 04:31:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:29:30 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Eighth Miley Critique Resent-Message-ID: <"rWr_-2.0.RQ.yl6vp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9606 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich, At the end of a message about the Cincinnati group's transmutation claims, Jean-Paul Biberian summarized his view of the matter in one sentence: "My opinion is that the only reliable numbers are the copper anomaly, and maybe Zn67" For the benefit of us nontechies, would you do the same with respect to the question of which of Miley's transmutation claims you consider still arguable? Tom Stolper X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 05:07:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:07:11 -0700 Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 14:00:56 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: DE PALMA Resent-Message-ID: <"0uZtN3.0.7B6.kH7vp" mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4657 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Hi all. I visited the page announced on Keelynet. Can the N-MACHINE run at overunity?. The last information I had not say this. Only a 80% eff. This is the page: http://www.depalma.org.nz/ Vicente. -- Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga E-mail: vramos ctv.es Home Page: http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm Burriana (Castellon) SPAIN X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 07:25:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:19:49 -0700 Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 10:20:45 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Real fusion research References: <33E4313D.4D5B math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"bui5y.0.-W.4E9vp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9607 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > > If you want to read some pleasant short articles about whats > up in real fusion (i.e. hot fusion) research at UCLA, check out > > http://www.research.ucla.edu/chal/4.htm > Interesting review, Barry. Thanks. BTW, what's your opinion on the "dense z-pinch" approach to fusion confinement? Does this look promising, or is it a dud? Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 16:11:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:03:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 17:09:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists report radical shift of continents Resent-Message-ID: <"1n8Kz2.0.c83.HvGvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9608 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com -snip- > This outer frictionless layer is implied by the 'readings' of the > convection flow in the mantle. The direction of these flows seem to bear > no relationship to the direction of tectonic plate movement, implying no > friction between the mantle and the tectonic plates. > -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) > > I'd agree with that. :) Scientific American October 1994 (pg#69) has a small 8 global rendering(s) going back to 700 million years. It looked pretty normal to present continent distribution. THEN at 300-200 million we all decided to "get-together and part y" as one (1) Super-loopsided Super continent... this is VERY STRANGE indeed, but I must admit if one looks at 150 million years ago and draws a line, The Geo/Mineral proof holds out that the Kimberly Diamond mines Africa.....The Diamond Mines in Brazil's Eastern most coast..... and our Colorado(s) newest find "Kelsey Lake" Diamond Mine were indeed in a straight line THEN. Of the 14 or so Plates it sure looks like we're "floating" on something : Liquid or fluid :) se "If the Rocks talk, I guess we should listen -eh?" X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 18:52:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:49:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: UFO sightings and the CIA Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 01:47:57 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"qSGE03.0.C55.4LJvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9611 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: The CNN web page cited a report on how the Air Force and CIA dealt with UFO's to cover up Spy planes etc. Also a couple of Great "Flying Saucers". :-) Full report at: http://www.odci.gov/csi/studies/97unclas/ufo.html Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 22:02:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 21:50:47 -0700 From: "Joe E. Champion" Reply-To: "JoeC@transmutation.com" T o: "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: Transmutation of radioactive material Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 21:50:19 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"06yoJ1.0.Zy3.c-Lvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9614 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com After numerous emails today. Scott Little has agreed in principle to carry out a procedure for the transmutation of thorium metal. During the next couple of days we will establish a protocol and Scott will keep Vortex informed of the progress. Since he has an ample supply, I request that we work in gram quantities using various excitation processes. Thanks Scott, for this should prove interesting..... Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Microsoft Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.99 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 22:02:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 22:00:01 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 04:58:50 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199708022322.SAA16834 dsm7.dsmnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"w_ZwY2.0.iH4.F7Mvp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9615 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 2 Aug 1997 18:22:57 (-050, Dean T. Miller wrote: [snip] >The only thing that could melt the ice off Antarctica is a warming Earth >(note: not the air but the ground -- this has nothing to do with the >alleged greenhouse effect). There is current evidence from all over that >the Earth (NOT the air) is warming. So the preliminary conditions seem >to be starting right now. I don't suppose you could supply a couple of pointers to that "evidence from all over", could you? [snip] Thanks, Robin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 3 21:35:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 21:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 22:38:01 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: JoeC transmutation.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, JosephHRowe@compuserve.com, lucille telis.org, key@rt66.com, ggmurray@uriacc.uri.edu, dnovak uriacc.uri.edu, rollo@artvark.com Subject: Do you notice Resent-Message-ID: <"khaOt1.0.T-1.mhLvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9612 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 3, 1997 Joe, thanks for the spunky, paradoxical post. Here's One right back: Have you noticed, when Joe communicates with Rich, Rich is an "image-concept-story complex" in Joe's mind? When Joe communicates with Rich, Joe also is an "image-concept-story complex" in Joe's mind? Of course, the same for the stuff in Rich's mind about Joe and about Rich... Do you notice, it's the "same" "mind"? rich "Murray" X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 13:30:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:02:14 -0700 X-Intended-For: X-Sender: mwm aa.net Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 13:04:05 +0100 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"N2WFM2.0.2t7.5LZvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9619 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 06:22 PM 8/2/97, you wrote: >Hi Michael, > >> the earth is a binary planet and its mass behaves as if it were a flying >> saucer shape >> >> the bulge at the equater is not big as a stabilier but that aint all there >> is to the bulge. there is also a fairly good sized moon out there which is >> part of the bulge system >> >> that too is an illusion but closer to the truth > >All of that is true. BUT -- the center of gravity of the Earth/Moon >system is within the Earth -- that makes the Moon a satellite of the >Earth (isn't that the definition??). Contrast this with the center of >gravity of the Sun/Jupiter system, it's outside the apparent globe of the >sun (by a few million miles). > >> all of the planets have very long tails. these may end just about where >> the orbit of the next planet starts. the planets conduct enormous currents >> from the sun to the outer reaches > >Yup. And this could pose very big problems depending on the >configuration of the planets and the state of the sun. These electric >currents produce magnetic 'fields' which interact with the fields of the >planets. We don't know enough yet (maybe you do?) to figure out what >effects there could be. > >> no mechanical friction holds this surface in place. no mechanical friction >> drives the plates. there is little to none. > >Agreed, mostly. > > > >I'm not too sure I agree with your explanation about gravity or the ice >'imbalance' you imply. You say the continents are 'scum,' which is true >(more like slag in a blast furnace or the impurities that come to the top >of molten metals). > >You also say this scum is inconsequential to the geo-mechanics of the >overall Earth, which is correct. But, this also means the ice masses >(which are far less massive than the continents) are also >inconsequential. > >> Now for the trigger. >> >> It has been calculated that the force of a large solar storm - the really >> big once in a generation big ones, hit the earth with enough force in those >> protons and electrons to actually slow slightly and briefly the spin the >> earth. The sun burps, the earth shudders. That is the trigger. > >That could be the "straw that broke the camel's back" type trigger, but >other factors are required. IMO, what is first needed is something that >forces the crust of the Earth to readjust itself due to increase or >decrease of mass in one part of the Earth. That is, the tectonic plates >have to be thrown out of vertical equilibrium by something. > >That something could be a large meteorite impact, or it could be (my >favorite ) the ice quickly melting or moving off Antarctica (Greenland >ice isn't massive enough to do the job). > >The only thing that could melt the ice off Antarctica is a warming Earth >(note: not the air but the ground -- this has nothing to do with the >alleged greenhouse effect). There is current evidence from all over that >the Earth (NOT the air) is warming. So the preliminary conditions seem >to be starting right now. > >> The large solar storms are directly correlated with the alignment of the >> planets. > >Yup. That was shown to be true in the 40's. But direct alignment >(conjunction) wasn't needed. Two groups of planets lined up 90 degrees >apart (using the Sun as the apex) seems more significant. > >> Here in the Puget Sound we have non-fossilized seashells at 1200 feet >> elevation, this is in ground which was above sea level and was scoured to >> the metamorphized bedrock by glaciers 12,000 years ago. > >That's interesting. I didn't know that. Are you sure about the glacier >scouring (I assume the glaciers were from the Cascade range)? > >Good message. > >Do you know of a listserver where these subjects are discussed?? I sure >can't find one (and this isn't really the place). > > >-- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) > > I don't know. I would like to discuss this on Vortex because it has the right combination of free-wheeling "relatively informed" generalists. If we keep to the subject header, people can use the delete key or filter it out easily if they have no interes t. I hope for that graciousness. I think the essence of the discussion is to move past the ILLUSIONS of space and solidity and separation and see the complex interacting vortices which are the solar/earth/moon system. Michael Wells Mandeville "Return of the Phoenix" at http://www.aa.net/~mwm/phoenix/phoenix.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 05:25:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 05:15:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Thermionic Production of Light Lepton Pairs? Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 12:13:40 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"PfAEH3.0.T9.ZVSvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9616 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: The thermionic emission of electrons from metals is dictated by the equation; J = A*T^2*e^- (phi/kT) (amperes/cm^2) where (phi) is the work function (joules) A is the constant 60.2 amperes/cm^2. Nickel (which melts at 1726 deg K)if operated at 1500 deg K, if perfectly clean should emit 1.64E-17 amperes/cm^2 or about 100 electrons/cm^2/second. If the work function is halved by surface impurities or such, the emission increases by some 250 million times at a given temperature. Makes one wonder if some of the electrons (or ions) are "Light Leptons" +/- which can catalyze proton/deuteron reactions. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 13:08:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 12:56:51 -0700 Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 19:37:38 +0000 From: Jean-Paul Biberian Reply-To: biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Eighth Miley Critique References: <970803072929_-1373900322 emout19.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"M80r42.0.mb7.1GZvp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9618 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > Rich, > > At the end of a message about the Cincinnati group's transmutation claims, > Jean-Paul Biberian summarized his view of the matter in one sentence: "My > opinion is that the only reliable numbers are the copper anomaly, and maybe > Zn67" > > For the benefit of us nontechies, would you do the same with respect to the > question of which of Miley's transmutation claims you consider still > arguable? > > Tom Stolper I certainly could do the same analysis with Miley's data, but I need the actual raw data to do so. I don't believe that they are published either in Infinite Energy or in the proceedings of ICCF6. If George sends me a copy I'll do it. -- Jean-Paul Biberian biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr tel : (33) 476 82 67 51 Grenoble tel : (33) 491 72 35 45 Marseille (voice mail) fax: (33) 476 82 67 67 Grenoble X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 13:08:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 12:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:49:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vorte x-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Diamonds .... Production Costs Resent-Message-ID: <"ICDVj.0.5p5.2DZvp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9617 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Robert Stirniman wrote: > > Diamonds is another thing that can be made perfectly > in the lab for a few dollars per carat. The iron-nickle catalysis of carbon solution to diamond crystals requires expensive presses and also requires power to heat, as well and press. The growth weight is about 1 carat [200 milligrams] per WEEK ... for moderate gem quality diamonds. This is definitely a non trivial effort and costs far more than 'a few dollars a carat'. The resultant is a Type IIb product which is distinguishable from Type Ia .... about 95% of natural diamonds are Type Ia. "Diamond-like" films are not gem quality, and also are not easy to grow. Synthetic industrial cutting diamonds go form 1,000 [for very crummmy] to 2,000 per pound. One reason for high cost of good industrial diamonds, in the form of grit, is the requi rement for precise particle size. The bonding of diamond grit to wheels and the vehicles used for diamond grinding pastes has been the subject of intense research for decades. The main > business of deBeers is public deception. What "Diamonds > are Forever" really means is once you spend a small > fortune for a diamond, you might as well plan to keep > it forever. Besides, only a real cheapskate would bother > trying to convince his bride that it might be better > to save the money. > > Regards, > Robert Stirniman The value of any gem on the market is a complex issue. JHS > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 13:54:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:45:54 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:37:50 -0500 References: <3.0.32.19970804130403.00e07a10 aa.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"XV19E1.0.cv1.0-Zvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9620 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 4, 2:56pm, Michael Mandeville wrote: > I don't know. I would like to discuss this on Vortex because it has the > right combination of free-wheeling "relatively informed" generalists. The very reason I even subscribe! 8^) I say the topic is reasonable with a constant subject line. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 14:17:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:07:34 -0700 Date: 04 Aug 97 17:05:27 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Little is right about Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"yUZT32.0.Rr3.LIavp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9621 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I agree completely with Scott Little's views on Newman machine: If your [replication] machine didn't work, you could say "No" to the above question but that's about all. . . . That's why it is much better to test one of Newman's own machines. If that doesn't work we can close the Newman file forever. Exactly. In the last phase of testing Newman would have to be given every opportunity to come to the lab and tweak the machine, but in the end, if the machine did not work, we would close the file. And that is why people like Newman, Lee and Meyer will N EVER allow qualified, independent observers to test their machines. They circulate rumors of people who have seen the thing, they sell blueprints galore, but they never let themselves be trapped in a real scientific test -- because they know it will fail. They know that will end the game and turn off the money spigot. They thrive on ambiguity and ignorance, whereas scientists search for a resolution, one way or another, even though science seldom produces a definite final "no." Based on their behavior alo ne, we should close the file on Newman et al., and ignore them until such time as they agree to play by the rules. There are enough honest claims from open researchers to keep us occupied forever. Scott continues: If it DOES work...well, that brings up another subject: I understand that Newman has gotten a few independent tests performed on his machine and that they indicated positive results. So he claims; I don't believe it. What I can't understand is what those people are doing right now!? If we had tested Newman's machine...and confirmed his performance claims...you'd be seeing press releases about the development of commercial energy sources by now. Of course. Any independent tester would do the same thing. Despite the opposition and ridicule there are thousands of top notch labs in the U.S., Europe and Japan where the Newman machine could be tested with 100% assurance of objectivity. Cold fusion pro ved that. Hundreds of labs tested it, replicated, and reported their success, often in the face of extremely hostile opposition. Anyone who has a real o-u machine can examine the published record of positive Pons-Fleischmann experiments. It proves there a re plenty of honest researchers out there who will not be cowed or bullied. You have nothing to be afraid and everything to gain by going public -- after you file patent applications, of course! Newman (and others) keep pointing to the Patent Office tests as if the P.O. lab is the only qualified outside lab on earth. That's ridiculous. It is as if Gene and I were obsessed with the MIT CF tests, we talked about nothing else, and we ignored, say, the French Atomic Energy Commission. Results from dishonest and slipshod labs can be ignored. There are plenty of good labs. It must be understood that the alleged performance Newman machine (and the Lee gadget, and the magnet motors) is nothing like CF. CF is immensely difficult to reproduce; the Newman effect is supposedly robust. When the CF reaction begins it is often diffi cult to detect and it gutters out at inconvenient moments. Miles et al. had to perform 98 CF experiments in order to get 28 to work. That represents years of difficult, exacting work. You cannot just hand out CF cells, unfortunately. But if these other ga dgets work the way they are supposed to, you *could* hand them out or better yet sell them, and instantly end the controversy. Since these people refuse to do so, I am forced to believe they do not want the controversy to end. Waiting for a chance to test Newman's own machine - Scott Little You wait in vain, Scott. He will never allow it, I think because he knows the machine does not work. I have no proof but circumstantial evidence convinces me that is the case. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 14:54:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:50:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 21:48:44 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"M4C-l3.0.0m2.Zwavp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9624 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:27 PM 8/4/97 +0000, Michael J.Schaffer wrote: >Tom Stolper wrote: > >>In his post of July 28, 1997, Scott Little asked, "If the baking is done in >>air, wouldn't you expect the residual C to be converted to CO2 which would >>then leave the surface?" >> >>The baking wasn't done in air. The nickel coil cathodes were baked in 95% >>argon 5% hydrogen at atmospheric pressure: see Shkedi, et al., "Calorimetry, >>Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells," Fusion >>Technology, Vol. 28 (November 1995), pp. 1720-1731, at p. 1722 col. 1. > > Baking in hydrogen makes volatile hydrocarbons out of carbon. This is a >technique to clean surfaces of carbon (if you don't mind the hydrogen in >the cleaned object). If you add some Potassium Carbonate (as a coating on the nickel) and up the hydrogen percentage, would you have a Mills device? Or, put hydrogen/deuterium around a Thoriated Tungsten filament and get o-u and/or transmutations? Regards, Frederick > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 14:34:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:24:26 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:27:42 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"BPZdX3.0.ym4.9Yavp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9622 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tom Stolper wrote: >In his post of July 28, 1997, Scott Little asked, "If the baking is done in >air, wouldn't you expect the residual C to be converted to CO2 which would >then leave the surface?" > >The baking wasn't done in air. The nickel coil cathodes were baked in 95% >argon 5% hydrogen at atmospheric pressure: see Shkedi, et al., "Calorimetry, >Excess Heat, and Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H2O Electrolytic Cells," Fusion >Technology, Vol. 28 (November 1995), pp. 1720-1731, at p. 1722 col. 1. Baking in hydrogen makes volatile hydrocarbons out of carbon. This is a technique to clean surfaces of carbon (if you don't mind the hydrogen in the cleaned object). Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 15:46:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:35:32 -0700 X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:34:08 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"SsczJ2.0.Ms.oabvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9625 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:48 PM 8/4/97 +0000, Frederick Sparbe wrote: >If you add some Potassium Carbonate (as a coating on the nickel) and >up the hydrogen percentage, would you have a Mills device? > >Regards, Frederick >> >>Michael J. Schaffer >>General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >>Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > That is essentially what I am doing now, but so far, no excess heat. Ed Strojny X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 14:36:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:33:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: <33E4313D.4D5B math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:35:36 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Real fusion research Resent-Message-ID: <"E8hbj2.0.zA2.cgavp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9623 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank Stenger wrote: [snip] >BTW, what's your opinion on the "dense z-pinch" approach to fusion >confinement? Does this look promising, or is it a dud? Dense z-pinch might eventually be made to produce SINGLE SHOT fusion energy greater than the energy used to form and heat the pinch. The z-pinch is a poor approach to fusion CONVINEMENT, because it is unstable and short lived. Basically, you have to cram large amounts of energy in less than a microsecond. While a combination of brute force and cleverness might make one shot dense z-pinch fusion, the tremendous pressure and energy destroys the electrodes that drive the megamps of current into the pinch. Infact, I am told that even todays z-pinches destroy l ots of the 'front end' of the apparatus, which must be rebuilt for each shot. Useful fusion POWER requires either steady power (like a turbine) or rapid repitition of nondestructive pulses (like a reciprocating engine). Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 16:15:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:01:07 -0700 Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 03:19:51 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Little is right about Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"n5sav3.0.fh2.oybvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9627 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > I agree completely with Scott Little's views on Newman machine: <...> I am totally agree with you. > There are enough honest claims from open researchers to keep us > occupied forever. <...> Yes this the key point. As I am actively involved in the OU research, I am seriously experiencing shorting on resources, especially the "time" which not allow to learn everything and try everything come to mind. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 17:50:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 17:44:24 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 00:08:50 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"crLS53.0.vu1.eTdvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9631 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:34 PM 8/4/97 +0000, Ed Strojny wrote: > >At 09:48 PM 8/4/97 +0000, Frederick Sparber wrote: > >>If you add some Potassium Carbonate (as a coating on the nickel) and >>up the hydrogen percentage, would you have a Mills device? > >That is essentially what I am doing now, but so far, no excess heat. > >Ed Strojny > You might be getting too clean a surface on the nickel due to hydrogen reduction; H2 + NiO = H2O + Ni, thus pushing the work function up to the 5.0 ev for Nickel, and getting Potassium Hydride to boot? The tricks used in vacuum tube technology to lower the work function of Nickel was to coat it with Barium and/or Strontium Oxides using the following technique: The "cathodes were first coated with Barium or Strontium Carbonates or Nitrates followed by a drying process. During evacuation the cathodes are heated above normal operating temperature (1000 to 1250 K) and the coatings are reduced to the Oxides. By heating and application of an anode voltage the cathode is activated." Might be something in there for Potassium Carbonate. :-) With this approach the Work Function is lowered to around 1.0 ev or so, as opposed to the 5.0 ev for clean Nickel. Tricky stuff, ain't it? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 17:37:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 17:25:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 09:24:05 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Superconducting PdD2? Resent-Message-ID: <"NoDtj2.0.W23.0Cdvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9630 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This week Ed Storms is visiting our lab, and during discussions about the nature of the Pd-D system, Ed recalled that at ICCF-6 there was a Russian guy who claimed in a poster session that the theoretical structure of PdD2 would probably be a high temperature superconductor (BTW, this is different from Celani's paper which reported experimental evidence of superconductivity. We know about that one). Perhaps that analysis didn't make it into the proceedings for whatever reason. Anyway, Storms do esn't remember the guys' name, and Andrei Lipson (our resident Russian expert) and has no idea who it might be. Can anybody out there help? Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 21:59:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 21:55:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:52:11 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"39jf22.0.er2.P9hvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9637 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com re: carbon and palladium: At 04:14 PM 7/28/97 -0500, Scott wrote: >At 22:23 7/28/97 -0700, Jean-Paul Biberian wrote: > >>> then baked the cathodes at 1100 degrees C for 2 hours. > >>I am a surface physico-chemist, and at that temperature, I believe that >>the only thing that will remain is a carbon layer. Hydrocarbon molecules >>will evaporate and/or break up and a thin carbon film will deposit. > >If the baking is done in air, wouldn't you expect the residual C to be >converted to CO2 which would then leave the surface? This might be more complicated. Carbon is soluble in palladium, although the diffusion is very slow. At higher temps it might be considered because there can ultimately be attained a binary alloy under higher temps, and there are a lot of carbon atoms. In summary, C-Pd has a limit of about 2.45 wt % The literature is significant, and dates back to at least H. Moissan, Compt Rend, 123, pages 16-18 (1896) C, and other materials, can impact the electrodes, and IMO it doesnt take a complete coverage of the surface to do that. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 17:00:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:49:54 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 18:53:39 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Reply to Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"MHGYS1.0.2E6.Xgcvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9628 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >To: Vortex > >I agree completely with Scott Little's views on Newman machine: > > If your [replication] machine didn't work, you could say "No" to the above > question but that's about all. . . . That's why it is much better to > test one of Newman's own machines. If that doesn't work we can close > the Newman file forever. > >Exactly. In the last phase of testing Newman would have to be given every >opportunity to come to the lab and tweak the machine, but in the end, if the snip-- I have no proof but circumstantial evidence convinces me that is the case. > >- Jed Dear Jed, Thanks for your opinion -- and that is exactly what it is....your opinion. And thanks also for adding in the last sentence above, "I have no proof...." That is certainly a correct statement on your part, with which I agree. Joseph Newman knows that his machine does work and as far as he is concerned, he is "beyond the testing phase" -- dozens of people over the years have tested it and confirmed that it performs as Joseph Newman indicates. He is satisfied. They were satisf ied. The fact that you are not satisfied is certainly your opinion and you are entitled to it ... even though Joseph Newman would certainly disagree with it. This is why Joseph Newman is concentrating all his efforts on commercialization since such opinions as you have expressed will then be moot. Thanks again, Evan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 18:29:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 18:23:06 -0700 X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 21:21:42 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"bhrhb3.0.6e4.u1evp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9632 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:08 AM 8/5/97 +0000, Frederick Sparber wrote: >At 10:34 PM 8/4/97 +0000, Ed Strojny wrote: >> >>At 09:48 PM 8/4/97 +0000, Frederick Sparber wrote: >> >>>If you add some Potassium Carbonate (as a coating on the nickel) and >>>up the hydrogen percentage, would you have a Mills device? >> >>That is essentially what I am doing now, but so far, no excess heat. >> >>Ed Strojny >> >You might be getting too clean a surface on the nickel due >to hydrogen reduction; H2 + NiO = H2O + Ni, thus pushing >the work function up to the 5.0 ev for Nickel, and getting >Potassium Hydride to boot? > My nickel surface is filthy by surface chemists standards. I coated a nickel filament with palladium and then with a saturated solution of KCl-K2CO3. The filament was then heated in an atmosphere of CO2 while passing an electric current through the fila ment. The CO2 was then displaced with hydrogen. I am now in the process of slowly increasing the current through the filament until the filament either melts or some anomolous behavior ensues. So far the only behavior I observed was the dramatic reduction in resistance as the CO2 was displaced by hydrogen. >Tricky stuff, ain't it? > >Regards, Frederick > Ed Strojny > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 17:11:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 17:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:52:41 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The list master References: <970731172854_72240.1256_EHB52-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4WyQ22.0.t82.ovcvp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9629 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Jed! Sorry it took so long for this reply, but I've been out of network for a few days to heal my computer... I never suggested that addresses not be posted as a rule, IMHO it is just a matter of courtesy and I would ask the person before doing so. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 19:53:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 19:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 02:44:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"XJHvF2.0.-T4.oFfvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9633 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:21 AM 8/5/97 +0000, Ed Strojny wrote: > >My nickel surface is filthy by surface chemists standards. I coated a >nickel filament with palladium and then with a saturated solution of >KCl-K2CO3. The filament was then heated in an atmosphere of CO2 while >passing an electric current through the filament. >The CO2 was then displaced with hydrogen. I am now in the process of slowly >increasing the current through the filament until the filament either melts >or some anomolous behavior ensues. So far the only behavior I observed was >the dramatic reduction in resistance as the CO2 was displaced by hydrogen. > I'm a bit troubled by the KCl, it melts at 1043 K and sublimes at around the 1726 K melting point of the Ni filament. Without going into the thermodynamics, it probably isn't reduced to HCl by hydrogen either. The K2CO3 won't start to decompose to K2O-CO2 to any extent until you get above 1300 K. You are in a "temperature regime" where 2 H2 + CO2 ---> 2 H2O + C on the Ni surface until you get up past 800 K or so. The reduction in resistance is not surprising if you consider the the "concentric layers" of the Ni filament as resistors in parallel. The reduction by hydrogen of the outer "layer/resistor" (NiCO3?)back to metallic Ni is going to cause a very significant resistance change even for a few hundred angstroms thickness or less. Add some benefit with metallic Potassium on the surface too. I think I would take my chances with KOH or LiOH and leave out the KCl and CO2. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 21:23:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 21:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 00:08:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Mike Carrell cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, John Schnurer Subject: diamonds Resent-Message-ID: <"C9llI3.0.Y81.5Xgvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9635 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Mike Carrell wrote: > Robert Stirnman wrote: > > > Diamonds is another thing that can be made perfectly > > in the lab for a few dollars per carat. > > There is an aesthic difference between industrial diamond dust from a lab > and a one-carat gemstone. I don't think gem quality diamonds of any size > have been produced synthetically. Extremely beautiful flaw free Type IIb diamonds of clear, yellow and boron doped blue have been made in labs by at least three major companies. Read "Gems Made by Man" and "The Physics of Color", both by Kurt Nassau, an ex-industry crystal growth exper t. It takes heat and a LOT of pressure. Agreed. > Almost every other gemstone except opal can be produced synthetically in > any reasonable size. > The highest quality synthetic gems, known as 'luxury synthetics' are NOT cheap. Poor quality rubies, for example, lab grown, and of moderate to poor cut can be had for as little as 5 dollars a carat. A near perfect single crystal replica of the Burmese or Myanmar runs 180 or more per carat. These stones are unreal in their beauty. Opal is produced by Gilson and other manufacturers and Gilson's product is very fine. The whole field of lab gems and treatment of gems to change or enhance color, clarity and apparent visual freedon from flaws is very big business. Diamonds are commercially 'filled', maybe 80 to 90 percent of the commercial natural emeralds and rubies sold to consumers are altered. This is also one of the more interesting fields of study. A wonderul and on-going challenge is the identification and detection of gem synthetics and alterations. > Mike Carrell > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 21:19:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 21:10:44 -0700 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 23:10:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"-eTwq3.0.Fe1.1Vgvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9634 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:21 PM 8/4/97 -0400, Edwin Strojny wrote: >So far the only behavior I observed was >the dramatic reduction in resistance as the CO2 was displaced by hydrogen. That's probably because of the high thermal conductivity of H gas cooling the filament way down. In the rather detailed Penn State writeup on the BlackLight Power web page they say that the filament needs to be Pt because heated Pt will cause H2 molecules to dissociate into atomic H atoms. Your approach... >I coated a nickel filament with palladium and then with a saturated solution of >KCl-K2CO3. The filament was then heated in an atmosphere of CO2 while >passing an electric current through the filament. ...is quite different. Is this a newer arrangement that Mill's has developed? Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 22:09:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 22:06:26 -0700 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 22:06:19 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The list master Resent-Message-ID: <"Vh6gj.0.346.GJhvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9638 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Jerry wrote: > Hi Jed! > > Sorry it took so long for this reply, but I've been out of network for a > few days to heal my computer... > > I never suggested that addresses not be posted as a rule, IMHO it is just > a matter of courtesy and I would ask the person before doing so. I would say that it depends on so many things that each case would require a separate judgement. "Famous" people with public email, yes. Private individuals with unlisted numbers and a touch of inventor's paranoia, of course not. And it depends on the forum: never post ANYONE'S email address on newsgroups, since that address will end up on the CDROMs traded among spammers. Vortex-L is unadvertized and hence semi-private, so the posting of phone and address is relatively safe (I think...) And, as is the case with flames, a tiny bit of thoughfulness will lead us to settle the issue by sending the sensitive info by private email. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 21:59:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 21:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 23:01:54 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr Subject: Bass response re his Liversage critique Resent-Message-ID: <"Obik2.0.xm2.k8hvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9636 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bass response to Blue comments Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:56:16 GMT From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Since Robert Bass has some specific criticisms of my comments concerning the claims by Robert Liversage perhaps I can further this discussion by a response to Bass. If I understand Bass's explanation correctly, the "missing" 24 neutrons which said should be accounted for are to be hidden within the range of experimental error that Liversage assigns to his measurements. I would say that 7% of 232 is 16 so 7% does not quite cover the loss. What Bass did not address is just where do those lost neutrons find a new home, and how is it that none of the transfers to lighter nuclei are detected? For example, the detection of the capture of thermal neutrons by hydrogen or a host of other nuclei i s easily detected via the resulting gamma emissions. Bass, if he addressed the question at all, would be forced to invent some bizarre processes that have no connection to any real physical phenomena. Yet Liversage had suggested that the titanium and copper could be the result of thorium fission. I disagree. Fission, as we know it, could not account for the results claimed. While, as Joe Champion demonstrates, it is possible to construct some specific assortments of final product nuclei that would appear to balance the books, no one addresses the question of what restricts the outcome to such a limited subset of possible f inal states. It is quite unreal to suggest that from three to six nuclei are involved in either the initial state or the final state, that no rapid emission occurs from any intermediate state, and that only stable ground states are involved in the final products. I defy anyone to provide an example of equivalent behavior in any physical system. The statistics of available states must be considered! As for my attack on the person of Robert Liversage, he initiated his remarks with a lengthy proclaimation of his qualifications. I did not question his qualifications as an analytical chemist. I questioned his measurements of the thorium activity and hi s interpretation of the nuclear physics he was claiming to verify. If Bass or Liversage wish to take issue with my evaluation of the nuclear measurements I would be glad to hear in detail how any of the questions I raised were addressed. How does Livers age know that the activity he detects is that of thorium? Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 4 23:48:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 23:41:36 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thermionic Production of Light Lepton Pairs? Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 06:40:56 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970804121338.AAA20283 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"bh2Zp1.0.iU3.Viivp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9639 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 12:13:40 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >Makes one wonder if some of the electrons (or ions) >are "Light Leptons" +/- which can catalyze proton/deuteron reactions. > [snip] I think it's more likely that the work function is related to the first ionisation energy of the metal in question, which for most metals lies between 4 and 10 eV. (For about half a dozen metals I had the work function for, the work function is on average half the first ionisation potential. This fraction varies between .42 (Li) and .62 (Ag)). Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 00:00:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 23:42:57 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 06:40:58 GMT Organization: Improving References: <1.5.4.32.19970805012142.008e47e0 freeway.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"718Py3.0.gw6.jjivp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9640 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 21:21:42 -0400, Edwin Strojny wrote: [snip] >The CO2 was then displaced with hydrogen. I am now in the process of slowly >increasing the current through the filament until the filament either melts >or some anomolous behavior ensues. So far the only behavior I observed was >the dramatic reduction in resistance as the CO2 was displaced by hydrogen. And you say it so calmly :). I find such a dramatic drop in resistance quite strange. Surely only the surface is affected? (Unless the H is being absorbed into the Ni, and locally changing parts of it into superconductor? - or am I playing at the wrong field? :). [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 00:14:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 00:11:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 00:11:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Interesting PPM Design Resent-Message-ID: <"8mslW1.0.mo5.Z8jvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9641 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: Did anyone see the Space Energy Assoc. (SEA), zerox of an Internet download (by David C. on 6/15/97) of a permenant magnetic motor? It is basically a rotor with magnets fixed on the disk at an angle (est. 30 deg) from tangent. There is fixed iron ramp stator, 1/4 of the disk circumference long, that the rotor magnets are attracted to. At the end of this iron stator ramp is a permenant magnet that then repels the rotor disk magnet away. "It is a non-linear magnetic structure." There was no inventor listed or if it was built or if it worked. n / s \ Rotor n s o s n \ \ s / \ I n Stator \ n II s In the diagram above, the stator should be curved as should the rotor be circular. The rotor spins counterclockwise. The distance of the stator to the rotor decreases toward the end where the magnet is attacted on the stator. The rotor magnets are shown p erpendicular but should be at an angle (30 deg.) to cirle tanget. Operation: I. Rotor magnets, at this point, are attracted to iron ramp stator. II. The stator magnet, at the end of the ramp, repels the rotor magnets. "Comment on this Design: This is about as good as it gets in magnetic motors because it combines attraction at I, and repulsion at II! Also three more stator ramps (sp) can be added to boost the torque output." Do you think this could fly? Greg, what do you think? Best Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 01:08:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 01:05:54 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 02:11:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: freenrgy-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SCYBOLT(tm) Resent-Message-ID: <"Xv7LO.0.w13.Xxjvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9642 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com What you will get when you ask for a password to proceed. On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Mike W. McClure wrote: > Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 01:50:22 -0600 > From: "Mike W. McClure" > Subject: Re: SCYBOLT(tm) > > Also, if you access "http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/index.html > they send you a file "progress.html" that is put on your present > drive-area. (unsolicited). > > > > >>Sirs: > >> Appears I cannot go further on your web-page until agree'ing to a > >>non-disclosure > >>form, I agree!, however if the form is required, PLEASE send one to my > >>address > >>Thanks... Looks Very Interesting and Very Promising for Future Power. > >>Is there to THIS DATE even One Working Prototype YET?? Are Videos > >>planned to be made available, and is the $5,000.00 cost still a reality? > >>Thanks for any updated info. > >>---------------------------------------------- Reply (auto?) > >>---------------------------------------------- > >There are billions of working prototypes. Every star. > > > >The SCYBOLT(tm) design uses an artificially created ball lightning > >structure which is an exact analog of the magnetotoroids of both stars and > >planets (which have magnetic fields). This structure which is maintained > >in place by a special array integral to the reactor design is really a > >large scale standing wave bosonic structure and hence can be shown to be a > >time gradient field (the closer you get to its core the more time is > >dilated). The effect of this field is to alter the de Broglie wavelengths > >of fusion fuel nuclei which are injected into its core. Like charged > >particles which have a common de Broglie wavelength which is greater than > >or equal to the interparticle distance demonstrate a strong attractive > >interaction contrary to Coulomb's Law. Such a state occurs during > >superconduction where pairs of electrons are attractively interactive > >(Cooper Pairs). Electrons in superconduction do not obey Fermi-Dirac > >statistics but rather Bose-Einstein statistics. Why? Because the > >superconduction state really is a bosonic state. This pretty much outlines > >some of the basic physics and illustrates how the SCYBOLT(tm) design is > >able to catalyze large numbers of nuclear fusion reactions. > > > >We have not yet built a working prototype but have filed a patent > >application on the process. There is a great deal more to this reactor > >design than meets the eye. We are in desperate need of funding to complete > >this project. But more than that there is the matter of where this > >technology came from in the first place. Behind this technology is a new > >an Apocalyptic Physics the tenets of which destroy the foundations of > >modern physics. This reactor technology would not have been possible using > >the foundations of modern physics as its basis. For more than 40 years > >and at a cost in the neighborhood of $40 billion dollars (estimates vary > >widely but Princeton Plasma Physics Lab {PPPL} has been getting at least a > >quarter of a billion per year for a number of years and this counts no > >other labs which are working on fusion) the U.S. Gov't has been stymied in > >its efforts to conquer fusion. The reason? Plain bad physics at the > >fundamental core level. This new and Apocalyptic Physics is coming forth > >at the close of the present age. If you would like to participate in this > >effort and would like to be involved with our efforts to present the world > >with a new power alternative, give me a call and perhaps we can discuss > >some way for you to participate. > > > >Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 02:27:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 02:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 18:47:18 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Interesting PPM Design References: <199708050711.AAA01346 germany.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"8Okdb1.0.DG1.85lvp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9643 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > To Vortex: > > Did anyone see the Space Energy Assoc. (SEA), zerox of an Internet download > (by David C. on 6/15/97) of a permenant magnetic motor? It is basically a > rotor with magnets fixed on the disk at an angle (est. 30 deg) from tangent. > There is fixed iron ramp stator, 1/4 of the disk circumference long, that > the rotor magnets are attracted to. At the end of this iron stator ramp is a > permenant magnet that then repels the rotor disk magnet away. "It is a > non-linear magnetic structure." There was no inventor listed or if it was > built or if it worked. > > n > / s \ Rotor > n s o s n > \ \ s / > \ I n > Stator \ > n II > s > > In the diagram above, the stator should be curved as should the rotor be > circular. The rotor spins counterclockwise. The distance of the stator to > the rotor decreases toward the end where the magnet is attacted on the > stator. The rotor magnets are shown perpendicular but should be at an angle > (30 deg.) to cirle tanget. > > Operation: > I. Rotor magnets, at this point, are attracted to iron ramp stator. > II. The stator magnet, at the end of the ramp, repels the rotor magnets. > > "Comment on this Design: > This is about as good as it gets in magnetic motors because it combines > attraction at I, and repulsion at II! Also three more stator ramps (sp) can > be added to boost the torque output." > > Do you think this could fly? Greg, what do you think? > > Best Regards, > Michael Randall Hi Michael, The design is on John Bedini's site at : http://rand.nidlink.com/~john1/motor.html Both Epitaxy and I have had a go at it. My QF sims suggested it had a chance to work, but the unit I built didn't. Epitaxy couldn't get it to fly either. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Phone / PC Fax ...... 61 8 8270 2737 E-mail .............. gwatson microtronics.com.au Home Page ........... Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 07:08:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:03:38 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:55:48 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The list master Resent-Message-ID: <"FJwEU2.0.Ch6.vApvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9645 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 5, 12:00am, William Beaty wrote: > Vortex-L is unadvertized and hence semi-private, so the > posting of phone and address is relatively safe (I think...) Almost forgot to mention, your site got a nice mention in the September print issue of Yahoo Internet Life for science education. I recognized the address right off although you were not specifically mentioned by name. Vortex may not be advertised, but you now are! Congratulations on your efforts, they seem to be noticed and appreciated by more than just this group. Just thought I would pass that along. 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 08:17:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:03:50 -0700 Date: 05 Aug 97 11:02:18 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Liversage track record irrelevant Resent-Message-ID: <"ICz7E.0.vO2.L3qvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9647 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: Does anybody have any information on the track record of Robert Liversage? I don't see what difference this makes. I would not believe his claim even if the guy was another Glen Seaborg or Martin Fleischmann. I do not see how any scientist could believe it. It has be replicated by many other people first. I will begin to believe when 10 labs report the same thing, and I will be convinced when 30 or 40 replicate at a high sigma. Or, if ten ultra-careful labs like SRI and Los Alamos verify it, that will be convincing. The number of labs is somewhat arbitrary, but it cannot be 1. T hat isn't experimental science. It cannot be 200, either, despite the demands of the skeptics. That is pushing the goal posts too far the other direction. It is partly a matter of taste or judgement. Reasonable people may not believe a claim after only 10 labs have replicated, but somewhere between 10 and 100 labs, and somewhere about 10 sigma, reasonable scepticism turns into pathological denial of reality. The only kind of experiment I would accept after only one trial by one lab would be the kind that produces a dramatic, unmistakable macroscopic result that is witnessed by many people. Such tests are usually part of engineering or chemistry, rather than p hysics. Famous examples include: Charles Parsons' test run of the Turbinia on July 4, 1897 before Britain's Grand Fleet. The Wright brothers Kitty Hawk flight of December 17, 1903 The first fission chain reaction, December 1942 at U. Chicago First atomic bomb explosion, July 16, 1945 - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 08:27:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:22:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:22:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: Interesting PPM Design Resent-Message-ID: <"a-UAB2.0.B73.mKqvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9648 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 06:47 PM 8/5/97 +0930, you wrote: >Michael Randall wrote: >> >> To Vortex: >> >> Did anyone see the Space Energy Assoc. (SEA), zerox of an Internet download [snip] >Hi Michael, > >The design is on John Bedini's site at : > > http://rand.nidlink.com/~john1/motor.html > >Both Epitaxy and I have had a go at it. > >My QF sims suggested it had a chance to work, but the unit I built >didn't. Epitaxy couldn't get it to fly either. > Hi Greg, Thats the one. It's interesting how the information traveled around. Too bad the PPM didn't fly though. Best Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 08:58:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:48:55 -0700 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.200.226 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 11:48:24 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Second order entropy conservation Resent-Message-ID: <"4JNEf3.0.5Q4.cjqvp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9649 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I am rewriting my paper on entropy conservation. In a previous version I did not come right out and say that the second order terms violate entropy conservation. The response of the reviewer was that the paper was acceptable but I should take out the section in which I discussed the derivation of the second law since it is well known how to do this and that everything works out fine. I knew that if I came right out and claimed that the second law is invalid that I would have a big problem but if I do n't do that the establishment reader imagines that I am actually confirming the second law. So I will go ahead with the more radical approach. The task is actually a bit easier than one would expect because another author (B. C. Eu) has come out and cla imed that the standard higher order equations violate the second law. His response to this problem was to derive a set of revised fluid dynamics so that the desired result of satisifying the second law was acheived. I think that his new revised dynamics is wrong and that the traditional form is correct. Either choice is a big problem for the traditional investigator - to reject an accepted law (the second law of thermodynamics) or to throw out the accepted form of fluid dynamics. The references are: Eu-BC Garciacolin-LS Irreversible-Processes and Temperature PHYSICAL REVIEW E Vol 54 Iss 3 pp 2501-2512 1996 (VK265) Eu-BC The Boltzmann-Equation and Nonequilibrium Ensemble Method JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS Vol 103 Iss 24 pp 10652-10662 1995 (TL517) Eu-BC Boltzmann Entropy, Relative Entropy, and Related Quantities in Thermodynamic Space JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS Vol 102 Iss 18 pp 7169-7179 1995 (QW366) Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 10:20:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:06:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Second order entropy conservation Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:32:35 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"q6evD.0.E06.esrvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9650 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Larry, Thanks a lot for the references and I for one will be very interested to read your paper. While I'm waiting for the new one, is the first one around? Fred > I am rewriting my paper on entropy conservation. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 07:59:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:52:00 -0700 Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 17:41:41 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vortex" Subject: Uelb thinking. Resent-Message-ID: <"XljHY2.0.Qj1.Eupvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9646 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vortexers, Dick Blue's postings regarding the CINCY & Liversage results have arrived to us on different info-channels; we have to reckon that Blue's writings are very instructive and can be used as almost perfect bad examples of thinking. Rick Monteverde is very ple ased that he is unable to think like Blue. So am I and I give wordy evidence of this fact only because Blue is going over all the limits of logic and professional rules. a) How does he dare to even not mention the isotopic composition, highly unnatural of both the copper and the titanium obtained by the Cincinnati Group? This results are obviously destructive for all the theoretical and dialegological (the art of unfair s cientific dispute) arguments of Blue. He has the straight obligation to tell that he doesn't believes this results and if they will be proved to be correct and repeatable, he will shut up. b) The repeated question re. if the radioactivity of the thorium is indeed caused by thorium--is absurd for the initial situation when there is thorium in the system and no other radioactive element and is irrelevant for the final situation, when the acti vity is decreased in an amazing extent. No physical loss of thorium is possible. When I read Blue's messages on spf, I was under the impression that he is actually an answering machine used by the skeptics, with a rather simple program. Later I learned that he is a real person and that made him less interesting given his modest meth odological portofolio. He does not deserve a symbol status, however for the case of Cincy's results there are some aspects which need to be analysed using an anti-Blue (let's call it Eulb) thinking method. Blue is perfectly right to consider these results as absolutely impossible in the frame of the present paradigm of the nuclear reactions; his claim for the absent neutrons is --in the above limits-- justified. The process is strange and NEW, because: 1) it is triggered by low energy stimuli; 2) only stable isotopes are formed; 3) it is practically athermal; 4) there are real troubles with the neutron balance. I think this is a completely new nuclear process, not fission, even not multiple fission, no randomness ( I wonder if Blue is awareof the complexity and fuzzyness of this concept). As I posted here some months ago, the unique logical explanation is a kind of neutron extraction process which leads to new nuclei; the first stage is the known "stimulated neutron decay", in this case multiple decay. (see Prof. Santilli's theory of hadro nic energy at the website of the Institute of Basic Research A part of the newly formed protons are used for the building of Cu and Ti atoms. No hadrons are lost, only some neutrons are transformed in protons. As regarding the excess energy, I see a unique explanation; the capture of space energy is a reversible process, in this case it goes backwards. Personally I am interested in the localization of this process; I bet for active sites as usual. When more quantitative data will be available, this hypothesis can be used for a theory; now it is essential to de-blue our expectations for classical results. Other laws are valid in this case, and the exact reverse of the Blue thinking..Eulb thinking. The results are here, they are true, they are good and our thinking has to raise to the level of this real, pragmatic and promising miracle. 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 11:26:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 11:10:56 -0700 X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 14:09:17 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"ZIsF-.0.7m3.losvp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9651 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:10 PM 8/4/97 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >At 09:21 PM 8/4/97 -0400, Edwin Strojny wrote: > > >In the rather detailed Penn State writeup on the BlackLight Power web page >they say that the filament needs to be Pt because heated Pt will cause H2 >molecules to dissociate into atomic H atoms. > >Your approach... > >>I coated a nickel filament with palladium and then with a saturated solution of >>KCl-K2CO3. The filament was then heated in an atmosphere of CO2 while >>passing an electric current through the filament. > >...is quite different. Is this a newer arrangement that Mill's has developed? > >Scott Little > Not that I know of; I am assuming that Drs. Bush and Eagleton have the right explanation of what is happening in the Mills cell and I am trying different conditons that I can try within my severely limited laboratory environment. I will try Pt in a later series of experiments. Pt melting point 1773 deg C Pd 1555 Ni 1555 1 Atm H2 dissociates about 1% at 2000 deg C; about 9% at 3000 deg C Does H2 dissociate enough at 1400 deg C to give the same effect as what Mills observes but at a lower output? I don't know. Ed Strojny X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 12:21:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:16:23 -0700 Date: 05 Aug 97 15:14:07 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Uelb thinking. Resent-Message-ID: <"ajAhD2.0.FN.6mtvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9652 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Peter Glueck writes: No physical loss of thorium is possible. Well, it is possible, but Liversage checked for it. The process is strange and NEW, because: 3) it is practically athermal; Well . . . yes, compared to how much energy the sample would release over millions of years if it decayed normally, but on the other hand I'll bet it does release significant heat. I don't know that for a fact, but I have heard it gets pretty hot. I doubt it would be a useful source of energy though. The fuel is mighty expensive! As regarding the excess energy, I see a unique explanation; the capture of space energy is a reversible process, in this case it goes backwards. I cannot judge these things, but that sounds like an exotic theory. I think a more conventional view would be that most of the nuclear energy released by the transmutations is absorbed back into the lattice to drive other, endothermic nuclear reactions. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 12:57:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Aug 97 15:50:36 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Welding experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"M_ORR.0.Ql6.UJuvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9654 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex This was posted on s.p.f. It should be here; I'll tell this fellow about vortex. This sounds like something Arata would be interested in. - Jed Originally-From: geosas aol.com (Geosas) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Radioactivity in welds Date: 5 Aug 1997 13:06:02 GMT Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk I made a big weld on a piece of scrap steel, cooled it quickly, did not knock the slag off, and monitored the radiation using an Aware Electronics RM-80 Geiger counter. The reading rose immediately to about twice background, then a sharp fall, then a long slow rise again with a time constant of 2 - 3 days. Could this be due to the creation of a short-lived alpha-emitter during the arcing, the alphas not being detectable, with the creation of a longer- lived gamma-emitting daughter product? The flux coating of the welding rods is slightly radioactive, so you would expect increased radiation anyway, but not any changes thereafter. I thought it might be due to the weld drying out, but re-wetting it and allowing to dry naturally made no difference. This is a very easy experiment to do if you have an arc welder and a reasonably sensitive Geiger counter. I would be glad to hear of anyone getting similar results. George. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 13:06:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Aug 97 15:50:47 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Superconducting PdD2? Resent-Message-ID: <"JpwBK.0.jl6.XJuvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9655 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Elliot Kennel writes: This week Ed Storms is visiting our lab, and during discussions about the nature of the Pd-D system, Ed recalled that at ICCF-6 there was a Russian guy who claimed in a poster session that the theoretical structure of PdD2 would probably be a high temperature superconductor . . . Anyway, Storms doesn't remember the guys' name . . . Can anybody out there help? I don't recall that one, but as you noted Celani has been talking about this so why not ask him? Maybe he took note of the Russian paper. Also, years ago Ikegami said that supersaturated PdD2 is a superconductor. He mentioned some experimental evidence. I asked Mike Staker about it, and he cited some U.S. work from the mid 70s. Mike knows a terrific amount about materials. Maybe he knows of some theoretical work to explain the Pd SC. It was low temp, but warm by the standards of the mid 70s. I recall he said it was not as saturated as a working CF cathode. Nothing is! As Ikegami says, a hot CF cathode is more hydrogen than metal. (Some people think the "hot spot" active locations within a cathode are loaded higher than 1:1). - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 12:30:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:20:34 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:23:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"W8JrU.0.0a.0qtvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9653 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Edwin Strojny wrote: ... >1 Atm H2 dissociates about 1% at 2000 deg C; about 9% at 3000 deg C > >Does H2 dissociate enough at 1400 deg C to give the same effect as what >Mills observes >but at a lower output? I don't know. H2 dissociation should follow an exp(-Tb/T) dependence, where T is the temperature in absolute degrees (Kelvin) and Tb is the temperature equivalent of the energy barrier (bond strength in this case). Assuming your dissociation percentages given above are correct, then Tb = 16,700, and then the expected H2 dissociation percentage at 1400 C = 1700 K will be about 0.08%. This is a rough estimate, but it gives you an idea of what you are dealing with. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 13:59:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:43:25 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:43:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eski mo.com Subject: Re: Liversage track record irrelevant Resent-Message-ID: <"f6Ve73.0.Wd4.i1vvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9657 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 5 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Martin Sevior writes: > > Does anybody have any information on the track record of Robert > Liversage? > > I don't see what difference this makes. I would not believe his claim even if > the guy was another Glen Seaborg or Martin Fleischmann. I do not see how any > scientist could believe it. It has be replicated by many other people first. I > will begin to believe when 10 labs report the same thing, and I will be > convinced when 30 or 40 replicate at a high sigma. Well if one is in the business of Science, it is in principle your job to replicate claims. There are a number of people on this list who may be interested in doing replications. Before wasting time and money it is a good idea to get some probability for a result to be correct. The track record of Liversage would be useful in making this determination. However, given your response, even if I was interested, I wouldn't want to attempt a replication. Who wants to be igorned like that? Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 13:33:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:30:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:32:37 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Welding experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"ggnrA.0.Tg.Wruvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9656 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed reposted this: > >I made a big weld on a piece of scrap steel, cooled it quickly, did not knock >the slag off, and monitored the radiation using an Aware Electronics RM-80 >Geiger counter. The reading rose immediately to about twice background, then >sharp fall, then a long slow rise again with a time constant of 2 - 3 days. >Could this be due to the creation of a short-lived alpha-emitter during the >arcing, the alphas not being detectable, with the creation of a longer- lived >gamma-emitting daughter product? The flux coating of the welding rods is >slightly radioactive, so you would expect increased radiation anyway, but not >any changes thereafter.... Just as a first guess, I would expect that the coating of the rod, most of which goes into the slag, released radon gas that was trapped in the coating when it liquified. This might explain the initial rapid rise and fall of the geiger count rate. Th e radon, of course, is produced by decay of a heavier, solid, parent radioisotope. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 19:01:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:58:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 21:54:14 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: electrochemistry question Resent-Message-ID: <"wbKPa.0.ma3.bezvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9662 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:43 PM 8/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >Gnorts, > >In a Pt-Ni electrolysis cell (Ni cathode) operating at an overall cell >voltage of 3.0 volts, would you expect ALL cations present in the >electrolyte to be deposited on the cathode...or are there some that would >not be deposited under these conditions? > >Please explain your answer. Thanks very much. > > > > > > > >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) > > No, not in the short run. In the non-equilibrium solution (which is not obtained by the Nerst assumed-equilibrium approach), there is a cathodic fall formed of the cations. But electrodeposition is charge transfer controlled, and in competition with other processes such as elec trolysis, and other charge carriers. Given enough time, significant electrodeposition will occur, but there will remain microscopic equilibrium with the solution on the other side of the double layer away from the electrode IMO. If you want the equilibrium solutions try Bockris or Uhlig. Some nonequilibrium refs are > ("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).). > ("Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of > Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992)) > (e.g. "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN > ELECTRODE", Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994)), > involved in the successful running of these systems. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 15:55:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:43:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: electrochemistry question Resent-Message-ID: <"YN5Yj.0.Mm6.Bqwvp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9658 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts, In a Pt-Ni electrolysis cell (Ni cathode) operating at an overall cell voltage of 3.0 volts, would you expect ALL cations present in the electrolyte to be deposited on the cathode...or are there some that would not be deposited under these conditions? Please explain your answer. Thanks very much. 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) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 16:19:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 16:15:06 -0700 Date: 05 Aug 97 19:13:26 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Uelb thinking. Resent-Message-ID: <"yU5Ly.0.Bf5.vFxvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9659 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Peter, A nice posting, but like Jed I want to see multiple replications - among which I hope to see ***one from yourself***. We are told that there is to be full disclosure in our magazine, and we are still on track for that. Now, if the process is real and as simple and reproducible as Cincy claim - why, then the whole miserable story is nearly ended. I would caution all that speculation is now increasingly inappropriate, whether as to the reality or the mechanism of this process. In a few days we should all have the protocol, and it might be better if we all wait to see if it works. Blue doesn't hav e a monopoly on stupidity. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 17:41:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:36:55 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Liversage track record irrelevant Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 20:31:45 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"H5B7g.0.r32.cSyvp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9660 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gentlemen, please. Jed, I think you are too abrupt about Liversage. Of course everyone wants replications. There is so very much at stake. Bass refers to other lab's tests without giving specifics. Liversage gives a connected account of an orderly set of observations, quant itative in nature, consistant with transmutation and remediation. One would think this was spf for all the flack. Jed, you made less quantitative observations about the PowerGen 95 CETI demonstration and held your ground against all the flack that came your way. Martin, I am told that CG will sell kits to all who want to try for themselves. It looks less fussy than the RIFEX setup, which requires very specialized instrumentation, and may even be easier than building your own SMOT. The new issue of IE should be printing now and distributed soon to all, with lots more information. Mike Carrell ---------- > From: Martin Sevior > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Liversage track record irrelevant > Date: Tuesday, August 05, 1997 4:43 PM > > > > On 5 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > To: Vortex > > > > Martin Sevior writes: > > > > Does anybody have any information on the track record of Robert > > Liversage? > > > > I don't see what difference this makes. I would not believe his claim even if > > the guy was another Glen Seaborg or Martin Fleischmann. I do not see how any > > scientist could believe it. It has be replicated by many other people first. I > > will begin to believe when 10 labs report the same thing, and I will be > > convinced when 30 or 40 replicate at a high sigma. > > Well if one is in the business of Science, it is in principle your job to > replicate claims. There are a number of people on this list who may be > interested in doing replications. Before wasting time and money it is > a good idea to get some probability for a result to be correct. The track > record of Liversage would be useful in making this determination. However, given your > response, even if I was interested, I wouldn't want to attempt a > replication. Who wants to be igorned like that? > > Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 18:06:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 20:55:36 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Real fusion research References: <33E4313D.4D5B math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"zp4ZK3.0.MG.Okyvp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9661 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > > While a combination of brute force and cleverness might make one shot dense > z-pinch fusion, the tremendous pressure and energy destroys the electrodes > that drive the megamps of current into the pinch. Infact, I am told that > even todays z-pinches destroy lots of the 'front end' of the apparatus, > which must be rebuilt for each shot. A nasty problem, indeed, Michael! We should keep in mind, however, the progression of the "gun". In it's first form, the gun barrel was all that was left after a shot. The projectile, the powder, the igniter, and the wadding had to be "rebuilt" after e ach shot. The old carbon-arc lamps consumed their electrodes during operation - solved by automatic electrode-feed systems. Maybe the z-pinch rigs could be set up to use cartridges like a modern machine gun - or an automatic extrusion system to renew th e electrode-filiment combination. The cartridges would need to be recycled for a lot less energy than each shot yielded - a sticky problem! However, are the laser-fusion rigs really all that better off? Point is - I could probably build a dense z-pinch rig in my garage (in a crude form, of course) - not so for a tokamak or a laser rig. Keep the hot fusion fires burning, Michael! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 5 19:40:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 19:37:43 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Real Fusion Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:37:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"eKRdv3.0.DX1.sD-vp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9663 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank Stenger, the 1990's Ashtabula, Hill Billy, (they made great music in the late thirties, about the only radio station that our aerial would pick up) said that the "first guns were one-shot devices due to materials problems". I think if you add up the "science-technology" man-years and dollars that it took to get from there to the AK-47 repeater it would probably be equivalent to about one Fiscal Year time and Hot Fusion budget in the 1990's. :-) An alternative to the "Z pinch" might be the Applied Symmetrical Squeeze or "ASS PINCH". :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 02:01:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 01:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 03:57:17 (-050 Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"fyb2i1.0.dM.Dp3wp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9666 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Michael, > >Do you know of a listserver where these subjects are discussed?? I sure > >can't find one (and this isn't really the place). > I don't know. I would like to discuss this on Vortex because it has the > right combination of free-wheeling "relatively informed" generalists. True, and they are both open-minded enough to consider various possibilities and critical-minded enough to ask the right questions. I just wish there was a similar list of geologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists (though they probably don't mix much ). ((PS: Would you be able to not quote quite so much of a message when replying?)) -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 02:13:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 03:57:17 (-050 Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Priority: normal References: <199708022322.SAA16834 dsm7.dsmnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"WgLq5.0.Bj.hv3wp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9667 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Robin, (that's my brother's name ) > On Sat, 2 Aug 1997 18:22:57 (-050, Dean T. Miller wrote: > [snip] > >The only thing that could melt the ice off Antarctica is a warming Earth > >(note: not the air but the ground -- this has nothing to do with the > >alleged greenhouse effect). There is current evidence from all over that > >the Earth (NOT the air) is warming. So the preliminary conditions seem > >to be starting right now. > > I don't suppose you could supply a couple of pointers to that > "evidence from all over", could you? I had many on a hard disk that crashed. Now all I have is my memory for the references as I haven't been able to find them on the WWW. (I also now have a better tape backup unit. ) The first point to make is that according to several reports (and this might be on the WWW -- I haven't looked) that the overall air temperature of the Earth hasn't changed in the last 30 years according to satellite temp measurements. I don't know if th e ocean surface temps have changed (gotta look that up!!). However, the air temperatures near Antarctica have been reported to have risen from 3 to 5 degrees (C) over the last 20 years. This is at least one active volcano under the ice on Antarctica. Also from Antarctica, news reports, in November (ABC) and December (NBC) of 1994, told of large areas of water under the ice in the form of both lakes and rivers. The first report said the water was at 20 degrees C, which I thought was a mis-statement a nd the water was actually at 2 degrees C. However, the second report stated the water was about 70 degrees F. The water was said to be between the land surface and the ice and is not associated with the volcanoes. HOWEVER, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE SOURCES FOR THESE REPORTS. An oceanologist who is tracking the salinity of the Mediterranean reported an increase in salinity and temperature rise of about 3 degrees C at the bottom of the Med. over the past 5 years. He had no explanation for the increases. The frequency of 'water bursts' from underneath Alaskan glaciers seems to have increased. Water builds up under glaciers and is held back by the rocks and dirt the glaciers push downhill. When enough pressure builds up the water breaks out as a flood o f ice, rocks, mud and lots of water. This has happened every 20 years or so in the past. Now it's happening yearly (according to a small National Geographic article within the past year). In addition, there are widespread reports of glacial retreat from all over the world (Alaska, Iceland, Greenland, Alps, Norway). This has been used as evidence for greenhouse effect global warming. However, as I mentioned above, there seems to be no evi dence for warmer air temps over the globe as a whole. The number of volcanoes currently active is about double the average for the past century. Some attribute the increase to better sensors in satellites. However, the increase seems to have started about 15 years ago, well after the satellites were able to view them. Also, several volcanoes are under water and were not found by the satellites, but by the more conventional means of ships stumbling across them. Several of the underwater volcanoes are 'new,' such as the volcano in the Antarctic ocean, 150 0 km SW of Australia. There is other evidence, but it has slipped my mind at the moment. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 17:45:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 17:41:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:37:37 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"ngZVh.0.9X3.QcHwp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9701 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Regarding the friction between the crust and the mantle: if the material down there has become a superfluid due to the pressure, would that mean that it has very little or no internal friction when layers of atoms slide over one another? Reminds me of the boundary layer discussions here some months ago. Gee, the perfect lubrication on a nearly perfectly spherical bearing... ***DON'T ANYBODY MOVE*** - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 05:24:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 04:01:34 -0700 From: Mike Butcher To: "'Vortex Contributions'" Subject: RE: Liversage track record irrelevant Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:01:08 +0100 Encoding: 34 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"z3MDo.0.a01.Dc5wp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9669 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In defense of Jed, I read the emphasis of his particular post was not a personal attack on Liversage but the principle that no matter how good or bad the credentials of anyone, we stand a better chance of getting people to develop these technologies if a host of verificati ons have taken place in different places by different people. This field by its very nature attracts cranks and I'm sure that Jed has had a fair amount of criticism for even listening to some of them. In a sense, if we are attacking the accepted "wisdom" we have to be and be seen to be as objective as possible whic h may involve at times appearing to be less than polite to well esteemed individuals. However, that's just my interpretation of his post, without verification from other individuals etc................. Mike Butcher >---------- From: Mike Carrell[SMTP:mikec snip.net] Subject: Re: Liversage track record irrelevant Gentlemen, please. Jed, I think you are too abrupt about Liversage. Of course everyone wants replications. There is so very much at stake. Bass refers to other lab's tests without giving specifics. Liversage gives a connected account of an orderly set of observations, quant itative in nature, consistant with transmutation and remediation. One would think this was spf for all the flack. < X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 07:28:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:23:08 -0700 Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 16:26:01 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Eprint: To Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics Resent-Message-ID: <"gY8EQ.0.0u1.AZ8wp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9673 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This paper released today and available from http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9708002 Like to answer to basic problems and questions. Physics, abstract physics/9708002 From: Evgueni Bessonov Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 16:12:59 +0400 (MSD) To Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics Authors: E. G. Bessonov (P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute AS, Moscow, Russia) Comments: 20 pages, LaTeX, Internal Report FIAN 1975, the Preprint FIAN No 196, 1980. This paper is the Preprint FIAN No 35, 1997 enlarged by Appendix, some Comments and foot-notes. Presented to Uspekhi Phyzicheskich Nauk Subj-class: Classical Physics In the present work foundations of the law of the energy conservation and the introduction of particles in the classical electrodynamics are discussed. We pay attention to a logic error which takes place at an interpretation of the Poynting's theorem as the law of conservation of energy. It was shown that the laws of conservation of energy and momentum of the system of electromagnetic fields and charged particles does not follow from the equations of electrodynamics and the violation of these laws is displayed at the energy change of particles. Particular examples are considered which make it possible to restrict a possible kind of fields of a non-electromagnetic origin. We hope that this work will permit to produce a more comprehensive analysis and to stimulate the next step to the development of the foundations of the classical and quantum electrodynamics. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 05:52:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 12:45:21 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vortex" Subject: exotic theories needed Resent-Message-ID: <"ftp7u2.0.pU3.db4wp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9668 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vortexers, In my 'Uelb thinking' message, I wrote inter alia: Jed remarked to this: "I cannot judge these things, but that sounds like an exotic theory. I think a more conventional view would be that most of the nuclear energy released by the transmutations is absorbed back into the lattice to drive other, endothermic nuclear reactions." For many years I also have hoped that the puzzles of cold fusion will be explained starting from and based mainly on known theories; in the same time I considered a "technology first" solution as the best (see please my paper in IE no 1). However, it seem s that we have to pay a much higher price for understanding the basics of CF, a great amount of conventional knowledge has to be sacrificed and we actually need new (say exotic) theories. The old ones gave no valid answers for the core problems of the fie ld: --what is cold fusion (is it 100% fusion, is it 100% nuclear)?? --what is the extent of the field? --why is it so difficultly reproducible? --how are the related LENR processes possible? After 8.5 years we have no good answers, and we need them, including for the development of good technologies. I tried to give some partial answers, with limited success. Being an engineer, I prefer to use case histories/analyses. If we take one example which we (Jed and I) are considering (as far I know) a copious reliable source of excess energy-- the Hydrosonic Pump of Jim Griggs; can this be fusion/nuclear based? My answer is negative. It needs a new explanation and I bet for space energy. Conventional science is closed toward cold fusion, but cold fusion cannot be closed toward unconventional concepts and explanations. Perhaps ICCF-7 will be an opportunity to discuss the fundamentals needed for an integrative vision of the field. 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 07:21:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:05:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? Resent-Message-ID: <"sBnO-1.0.ek5.GK8wp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9670 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:20 8/6/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: >At this instant also, the two wires are allowed to move apart. They are in >repulsion due to opposite current flow. QUESTION! Does the inductive time >constant increase... Butch, I'm not sure where you're going with the 186,000 mile long wires and the instantaneous switch closings. The following applies to any flattened loop of superconducting wire carrying a current. First, since the wires are superconducting, the inductive time constant of the loop is infinite (L/R). The current will never decay. But we can still talk about what happens to the inductance when the wires spread apart...it increases. As the wires spr ead apart and the L increases, conservation of energy requires the current flowing in the loop to decrease so that the stored energy in the magnetic field 0.5Li^2 remains constant, provided you let the wires move apart freely. If you let the moving wires do work on an external system as they move apart (which they certainly could), then you would be drawing energy from the stored energy in the loop and i would drop proportionately faster so that the final 0.5Li^2 was equal to the original 0.5Li^2 minus t he work the wires did on the external system as they moved apart. 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) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 07:21:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:16:17 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:15:41 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"n3YDS.0.nb1.mS8wp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9671 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz posted that slow diffusion of carbon in palladium might lead to the formation of a binary alloy at higher temperatures. Is there an analagous phenomenon for carbon and nickel? (The cathodes under consideration earlier in this thread were Shkedi's nickel-coil cathodes, which he cleaned with acetone and methanol and then baked at 1100 degrees Centigrade for 2 hours in 95% argon 5% hydrogen at atmospheric pressure.) Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 07:24:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:19:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"Sos9w3.0.OE6.PV8wp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9672 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael Schaffer posted that baking in hydrogen is a way to clean surfaces of carbon. If baking in hydrogen is a standard method, then that might explain why Shkedi, et al., chose their cleaning procedure as they did rather than adopt one that Mills himself used in his published experiments. In a letter dated 14 December 1995, published in Fusion Facts, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Dec. 1995), pp. 20-21, and posted on Sci.Physics.Fusion by Steve Jones in a post of Jan. 18, 1996, Shkedi wrote: "Famous cold fusion scientists have served as consultants to Bose Corp. throughout the research. Many more, from around the globe, have either visited the Bose cold fusion laboratory or were visited by one of the Bose team members. The authors have incl uded in the list of experiments every advice given them by the most famous and successful cold fusion researchers. In addition, manuscripts of the publication were sent out for comments and suggestions to many researchers with whom the authors kept close contacts. All the recommendations have been implemented, yet, the end result was no real excess heat." In his "Comment" on the original article by Shkedi, et al., Good wrote, "If they had contacted us, as they did others..., we would have faxed them the proper protocol." Apparently, Shkedi, et al., didn't bother to include Mills in the group of experts th at they said they consulted, even though Mills was the inventor of the electrolytic nickel-light-water-potassium-carbonate process for generating heat. Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 15:47:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:39:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: X-Sender: mwm aa.net Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 15:39:38 +0100 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"7wFqs.0.CY5.AqFwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9697 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:07 PM 8/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Aug 6, 1:55pm, Kurt Johmann wrote: > >> Regarding 2), I thought the spinning Earth was like a gyroscope and there >> would be great inertial resistance to the entire Earth rotating outside >> its current spin axis; although others, including apparently Chris >> Tinsley if I understood his posts correctly, seem to think this >> resistance isn't there for a perfect sphere (I don't see the logic of >> this perfect-sphere exception if it is true -- can a real physicist >> comment on this). > >Not sure if I meet your standards (not being a card carrying physicist and all >), but I just ran across something very interesting. > > > >A discussed relativity experiment involves gryoscopically stabilizing >near-perfect spheres. The axial stabilizing factor is through an internally >created magnetic field - just as I had postulated days ago. I guess my earth >axis stability hypothesis is more plausible than many originally thought. > I think it is right on and I greatly appreciate the website ref you provided. Think solar wind as the polarized environment within which the earth's magnetic field holds the axial stablility. And the mechanical force of solar wind may account directly for the tilting of the axis' of the planets. They are all tilted except for Jupiter and Mercury, both of which can be seen as special cases. best wishes, ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 08:53:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:33:24 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Predictions Resent-Message-ID: <"Z3Cne1.0.I62.qj9wp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9676 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Just had to share this one! FAMOUS PREDICTIONS .... BY EXPERTS "Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H. Duell, Office of Patents, 1899 "There will never be a bigger plane built." --A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that carried ten people. "Ours has been the first, and doubtless to be the last, to visit this profitless locality." -- Lt. Joseph Ives after visiting the Grand Canyon in 1861. "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932 "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out." --Decca executive, 1962, after turning down the Beatles. "It will be years--not in my time--before a woman will become Prime Minister." --Margaret Thatcher, 1974 "With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big slice of the US market." --Business Week, August 2, 1968 "Computers may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." --Popular Mechanics, 1949 "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 "This telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." --Western Union memo, 1876 "No imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urging investment in the radio in the 1920's. "Who wants to hear actors talk?" --H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927. "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper." --Gary Cooper, after turning down the lead role in Gone With The Wind. "Market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." --Response to Debbi Fields' idea of Mrs. Fields' Cookies "We don't need you. You haven't got through college yet." --Hewlett Packard excuse to Steve Jobs, who founded Apple Computers instead. "I think there's a world market for about five computers." --Thomas J. Watson, chairman of the board of IBM. "The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." --Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project. "Airplanes are interesting toys, but they are of no military value whatsoever." --Marechal Ferdinand Fock, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre "Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau." --Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929 "No matter what happens, the U.S. Navy is not going to be caught napping." --U.S. Secretary of Navy, December 4, 1941 "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." --Lee DeForest, inventor "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." --William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899 >> >> -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 08:50:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:45:56 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:45:52 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"sahHP1.0.SQ6.qm9wp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9677 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > First, since the wires are superconducting, the inductive time constant of > the loop is infinite (L/R). The current will never decay. You know, it never occurred to me before, but if tc=L/R and R=0, then the current flow will never get started. Yet current flows in super- conducting wires happen all the time. What is the explanation for this apparent asymmetry of applying the tc=L/R r ule to both charging and discharging? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 09:01:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Aug 97 11:52:03 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Liversage track record irrelevant Resent-Message-ID: <"eWBQa.0.Si2.-u9wp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9679 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mike Carrell misunderstood my message on this topic, and Mike Bucher understood it perfectly. As MB writes, this is "not a personal attack on Liversage but the principle that no matter how good or bad the credentials of anyone, we stand a better chance of getting people to develop these technologies if a host of verifications have taken place in different places by different people." I would go further. I think replications are essential to the scientific method in most cases, especially in physics, biolo gy and medicine. Medicine in particular is meaningless without replication, because some patients get better no matter what you do to them. My statement has nothing to do with personality or qualifications of Mr. Liversage. Actually, I take his self-introduction at face value. I assume he is the resident expert for the company that makes the spectroanalysis machine. His brief report gives me the impression that he did a thorough job. I hope that other people try this experiment soon. Issues of replication and signal-to-noise ratios are widely misunderstood. They have been part of the CF debate from the beginning. It is ironic that many of the skeptics who attack cold fusion are high energy physicists who rely upon data far more tenuous and questionable than the thermal measurments in cold fusion calorimetry. They say that CF is non-replicatable because, for example, Miles had to do 94 runs to get 28 definite positives. They say his conclusions are unreliable because they depend on statistics, and you might as well conclude that the CF effect does not exist, since the cell does not get hot more often than it gets hot. Needless to say, such statements reflect a gross ignorance of statistics and probability -- and common sense! This like asserting that nobody was killed during the Battle of Gettysburg because 9 out of 10 shots missed. The high energy physicists are the ones who depend on statistical proof. They launch trillions and trillions of particles to observe a collision that supposedly creates a top quark. This happens once or twice at Fermilab during an experiment that takes months, and it happens in no other lab in the world. No other lab has the complicated equipment needed for this test. On this gossamar evidence they declare they have found a top quark. Compared to cold fusion they have no proof and zero reproducibility. It reminds me of the arctic Martian rock episode. I have nothing against people looking closely at rocks. But to draw so many conclusions from such thin evidence -- and to ballyhoo them in the media -- I think it makes a mockery of science. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 08:58:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:52:21 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:52:12 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"2AtPK2.0.3o6.qs9wp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9678 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Butch LaFonte wrote: > At this instant also, the two wires are allowed to move apart. They are in > repulsion due to opposite current flow. For some reason I am under the impression that opposite current flows are attractive while similar direction current flows are repulsive. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 09:13:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:10:09 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:09:31 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"4Cwy32.0.Eg7.W7Awp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9681 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:05 PM 8/6/97 +0000, Scott wrote: > > >Butch, I'm not sure where you're going with the 186,000 mile long wires and >the instantaneous switch closings. The following applies to any flattened >loop of superconducting wire carrying a current. Perhaps Butch was thinking of the common mistake that electricity travels down a wire at 186,000 miles/second,ie., the vacuum value of c and he had one second to flip the switches. Actually he has at a least twice that long, or more. > >First, since the wires are superconducting, the inductive time constant of >the loop is infinite (L/R). The current will never decay. But we can still >talk about what happens to the inductance when the wires spread apart...it >increases. As the wires spread apart and the L increases, conservation of >energy requires the current flowing in the loop to decrease so that the >stored energy in the magnetic field 0.5Li^2 remains constant, provided you >let the wires move apart freely. If you let the moving wires do work on an >external system as they move apart (which they certainly could), then you >would be drawing energy from the stored energy in the loop and i would drop >proportionately faster so that the final 0.5Li^2 was equal to the original >0.5Li^2 minus the work the wires did on the external system as they moved apart. Agreed. L = 1.0E-7[(u/uo)+ 4 ln (D/r)] and C = (pi)*k*eo/(ln D/r) Then since the capacitance is decreasing and the energy stored in the electrostatic field is 0.5CV^2, is it losing what the magnetic field is gaining by the increase in 0.5Li^2, resulting i n a "conservative" system? Those "kicks" you see with high-amperage resistance welder cables are a good example of mechanical work out of this effect. Regards, Frederick > > >Scott Little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 08:34:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:26:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:28:25 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: electrochemistry question Resent-Message-ID: <"FCuKG2.0.oP1.MU9wp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9674 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little asked: >In a Pt-Ni electrolysis cell (Ni cathode) operating at an overall cell >voltage of 3.0 volts, would you expect ALL cations present in the >electrolyte to be deposited on the cathode...or are there some that would >not be deposited under these conditions? Many (most?) cations are not deposited on the cathode, at least not permanently. Cu is so deposited, whereas Li+, Na+ etc. are not. My limited understanding of the subject is that the positive ion is neutralized at the cathode. Taking Li+ as an exam ple, Li+ + e- --> Li However, the Li very rapidly reacts with water, Li + H2O --> Li+ + OH- + H Thus, Li is not deposited, Li+ is regenerated and atomic hydrogen is made. (Atomic H is much more effective than molecular at loading Pd or other metals, but that's a different subject.) What governs metallic deposition is whether or not the metal reacts with water. If the reaction rate (current density) is extremly low, this is decided by the usual hierarchy of equilibrium potentials or free energy. If the electrolysis reaction rate is high while the metal + water reaction rate is low, then the reaction is driven along the nonequilibrium path, and metal is deposited, even if free energy is unfavorable. I suspect that this is the reason that so many commercial electroplating recipies call for rather high current density. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 10:00:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:28:36 -0500 (GMT) From: Carlos Henry Castano To: Carlos Henry Castano Cc: grupo de discusion Subject: A question..... Resent-Message-ID: <"ySLPY.0.li4.UiAwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9683 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Good day, Do you know where can I find in Internet a graph of X-Y axis where X = A (atomic number) Y = Atomic stability (or Energy nuclear tie by nucleon (MeV?)) I need a reasonable quality is for paste in my work of degree. Thank a lot in advance. Carlos Henry Casta~o G. _________________________________________________________________________ My actual E-mail is dinamic but temporal, I have other permanent E-mail, if you e-mail rebound please try again to: chcastan hotmail.com ________________________________ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF; name="enerbynu.gif" Content-ID: Content-Description: this is amodel of the graph. Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\ENERBYNU.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 09:59:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:54:38 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.n et To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:53:58 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"htRje1.0.KM1.DnAwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9684 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:52 PM 8/6/97 +0000, John Logajan wrote: > >For some reason I am under the impression that opposite current flows >are attractive while similar direction current flows are repulsive. > Seems counter-intuitive that the opposite is correct. Even more baffling that electrons in a beam strongly attract each other and the beam contracts as their velocity approaches the velocity of light. Relativistic Electrodynamics apparently applies to currents in wires/transmission lines also where the velocity of light or an EM wave or pulse is a fraction of the vacuum value of c. The Cerenkov (or Cherenkov) Effect where electrons get up to the velocity of light in the water or other dielectrics, indicates that relativity and relativistic effects are not limited to just the vacuum value of the speed of light. I think that you will find that the speed of light in a particle or "quark" is 1/137th the speed of light in vacuum, the same as the classical "Bohr Radius Velocity" of an electron or the velocity of light in a metal at short UV wavelengths. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 09:25:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:09:13 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: <33E4313D.4D5B math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:12:30 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Real fusion research Resent-Message-ID: <"SG_zF1.0.cY7.d6Awp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9680 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To continue a conversation with Frank Stenger re z-pinch fusion: >cartridges like a modern machine gun - or an automatic extrusion system >to renew the electrode-filament combination. The cartridges would need >to be recycled for a lot less energy than each shot yielded - a sticky >problem! It's been thought of, but under any scenario imagined to date, the cartridge would cost much more than the value of the fusion energy produced. >However, are the laser-fusion rigs really all that better off? Laser fusion and the related heavy ion beam fusion do have the target explosion problem, but they don't have electrodes in direct contact with the exploding plasma. The last mirrors or focussing magnets would be 10 meter or more removed. However, you are right in that it is still a challenge. >Point is - I could probably build a dense z-pinch rig in my garage (in >a crude form, of course) - not so for a tokamak or a laser rig. You could build a crude, short pulse (few ms) tokamak in your garage, too. Most of the space would be taken by capacitors to pulse the magnet coils. It is certainly true that you can get detectable fusion neutron production more cheaply from a small z-pinch than a small tokamak. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 09:27:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:17:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: <199708061405.JAA25829 natasha.eden.com> from "Scott Little" at Aug 6, 97 09:05:14 am Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:20:06 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? Resent-Message-ID: <"LOn4n3.0.uc3.kEAwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9682 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: >You know, it never occurred to me before, but if tc=L/R and R=0, then >the current flow will never get started. Yet current flows in super- >conducting wires happen all the time. What is the explanation for >this apparent asymmetry of applying the tc=L/R rule to both charging >and discharging? The current in the superconductor has to be driven by some external source of EMF. The "tc=L/R rule" applies to passive, undirven circuits. >For some reason I am under the impression that opposite current flows >are attractive while similar direction current flows are repulsive. Current flows in the same direction attract. Flows in the opposite direction repel. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 10:33:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:23:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:23:07 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: exotic theories needed Resent-Message-ID: <"TPd2b1.0.k_2.4CBwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9685 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Dear Vortexers, >In my 'Uelb thinking' message, I wrote inter alia: > >of space energy is a reversible process, in this case it goes backwards> > >Jed remarked to this: >For many years I also have hoped that the puzzles of cold fusion will >be explained starting from and based mainly on known theories; in the >same time I considered a "technology first" solution as the best (see >please my paper in IE no 1). However, it seems that we have to pay >a much higher price for understanding the basics of CF, a great amount >of conventional knowledge has to be sacrificed and we actually need >new (say exotic) theories. We do not need exotic theories at all. What we need to do is to take our heads out of the sand and see our beautiful universe for what it is. We removed our necessity to do this when we invoked the notion of a field, because that notion allows us to mak e predictions based on past observation, rather than on fundamental understanding. All we need to do is to observe that in the presence of such and such, this neat thing happened, and so it will again in the future. Thus, we establish a theory of fields describing, past tense, what we expect to observe. But note that there is no mention of what induced the field, or what the structure of the field is, or what the mechanism for transference of action was. These things are left out and deemed unnecessary. A perfect example is gravity. We treat it as an attractive force, or as a curvature of spacetime. But we ignore any attempts to describe how the action is communicated between gravitating bodies. By simply considering gravity to be a "field" we remove that requirement, and in so doing, we additionally eliminate the requirement to even figure out if gravity is from the earth pulling us down, or the wave energy from the universe pushing us down. It is said, the equations are the same either way, so why worry about it? >From the standpoint of launching a satelite, they are exactly correct. From the standpoint of understanding the universe, and in so doing understanding cold fusion, the issue is of paramount importance. There exist in nature, no attractive force mechanisms. This statement leads to the understanding that E = mc^2 means that there is a huge amount of energy being *confined in* and not *held in* the nuclei of atoms. It also leads to the understanding that spacetime is a real, structural phenomena and not some whispy intrinsic property of our universe. We are fish in a huge ocean and ignorant of the fact. We are made up of the stuff of that ocean, and ignorant of that fact. We think of space as being empty, and yet we know better from QM and know that the quantum vacuum is intesnsely energetic. The clues are in front of our eyes, but as our eyes too are made of aether, we cannot see the forest for the trees. Spacetime is not an intrinsic property of our universe. It is deformable locally, and matter is such a deformation. Thus, when physicists think that electrons follow some bizzare quantum mechanical path, they think this because they consider spacetime t o be intrinsic. What is really happening is that spacetime is turbulent. It is the sum of acoustic wave energy in aether arriving from across the entire universe and interacting with wave energy of local matter oscillations all in that same aether. The nuclear strong and EM forces are the result of local, phase interactions between nearby standing waves. The gravitational force is the result of interactions of local matter with frequency shifted wave energy arriving from deep space. We filter some of that wave energy and in so doing, we are thrust in the direction of better filtered energy, ie, the direc tion of the earth, or the sun, or Andromeda. Frequency interferences can only induce one form of action transference, a repulsion. Phase angle interactions can induce two kinds of thrust due to action transference, ie a repulsion or an "attraction". But even that attraction isn't truly two standin g waves pulling in a tensile fashion. It is the result of, once again, a compressive thrust from wave energy arriving from deep space and which we know as "spacetime". In cold fusion, we are messing up spacetime locally. And in so doing, fragments of the nuclei are flying off because they are highly pressurized and trying to explode apart, but cannot because of the confinement of that incident wave energy. Radioactivi ty is the result of nuclei that are right on the bitter edge of being well confined, and so when turbulence of spacetime comes through a region occupied by those nuclei, they spall off pieces. The thing we lack in our theories, is the true relation between E and mc^2. We think that mass is not conserved, and this notion is in error. The mass property comes from the amount of aether confined in a given geometry of standing wave (ie a given particle). But Aether is Conserved, is the most fundamental property of the uni verse. Thus, when we find mass missing, what really happened is that it was emitted from the standing waves where we used to measure it, and it became a part of the ocean we live in and call a universe. It became some more "empty space". We see the results of this emission right in front of our eyes. Just look up solar flares, coronal mass ejections, SOHO, etc. Our sun has vast quantities of aether pouring out of its interior and we are all ignorant of the fact. We are not surprised th at the solar wind gains in altitude, gravitational potential and expands as a gas, and yet it is getting heated without an energy source. We are all aware that the corona climbs in temperature by a thousand fold without an energy source, and ions appear to be suspended above the sun for a month without falling down and we are content to blame the effects on magnetic fields, our friends. And we know that CME's blast out of the sun in time and geometric symmetry in global events despite the fact that it t akes over a hundred thousand years for energy generated in the core to reach the surface. How could such a long journey of heat wind up being so beautifully synchronized despite the convection currents messing things up? It couldn't. The only answer is that there is a fluid flowing out of the sun which we are unaware of, ie aether. So, do we need "new exotic theories"? I say no. I say all we need to do is to get rid of our silly notion that spacetime is some intrinsic property of the universe, come to understand that mass is as well conserved, and begin to account for it. We also need to throw QM out with the bath water, and then begin again from a more fundamental Wave Mechanical treatment similar to non perturbative string theory (but we need to get rid of the notion of strings too, and work with spherical resonances and the re sulting standing wave structures they give rise to). When we do this, we will find GR and the behaviors we can today predict with QM all exposed and easy to see. But we will also see why cold fusion works, and we will learn one more thing. Because the universe is an ocean of aether, filled with acoustic standing waves we call spacetime, and because matter particles are nothing but resonances in and of that very s ame aether, we will learn that it is possible to build a device that will mesh directly to the aether and pump it. When we build this device, people will call it an anti gravity device, but they will be ignorant of what it really is. Time will cure this ignorance too. Have a good week, Ross Tessien. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 11:01:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:43:47 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"8l0yI2.0.107.XWBwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9686 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > John Logajan wrote: > >You know, it never occurred to me before, but if tc=L/R and R=0, then > >the current flow will never get started. Yet current flows in super- > >conducting wires happen all the time. What is the explanation for > >this apparent asymmetry of applying the tc=L/R rule to both charging > >and discharging? > > The current in the superconductor has to be driven by some external > source of EMF. The "tc=L/R rule" applies to passive, undirven circuits. I'm still confused by this. We use inductors as in-rush current limiters, even though the EMF is from an external source. The only way I knew to effectively defeat the reverse EMF effect was to increase the applied EMF to high potential. In the superco nductor case where R is zero and tc is therefore undefined (but likely very high) you would need extremely high, if not infinite, potential to generate any current flow. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 12:07:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 14:58:46 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"3dGtp.0.Vi2.pcCwp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9689 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com "Dean T. Miller" writes: >Hi Robin, [snip] >> I don't suppose you could supply a couple of pointers to that >> "evidence from all over", could you? > >I had many on a hard disk that crashed. Now all I have is my memory for >the references as I haven't been able to find them on the WWW. (I also >now have a better tape backup unit. ) Either this or your dog ate 'em. :-) Dean, going back to the pole-shift possibility, which explanation do you consider more likely and why: 1) the skin of the Earth rotated over a fixed mantle 2) the entire Earth rotated If I recall your previous posts correctly, it seems you think both may be possible. Regarding 2), I thought the spinning Earth was like a gyroscope and there would be great inertial resistance to the entire Earth rotating outside its current spin axis; although others, including apparently Chris Tinsley if I understood his posts correctl y, seem to think this resistance isn't there for a perfect sphere (I don't see the logic of this perfect-sphere exception if it is true -- can a real physicist comment on this). X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 13:39:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:10:49 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: from "Schaffer@gav.gat.com" at Aug 6, 97 09:20:06 am Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:14:11 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? Resent-Message-ID: <"VCMOO1.0.yg5.duBwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9687 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: >I'm still confused by this. We use inductors as in-rush current limiters, >even though the EMF is from an external source. The only way I knew to >effectively defeat the reverse EMF effect was to increase the applied >EMF to high potential. In the superconductor case where R is zero and >tc is therefore undefined (but likely very high) you would need extremely >high, if not infinite, potential to generate any current flow. In a superconducting coil, the resistance R is zero, and the circuit impedance is purely inductive. Therefore, V = L dI/dt, or inversely, dI/dt = V/L. The current is increased or decreased by an appropriate voltage applied to the coil terminals. It d oes not have to be a high voltage, as long as you can afford to wait a bit to reach the desired current. You can apply 1 volt from an electrochemical cell, as long as it can supply the current you need! Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 11:54:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:44:53 -0700 From: "George Holz" To: "vortex-L" Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:44:38 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"6Yjsg3.0.i4.aOCwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9688 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote that he is still confused by tc=L/R equal infinity for a superconducting inductor. ---------- This is only true if the entire circuit including the source is superconducting. Time constant requires a complete circuit for the time dependence of current flow to be calculated. Think of the behaviour of a superconducting component as being purely reactive. A superconducting DC voltage source is a rather hard to find component ! Currents are formed in superconducting magnets by moving magnetic field lines in small nonsuperconducting regions fron the outside to the inside of the superconducting loop. George Holz X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 13:02:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:51:50 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 19:51:08 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"1W0JC.0.Gn4.LNDwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9690 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:43 PM 8/6/97 +0000, John Logajan wrote: > >In the superconductor case where R is zero and >tc is therefore undefined (but likely very high) you would need extremely >high, if not infinite, potential to generate any current flow. > If you want more confusion, try this. With the help of a contact at Sandia Labs, an excerpt from Stratton; Electromagnetic Theory, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1941: The phase velocity (v) of an electromagnetic wave in copper. v = c/sqrt(0.5*k(sqrt(1+(1.04305E18/(k*f)**2)+1)) I couldn't decipher this so it is verbatum. :-) With this, and given the conductivity of copper (5.8E7 mho/meter) plotting the velocity vs frequency for various values of relative dielectric constant (k) at k = 1/alpha^2 (18,770) the phase velocity in copper is the velocity of light (c) reduced by a fa ctor of 137 (c/137) at about 1E14 Hz or a wavelength of about 3.0E-6 meters. For any value of (k) the velocity (v) becomes constant at a high enough frequency (until x-ray frequencies allow the velocity to attain the vacuum value of c and penetrate freely). One might speculate that a superconductor has infinite conductivity and at a given relative dielectric constant (k) the internal phase velocity or "speed of light" is Very Low. In fact low enough to have coupling effects with the gravitational field or at least cause noticable gravitational effects such as the "Tampere" effects. I highly recommend J. A. Stratton's Book. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 13:21:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:13:12 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:13:02 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"WxDnT1.0.w46.NhDwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9691 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > John Logajan wrote: > > >I'm still confused by this. We use inductors as in-rush current limiters, > >even though the EMF is from an external source. The only way I knew to > >effectively defeat the reverse EMF effect was to increase the applied > >EMF to high potential. In the superconductor case where R is zero and > >tc is therefore undefined (but likely very high) you would need extremely > >high, if not infinite, potential to generate any current flow. > > In a superconducting coil, the resistance R is zero, and the circuit > impedance is purely inductive. Therefore, V = L dI/dt, or inversely, > dI/dt = V/L. The current is increased or decreased by an appropriate > voltage applied to the coil terminals. It does not have to be a high > voltage, as long as you can afford to wait a bit to reach the desired > current. > > You can apply 1 volt from an electrochemical cell, as long as it can supply > the current you need! I am unconfused now -- because I overlooked the obvious -- the R of the circuit is in the power-source, i.e. the battery's internal resistance. The L and R don't have to be co-located. Duh. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 13:26:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: DC circuit,simple question, simple answer ? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:14:36 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"WxqDr1.0.fT6.vjDwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9692 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com George Holz wrote: > John Logajan wrote that he is still confused by tc=L/R equal > infinity for a superconducting inductor. > ---------- > This is only true if the entire circuit including the source is > superconducting. Time constant requires a complete circuit > for the time dependence of current flow to be calculated. > Think of the behaviour of a superconducting component > as being purely reactive. A superconducting DC voltage source > is a rather hard to find component ! Yes, a silly oversight by me. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 13:57:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:49:37 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Apology to Jed, Liversage discussion Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:37:58 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"en7eF3.0.uA.WDEwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9693 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I accused Jed of beign too hard on Liversage, and I was too hard on Jed. Yes, the rest of his post put things into a correct perspective. I take it at face value, but we all need more data, more cross checks. Taken individually and in isolation, the claims of CG, Champion, Miley and Patterson are outrageous. But they are mutually supportive and are consistant with the larger body of anomalous elements found in CF research. Thus there is a growing body of evidence, not yet conclusive, but not to be ignored. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 14:16:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Aug 97 16:53:32 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Powergen alone not sufficient! Resent-Message-ID: <"fn7D-1.0.ss.SLEwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9694 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mike Carrell and I disagree here about a fundamental issue of science. This is surprising; we usually see eye to eye about things. I will accept no claim until it has been independently replicated in many labs. Carrell, Sevior and some others here apparen tly disagree. I find this subject interesting, because I have always assumed that everyone more-or-less agrees on the ground rules of experimental science, and the definition of "proof." I assume that nobody will accept a result observed in only one lab, no matter how compelling the evidence, except in rare & dramatic cases like the atom bomb demonstration. I am an extreme skeptic on this rule. I do not even believe evidence that I myself measure, with my own instruments, until other people in other experiments have seen the same thing. I do not call for a ridiculously high number of independent replications . I do not demand that the phenomenon be easy to replicate, and I do not wait for everyone see precisely the same results, with 4 watts in an 16.8 out. Such unreasonable demands are made by debunkers, not skeptics. I am not kidding when I say I would not even believe my own eyes. As a case in point, Mike writes: Jed, you made less quantitative observations about the PowerGen 95 CETI demonstration and held your ground against all the flack that came your way. Absolutely. And to my dying day I will be convinced that I saw excess heat that week in California. I can think of no reason to doubt it; the results were utterly convincing. BUT, if that was the only proof I had that the CETI gadget produces excess heat beyond chemistry, I would never believe it. If Patterson, Cravens, Miley and others had not repeatedly seen this phenomenon, and others had not done Ni and Pd experiments producing similar results, the whole business would be off the radar screen. I would shrug my shoulders and forget it. I would consider it an unsolved mystery, an indeterminate anomaly on the borderline of science. I would remain certain that it happened once. But a phenomenon that only happens once cannot be captured, quantified, amplified or analyzed. It isn't part of science. Many people see strange things happen once, never to be repeated, like a u.f.o. sighting. It happens in ordinary life and in the lab, too. But unless you can capture the phenomenon by making it happen again (even if you have to try a hundred times to make it happen once), you must dismiss it. At best you should reserve judgment and never decide whether it was real, your imagination, or an instrument glitch. This is a matter of bedrock scientific principle. It is based on human nature, not on any aspect of physics itself. You simply cannot trust one researcher, or one team of researchers. In my opinion the best documented, best instrumented, and over-all most convincing Pd CF work is at SRI. But if that were the only proof of CF, I could never bring myself to believe it. Not 100%. Even a smart guy like McKubre can make horrendous mistakes, or in very rare cases, scientists can be crazy or a fraud. It is conceivable. But I do not believe it is possible for many people in independent groups to make horrendous mistakes or engage in a conspiracy to commit fraud. If that could happen, experimental science would be meaningless and we could never be sure of anything. One airplane pilot might make a horrendous mistake and crash a jumbo jet at the Atlanta airport this afternoon. But 10, 20 or 100 pilots are not going to make mistakes and crash here in one day. You would never get as many as 10 in one day world-wide, not even in a million years of operation. The behavior or any group of people, be they scientists, pilots, or fast-food cooks, is statistically predicable. You can never be sure of one individual, but you can be sure that a large group of pilots will not all simultaneously freak out or drop dead of a heart attack. One scientist might spend four years imagining that he sees excess heat in test after test, but hundreds of scientists would never do that. Scientists make gigantic experimental errors about as often as professional airline pilots kill themselves with a dumb mistake; or about as often as surgeons amputate the wrong leg. Such career-ending errors do happen. We cannot dismiss the possibility that McKubre made one. But we can dismiss the notion that all CF scientists made such errors en ma ss. I can think of no reason to dismiss Liversage's results. It looks like a good quality experiment, and it is reenforced by similar results from CETI. It is interesting, but it cannot be compelling. In cold fusion and other experimental science, you can fin d any number of cases of remarkably good work that yielded "orderly and quantitative results" but later faded like the dew in the morning. Years ago some fellow from Florida named Ying popped up and claimed good results with a salt-free electrolyte and ra dioactive material placed next to the cell. Gene tried it and got nothing. That does not mean much, but then we never heard from Ying again, so I suppose he must have been mistaken. Lately, Ragland made many claims for his triode, and he says he performed successful experiments. His calorimeter looks pretty good to me. His lab looks professional. Cravens replicated his results. But, so far, Tinsley and Little have been unable to replicate even with Ragland's help. If this keeps up, and Ragland himself is unable to replicate in his own lab, sooner or later we will have to dismiss it. The Ragland and Cravens results will remain a puzzling mystery forever. A puzzling mystery does not equal science. It is the raw material of science. Based on this standard, I do not believe the magnet motors, the Correa device, the E-Quest gadget, or Greg Watson's run-around SMOT device, or for that matter, the Face on Mars or ESP. I do not disbelieve them either. I just don't know. Unless they are in dependently replicated, I never will know and I never will decide. Some people hate to suspend judgement but I don't mind. One last note about this. Russ George used to get terribly upset with me when I would tell him that I can never buy his results based on his reports alone. Martin Sevior has gotten a bit shirty at this standard too. He wrote: However, given your response, even if I was interested, I wouldn't want to attempt a replication. Who wants to be ignored like that? This is unprofessional! It is ridiculous to accuse me, of all people, of ignoring developments or attacking new claims. A scientist must accept the fact that people will not believe him at first, or accept his claims at face value. When you tell your doct or "I am going to get a second opinion," watch his response carefully. If he is a professional he will nod and say "of course, would you like me to recommend someone?" If he gets shirty and mutters darkly about how you don't trust him, head for the door a nd don't come back. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 14:39:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:30:20 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:07:48 -0500 References: <1.5.4.32.19970806185846.0068ce38 atlantic.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"CfH331.0.nZ2.gpEwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9695 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 6, 1:55pm, Kurt Johmann wrote: > Regarding 2), I thought the spinning Earth was like a gyroscope and there > would be great inertial resistance to the entire Earth rotating outside > its current spin axis; although others, including apparently Chris > Tinsley if I understood his posts correctly, seem to think this > resistance isn't there for a perfect sphere (I don't see the logic of > this perfect-sphere exception if it is true -- can a real physicist > comment on this). Not sure if I meet your standards (not being a card carrying physicist and all ), but I just ran across something very interesting. A discussed relativity experiment involves gryoscopically stabilizing near-perfect spheres. The axial stabilizing factor is through an internally created magnetic field - just as I had postulated days ago. I guess my earth axis stability hypothesis is m ore plausible than many originally thought. The rotors--the spinning part of the gyroscope--are a triumph of sphericity. Quartz globes one and a half inches in diameter, coated with a layer of niobium, they look like idealized silver squash balls. They have been lapped and polished to within 50 ato mic layers of being perfect spheres. The deviation between their highest and lowest points is less than one- millionth of an inch. Perfection, however, comes with inherent complications. For instance, how do you mount and spin a near-perfect ball without ruining the symmetry? And how do you tell in which direction its axis is pointing when you've gone to so much trouble to make it exactly spherical--and therefore unmarked? Both of these problems are solved by the electrical properties of the niobium coating the rotors. Niobium is a superconductor, which means that if cooled to a few degrees above absolute zero (-459.67 degrees Fahrenheit), it will lose all resistance to ele ctricity, and an electric current, once incited, will run around it endlessly. The researchers will mount the rotors in spherical cavities, with a thousandth of an inch of clearance for the rotor to spin freely. Inside the cavities are three pairs of tita nium-coated copper electrodes. An electric charge will be applied to the electrodes, which will then repel the niobium on the rotors and levitate them. Once they're up, a stream of helium gas will be squirted through a channel, setting the rotors spinning at some 10,000 revolutions per minute. As soon as they're going, the remaining gas will be pumped out, and the gyroscopes, now in a near-perfect vacuum, could theoretically go on whirling for a good hundred thousand years, if the coolant supply held out that long..... the direction of spin turned out to have been solved theoretically back in the 1930s by Fritz London, a German-born physicist working in England. London predicted that a spinning superconductor, unlike any normal metal, would create its own magnetic field and that the north-south axis of this field would be exactly aligned with the axis of the spinning superconductor. In a spinning superconductor, London suggested, the electrons in the metal would rotate slightly more slowly than the positively charged pa rticles, and the rotating electric charge that resulted would create the magnetic field. More information at the Gravity Probe Site: -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 17:03:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 01:12:01 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: exotic theories needed References: <199708061723.KAA06843 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"oboHB1.0.bw.noGwp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9700 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross Tessien wrote: <...> > The gravitational force is the result of interactions of local matter > with frequency shifted wave energy arriving from deep space. We filter > some of that wave energy and in so doing, we are thrust in the direction of > better filtered energy, ie, the direction of the earth, or the sun, or > Andromeda. > > Frequency interferences can only induce one form of action transference, a > repulsion. Phase angle interactions can induce two kinds of thrust > due to action transference, ie a repulsion or an "attraction". But even that > attraction isn't truly two standing waves pulling in a tensile > fashion. It is the result of, once again, a compressive thrust from wave energy > arriving from deep space and which we know as "spacetime". <...> I read before such a theory explaining gravity with this scheme by John Sefton and also one of your earlier posting to Newsgroup sci.astro titled as "Re: Redshift of gravitation" at 1997/03/25 As John Sefton say there are difficulties on this theory where the gravitational effects are intense as black holes or where the spacetime is strongly curved. Although you classified black holes as "different phenomena", but an other problem arise here as : If black hole it self is a source of a kind of gravitation rather then shielding, there will be a at least a difference between dynamics of bodies gravitating around black holes (at safe distance) and ordinary stars. Such a difference are not observed s o far. Another possible difficulty may rise on explaining "gravitational lensing" which is often observed by astrophysicists as galaxy scale lensing. Could your model satisfy these observations? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 15:25:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:16:23 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Eye to eye with Jed Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 18:12:29 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"E8Vw4.0.uj5.tUFwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9696 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Yes, I do see eye to eye with Jed on most things. We differ in style of expression. And I'm not disagreeing on the fundamental issue of multiple observations and self-distrust. And I gain trust in Jed's contributions and integrity because of that self-distrust. Yes, the most brilliant of minds can grow in erroneous self-conviction -- we know them as pathological skeptics. Just talked to Gene. IE not to press quite yet, but it will be rich with material, perhaps of historical value. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 16:39:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:32:21 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 23:32:08 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199708022322.SAA16834 dsm7.dsmnet.com> <199708060904.EAA28931@dsm7.dsmnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"LEgqv.0.Kn1.4cGwp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9699 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 6 Aug 1997 03:57:17 (-050, Dean T. Miller wrote: [snip] >I had many on a hard disk that crashed. Now all I have is my memory >for the references as I haven't been able to find them on the WWW. (I >also now have a better tape backup unit. ) > [evidence snipped] Thanks Dean. I don't suppose you or anyone else knows where I can get info on historical measurements of the geo-magnetic field? Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 16:27:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:16:08 -0700 (PDT) References: Conversation with last message Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Richard Olson" Subject: Special Relativity Question Date: Wed, 06 Aug 97 18:24:39 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"WdrLi1.0.q87.pMGwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9698 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts Vorts! I just finished the chapter on special relativity in my "Modern Physics" textbook and length contraction has me a bit confused. If we agree that the equation for the length of an object is deltaX=deltaX' * sqare root (1-V^2/C^2) where deltaX' is the length in the reference frame of the object itsself and deltaX is the length in our own reference frame, I run into a paradox. If we consider a spinning ring with tangental velocity close to C, then its circumference must be reduced by the length contra ction formula. But the radius cannot decrease since the Lorenz transformations say that Y'=Y and Z'=Z for and object moving in the X direction. So we now have a circle that laughs at the Circ= Pi*D formula! Does the value for Pi decrease in an accelerated reference frame? How would such a circle appear to an observer? Thanks in advance, JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 20:39:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 20:29:37 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Special Relativity Question Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 20:12:59 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"ZD-8z2.0.c97.V4Kwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9703 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Richard, I think you've rediscovered something called the Ehrenfest paradox in special relativity theory. I don't have any references handy but I think Reichenbach talks about it in his books on relativity. I have heard it said that neither special nor general re lativity deal with spin or rotation very well, and that special relativity especially is entirely linear in its postulates, but again, its beyond me. All I know is that a bibliography of unusual effects associated with spin and rotation would be pretty th ick... Fred ---------- If we consider a spinning ring with tangental > velocity close to C, then its circumference must be reduced by the length > contraction formula. But the radius cannot decrease since the Lorenz > transformations say that Y'=Y and Z'=Z for and object moving in the X > direction. So we now have a circle that laughs at the Circ= Pi*D formula! > Does the value for Pi decrease in an accelerated reference frame? How > would such a circle appear to an observer? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 21:50:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 21:46:11 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Special Relativity Question To: vortex-l@eski mo.com Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:44:31 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"oa4lk3.0.Cz2.FCLwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9704 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > I have heard it said that neither special nor general relativity deal > with spin or rotation very well, and that special relativity especially > is entirely linear in its postulates I know next to nothing formally about special relativity, but it is pretty apparent on an intuitive basis that rotational velocity, unlike linear velocity, is not relative. A spinning observer who thinks he is not spinning sees the universe spin around him, yet none of the forces of rotation arise in this apparently externally spinning world. The apparent tangential velocities quickly become superluminal. The observer even has to deny the centrifugal and centripetal forces he himself is undergoing. Since rotation is not relative, it must be, in fact, absolute. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 22:45:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 22:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 15:05:24 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server NeoTech , List Server Newman , List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk3 Magnetic Array Details Resent-Message-ID: <"VrkKF1.0.x_4.R1Mwp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9705 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com HI All, I have just posted the design of the SMOT Mk3 Magnetic Array on my site. The design is VERY different to anything you have seen before. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Phone / PC Fax ...... 61 8 8270 2737 E-mail .............. gwatson microtronics.com.au Home Page ........... Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 23:18:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:12:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Special Relativity and Simple Harmonic Motion. Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:10:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"hSJSZ2.0.zG6.xSMwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9708 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: This may be a little off-topic in regard to Jay Olson's question or maybe not. The classical description in basic physics of a point moving back and forth past a center point and a point moving in a circle, each describing a sinusoidal function gives one pause to wonder if the one-dimensional string theory is on target. If you have a one-dimensional line oscillating in length at/or near c it's relativistic contraction in amplitude will show up as a contracted radius of the "counterpart circle". Then the only Physical Properties you need for the aether is Capacitance C (given in farads/meter irrespective of any other dimension) and Potential V. The rate of change in length will result in dC/dt and this will result in a displacement current I and the magnetic or inductive property of space permeability, (given in henrys/meter). Since +/- q (a constant where the sign is a matter of phase)= CV, and Energy = 0.5 CV^2, what more than a bunch of short cosmic strings (or one dimensional perturbations in the aether) do you need to make a Universe? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 23:44:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Aug 97 02:24:36 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Predictions Resent-Message-ID: <"2fO5p3.0.4y6.-rMwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9709 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John, > FAMOUS PREDICTIONS .... BY EXPERTS See also Pile's Books Of Heroic Failures, and The Guinness Book [of something, I can't quite recall] subtitled "They Got It Wrong". > "Everything that can be invented has been invented." > --Charles H. Duell, Office of Patents, 1899 But this is the odd one out - Duell was being sarcastic, and demanding more staff. My own favourite, from the Guinness book, is a quote from a US Civil War general: "Nonsense, man. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...." Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 06:28:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:07:09 -0700 Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 16:31:03 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server Vortex Subject: SMOT Mk3 Magnetic Array Resent-Message-ID: <"HlxO4.0.wo1.RGNwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9710 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi All, More info on the SMOT Mk3 magnetic array is now available. The design is very new and should be reviewed by ALL those interested in the SMOT. The new design can be used with existing ramps to improve performance. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Phone / PC Fax ...... 61 8 8270 2737 E-mail .............. gwatson microtronics.com.au Home Page ........... Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 06:19:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:58:30 -0700 (PDT) From: ehammond pacbell.net Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:59:14 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Welding experiment References: Resent-Message-ID: <"FSFOL.0.R61.a0Owp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9711 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This is an experiment I heard about from the son of T.Henry Moray and performed at a college physics department. 1. Take a 20 gram sample of Quinine.(Coal tar die used in maleria treatment.) 2. Drop liquid nitrogen into the powder. Have giger counter ready with tube next to container with powder. 3. As Quinine is cooled quickly a reading on the counter will occur. I performed this several times and got a increase over background each time. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 6 23:17:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:06:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 09:05:21 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: exotic theories needed Resent-Message-ID: <"ZHhTn.0.Tr7.PNMwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9707 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Exotic theories is a problem of definition. Ross Tessien has stated that no exotic theories are needed, just a better understanding of the universe. I agree 100%, and I consider that's both my duty and pleasure to express my admiration for the expose of Ross. However the great majority of physicist s will consider his message as "an exotic, non-standard theory or speculations". I cannot tell numbers, for our institute I guess 90% will be against such speculations. The physicists will say they are useless and will throw with Hamiltonians to you, if you give a lecture. Some days ago I had the opportunity to read the latest vacuum/aether theories on Internet. Impressive indeed; these ideas have be connected to such real life problems as cold fusion or LENR. In this case the details are essential, and I insist that a NEW explanation has to be found for these NEW nuclear phenomena. Perhaps a collaboration with the Institute of Basic Research (IRB) , specialized in Open Problems could help you, Ross to apply your ideas in finding the mechanism of these transmutation processes. In the same area, aether as energy source and correct understanding of our world with the aim to generate energy, you can take a fresh look to . Please, Ross have the kindness to share with us your opinion re. their IECEC-97 article (Top-News, Aug 1, 1997) 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 06:10:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:05:04 -0700 From: Tstolper AOL.COM Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:04:11 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"0fZAs.0.L25.kdRwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9714 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ed, Mills was the inventor of the electrolytic nickel-light-water-potassium-carbonate process for generating heat. He's also the inventor of a new high-temperature gas-phase process for generating heat by using a tungsten or platinum filament to dissociate m olecular hydrogen in the presence of potassium ions from KNO3. Why do you assume that Mills' hydrino explanation for what happens in a Mills-type cell is wrong and that the nuclear explanation of Bush and Eagleton is right? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 06:07:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: < snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:41:00 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"FTJzl.0.0S5.mCSwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9715 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tom Sloper wrote, in reply to Ed: > Why do you assume that Mills' hydrino explanation for what happens in a > Mills-type cell is wrong and that the nuclear explanation of Bush and > Eagleton is right? I'd like to know too. Also, what do Bush and Eagleton propose? Somehow I missed that. The BLP web site has experimental data showing the existence of hydrinos, and an elaborate protocol for an experiment to measure the predicted extreme ultraviolet radiation from the vapor-phase reaction. Preparation for this experiment requires custom equ ipment and is in progress during this summer according to my last conversation with Farrell. I'd also be interested to know if commentators on Mills' work have studied his papers or are relying on superficial impressions of his work. Farrell told me that Mills had the seed of the hydrino theory before the P&F announcement. He then realized that a test in an electrolytic cell was possible, and a deliberate search for catalytic possibilites was made, leading to the nickel-light water-potassium carbonate cell. It worked, and starts immediately, without any cathode loading period. These features are not just another variation of the P&F effect, but apparently a different class of reactions. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 06:05:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:59:29 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 07:51:37 -0500 References: <9708061028.ZM15317 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> <33E980A9.3810 pacbell.net> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Quickfield Resent-Message-ID: <"WFIfy1.0.hu6.lQSwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9716 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 7, 2:53am, ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > Can you give us the info for ordering Quickfield? Attached are the relevant text files. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-Zm-Content-Name: readme.txt Content-Description: Text Content-Type: text/plain ; name="readme.txt" ; charset=us-ascii Hello! Thank you for trying QuickField. This is the new release of the system formerly known as ELCUT. If you have some experience in ELCUT, please see the list of major changes later in this file. You've probably had a chance to use some field analysis packages, and maybe you asked yourself, why too many of them are so inconvenient, why they always try to flood your poor HD, why you must browse thousands and thousands of pages in manuals before ana lyzing quite a simple problem. We asked ourselves too. And we decided to prove that a rather complicated problem could be described in ten minutes and solved in ten seconds, that one can obtain exactly what he needs from the field picture by pressing seve ral buttons, that finite element stuff could be handled as easy as a pocket calculator. Please, try QuickField now. In fifteen minutes you will find yourself fully comfortable with it and you will discover all the buttons, menu items, controls, etc. exactly where your intuition says they should be. We're sure you'll find it really easy! This Students' Version is SHAREWARE, so if one day you decide your evaluation period is over, you are encouraged to register your copy (see REG_FORM.TXT for details). DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY: THIS SOFTWARE AND ALL THE ACCOMPANYING FILES ARE SOLD "AS IS". TERA ANALYSIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. YOU ASSUME ALL RISKS, WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY, QUALITY, RELIABILITY, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT. IN NO EVENT SHALL TERA ANALYSIS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THIS PRODUCT. Comparing to previous version 3.2 this Students' QuickField 3.4 capabilities include: - Solving problems of time-harmonic (AC) magnetics as well as corresponding coupling analyses. Comparing to previous ELCUT 3.0C Students' QuickField 3.2 capabilities include: - Solving coupled problems of thermo-structural, magneto- structural, electro-structural and electro-thermal analyses. - New Move and Copy commands have been added which greatly enhance the capabilities of the Geometry Editor. With the new Copy command, it's very easy to create regularly repeated features such as poles of the multipole electric machines. With the new Move command you can easily perform parametric studies on your models, such as obtaining forces for multiple positions of the plunger in solenoids or torques for different positions of the rotor in electric motors. - Graphical output of the field pictures and XY-plots to CGM and PostScript files or directly to PostScript printer. - Extended list of length units (microns, millimeters, centimeters, meters, kilometers, inches, feet and miles). - XY-plots of different quantities can be presented simultaneously. - Wider set of maintained physical quantities is available (Hill criterion, energy density and strain components in stress analysis problems). - Contents of output table file are now user-defined. - The Zoom options are now available under X-Y plot and Integrals submenues as well, which makes it easier to choose contours in very small air gaps. If your problem requires finer mesh--just contact us! We have developed a much more powerful version of our software. It allows you to solve problems with up to 100,000 degrees of freedom on any PC! The speed of our advanced solver (50,000 nodes in 2.5 mi nutes on AT/486DX2, 8MB RAM, 66MHz) will meet all your requirements. The preconditioner based on our original Geometric Decomposition(TM) technique guarantees very high speed and very weak correlation between the number of nodes and the required solution time. We are always glad to hear from you! Please contact us: Worldwide: Tera Analysis Europe E-mail: support tor.spb.su Tel: +7 812 316 1965 Fax: +7 812 110 1334 from North America: Tera Analysis Co. P.O. Box 571086, Tarzana, CA 91357 E-mail: terainfo tera-analysis.com URL: http://www.tera-analysis.com Tel: 818 831 9662 Fax: 805 493 2172 X-Zm-Content-Name: reg_form.txt Content-Description: Text Content-Type: text/plain ; name="reg_form.txt" ; charset=us-ascii This software is distributed on a shareware basis. For $70 you can register one copy of Students' QuickField 3.4 for use on one computer. Future updates to versions 3.x will be free to you, you will be also included into our mailing list and will receive update notices periodically. If this program is to be used for educational purposes on networked PCs, additional licenses should be registered for $20 each. By purchasing University Site License for this Students' version you could use Students' QuickField on all computers within your University site. The terms and cost of this option should be agreed in each case separately - please contact your Tera Analysi s representative. If your models require a more dense mesh, you also can order one-month evaluation copy of Professional QuickField for $95 or request additional information about this program, including detailed price list. Choose options what fit your requirements best--and do not hesitate to contact us if any question arises. Thank you for the support! PLEASE FILL IN THIS FORM AND SEND IT WITH A CHECK PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS TO: Tera Analysis Co. P.O. Box 571086, Tarzana CA 91357, USA ===================== Registration Form =================== User information: Name: _________________________________________________ Company: _________________________________________________ Title: _________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Phone: _________________________________________________ Fax: _________________________________________________ E-mail: _________________________________________________ Order information: I wish to [ ] register one copy of Students' QuickField for $70 [ ] register [ ] additional copies at networked computers for $20 each [ ] order additional information about the professional version of QuickField [ ] order one month evaluation copy of professional QuickField with full set of options and comprehensive printed manual for $95 (Note: special license agreement has to be signed for this option, please contact Tera Analysis first). (Please mark appropriate boxes above according to your choice) Check for $______ is attached. Signature _____________________ Date _____________________ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 06:22:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:18:41 -0700 X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 09:17:10 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"JFni01.0.4Q7.miSwp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9717 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:04 AM 8/7/97 -0400, Tom Stolper wrote: >Ed, > > >Why do you assume that Mills' hydrino explanation for what happens in a >Mills-type cell is wrong and that the nuclear explanation of Bush and >Eagleton is right? > >Tom Stolper > First, I should change the word 'assumption' (my misuse) to 'premise'. Mills specifically writes that according to his theory, use of sodium ions would not work in his system. Bush and Eagleton demonstrated that use of a sodium salt does give transmutation products in the nickel system. This casts a serious cloud on the th eory. So far, Mills has only given UV spectral evidence which he interprets as being due to the different hydrino states. Wouldn't you expect, after several years of research that the actual hydrinos be isolated, characterized and reported on by now? I do. Th at would be a very strong clincher for the theory. Has anyone seen any report that describes the physical capture of these hydrinos? Thirdly, the idea of transmutation occurring between hydrogen and another element is a simpler, more believable explanation for what appears to be occurring. Ed Strojny X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 07:28:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 07:15:09 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:14:40 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"AIPn41.0.Oo1.iXTwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9718 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:17 PM 8/7/97 +0000, Ed Strojny wrote: > >Mills specifically writes that according to his theory, use of sodium ions >would not work in his system. Bush and Eagleton demonstrated that use of a >sodium salt does give transmutation products in the nickel system. This >casts a serious cloud on the theory. At the risk of being a bore, I believe that Mills is correct as far as the hydrino being formed. But I think that accepted physics relating to pair production forming a "Light Lepton" +/- pair from photons of a few ev or less and radiative capture of thes e by the protons/deuterons and electrons is giving the heat and "spectral evidence". With a rest mass possibly hundreds of thousandths that of regular electrons, it is necessary for the protons/deuterons to be stripped of their electrons so that the light entities can access them for capture. The sequestering of the electrons by the K+ or Na+ should do this. > >So far, Mills has only given UV spectral evidence which he interprets as >being due to the different hydrino states. Wouldn't you expect, after >several years of research that the actual hydrinos be isolated, >characterized and reported on by now? I do. That would be a very strong >clincher for the theory. Has anyone seen any report that describes the >physical capture of these hydrinos? Given the short lifetime and predicted reactivity of these entities as compared to neutron detection-reaction, it might be a bit difficult. > >Thirdly, the idea of transmutation occurring between hydrogen and another >element is a simpler, more believable explanation for what appears to be >occurring. Hydrinos-Deutrinos are hydrogen, and who's to say what they do in a nucleus as opposed to neutron capture. If ejected at Kev energies during the excitation-splitting of the nucleus the light entities could form more hydrinos and catalyze many more reactio ns. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 09:48:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:26:24 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:26:17 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: exotic theories needed Resent-Message-ID: <"WN9Eh.0.KI.lSVwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9720 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Ross Tessien wrote: > ><...> >> The gravitational force is the result of interactions of local matter >> with frequency shifted wave energy arriving from deep space. We filter >> some of that wave energy and in so doing, we are thrust in the direction of >> better filtered energy, ie, the direction of the earth, or the sun, or >> Andromeda. > >I read before such a theory explaining gravity with this scheme by John >Sefton and also one of your earlier posting to Newsgroup sci.astro >titled as "Re: Redshift of gravitation" at 1997/03/25 > >As John Sefton say there are difficulties on this theory where the >gravitational effects are intense as black holes or where the spacetime >is strongly curved. Although you classified black holes as "different >phenomena", For those who have not considered and studied what I am working on this is very confusing. I will try to give you an example using a wind tunnel and acoustic speakers as an approximation. A black hole "gravitates" in the normal manner as other bodies in the sense that the wave energy arriving from the direction of the black hole and pushing you away, is less energetic than is the wave energy arriving from away from the black hole and pushi ng you toward it. But a BH is different in that there is a net flow of aether into that beast. As a result, there is a flow velocity that is developing, and this had important effects upon standing waves in that acoustic field. For coupled acoustic oscillations (spacetime and particle), it doesn't matter what the flow rate of aether is in a given locale, so long as the velocity is not changing. All you need is for the particle to attain a resonance locally that is in cadence wi th the local spacetime oscillations. This is a lot like a laser atom trap. The light waves that trap an atom are not stationary at all, they are moving at c. But the standing waves induced by the interference of light arriving from a variety of directions does, remain stationary. Thus, so does the atom in the laser trap. For a particle in a spacetime acoustic structure it is about the same. Imagine a wind tunnel lined with speakers that all emit the same frequency. When you turn them all on, there will form a structure of acoustic nodes inside the wind tunnel, and those nodes will be stationary. The speakers represent particles throughout the universe whos wave energy is arriving in the vicinity of our test particl e outside the BH, and the nodal strucuture inside the wind tunnel is analogous to spacetime itself, outside the BH. We could suspend a particle of dust in one of the acoustic nodes and call that a particle in one of the spacetime nodes outside the BH. Now, slowly turn on the air in the wind tunnel and what happens? Does the particle get blown down stream with the air? No. It is traped in an acoustic node. The node itself will slip down stream a little as the air velocity is changing, but once you a gain stabilize the air velocity, the node will again be stationary. And so too will the particle of dust once again be stationary. In a black hole, you have a spherical convergence of aether flowing into the hole and condensing inside in a huge core of aether condensate. About E111 eV/m^3 is a crude calc of the energy density. The confinement is inertial, meaning that if the inflow ceases, the contents will shoot out via any paths of least resistance. The big bang was a breach of an entire huge core that had formed in an earlier universe, and the million light year long jets a nd lobed galaxies we see all over the place are from BH's in our universe that have breached confinement via the polar vortices above and below the acretian disks. but an other problem arise here as: >If black hole it self is a source of a kind of gravitation rather then >shielding, there will be a at least a difference between dynamics of >bodies gravitating around black holes (at safe distance) and ordinary >stars. Such a difference are not observed so far. Also, keep in mind that what most people think of as "shielding" means like a suction cup and they usually work with something akin to air pressure. This is not what I am meaning, because at E-35 meters wavelength, all of our matter is transparent, even the nucleus itself which is huge at about E-15 meters. The trick in the above to notice (re the flow velocity), is that due to the spherical convergence, the flow of aether is accelerating as a function of radius. And the acceleration follows a 1/R^2 profile. So yes, this model will mimick normal gravitatio nal profiles as best I can figure out. There are going to be some subtle differences, but I cannot yet figure out if any of them are going to manifest outside of the event horizon where we might observe them. That said, just do a search on quasars, +lobed galaxies and or "Alan Bridle" and you will find a host of beautiful color images of jets shooting out of BH's > >Another possible difficulty may rise on explaining "gravitational >lensing" which is often observed by astrophysicists as galaxy scale >lensing. Could your model satisfy these observations? It is not a problem at all. If you imagine a wind tunnel again, and you consider the geometry of the acoustic nodes, and then you make the wind tunnel huge and with a spherical geometry such that the flow is convergent and accelerating, you then find tha t the nodes will begin to stretch along a radial direction as you head into the hole. And doesn't that sound familiar from how an astronaut is supposed to get stretched into spaghetti? BTW, the one possible observable outside the horizon is a negative gravitational effect when the pressure begins to build up again into a hydraulic jump. The aether flow must be accelerated first of all due to a sudden rarefaction in the aether locally, ie a star collapse and aether condensation. That rarefaction propogates outward at c, and induces an aether acceleration inward in response. If the confinement is sufficient, (ie the collapse lasts long enough for the aether inrush to respond and mainta in confinement), then you can form a BH. If not, you may form a BH but fail to maintain confinement. When that happens, you get a supernova. Well, got to run for now, but yes, this model can take care of those issues, IMO. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 09:44:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:26:19 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: exotic theories needed Resent-Message-ID: <"nrJZt1.0.6z5.zTVwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9721 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Exotic theories is a problem of definition. >Ross Tessien has stated that no exotic theories are needed, just a >better understanding of the universe. I agree 100%, and I consider >that's both my duty and pleasure to express my admiration for the >expose of Ross. However the great majority of physicists will consider >his message as "an exotic, non-standard theory or speculations". >I cannot tell numbers, for our institute I guess 90% will be against >such speculations. The physicists will say they are useless and >will throw with Hamiltonians to you, if you give a lecture. Thanks for the info, I'll look into it. As for my theory being exotic, on the one hand I agree it is. But this is based on our ignorance of the fact that we operate blindly assuming that forces of attraction exist without mechanism. But the one single thing I am working on that is not an exotic theory is the interpretation of E = mc^2. Currently we believe that the mass is not conserved, while I am saying that the mass is a measure of the amount of aether confined in the standing wa ve. I am also saying that by standing wave, I mean spherical resonance in and of aether. The only reason that they interpreted mass as being non conservative when Einstein came up with that equation is because no one could imagine how the emitted mass c ould possibly want to shoot out from the two interacting particles along a line joining them such that the KE imparted was equal to what it is. And as well, the resulting KE is double what we would normally get if we had to rocket ships that threw mass o ff at one another. But, if you imagine two rocket ships shooting tail to tail, the imparted KE would be double what we would expect because the particles recoil and smack the ships a second time. This is a bit like ground effects for wings of aircraft. Think of our throwi ng a rock to gain thrust as being a "half effecient" process, and then the interactions of separating particles is a fully effecient process. In any case, we know they are working with "strings", and it is obvious that what they are really working with are "vibrations" because strings are not symmetrical in all directions, (which they assume for interactions), thus what they are really working with are spherical resonances by default. And spherical resonances will interact via constructive and destructive interference along their line of interaction most strongly **IF** both particles are being driven by one and the same, spacetime acoustic no dal structure (ie, if the two particles are in a controlled phase relation so that the acoutsic emissions from each are communicated in phase and frequency match). But you ought to anticipate some small amount of spreading of the emitted jets of aether shooting out of the destructive interference along the line joining the two separating particles. And so you should expect that the energy imparted violates that mc^ 2 expectation slightly. Enter neutrinos. But the reason I say that my theory is not really an exotic one is simply because it relies on a simple modification to our current theories. 1) It requires causality. And in any reasonable way, QM must be considered the bizarre theory since it presumes that causality is violated. So what causes, causality to be violated in QM? I say, spacetime is turbulent and that is the cause we are igno ring. 2) It requires conservation of aether, and ergo, of mass. When we consider non perturbative string theory, we are going to find that this theory requires conservation of the stuff of the strings too. So my theory is not so wierd here either. 3) The above require that aether be flowing out of our sun, and into black holes. We observe anamolous accelerations and heating being imparted to particles outside of our sun where there is no known heating source. SOHO has observed accelerations of O , H, and other ions that appear to be inertial (ie they attain similar velocity dispersions despite having very different masses. This means they are not in thermal equilibrium and the phenomena is transient, ie, we are finding something out about the me chanism itself that heats the solar corona and which induces coronal mass ejections.) That mechanism is, aether suddenly expanding out of the fluidized bed of particles we call the sun. I could list dozens of such compelling observations. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 09:19:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:08:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: Conversation with last message Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:10:21 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Special Relativity Question Resent-Message-ID: <"FCN2q.0.sp4.1CVwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9719 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jay Olson wrote: [snip] >I run into a paradox. If we consider a spinning ring with tangental >velocity close to C, then its circumference must be reduced by the length >contraction formula. But the radius cannot decrease since the Lorenz >transformations say that Y'=Y and Z'=Z for and object moving in the X >direction. You are trying to compare the ring as seen by a rotating observer fixed on the ring and a non-rotating observer. Special relativity applies only to comparisons among observers in inertial frames, that is, moving at uniform velocities (no acceleration) . Rotation is accelerated motion. Sepcial relativity is incomplete. Accelerated motion needs general relativity (about which I know nothing, so I won't be able to help you). Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 12:27:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:18:53 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"vUMtt1.0.KX4.z1Ywp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9722 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ed Strojny writes in reply to Tom Sloper's question: > Mills specifically writes that according to his theory, use of sodium ions > would not work in his system. Bush and Eagleton demonstrated that use of a > sodium salt does give transmutation products in the nickel system. This > casts a serious cloud on the theory. > > So far, Mills has only given UV spectral evidence which he interprets as > being due to the different hydrino states. Wouldn't you expect, after > several years of research that the actual hydrinos be isolated, > characterized and reported on by now? I do. That would be a very strong > clincher for the theory. Has anyone seen any report that describes the > physical capture of these hydrinos? > > Thirdly, the idea of transmutation occurring between hydrogen and another > element is a simpler, more believable explanation for what appears to be > occurring. My reading of Mills' work is that the transition from hydrogen to hydrino is catalytic, requiring 'collision' with an energy hole of a specific value given conveniently but not exclusively by ionized potassium. Sodium does not give this reaction. Now Bush and Eagelton may have performed an experiment and produced transmutation products using sodium and nickel. That is a quite different experiment and is not what Mills claims. Specifically, Mills places his work in the realm of chemistry, manipulat ing the energy states of the electron shells, and not in the realm of nuclear physics, changing the state of the nuclei. Mills does not engage the matter of transmutation in his papers. Actually, his magnum opus was written before the explosion of evidenc e for transmuation in the LENR arena. Mill's thrust is energy release, not transmutation. Mills is in fact very careful to separate his BLP process from all taint of association with nuclear processes, which could cloud his proposed path of commercial development. The last thing he needs is the DoE and environmental groups poking around his re actors looking for nuclear processes to regulate and protest about. As for isolation and detection of hydrinos, there have been detailed papers on the BLP Web site for weeks now. All you have to do is go read them. As for simplicity and believability, these are in the eye of the beholder, and are a function of distance from the center of gravity of one's familiar beliefs, no disrespect intended. I fancy there is an anlogy to moment of inertia here; mass multiplied t he the square of the distance from the center of gravity of one's belief system. Mills weaves his own theory and accounts for a range of phenomena. If you believe the experimental evidence presented on the BLP Web site, he has a remarkable set of energy phenomena that don't fit into the common context. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 13:35:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Observing "Light Leptons". Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:22:07 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"LNlfw.0.BL6.OxYwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9725 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: If the Light Lepton (+/-) pairs exist even for short periods, they should exist around hot filaments,(light bulbs and vacuum tubes) in the P&F cells, in gas discharges and in flames, or other places where chemiluminescence-fluorescence is occurring. The easiest experimental setup for detecting them would be a hot filament in a vacuum environment where the positive or negative ones could be extracted from near the filament along with electrons or ions and accelerated to a few kev and separated with a mass spectrometer type setup and observed on a plate coated with a suitable phosphor. The relativistic mass (Mr)of such light particles even at a few ev kinetic energy would be; Mr = Mo*[(qV/Mo*c^2)+1] where V is the final accelerating potential. The radius (R) swept would be, Mr*c/q*B (meters). The magnetic separator field B would only need to be 3 or 4 gauss to easily separate the entities from electrons or ions. Using a plate coated with a phosphor in a dark room and possibly with the aid of a small telescope for viewing the phosphor, scintillations caused by even a few of the particles should be seen. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 13:04:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:59:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: protech@mail.frii.com (Unverified) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:53:12 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: protech frii.com (R. Wormus) Subject: Re: Fredrick's Light Leptons Resent-Message-ID: <"3XIBU3.0.0d5.2aYwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9724 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Harold Aspden's paper on "sub-electrons" at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~haspdn/le01app.htm is another interesting look at the case for a light electron. All of Dr. Aspden's lectures, tutorials, etc. are well resoned, educational and entertaining. Home Page at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~haspdn ____RON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 17:00:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:54:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Passing Thought Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 23:52:52 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"_uEDR3.0.lj6.z0cwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9726 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: If the "Light Lepton" pair is formed and the negative one forms a hydrino or deutrino releasing about 256 Kev, and the positive one combines with an electron releasing 256 kev, and they bump and annihilate releasing a few ev, rather than doing any nuclear reactions.....? IE, in effect? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 20:54:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:47:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:46:52 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: John Steck cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Predictions Resent-Message-ID: <"v41WB3.0.TN3.sQfwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9728 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, John Steck wrote: > Just had to share this one! > > > FAMOUS PREDICTIONS .... BY EXPERTS Oops, the previous one got away from me early! There are a couple of these collections floating around email. Below are some places (including mine!) which host similar collections. Someone sent me one of them as a chain letter, and I just had to give it a home... http://www.achilles.net/~jtalbot/bio/skepticism.html">J. Talbot's "Skeptics" quotations http://www.athenet.net/~jlindsay/SkepticQuotes.html">The Experts Speak http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/laughed.html">THE OFFICIAL TRUTH (more great qu otes!) http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html#quotes">Collected quotes .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 7 22:13:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:03:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:03:23 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Predictions Resent-Message-ID: <"r8AUO.0.lv5.WYgwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9729 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com _________________________________________________________________ Man won't fly for a thousand years. - Wilbur Wright, to brother Orville after a disappointing flying experiment (1901) _________________________________________________________________ Jed, I've been meaning to ask... isn't the above comment actually a snide reference to one of the mainstream journals which attacked the Wrights? I bet it must contain lots more fodder for "Voice of the Experts" quotes. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 04:45:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 04:38:33 -0700 X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 07:36:59 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"mwC_K1.0.FH.uKmwp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9731 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:18 PM 8/7/97 -0400, Mike Carroll wrote: >Ed Strojny writes in reply to Tom Sloper's question: > >My reading of Mills' work is that the transition from hydrogen to hydrino >is catalytic, requiring 'collision' with an energy hole of a specific value >given conveniently but not exclusively by ionized potassium. Sodium does >not give this reaction. > My reading of Mill's work is the same. >Now Bush and Eagelton may have performed an experiment and produced >transmutation products using sodium and nickel. That is a quite different >experiment and is not what Mills claims. > Before Mills switched to the vapor phase work he used light water, potassium carbonate and a nickel cathode in an electrolysis cell. It was during these experiments that he stated that sodium carbonate did not work and would not work based on his theory. Bush and Eagleton used light water, potassium, rubidium and sodium salts, and a nickel cathode in electrolysis cells. Bush and Eagleton analyzed and found the expected fusion products between hydrogen and the target cations. I haven't seen any report by the Mills group that they analyzed the salts after electrolysis. Have you? >As for isolation and detection of hydrinos, there have been detailed papers >on the BLP Web site for weeks now. All you have to do is go read them. I thought I missed something when I read this. I went back to the BLP Web site and reread the postings. Nothing new has been posted recently. I have'nt seen anything that says hydrinos have been isolated, bottled and characterized. Can you specificall y show me where this is written? > >As for simplicity and believability, these are in the eye of the beholder, >and are a function of distance from the center of gravity of one's familiar >beliefs, no disrespect intended. I fancy there is an anlogy to moment of >inertia here; mass multiplied the the square of the distance from the >center of gravity of one's belief system. Mills weaves his own theory and >accounts for a range of phenomena. > I agree. >If you believe the experimental evidence presented on the BLP Web site, he >has a remarkable set of energy phenomena that don't fit into the common >context. > >Mike Carrell > I believe that Black Light Power is going to outdistance the competition in producing energy from these newly found phenomena. I wish I could invest in their company; they want and are getting millions of dollars in investments and they are not interest ed in puny amounts. Being wrong in the theory does not mean they will not succeed. I know of a chemical process that was started in the 1930s that produced a product that made a lot of money for the company. They had a theory on what was happening whic h turned out to be wrong. The correct explanation didn't come about until the late 1950s. Ed Strojny X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 07:34:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:23:53 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 09:27:40 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Friday's Follies Resent-Message-ID: <"7ZltT1.0._L6.tlowp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9733 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com THE SEX LIFE OF THE ELECTRON by D.C. Current One night when his charge was pretty high, Micro-Farad decided to seek a cute little coil to let him discharge. He picked up Millie-Amp and took her for a ride on his Megacycle. They rode across the Wheatstone Bridge, around the sine waves and stopped in the magnetic field by a flowing current. Micro-Farad, attracted by Millie-Amps characteristic curves, soon had her fully charged and excited her resistance to a minimum. He laid her on the ground potential, raised her frequency and lowered her reluctance. He pulled out his high voltage probe and inserted it in her socket connecting them in parallel, and began short circuiting her resistance shunt. Fully excited, Millie-Amp mumbled, "OHM - OHM - OHM - OHM". With his tube operating at a maximum and her field vibrating with his current flow, he caused her shunt to overheat and Micro-Farad was rapidly discharged and drained of every electron. They fluxed all night, trying various connections and sockets, until his magnet had a soft core and lost all of it's field strength. Afterwards, Millie-Amp tried self induction and damaged her solenoids. With his battery fully discharged, Micro-Farad was unable to excite his field, so they spent the rest of the night reversing polarity and blowing each other's fuses. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 09:32:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 09:13:01 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 12:10:25 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"3D3v13.0.LS4.BMqwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9740 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ed has responded to my questions with useful clarification. > Before Mills switched to the vapor phase work he used light water, potassium > carbonate and a nickel cathode in an electrolysis cell. It was during these > experiments that he stated that sodium carbonate did not work and would not > work based on his theory. Bush and Eagleton used light water, potassium, > rubidium and sodium salts, and a nickel cathode in electrolysis cells. Bush > and Eagleton analyzed and found the expected fusion products between > hydrogen and the target cations. I haven't seen any report by the Mills > group that they analyzed the salts after electrolysis. Have you? The corporate presentation charts assert no chemical reactions in the operation of a BLP cell. Presumeably, chemical analysis of the electrodes and electrolyte was performed, but to what sensitivity level is not stated. B&E's findings, of course, are not chemical reactions either. I haven't put the question to Farrell, who might know. Still, Mills was after heat release and found it. Bush and Eagleton found transmutation; did they see heat release, and did the reaction turn on immnediately? >I have'nt seen anything that says hydrinos have been isolated, bottled and > characterized. Can you specifically show me where this is written? In the document "New Fractional Quantum Energy Levels of Hydrogen", Section IV, "Identification of Hydrinos", there is a discussion of XPS analyses made on a carbon cathode used in electrolysis of aqueous potassium carbonate. In Section Vb, an evacuated h ollow nickel cathode was coupled on-line to a mass spectrometer, from a cell with sodium carbonate electrolyte and one with potassium carbonate. The mass spectrometer graphs are shown, which I am unable to read, but the text asserts that evidence for dihy drinos is present when the heat-producing potassium carbonate elevtrolyte is used. Section VI discusses gas chromatography. A nickel wire cathode from an aqueous potassium carvonate cell was outgassed by electric heating. > I believe that Black Light Power is going to outdistance the competition in > producing energy from these newly found phenomena. I wish I could invest in > their company; they want and are getting millions of dollars in investments > and they are not interested in puny amounts. Being wrong in the theory does > not mean they will not succeed. I know of a chemical process that was > started in the 1930s that produced a product that made a lot of money for > the company. They had a theory on what was happening which turned out to be > wrong. The correct explanation didn't come about until the late 1950s. > > Ed Strojny I agree. The business plan seems very strong and well targeted. My opinion is that the real show will start if they get a positive signature in the EUV from a gas phase cell. This, added to the above tests, would be a rather strong confirmation of Mill's process, and give confidence to investors. The energy density in their vapor phase experiments is high, but that's not the same as producing a reactor with megawatt output power. Thermacore has been associated with Mills for some time, and their buisness is heat transfer. The BLP effect should be easy to duplicate, once people decide it is real, and patents run out. But getting energy yields 1000 times that of combustion from a mass of hydrogen relies on the hydrinos catalyzing hydrogen atoms and other hydrinos. The is goi ng to take art and engineering know-how to be licensed by competitors from BLP, who has a running start. If all comes together for BLP, they have a ready market in the developed countries for retrofitting existing power plants and making fossil fuel a, well, fossil. Radioactive remediation is probably the "killer app" for the LENR camp. And yes, the theory could be wrong. But it seems that the potassium carbonate is truly a catalyst and not a consumable. In the CETI cells, it appears that the beads are consumables, not catalysts. They are changed, become inactive, and must be replaced. T hat's a lot different than pouring another cupful of water in your BLPmobile. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 09:08:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 09:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 10:49:44 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Good Info from Tom Bearden References: <199708062203.PAA17897 pop1.ucdavis.edu> <19970806.205256.3374.3.tv@juno.com> <33EB3B7A.DAA5F29B@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"rFkRv2.0.DC1.dDqwp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9739 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts! Tom Bearden recently an amazingly lucid paper on how EM interacts with matter to produce gravity....I am particularly please that he has reverted back to phase congujation as being the key to tapping anomalous forces such as gravity and the production of o/u. In this paper, he suggests that a properly conjugated wave will produce a reduction or elimination of gravity. Puthoff HAS TO SEE THIS one! It is posted at; http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/beargrav.htm In a discussion with Tom on reports of locale dependent time and gravity anomalies when in the presence of true ZPE tapping devices, I asked how he thought the circuit might be balanced for safety. This is his response and ties in the Anti-Stokes emissio n as a means of achieving safe ZPE produced over/unity....check it out at; http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/bearbal.htm seeya! -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 15:20:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: 08 Aug 97 18:10:08 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Predictions - don't get me started! Resent-Message-ID: <"8B8bF1.0.YU6.kdvwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9741 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Bill Beaty, a glutton for punishment, asked me about this quotation: Man won't fly for a thousand years. - Wilbur Wright to Orville after a disappointing flying experiment in 1901. Well, Wilbur wasn't prone to hyperbole, but Orville remembered hearing that from him on the train coming back from Kitty Hawk. They were exhausted & discouraged after weeks of hard work and being eaten alive by mosquitos. He was too good a scientist to mu ch such a long term prediction in serious frame of mind. In 1911 he said: When we left Kitty Hawk at the end of 1901 we doubted that we would ever resume our experiments. Although we had broken the record for distance in gliding, and although Mr. Chanute, who was present at that time, assured us that our results were better than had ever before been attained, yet when we looked at the time and money which we had expended, and considered the progress made and the distance yet to go, we considered our experiments a failure. At this time I made the prediction that men would sometime fly, but that it would not be within our lifetime. - W. Wright, Final hearing, Wright Co. vs Herring-Curtiss Co. and Glen H. Curtiss On another occasion he said: I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have . . . avoided all predictions. - W. Wright, quoted by G. R. Richards, Spaceflight, Vol. 34, July 1992 - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 15:52:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 15:43:24 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Good Info from Tom Bearden References: <199708062203.PAA17897 pop1.ucdavis.edu> <19970806.205256.3374.3.tv@juno.com> <33EB3B7A.DAA5F29B@microtronics.com.au> <33EB5C38.285C@keelynet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"65DxC3.0.LC1.f5wwp"@mx2> Resent-Fro m: vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9742 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jerry wrote: > > > Tom Bearden recently an amazingly lucid paper on how EM interacts with > matter to produce gravity.... I took a brief look---its about as lucid as mud. I would say its just BS, but I assume Bearden must actually have some definite idea in his mind even though he cannot express it in a way that makes sense to someone already educated in electrodynamics. Per haps he should try mathematics---it clarifies things tremendously. > Puthoff HAS TO SEE THIS one! Just a guess, but I would be amazed if Puthoff can see anything meanigful in that document....if he can, please translate it for me... -- 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 17:19:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:05:28 -0700 From: peatmoss@globalserve.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 23:59:40 GMT Resent-Message-ID: <"a9g_l2.0._H2.7Hxwp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9744 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id RAA06364 I keep thinking the title reads '...Baked Catholics' X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 17:48:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:43:42 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mill's experiment...was Baked Cathodes Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 00:41:56 GMT Organization: Improving References: <970807080410_1316072253 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"HS0a32.0.u71.wqxwp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9745 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:04:11 -0400 (EDT), Tstolper aol.com wrote: >Ed, > >Mills was the inventor of the electrolytic >nickel-light-water-potassium-carbonate process for generating heat. He's >also the inventor of a new high-temperature gas-phase process for generating >heat by using a tungsten or platinum filament to dissociate molecular >hydrogen in the presence of potassium ions from KNO3. > >Why do you assume that Mills' hydrino explanation for what happens in a >Mills-type cell is wrong and that the nuclear explanation of Bush and >Eagleton is right? > >Tom Stolper > I seem to remember somewhere in Mill's papers a suggestion that sufficiently small hydrinos could perhaps partake in fusion. I think something similar was also suggested previously by Frank Close (ironic :). So it seems to me that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 8 16:38:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 18:16:39 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Good Info from Tom Bearden References: <199708062203.PAA17897 pop1.ucdavis.edu> <19970806.205256.3374.3.tv@juno.com> <33EB3B7A.DAA5F29B@microtronics.com.au> <33EB5C38.285C@keelynet.com> <33EBA10C.7DA3@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"I1non 1.0.PL5.tmwwp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9743 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Take a pill Merriman.... -- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, Republic of Texas - 75187 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 05:58:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 05:48:44 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Pickle Power! Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 12:48:07 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"bdU303.0.Kt6.hS6xp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9748 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex According to a story by CNN (www.cnn.com) a couple of 3 liter jars of pickled cucumbers setting in the Sun on a window sill in Vladimir (about 100 miles N.E. of Moscow)exploded and severely shook a block of flats sending glass and pickles flying. Lets see, photons, protons-hydrinos from acetic acid, and heat.....? BLP, Naturally? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 07:35:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 07:25:07 -0700 Date: 09 Aug 97 10:23:16 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Logajan is famous! Resent-Message-ID: <"i1q9N.0.yk.2t7xp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9749 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Here is something from the Microsoft Bookshelf Internet Directory 96-97 edited by Kevin Savetz: Type: world wide web Audience: fusion enthusiasts Access: http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan If you thought the cold fusion debate died after the Stanley Pons-Martin Fleishmann cold fusion experiment debacle of the late 1980s, check out this Web site. It is a mixed bag of selected information about hot and cold fusion. There are articles about a cold fusion device, anomalous heat curve, and a straightforward explanation of plasma dynamics, complete with graphical representations of the various structures of a plasma construct. Excerpts from Cold Fusion Technology magazine are included, as are r eviews of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion. These reviewers don't pull any punches in critiquing their colleagues ("there was too much weird science"). References to other papers, Web sites, and research are included on this site, along with a curious list of articles titled "Libertarianism vs. Statism." It also lists this one: Category: Chemistry Chemistry Gopher, Northern Illinois University Type: gopher Audience: researchers, students seeking chemistry references Access: gopher://hackberry.chem.niu.edu:70/1 Providing links all over the world, this gopher site contains numerous directories and informational databases. With an array of links and sources, the site also offers a cold fusion bibliography, a Fullerene online database, contents alert directories, t he Journal of Chemical Physics, a periodic table of the elements, and a protein database directory. Sources of chemistry acronyms, conference information, and other chemistry gophers are also provided, and (more importantly!) stock prices for chemical fir ms are updated weekly. . . . and there is a definition of cold fusion in the encyclopedia. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 04:19:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 04:10:59 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 01:08:50 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: More SMOT improvements? Resent-Message-ID: <"IXzvQ3.0.9s1.27Qxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9770 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg - > It took Scott 20 hours to get a SMOT Mk1 "Climb > and Drop" to work. I did it in 5 minutes. If *that* worries you, I'm *sure* not going to tell you how long it took me! > I don't think I used the word Ignorant. Sorry if > my humor went astray. You did use that, but don't worry - I'm not the sensitive type (at least online). Anyway the humor didn't stray; the image of little torch lights gathering together in the streets of the village and starting to move up towards the Castle of SMOT works for me. So I guess by about this time next week, Scott and others should have from you a working OU gizmo on their benchtosp? Cool. We'll see. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 11:15:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:08:53 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 14:08:17 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Question on simple dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"gvAwy3.0.Sk6.q8Bxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9750 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Question on simple dc circuit Date: 97-08-09 14:06:36 EDT From: HLafonte To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Question, Does a straight wire in a circuit that is super conducting have INDUCTANCE during the initial DC pulse that is applied to it? (it is not close to any other part of the circuit) If so, does the inductance increase with the wire length? Thanks, Butch Note: Please bear with me on these questions as I believe I could be on to something. Please keep an open mind on this. Remember that this circuit is looked at only during the initial DC pulse as it is rising, this is not steady state current. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 12:41:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 12:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 14:21:32 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Question on simple dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"hr0Ns.0.Jf6.PECxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9751 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:08 PM 8/9/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: >Question, >Does a straight wire in a circuit that is super conducting have INDUCTANCE >during the initial DC pulse that is applied to it? My two bits worth: The inductance of a circuit element is related to the magnetic field created when a current flows through that element. When a current is flowing through the element, steady or not, if there is any magnetic field created by that current, then the element neecessarily has inductance. Specifically, inductance is a measure of the energy is stored in the magnetic field for a given current. The units are henrys which are equivalent to joule/amp^2. If you know the inductance L and the current i the stored energy is given by 0.5Li^2. All straight wires have inductance. That's because a current flowing in a straight wire always creates a magnetic field that curls around the wire (point yr right hand's thumb in the direction of the current and the fingers point in the direction of the B field). In the great majority of cases, the inductance of circuit elements (i.e. pieces of wire, coils, resistors, etc) is a constant that is independent of the magnitude or frequency of the current flowing thru the element. I doubt if being a superconductor would alter a wire's inductance noticeably. Virtually all of the magnetic field is outside the wire anyway. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 14:50:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Photo-Chemical Hydrino Formation? Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 21:27:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"dZfzs.0.t-1.X4Exp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9752 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, The exploding pickle jars bring to mind a recent experiment that was conducted by a D.O.E. Lab on a biomass conversion question. When acetic acid (vinegar)a chemical that can be made by biological action on synthesis gas (CO + H2) or from apple cider :-) is reacted with K2CO3, KHCO3, Na2CO3 or NaHCO3 (baking soda) to the point where it is acidic after the CO2 comes off, it turns to a brownish color when sealed in a jar and exposed to light (sunlight in particular). The biomass-related experiment was to see if the methyl radical was being formed and "polymerizing" the alkali acetates into heavier organic compounds and/or methane gas. This smacks of something similar to the BLP potassium catalyst setup, except using light directly instead of a hot filament to produce the light-photons. That is the reason the pickle jars sitting in the Sunlight and exploding is rather interesting. There will be acetic acid; (CH3-COO - anions and H+ cations) and most likely Na+ and Cl - along with the natural K+ in the pickles. With the Sunlight, all of the required ingredients of a Mills Cell? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 14:43:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 14:34:44 -0700 Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 14:34:39 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"n2Y6c.0.bo4.p9Exp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9753 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com A. Popa of Hughes Research Labs posted the following NYT article to the "ask a scientist" discussion. It involves the recent long-baseline "Aspect experiment" report. Did I miss something? Has the "Schrodinger's Cat" paradox (as well as all similar tho ught experiments) been solved? .....................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 New York Times 22 July QUANTUM PHOTON ENTANGLEMENT AT A DISTANCE OF SEVEN MILES Whether or not the quantum mechanical behavior of elementary particles is called mysterious depends, more or less, on the attitude one has. If there is a demand that the behavior of these particles be explainable with the logistic structure of human language, then some aspects of their behavior seem mysterious indeed. On the other hand, if there is a willingness to admit that the logical structure of human language may not at present be isomorphic w ith the logical structure of the laws that govern the behavior of these particles, then it is probably best to put off notions of mysteries and take the behavior for what it is. This week there was announced to the popular press, before publication, the results of a twin-photon experiment in Switzerland. Nicolas Gisin et al (University of Geneva, CH) reported that a pair of twin photons split and sent along two diverging paths, w hen arriving at terminals seven miles apart, exhibit the phenomenon of quantum "entanglement". The gist of it is that the detection of one of the photons effectively causes the collapse of the spectrum of its wave-function solutions to a single solution, and this collapse instantaneously causes the collapse of the possible quantum states of the other photon, in this case seven miles away. The melodramatic notion (purveyed by the press) is that information has somehow travelled from one photon to the other at a speed greater than the speed of light, with the result that great canons of thought are thereby destroyed. But perhaps the more prosaic reality is that any attempt to describe non-classical events with language based on classical laws and perception s cannot succeed. (New York Times 22 July) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 14:50:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 14:41:27 -0700 Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 14:41:22 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Predictions - don't get me started! Resent-Message-ID: <"yCdzb2.0.Iw4.6GExp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9754 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 8 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not > fly for fifty years. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet > gave me such a shock that ever since I have . . . avoided all > predictions. > - W. Wright, quoted by G. R. Richards, Spaceflight, Vol. 34, July 1992 Heh. This would make a pretty good addition to "The Experts Speak." Too bad Wilbur's attitude isn't more common. Those of us who don't allow history to rub our noses in embarassing human imperfections, are doomed to repeat them. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 17:49:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 20:45:22 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, noever@webtv.net, herman college.antioch.edu, barry@math.ucla.edu, kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp Subject: high temp superconductor patented employing nickel Resent-Message-ID: <"AFGw01.0.Yj6.4_Gxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9759 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com There is a link to the CETI nickel beads. Frank Znidarsic ............................................................................ 4043809 : High temperature superconductors and method ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INVENTORS:Ruvalds; John J., Charlottesville, VA 22901 ASSIGNEES:none ISSUED:Aug. 23, 1977 FILED: May 24, 1976SERIAL NUMBER: 6892 52 MAINT. STATUS: INTL. CLASS (Ed. 2):C22C 19/03; C22C 30/02; U.S. CLASS:075-134.N; 075-134.C; 075-134.F; 075-159; 075-165; 075-170; 075-173.R; 075-173.C; 423-644; FIELD OF SEARCH:055-16,74 ; 423-644 ; 075-170,159,165,134 F,134 C,134 N,173 R,173 C ; AGENTS:Pennie & Edmonds; ABSTRACT:   This invention comprises a superconductive compound having the formula: Ni1-x Mx Zy wherein M is a metal which will destroy the magnetic character of nickel (preferably copper, silver or gold); Z is hydrogen or deuterium; x is 0.1 to 0.9; and y, correspondingly, 0.9 to 0.1, and method of conducting electric current with no resistance at relatively high temperature of T>1° K comprising a conductor consisting essentially of the superconducting compound noted above. U.S. REFERENCES:  Show the 1 patent that references this one Patent No. Inventor Issued Title2739256 *Elsey3 /1956  2785046 *Butler3 /1957   3382106 *Jung et al.5 /1968  3438819 *Hicks4 /1969  3720752Van Houten3 /1973  3776508Katz12 /1973 PROCESS FOR MASSIVELY HYDRIDING ZIRCONIUM-URANIUM FUEL ELEMENTS3776855Raymond et al.12 / 1973  3793435 Reilly et al.2 /1974  3825418Reilly et al.7 /1974  3829552Reed8 /1974     * some details unavailable Exemplary Claim(s): Show all 12 claims What is claimed is: •1. A superconductive compound having the formula: Ni1-x Mx Zy wherein M is a metal which will destroy the magnetic character of nickel; Z is hydrogen or deuterium; x is 0.1 to 0.9; and y, correspondingly 0.9 to 0.1. •2. A superconductive compound having the formula: Ni1-x Mx Zy wherein M is a metal selected from copper, silver, gold or mixtures thereof; Z is hydrogen or deuterium; x is 0.1 to 0.9; and y, correspondingly, 0.9 to 0.1. RELATED U.S. APPLICATIONS: none FOREIGN APPLICATION PRIORITY DATA: none FOREIGN REFERENCES: none OTHER REFERENCES: •W. L. McMillan, "Transition Temperature of Strong-Coupled Superconductors", Physical Review, vol. 167, pp. 331-167 (1968). •T. Skoskiewicz, "Superconductivity in the Palladium-Hydrogen and Palladium-Nickel-Hydrogen Systems", Phys. Stat. Sol. (a), vol. 11, K123 (1972). •B. Stritzker, "High Superconducting Transition Temperatures in the Palladium-Noble Metal-Hydrogen System", Z. Ph ysik, vol. 268, pp. 261-264 (1974). •D. A. Papaconstantopoulos and B. M. Klein, "Superconductivity in the Palladium-Hydrogen System", Physical Review Letters, vol. 35, pp. 110-113 (1975). PRIMARY/ASSISTANT EXAMINERS: Rutledge; L. Dewayne; Weise; E. L. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 18:24:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 18:22:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 01:20:50 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"IURNw3.0.v5.WVHxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9760 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:28 PM 8/9/97 +0000, Butch wrote: >Question, > If a superconducting straight wire were connected to the terminal of a >battery to close the circuit and the battery was 1.5 volts and the wire went >out straight for one light minute, would the induction become so high that >the current from the battery would start to slow? Butch, it doesn't matter if the wire is or is not superconducting. The inductance of the circuit or the self inductance of the wire-circuit is in inductance per unit length and the velocity of the pulse is equal to (L*C)^1/2 unit lengths/second. Put the battery-switch very close to the trigger input to an oscilloscpe run out 10 meters of wire in a circle back to the input of the scope and see how long after the sweep starts that the 1.5 volt pulse appears on the scope. figure something more than 3.33333 nanoseconds/meter probably about 50 nanoseconds for the 10 meter loop. > If it did then the field >around the wire would sense the flow reducing and collapse to maintain it. >Then would a sequence of events start to fall into place, such as a "pumping" >type action down the wire length? This is very hard to visualize and I think >because of that people don't want to mess with it. Has any serious research >been done to predict the behavior of a wire circuit this long (in theory)? I >see the possibilty of very unique wave forms developing along this wire. >Your thoughts please. The "serious research" was done around a century ago. This is EE 101. You are absolutely right about the waveforms. The behavior of an "infinite line" can be predicted with a foot of line, and also what will happen if there is a discontinuity in is readily predictable. References: S. Fich, Transient Analysis in Electrical Engineering, 2d ed., 1951; H.H. Skilling, Transient Electric Currents, 2d ed.,1952. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 22:12:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 22:03:01 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 00:02:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"_rAcm3.0.Yc1.4kKxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9764 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:28 PM 8/9/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: > If a superconducting straight wire were connected to the terminal of a >battery to close the circuit and the battery was 1.5 volts and the wire went >out straight for one light minute, would the induction become so high that >the current from the battery would start to slow? I don't think you'd ever see the current from the battery "slowing down". As Sparber said, the long wires look like a transmission line with a characteristic impedance. I believe this means that, when the constant voltage battery was connected, a constant current would flow as the current wavefront races out along the wire. I t does appear to be true that the apparent inductance of the load on the battery is increasing as the wave moves along because a linearly increasing volume of space is being filled with magnetic field. Thus we have a linearly increasing energy stored in t his magnetic field. The battery is supplying this energy flow and I think it would do so at a constant current and constant voltage (i.e. constant power). When the current wave hits the end of the wire, depending upon what's out there, there'd probably be some reflection, etc. but, ignoring that, the current would start rising linearly with a slope of V/L where V is the battery voltage and L is the total in ductance of the circuit. Since you specified superconductors, the current would rise at this rate forever (or until the battery gave out). If some of the more electrical types out there see this differently I'd like to hear about it. My understanding of all this is based mainly on DC or AC situations as opposed to pulses running down transmission lines. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 22:27:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 22:20:40 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 01:20:05 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"U5kNT2.0.mA2.e-Kxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9765 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick, What happens in the wire at the positive terminal of the battery at the instant the switch is closed at the negitive terminal? Does a pulse start up the wire to meet the pulse moving up the wire on the negitive side (electrons must be flowing into the battery as they are leaving the battery I would think) the two pulses meeting half way around the circuit length? Note: The reason I stated superconducting is so that the drop in current flow due to circuit length, would be associated with induction only and not a combination of induction and wire resistance. Note: From your post, then induction does go up, as well as the inductive time constant as a straight wire length increases ? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 9 23:10:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 23:00:34 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Pickle Power! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 01:00:28 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"GAWGc3.0.L93.2aLxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9766 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick wrote: > According to a story by CNN (www.cnn.com) a couple of 3 liter jars > of pickled cucumbers setting in the Sun on a window sill in Vladimir > (about 100 miles N.E. of Moscow)exploded and severely shook a block > of flats sending glass and pickles flying. Shaking buildings would normally imply a high degreee of power, but you'll have to remember that these were Russian built buildings. :-) (Just a bit of nationalistic humor there, no meaness intended.) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 03:00:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 02:45:48 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 09:45:10 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"mvDVy2.0.tJ.BtOxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9767 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:20 AM 8/10/97 +0000, Butch wrote: >Frederick, > What happens in the wire at the positive terminal of the battery at the >instant the switch is closed at the negitive terminal? Does a pulse start up >the wire to meet the pulse moving up the wire on the negitive side (electrons >must be flowing into the battery as they are leaving the battery I would >think) the two pulses meeting half way around the circuit length? Try this tact, Butch. The battery sees the whole line as the characteristic impedance Z = (L/C)^1/2 of say one meter of it,or even a centimeter of it, so you can replace it with a coil with inductance L and a capacitor of capacitance C in series across th e battery terminals with the switch in series. (neglect the resistance for the moment) Now you put the second length (increment) across the L or C so it can dump the energy to it instead of the battery-switch, and another across this and so on essentially to infinity. :-) But the "charging" time of each increment is accumulative. So in effe ct you have the equivalent of a bucket brigade. Any water spilled from the buckets (energy loss) is due to resistance. :-) A common application of this is to take a length of coax cable still on the spool and switch in a voltage at one end and the pulse will come out the other end delayed in time t = N*(L*C)^1/2 seconds/meter. They are called delay lines. Fun stuff. (that's why Electrical Engineers tend to be Wired) :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 03:58:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 03:54:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Photon Conjugate? Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:52:39 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"hICsq.0.Bc2.UtPxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9769 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, I lost a post on "Schroedinger's (sp) Cat". But the gist was that a pair of photons showed up 7 miles apart at the same time, implying faster-than-light travel. Butch LaFonte's pulse-line problem prompts the thought that if you introduce a pulse "photon" at the middle of a line, ie., at a point in space, there should be a pulse-photon moving out in both directions from that point and you should see a pulse arriv e at each *end* of the line at the same time, thus seemingly F-T-L travel. :-) Is Natural Symmetry creating "photon pairs" the same as particle pairs? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 00:09:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:01:26 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 20:59:20 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Photon Conjugate? Resent-Message-ID: <"9wFxp2.0.XY.4Zhxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9794 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gary - 'Samatta you? It *was* just a weather balloon. Go to your rug. Go to your rug NOW. Good boy. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 09:46:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 09:42:00 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit To: vortex-l@eski mo.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:40:44 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"uk55C1.0.kS.MzUxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9771 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > If a superconducting straight wire were connected to the terminal of a > battery to close the circuit and the battery was 1.5 volts and the wire went > out straight for one light minute, would the induction become so high that > the current from the battery would start to slow? Scott covered most of this in his answer. But just to emphasize what is going on in these sorts of cases ... Any transient condition in an electrical circuit is limited in its propogation speed by the speed of light (or a fraction thereof, as some electrical conductors can slow the speed down to around 1/2 the speed of light in a vacuum.) Therefore, when a current starts flowing at one end of a wire, it can have no idea what conditions await it at the other end of the wire. Transients always respond to *LOCAL* conditions because that is all they can "feel." They are already moving at the speed of light in that medium, so there is no way to "look ahead" at a faster rate to find out what is farther down the line until they ac tually get there. That's why you can send pulses of current down wires that are either unconnected or shorted at the other end, and the pulses both start out behaving the same. The behavior changes suddenly when the current pulse hits the "discontinutity." In the unconnected end case, the elecrons have nowhere left to go, so they pile up and thus generate an rising voltage "reflection" that finds its way back to the source, which finally "informs" the source that it can't pump anymore current down the line. In the shorted end case, the electrons are consumed with less resistance than they were feeling under the initial conditions, so a rarifaction occurs and a drop in voltage travels back up the wire to inform the source that plenty of more current should be sent. Now, shorts and opens are the extremes while some discontinuities will fall somewhere between them. They don't have to be at the end of the line, and there can be many of them -- which is why transmission line designers attempt to eliminate discontinuiti es and terminate the line at the end with resistance equal to characterisitic impedance of the line itself. It all serves to eliminate all the unwanted echos. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 10:26:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:08:54 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:08:46 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"IMegh2.0.YZ1.bMVxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9772 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:40 AM 8/10/97 -0500, John Logajan wrote: >Transients always respond to *LOCAL* conditions... >In the unconnected end case.... >In the shorted end case.... Thanks for a clear understandable description of the reflections, John. I wish my EE prof in college had said it like that... Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 11:16:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:05:35 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 14:03:50 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"hPpKj3.0.1U2.iBWxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9773 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott, Then there is a flow of electrons going into the POSITIVE side of the battery as this initial pulse is moving up the wire on the NEGATIVE side of the battery. If this is so, then there is an initial pulse moving up the wire on the POSITIVE side of the b attery to meet with the initial pulse moving up the wire on the NEGATIVE side. They should meet at half the length of the closed circuit, yes or no ? Note: I know that there is not a flow of electrons going up the positive wire, but a progression of electrons moving toward the positive terminal leaving positive charged atoms behind as each one moves toward the positive terminal. Like a bucket brigrade starting at the battery and the exchange of buckets moving up each wire side by side till at the half way point one line exchanges with the other for the FIRST time. After this, the flow is continious and steady through the length of the wire. I'm I correct ? Thanks, Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 11:16:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:09:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"Y01qJ1.0.Gh2.6HWxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9774 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, William Beaty wrote: > A. Popa of Hughes Research Labs posted the following NYT article to the > "ask a scientist" discussion. It involves the recent long-baseline > "Aspect experiment" report. Did I miss something? Has the "Schrodinger's > Cat" paradox (as well as all similar thought experiments) been solved? > Thanks very much for the post Bill. I've been following these developments of the EPR paradox for many years. I would very much like to read the paper this story is based on in full. Personally I think that the author attempts to sweep a great problem und er the carpet, along the lines of Bohr's "Don't worry about Quantum Mechanics, just use it" philosophy. There are great intellectual challenges in the interpretation of QM, which may have profound consequences. This story is by no means over but we will n eed ingenious experiments to sort what's going on. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 14:49:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:53:03 -0700 Date: 10 Aug 97 14:50:12 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"a3an23.0.kD5.EuWxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9777 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex There is yet another report of an academic science scandal in today's New York Times magazine. It is: M. Stacey, "The Fall and Rise of Kilmer McCully," New York Times Magazine, August 10, 1997, p. 25 It describes McCully's 20-year ordeal that was triggered when he proposed a theory that homocysteine can trigger heart disease. A couple of quotes: McCully would hear of a job opening, go for interviews and then the process would grind to a stop. Finally, he heard rumors of what he calls 'poison phone calls' from Harvard. But beyond the issue of McCully's halted career, those concerned with heart disease -- the nation's No. 1 cause of death -- might wonder, what took so long? People familiar with the ethics of modern academic science will not wonder what took so long; they will wonder how he managed to survive at all. I do not have a statistical study of dysfunctional competition in academic science compared to other institutions. Perhaps such incidents are as common in corporations, sports and journalism as they are in science. But I do not think so. When a corporate manager sees a lousy idea, he might push aside or fire the developer who came up with it, but he will not make phone calls years later to keep the fellow "from ever working in this business again" -- as the expression goes. A businessman might make phone calls years later to keep an known crook from setting up shop, but if the guy is guilty of nothing more than designing bad products a businessman will simply ignore him. If the other academic researchers felt that McCully's ideas were wrong, they should h ave ignored him. They should not have ostracized him and then launched a two-decade vendetta. Needless to say, the same goes for cold fusion. If scientists think it is incorrect, they should ignore it. They should not spread lies about it, drive people out of the country, launch flame wars on Internet, or carry out these lunatic campaigns to destr oy people's reputation. Do software developers go around doing that kind of thing? Do gourmet chefs or pantyhose wholesalers? Not likely! They don't have time, they have a job to do. The only group I have encountered who often act this way are opera singers. That's why "prima donna" means "a temperamental, conceited person." - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 12:29:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:18:06 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:18:00 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: No way for battery to not chemicaly change in Newman motor ? Resent-Message-ID: <"nEdlZ3.0.B6.jFXxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9778 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Joe says that he breaks the circuit before the pulse completes it's travel >through the wire so that no chemical decomposition can take place in the >battery. But electrons start flowing into the battery the instant the circuit >is closed, and chemical decomposition take place at that instant! The chemical decomposition already took place! What is happening is that you are bleeding down some of the voltage resevior of electrons available in the battery in order to initiate the pulse. But yes, more reactions are taking place during the period of flow. Though the transition period is interesting. I used to work with Time Domain Reflectometers which shoot a fast rise time (25ps) pulse into coaxial cable and transmission lines (ie signal and ground traces). You could watch the signal and reflections to a positional accuracy of about an eighth of an inch down a 10 foot long cable. Impedance variances alter the reflected energy the scope sees. What is interesting about the pulses is that while the pulse travels at near c depending on the dialectric you use, the current flows really slowly. ie walking pace if I recall. It depends on wire dia, voltage, etc. but it is really slow. So what you a re doing is allowing a sort of shock wave to travel down the conductor, and I guess a sort of chemical shock will propogate through the battery. I don't know what velocity that will move at, but another shock would be launched when the current had comple ted the loop. By shock in the chemical and electrical sense, I am using the word loosely to mean a non equilibrium condition is propogating through the respective systems. How the above means anything to ou performance, I haven't a clue. But it is useful to understand that the way connecting the current works is to induce the voltage front which propogates rapidly and it is what kicks the electrons down the wire into motio n. But the motions itself is normally quite slow. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 13:00:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:52:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:52:10 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"xMY3F2.0.Yo.llXxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9779 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com (Fred S.: that lost article is below!) On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Martin Sevior wrote: > Personally I think that the author attempts > to sweep a great problem under the carpet, along the lines of Bohr's "Don't > worry about Quantum Mechanics, just use it" philosophy. There are great > intellectual challenges in the interpretation of QM, which may have profound > consequences. This story is by no means over but we will need ingenious > experiments to sort what's going on. Yeah, and the author even performed the "sweeping" wrong. Language problems? But language is a tool, a tool used to describe concepts. The problem with QM doesn't involve human language structure, it involves human *concepts*. That author has mistaken the description of a thing for the thing being described. For example, if an atom emits a single photon, that photon spreads as a spherical wave in all directions, and in the case of starlight the sphere can grow to the scale of light-years. Yet when it hits something, the entire spherical wave function must si multaneously "know" to disappear, otherwise one photon might become many. The sphere wave must communicate with all parts of itself instantaneously, there must be an FTL exchange of information. Or, alternatively, spacetime must have "nonlocality", mean ing that separate parts of the wave are somehow all in the same place as well. It astounds me that anyone would say there is no mystery here. Do the majority of working physicists agree with this article? It smacks of the UFO debunking techniques outlined in "Zen and the Art of Debunkery": if we confidently state "There is no myst ery here", many listeners will be swayed, and the remainder will become confused. I'd say that the NYT article is more opinion (if not disinformation) than science. But why do this? Why try to stamp out curiousity about the underpinnings of QM? Why tr y to cover up the controversy? And especially why feature it as a factual article in NYT? (Or am I mistaken, and did that article actually appear on the editorial page?) .....................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 New York Times 22 July QUANTUM PHOTON ENTANGLEMENT AT A DISTANCE OF SEVEN MILES Whether or not the quantum mechanical behavior of elementary particles is called mysterious depends, more or less, on the attitude one has. If there is a demand that the behavior of these particles be explainable with the logistic structure of human language, then some aspects of their behavior seem mysterious indeed. On the other hand, if there is a willingness to admit that the logical structure of human language may not at present be isomorphic w ith the logical structure of the laws that govern the behavior of these particles, then it is probably best to put off notions of mysteries and take the behavior for what it is. This week there was announced to the popular press, before publication, the results of a twin-photon experiment in Switzerland. Nicolas Gisin et al (University of Geneva, CH) reported that a pair of twin photons split and sent along two diverging paths, w hen arriving at terminals seven miles apart, exhibit the phenomenon of quantum "entanglement". The gist of it is that the detection of one of the photons effectively causes the collapse of the spectrum of its wave-function solutions to a single solution, and this collapse instantaneously causes the collapse of the possible quantum states of the other photon, in this case seven miles away. The melodramatic notion (purveyed by the press) is that information has somehow travelled from one photon to the other at a speed greater than the speed of light, with the result that great canons of thought are thereby destroyed. But perhaps the more prosaic reality is that any attempt to describe non-classical events with language based on classical laws and perception s cannot succeed. (New York Times 22 July) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 13:08:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:59:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:59:09 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Photon Conjugate? Resent-Message-ID: <"lSDAh2.0.E61.JsXxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9780 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > To Vortex, > > I lost a post on "Schroedinger's (sp) Cat". But the gist was that > a pair of photons showed up 7 miles apart at the same time, > implying faster-than-light travel. I don't have the original article, but no, I don't think it was that they arrived simultaneously. This is the "EPR Paradox" experiment: Uncertainty Principle says that you cannot simultaneously measure vertical and horizontal polarization of one photon. So, what if you generate a photon pair? You can then measure H of one and V of the other. But Quantum Mechanics predicts that if you measure H of one, you scramble the V of the other, no matter how far apart they are. It's as if the photons were in FT L communication with each other. Unfortunately this effect cannot be used to transmit FTL information. The effect only appears when large numbers of random photons are used. The effect is detected by comparing correlations between photons received at the two distant points. Each dista nt point receives totally random photons, it's only when the data is brought together afterwards that the mystery is revealed. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 13:39:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 13:30:33 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: William Bea ty Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"RvdJ-1.0.PB2.dJYxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9781 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, William Beaty wrote: > > Yeah, and the author even performed the "sweeping" wrong. Language > problems? But language is a tool, a tool used to describe concepts. The > problem with QM doesn't involve human language structure, it involves > human *concepts*. That author has mistaken the description of a thing > for the thing being described. > I agree completely. > > It astounds me that anyone would say there is no mystery here. Do the > majority of working physicists agree with this article? > I would say that a sizable fraction, maybe greater than 70% (entirely my guess) believe that the problem of interpreting Quantum Mechanics is an interesting an unsolved question, worthy of lots of research. Colloquia on this subject at Melbourne Uni are the best attended of any topic, but that might be because we emphasize this problem in our undergraduate program. I don't know what happens at other places where the Bohr doctrine reigns. There are a lot of different interpretations of QM out in the market, one of them, "The many worlds"-hypothesis was ridiculed by Chris Tinsley as being pure philiosphical nonsense. The problem is to identify different consequences of the interpretations a nd to do experiments to distinguish them. > It smacks of the > UFO debunking techniques outlined in "Zen and the Art of Debunkery": if we > confidently state "There is no mystery here", many listeners will be > swayed, and the remainder will become confused. I'd say that the NYT > article is more opinion (if not disinformation) than science. But why do > this? Why try to stamp out curiousity about the underpinnings of QM? Why > try to cover up the controversy? And especially why feature it as a > factual article in NYT? (Or am I mistaken, and did that article actually > appear on the editorial page?) > I agree that the author did Physics a profound dis-service by sweeping the problem away. Why de-emphasize a truely profound mystery that makes Physics an interesting thing to study! There are some truely wonderful articles written by Barry Mermin in "Phys ics Today" (an APS monthly) on this subject, which certainly do not sweep the problem away. His classic "Is the moon there if nobody's looking?" is a great starting point. He describes the Aspect experiment as proof that Einstein was wrong in stating that QM must be wrong otherwise one could set up a thought experiment (the EPR paradox) that leads to a logical absurdity. The Aspect experiment (and maybe this 7 mile improved version) IS the real version of the thought experiment and in fact, nature behaves as Quantum Mechanics predicts, despite this being a "logical absurdity"! I don't know where the article appears in the NYT. I got all my info from your post! Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 13:44:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 13:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:41:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"8pbKD.0.zP6.gUYxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9782 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:03 PM 8/10/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: >Then there is a flow of electrons going into the POSITIVE side of the battery >as this initial pulse is moving up the wire on the NEGATIVE side of the >battery. If this is so, then there is an initial pulse moving up the wire on >the POSITIVE side of the battery to meet with the initial pulse moving up >the wire on the NEGATIVE side. They should meet at half the length of the >closed circuit, yes or no ? Yes. >Note: I know that there is not a flow of electrons going up the positive >wire, but a progression of electrons moving toward the positive terminal >leaving positive charged atoms behind as each one moves toward the positive >terminal. Like a bucket brigrade starting at the battery and the exchange of >buckets moving up each wire side by side till at the half way point one line >exchanges with the other for the FIRST time. After this, the flow is >continious and steady through the length of the wire. >I'm I correct ? Close, but as John L said, the flow would only be continuous and steady if there was a resistor across the far end of the two wires whose resistance was equal to the characteristic impedance of the two wires that run out there. If you have a short circui t out there, a voltage wave will be reflected from it back to the source which will add to the battery voltage when it arrives causing the current to double. This doubling will create a new outgoing wave which will eventually hit the end, reflect back an d cause the current to increase again. Since you are using superconducting wires the current will increase to the maximum that the battery can supply. Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 14:38:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 14:28:30 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Photon Conjugate? Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:43:48 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"ga-Kt1.0.o04.z9Zxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9783 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In the discussion about Schrodinger's cat and correlation of photons, Bill Beaty said: > Unfortunately this effect cannot be used to transmit FTL information. The > effect only appears when large numbers of random photons are used. The > effect is detected by comparing correlations between photons received at > the two distant points. Each distant point receives totally random > photons, it's only when the data is brought together afterwards that the > mystery is revealed. I believe that someone did demonstrate a secure communication system based on these principles and it was written up in Discover or Scientific American a few yearts back. I think it very appropriate to point out that the problem is not with Nature, but the inadequacy of our language and concepts of it. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 16:02:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:22:24 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:22:18 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"yrznN2.0.4Q6.VyZxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9785 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >At 02:03 PM 8/10/97 -0400, HLafonte aol.com wrote: > >>Then there is a flow of electrons going into the POSITIVE side of the battery >>as this initial pulse is moving up the wire on the NEGATIVE side of the >>battery. If this is so, then there is an initial pulse moving up the wire on >>the POSITIVE side of the battery to meet with the initial pulse moving up >>the wire on the NEGATIVE side. They should meet at half the length of the >>closed circuit, yes or no ? > >Yes. No, not necessarily. When you put the switch on one leg of the wire, that is the location of a discontinuity in voltage potential. When you connect that position, there is a wave that propogates away from that location in both directions. In one direct ion, you are heading down the length of the wire, as you are used to thinking. The velocity depends on the dielectric constant of the wire and surrounding dielectric. But in the other direction, the wave must propogate through the battery itself. And again, you have a conductive medium and an effective dielectric. So the velocity of propogation through the battery can be very different from that in the wire. As well , you have the ability to free up, or soak up, charge in the chemical reactions. So the propogation velocity could be very much different (I have not studied this, while I have studied propogation velocities in conductors of various configurations and di electrics). The net is, you must account for the time for the wave front to make it through the battery and get to the wire on the other side. In that time, the pulse headed around the wire may already be a substantial distance. So the fronts won't meet in the midd le of the wire. As well, the quality of the wave headed one way will be different than the quality headed the other way (ie the slew rate or steepness of the voltage ramp) >Close, but as John L said, the flow would only be continuous and steady if >there was a resistor across the far end of the two wires whose resistance >was equal to the characteristic impedance of the two wires that run out >there. If you have a short circuit out there, a voltage wave will be ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >reflected from it back to the source which will add to the battery voltage >when it arrives causing the current to double. This doubling will create a >new outgoing wave which will eventually hit the end, reflect back and cause >the current to increase again. Since you are using superconducting wires >the current will increase to the maximum that the battery can supply. In transmission lines, short circuits reflect negative and cancel out the incident voltage, while an open circuit would reflect positively and double the voltage. But all of this is transient. To think in terms of current is not correct. Imagine a wave headed toward the shore of the ocean. Is there a flow of water toward shore? (flow being analogous to current and height of water being analogous to voltage). The answer in the case of a wave on the ocean is that there is no net flow of water as the wave heads to shore. You get a temporal displacement locally of the location of the water. With the battery it is a bit more difficult because you are making a different geometry of wave, ie a step wave. So you do get a net flow to develop. But when you are discussing the sum of wave fronts from reflections at impedance discontinuities, you a re dealing with transient effects, and not dc effects. These are high frequency energies being reflected, and they have almost zero power. They do not give rise to a voltage to drive a net current as they are like the wave on the ocean. And they are se nsitive to the direction of their propogation, meaning that just because you may have a double sized voltage at a location due to a reflection from an open, it does not mean that you all of a sudden are going to get a current headed out across the line fr om that spot. You must study the way the **wave** will go and track its energy. To get the energy to head back out down the conductor you would need for there to be another impedance discontinuity for that wave energy to reflect off of a second time. But just like shining a flashlight through a smokey window, in all transmission lines you have reflected energy, transmitted energy, and attenuated energy. High frequency components tend to be the first to be attenuated, and a major reason for this is th eir tendency to reflect and disperse from the original wave group. ie, you can launch a 25 ps voltage step into a line, but when you measure it at the other end you may have a 500 ps mess. This will happen any time you fail to provide an excellent condu cting medium (ie good impedance control). At the lower frequencies you are dealing with, I cannot speak of what is going to happen because the battery will mess up clean steps, and I don't know what the switching speed is for the connecting device. (rise time can be equated to an effective sinusoidal frequency because a step or impulse waveform has high frequency components in it.) The biggest unknown in this scenario for me is what the quality of the wave form is when it exits the side of the battery opposite the switch. And this is a function of the velocity of propogation of the wave through the chemical medium. I know how much a poor coax can degrade the coherency of a high frequency energy source by stretching out the frequency components (in optical fibers this is similar to chromic dispersion). But I don't know what happens in the battery. My recollection is that batterie s are really poor at transmitting high frequency energy. If this is so, then there may not even be any wave that heads out of the far side of the battery from the switch. You may well have a wave headed down the length of the wire in one direction, and a very much lower frequency change in voltage headed down the other direction after having been degraded by the battery. You see the battery is resistive, and so easily supports a voltage difference. But I don't think you will even have two waves passing through one another like you think in the above. At best, you will have two waves of very different shape which pass through one another. When you deal with the wave aspects of electricity, you cann ot apply simple E=IR rules to figure out the current at this location at this time. You must follow the wave energy from source to sink and keep in mind the degradation, or spreading, of that wave energy as it passes through one obstacle after another. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 16:37:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:20:52 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:20:44 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pumping electrons from where? Resent-Message-ID: <"H62oF1.0.uO.Ipaxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9786 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 HLafonte aol.com wrote: > Question, > When a pulse is sent down a transmission line to find where a break in the > line is, where do they get their supply of electrons for the power supply > that is producing this pulse? (Just wondering how it's done.) (The circuit is > broken, remember) A favorite topic. But rather than bend your ear, take a look at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ele-edu.html In short, batteries don't supply electrons. (Think about a DC generator. It has only wire coils inside. Where do the electrons come from?) An electric current is the motion of the metallic charge of a wire. All metals contain a "fluid" sea of electrons. In the water analogy of electric circuits, wires are like pipes which are pre-filled with water, while real wires are naturally filled with electron-liquid. Pulses on a transmission line are not just pulses of EM fields, they are also pressure (density) waves of metallic charges, and motion waves of charges. Sort of like sound waves in a tube full of air, but in a wire there is relative motion of + and - charge, and imbalance of relative densities of + and -. But of course air molecules in one pipe can't reach out and apply forces to the air inside a nearby pipe! And when a pulse moves along a tube of air, the whole volume of air participates, while in a wire only the "skin depth" of charges move. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 16:40:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:31:55 -0700 Date: 10 Aug 97 19:29:29 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"CSjOE2.0.le.gzaxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9787 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin, > There are a lot of different interpretations of QM out in the > market, one of them, "The many worlds"-hypothesis was ridiculed by > Chris Tinsley as being pure philiosphical nonsense. Well, to be precise I ridiculed the Oxford (it would be Oxford, what do *they* know about science) academic who said that the two-slit experiment *proved* the multiple universe idea. Silly boy. Though, to be honest, I do think that it is pure philosophical nonsense. Physics can legitimately produce things which "make no sense", the problems I see are the failures not of imagination but the errors of thought. For example, the fact that treating space as though it were curved fits the observations is taken as evidence (or even proof) that it IS curved. Anyone who cannot see the logical fallacy here (and many cannot) should get out of the business. I suspect that multiple universes are just another form of mental masturbation - certainly that guy seemed to be getting a big kick out of the idea. > The problem is to identify different consequences of the > interpretations and to do experiments to distinguish them. Right, exactly. Physics needs to be purged of the fizzix which has corrupted it, it needs to get back to the bench on which it was born. I have the growing feeling that physics lost its way about a century ago, and is now fumbling its way out of a blind alley? > His classic "Is the moon there if nobody's looking?" is a great > starting point. Um. I'm not sure, but I suspect that this was covered some while ago by Ronald Knox, the notorious theologian, piss-artist and limerick writer (not to be confused with John Knox, the Scottish sexist pig, who wasn't exactly a laugh a minute): There was a young man who said, "God Must find it remarkably odd That this juniper tree Still continues to be When there's no-one about in the quad." The reply was posted next day, anonymously: Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd, *I* am always about in the quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be, While observed by - Yours faithfully, God. To my mind that sums up the absurdity of asking the question. As to photon entanglement, I don't really worry about it too much; but I can't help noticing that in every comment about there appears the phrase "butthereisnoquestionofthelightspeedlawbeingviolated". I just wonder if some people are "protesting too much ". Yes, I *do* know about the Test series. Chris "Can't come to work today. The voices tell me I have to clean all the guns." X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 18:40:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:37:21 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit To: vortex-l@eski mo.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 20:35:49 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"MU4uX2.0.Rr5.Dpcxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9788 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > What happens in the wire at the positive terminal of the battery at the > instant the switch is closed at the negitive terminal? Does a pulse start up > the wire to meet the pulse moving up the wire on the negitive side (electrons > must be flowing into the battery as they are leaving the battery I would > think) the two pulses meeting half way around the circuit length? Just for exactness here, the switch when it is open, is the highest resistance in the circuit (not infinite, but very very high.) Therefore one side of the switch will have the positive battery potential on it and the other side of the switch will have t he negative battery potential on it. So when the switch is closed and the high and low are suddenly connected together, the disruption flows out both sides of the switch to meet again at some time-of-transit half way point. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 19:27:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:19:11 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:19:02 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Photon Conjugate? Resent-Message-ID: <"xBQ0z3.0.Fo6.TQdxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9789 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com BTW, for more info on this, look for stuff on "Bell Inequality", "Aspect experiment", "EPR Paradox", "Einstein Podanski(sp?) Rosen" "many worlds" I recall that the sci.physics FAQ has something on much of this On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Mike Carrell wrote: > I believe that someone did demonstrate a secure communication system based > on these principles and it was written up in Discover or Scientific > American a few yearts back. Yep, but it was not FTL, it was normal signals (I think it was visible light.) I vaguely recall recently seeing (maybe in Sci News?) that someone had discovered a workaround which restored the photons after the unauthorized detection, which broke the sec urity promised by this method. > I think it very appropriate to point out that the problem is not with > Nature, but the inadequacy of our language and concepts of it. True. Nature just is, and whether something is mysterious or not is a matter of human judgement. But since "mystery" always involves human understanding or lack thereof, I see it as very wrong for that author to argue that *because* nature just is, that therefor there is no real mystery. After all, that author could use the same arguement in regards to any other mystery whatsoever, so the logic doesn't seem useful to me. I would take the opposite position, that there *is* a mystery, this because humans cannot explain how the micro world creates the macro. Until someone can explain Schrodinger's Cat, (and not just explain it away,) the mystery will persist. To counter my own arguement, I could say that it's a great mystery that 1+1 equals 2. If there's no way to probe deeper into this arithmetic mystery, then I must simply accept that 1+1=2, and not ask for deeper details as to WHY it should be this way. Q uantum Mechanics might be like this. If the world is a turtle which sits on a larger turtle's back, which sits on a still larger turtle, then maybe QM is the bottom turtle. The bottom turtle just *is*. But my intuition objects. It tells me that QM is not like 1+1 equalling 2, that QM does have more turtles lurking in the mysterious realms below it. Am I therefor a person who sees mysteries where there are none? I suspect that the people who say QM is not mysterious might be those who cannot tolerate long contact with the unknown. If the mystery doesn't quickly resolve itself, they take action and simply declare victory. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 20:16:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 20:07:17 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Pumping electrons from where? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 22:04:47 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"zd4jk1.0.H11.Z7exp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9790 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > When a pulse is sent down a transmission line to find where a break in the > line is, where do they get their supply of electrons for the power supply > that is producing this pulse? (Just wondering how it's done.) (The circuit is > broken, remember) To send a transient, one need only connect two different potentials. Your "break" is like a second open switch in a circuit. The first switch is your pulse source. Typically the wire you are going to send a pulse down has a neutral charge on it. So you can either connect it to an excess or deficit of electrons and a pul se (electron compression or rarifaction) will propagate down the line. Your circuit will not know of the break in the line until the echo comes back from the discontinuity. Current flow from such a transient is exceedingly short lived. We don't really think of it when we turn on a light switch in which the bulb is burnt out, but a transient pulse does flow from the light switch to the very end of the broken filament in the bulb and then reflect back to the power source. After a bit of back and forth echo (ringing) the system has stablized at zero current flow. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 20:43:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 20:27:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 20:27:28 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"4dQ2M.0.wi1.bQexp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9791 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 10 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I do not have a statistical study of dysfunctional competition in academic > science compared to other institutions. Perhaps such incidents are as common > in corporations, sports and journalism as they are in science. But I do not > think so. Hi Jed! Brian Martin points out where they do occur in industry: whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are attacked with dishonest and hidden tactics; they lose promotions, have accidents, are put on secret blacklists, have anonymous complaints lodged against t hem, careers mysteriously fail, they suffer questioning of their sanity, etc. Scientists with unpopular new ideas may be the equivalent of whistleblowers in industry. But rather than facing an organized conspiracy, they face a peer group which has uniform behavior. It takes an organized conspiracy to attack a whistleblower, becau se various people in the threatened corporation must be told what to do. But in the sciences no conspiracy is needed. If someone challenges the beliefs of the majority, members of the threatened group all respond the same. A "conspiracy" to crush the h eretical scientist arises, but this is an emergent property of the group, and no group leader need exist, nor communication between group members. See "Suppression Stories" http://wabbit.cc.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ "Disfunctional", exactly! My wife is currently taking an abnormal psych course. One thing in her textbooks seems very familiar: emotional attacks when beliefs are threatened. At the risk of indulging in armchair psychotherapy, I have to point out that t his is characteristic of Narcissism, where no criticism is tolerated. Also of paranoid disorders, where any who use reasonable debate to fight someone's delusional belief system can expect a hostile emotional response. I believe that we all suffer from these to some degree. We must recognize their seeds within us, and must wage continuous warfare against them lest they grow. Therefor it is no suprise to watch seemingly sane scientists behave reprehensibly when their deeply held beliefs are threatened. If "scientific narcissism" and delusional belief systems are widespread, then hateful, behind the scenes backstabbing of heretics is to be expected. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 10 21:13:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 21:04:01 -0700 X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 21:02:33 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Photon Conjugate? Resent-Message-ID: <"sVHwp2.0.hE3.lyexp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9792 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:59 PM 8/10/97 -0700, you wrote: >Uncertainty Principle says that you cannot simultaneously measure vertical and >horizontal polarization of one photon. I have heard this mentioned many times in many different contexts, but I don't believe I have ever heard an explanation as to why. For example, the notion that the velocity and location of an electron cannot simultaneously be determined. Perhaps like the Gary Larsen cartoon where an owner is rattling off instructions to his dog and the dog is hearing, "Blah blah, blah, blah blah bla h", these things ring in my ears like, "Man can never go faster than 60 miles an hour", "Man can never fly", "Everything that can be invented has been invented", or "It was just a weather balloon." A wake-up call to the dogs of the world: Just because your owner said it doesn't make it necessarily so. Bite their pantleg until they agree to tell you why. Gary Hawkins X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 00:00:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:52:07 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:52:02 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Photon Conjugate? Resent-Message-ID: <"L6qV.0.nK.MQhxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9793 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Gary Hawkins wrote: > At 12:59 PM 8/10/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >Uncertainty Principle says that you cannot simultaneously measure vertical and > >horizontal polarization of one photon. > > I have heard this mentioned many times in many different contexts, but I > don't believe I have ever heard an explanation as to why. Hi Gary! I haven't heard it explained for polarization. For a photon, the weird behavior of photons shows that they don't HAVE position and wavelength simultaneously. When they are particles, they aren't waves. When they are waves, they aren't particles. If you measure their position, they become particles and you can't show that they are waves, and they don't HAVE wavelength. If you measure their wavelength, they become waves and you can't show that they are particles, they don't HAVE position. It's not that we cannot measure it. It's that the particle has become a wave, and waves occupy volume, they don't have single positions like particles do. All the other pairs of characteristics of various particle/waves are supposed to be based on similar reasoning. It's wave/particle weirdness at the fundamental level. Anyone who can explain the nonsensical behavior of the double-slit experiment can prob ably also explain all the other QM weirdness too. But so far no one has. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 00:39:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:36:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"Y6jcW1.0.0J7.h4ixp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9795 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed (and Bill) are both theorizing about something looking from the outside in. Being on the scientific inside, I have on occasion seen several sides of this sort of behavior. It is not nearly so sininster as Jed would imply. His so called "scientific atr ocities" are really no more than various scientists acting like ordinary people, getting emotional, jealous, angry or arrogant. Occasionaly happens, but it is by and large not a big deal and for the most part as far as idealogy goes---i.e. in the case of not liking certain ideas or approahces---it amounts to (a) ignoring the work, (b) saying bad things about it when the subject comes up, and (c) telling program managers not to support such work. I don't see that as sinister, though it may indeed result in some poor junior fellow having a hard time if his approach does not have a constituency backing it to some extent. But instead of blaming scientists, who often just give their opion, incorrect or narrow that it may be. blame the administrators who follow their advice without thinking thoroughly about it. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 07:17:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:05:49 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:11:21 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Good Info from Tom Bearden References: <199708062203.PAA17897 pop1.ucdavis.edu> <19970806.205256.3374.3.tv@juno.com> <33EB3B7A.DAA5F29B@microtronics.com.au> <33EB5C38.285C@keelynet.com> <33EBA10C.7DA3@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"dwcyV 3.0.So2.xmnxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9798 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > > I took a brief look---its about as lucid as mud. I would say > its just BS, but I assume Bearden must actually have some > definite idea in his mind even though he cannot express it > in a way that makes sense to someone already educated in > electrodynamics. Perhaps he should try mathematics---it > clarifies things tremendously. This is exactly what I would to say. I spend longer time than Merriman to extract idea from the article. But I not succeed too much. It is not formerly correct. Historic notes, criticisms, ideas, models, proofing, models ... everything is mixed. Unstructu red. This not give a clear image and a sense. Common mistakes appears on such papers "free of mathematical language": - Physical entities are not well specified. Also different descriptions of a physical entity from different mathematical models and theories are mixed. - If a new theory is claimed and some other theories are assumed incorrect, one can not use relation and results of "incorrect" theories to build and verify its theory. - Authors jumps one concept to other quickly while try to explain his idea. Maybe he/she is thinking fast to satisfy his reasoning and complete his proof, but only partially his mind is reflected to the paper, and readers can not fill the large gaps betwe en these statements. - Written in a while. From my experience, When I just building an idea and wrote on a letter with the enthusiasm of discovering also caring to explain it well, few hour later I found it is not (well explained) and two days later I experience difficulties to understand and follow the idea even myself is wrote it. - Experimental proofing, attaching the new concept to physical reality and predictions: Often authors does not gives the a way to proof their ideas by experimenting nor any prediction to a new phenomenon could be observed according their theories. They sa tisfy them self by connecting some observed phenomenon which are explained by other ways or difficulties on explain with present theories. Ok, this is a positive point for the idea but generally, simply citing such a phenomenon to their ideas is presented as a ultimate proof. Predictions (for an new phenomenon) are hardly seen on these articles. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 08:26:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Popping Pickles. Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 10:50:00 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"QKrKb3.0.xX.Ymoxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9801 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: The recently reported explosion of two 3 liter jars of pickled cucumbers on a window sill in Vladimir Russia, that "shook several blocks of flats in the area" gives one pause to wonder if the Popping Pickles Puts Peter Piper's Picked Peck of Pickled Peppe rs Past Potatov's Power Production Point? Possible or Probable? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 05:12:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 05:02:52 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:40:58 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"B0xui.0.PG7.hzlxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9796 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On this discussion, Barry said: > His so called "scientific atrocities" > are really no more than various scientists acting like ordinary > people, getting emotional, jealous, angry or arrogant. Occasionaly > happens, but it is by and large not a big deal and for the most > part as far as idealogy goes---i.e. in the case of not > liking certain ideas or approahces---it amounts to (a) ignoring > the work, (b) saying bad things about it when the subject comes > up, and (c) telling program managers not to support such work. I > don't see that as sinister, though it may indeed result in some > poor junior fellow having a hard time if his approach does not > have a constituency backing it to some extent. But instead of > blaming scientists, who often just give their opion, incorrect > or narrow that it may be. blame the administrators who follow > their advice without thinking thoroughly about it. He has a point, and having worked with the factories and the research laboratories of a large comapny, I have seen the same behavior. But, Barry is blaming the administrators, not the scientists with the careless opinions. In the notorious MIT/CF case, it was the scientist/administrators who actively suppressed positive information and passed to the Huizenga committee a deliberately falsified report. It is when projects, grants, and other funding are threatened that the game gets nasty and people turn into hyenas tearing at the same carcass. The farther one gets from hand-to-hand combat with Nature, as in product R&D and production, the easier it is to wrap oneself with authoritative ideas and opinions and become fiercely defensive of them. This happens in academia and the press. In the hard sciences, particularly physics, Nature is the arbiter who humbles all. With due respect to Jed and Barry, they illustrate the two poles. Jed is the successful entrepreneur with the engineer's viewpoint, and Barry the academic. (Please, guys, I know you are both more than a caricature). The start of this thread was the hatchet job done on McCully by the faculty at Harvard over his discovery of homocysteine as a key factor in heart disease. Medicine is not a hard science, no matter how hard some institutions would pretend it so. Its histo ry is ripe with herd mentality because every patient presents a puzzle and woe to he who deviates from accustomed practice, with mortal consequences. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 06:35:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 06:26:00 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:18:00 -0500 References: <970809142316_72240.1256_EHB82-1 CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Logajan is famous! Resent-Message-ID: <"lITB21.0.NA1.bBnxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9797 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 9, 9:19am, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Category: Chemistry > Chemistry Gopher, Northern Illinois University > Type: gopher > Audience: researchers, students seeking chemistry references > Access: gopher://hackberry.chem.niu.edu:70/1 The department web address is The page you refer to is under "Chemistry on the Internet" Nice to see the old school getting up in the world! 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 07:48:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:41:00 -0700 X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:39:27 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Pumping electrons from where? Resent-Message-ID: <"MGq1M1.0.m24.xHoxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9799 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:04 PM 8/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >the power source. After a bit of back and forth echo (ringing) the >system has stablized at zero current flow. Technically not entirely zero. As the sine wave swings high there are electrons being crammed into the wire between the switch and the bulb, a crowding (voltage). On the other swing of the sine wave there is a pull from the power supply (at the dam) pro ducing a deficit (voltage of the opposite sign). This results in movement of electrons, hence, a small amount of current-- and is thought of as a capacitance value of the wire. Depending on when you flip the switch back off, can you then trap plus or minus 160 volts or so in the wire? (Keep in mind that 120 volts is RMS, not P-P). The answer should be yes, but that voltage if discharged would bleed down so rapidly that it would be virtually unnoticable. Gary Hawkins X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 09:28:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:40:13 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Good Info from Tom Bearden References: <199708062203.PAA17897 pop1.ucdavis.edu> <19970806.205256.3374.3.tv@juno.com> <33EB3B7A.DAA5F29B@microtronics.com.au> <33EB5C38.285C@keelynet.com> <33EBA10C.7DA3@math.ucla.edu> <33EEE549.DD612A21@verisof t.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"Rqvgh2.0.AF3.0kpxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9802 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Spelling correction: I should say "formally correct" instead of "formerly correct" > This is exactly what I would to say. I spend longer time than Merriman > to extract idea from the article. But I not succeed too much. It is > not formerly correct. Historic notes, criticisms, ideas, models, > proofing, models ... everything is mixed. hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 08:09:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:01:02 -0700 X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:59:28 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Good Info from Tom Bearden Resent-Message-ID: <"Jte8s1.0.7p4.jaoxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9800 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:11 PM 8/11/97 +0400, you wrote: >Barry Merriman wrote: > >> >> I took a brief look---its about as lucid as mud. I would say >> its just BS, but I assume Bearden must actually have some >> definite idea in his mind even though he cannot express it >> in a way that makes sense to someone already educated in >> electrodynamics. Perhaps he should try mathematics---it >> clarifies things tremendously. > >This is exactly what I would to say. I spend longer time than Merriman >to extract idea from the article. But I not succeed too much. It is not >formerly correct. Historic notes, criticisms, ideas, models, proofing, >models ... everything is mixed. Unstructured. This not give a clear >image and a sense. If it helps any, a reminder about the glossary page that Bearden has posted: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/fogal_device/glossary.htm Gary Hawkins X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 03:16:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:10:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:07:03 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"TGj-c.0.IX4.8Q3yp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9819 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris - > I think we need to understand rather than > condemn these people, and try to help them with > their emotional problems. Ah, the English approach. Condescension. *That's* why you're generally so nice to us Americans, isn't it. Helping us out a bit, are you? ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 03:44:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:31:29 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:29:23 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Resent-Message-ID: <"R_8V71.0.Z75.0k3yp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9821 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John - > Early results from the ozone-watching satellite > released by the space shuttle Discovery appear > to support a theory that Earth is being > bombarded daily by thousands of house-sized > comets, a scientist said Sunday. [snip] In a report I can't find now or remember where I saw it, there was a scientist who took a look at sea water and found lots of virus particles. Dead virus and parts of virus, and huge amounts of 'em in every cc of water. This was thought to be strange, and I remember that he said the "others never thought to look that close at plain sea water before", or words to that effect. Nobody knew why ther e was so much loose viral material in the sea, or why it was mostly dead. UV might bust it up near the surface, and I can't remember if there were samples taken at different depths. I think it was mostly surface or shallow. Wish I could find a reference t o this story. Did anyone ever hear anything on the analysis of the ice chunk(s) that supposedly fell from space? I know it's far fetched that there would be signs of life in them, but then it's pretty strange that it's snowing that heavily in space anyway. Little would surprise me these days. Even the Bible has a story in it about how some people lost in the desert survived for a while on some sort of organic stuff that fell from the sky. It supposedly tasted sweet. Viral shells are often made of a sort of sugar-like m olecule, right? (Sorry, it's late...) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 09:31:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:29:46 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Pumping electrons from where? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:28:10 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"UPgD33.0.lb3.ktpxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9803 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gary Hawkins wrote: > Depending on when you flip the switch back off, can you then trap > plus or minus 160 volts or so in the wire? > > The answer should be yes, but that voltage if discharged would > bleed down so rapidly that it would be virtually unnoticable. If the capacitance is on the order of picofarads and you use an oscope with an impedance on the order of 10 megaohms, then the discharge occurs over an interval of 10's of microseconds -- easily seen on most oscopes. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 10:02:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:44:50 -0700 Date: 11 Aug 97 12:43:31 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"iI32K1.0.uN2.16qxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9804 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Bill Beaty says ostracized scientists are like corporate "wistleblowers." This is an interesting comparison, but I think it misses the mark somewhat. A wistleblower threatens to cost the corporation money, and he may get the bad guys fired, so the bad guy s have a valid reason to attack him. Immoral, but valid. There is no valid reason to attack people just because they have new ideas. A scientist with a heretical new idea is like a corporate product designer with an idea the boss doesn't like. Product des igners with new ideas get fired every day. I have seen it happen. The difference is, 20 years later the boss does not call competing companies warning them not to hire the guy. The minute the guy goes out the door, he is history, and nobody cares what he does. Barry Merriman downplays the problem, writing: Jed (and Bill) are both theorizing about something looking from the outside in. Being on the scientific inside, I have on occasion seen several sides of this sort of behavior. I deal with scientists every day. I write about them and them, translate and edit their papers. I have been following the cold fusion story closely for years. I have talked about it with hundreds of scientists, on both sides. I am much more inside science than most people. More to the point, how about yourself, Barry? How can you gauge the problem? Have you been *outside* science? I have worked in large corporations, small corporations and universities, both Japanese & American. I have even, as I mentione d, dealt with opera singers. It is not nearly so sinister as Jed would imply. His so called "scientific atrocities" are really no more than various scientists acting like ordinary people, getting emotional, jealous, angry or arrogant. After ordinary people finish acting emotional, jealous, angry or arrogant towards a man with an unconventional idea, they do not launch a crushing 20-year vendetta against him. They do not threaten his children or force him to leave the country. They do n ot heckle and interrupt meetings. They do not publish hundreds of ad hominem attacks, ridicule and distortions on Internet. The behavior described in the N.Y. Times and the hysterical opposition to cold fusion that I have witnessed goes far beyond the bounds of acceptable social behavior. In corporations you see plenty of nasty behavior and raw emotions, but it seldom gets out of hand to the extent it does in academia. I believe this is because the free market punishes a corporation when behavior gets out of hand, whereas when scientists act like jerks year in and year out, nothing bad happens to them. Occasionally happens, but . . . [usually] it amounts to (a) ignoring the work, (b) saying bad things about it when the subject comes up, and (c) telling program managers not to support such work. If that was the extent of it, I would have no complaints. Items (a) through (c) are the normal response of a program manager to a new idea he does not like. Someone has to make the tough funding decisions. Telling managers *in other institutions* not to f und him 20 years after he leaves your employ is a different matter. This is politics run amok. I don't see that as sinister, though it may indeed result in some poor junior fellow having a hard time if his approach does not have a constituency backing it to some extent. As Barry knows, the cases we are discussing here involve senior people. McCully was at the height of his career when the brouhaha broke out. He is now in his 60s. Fleischmann is one of the top five electrochemists in the world; Pons was the department chair. Furthermore, by the end of 1989 there was a gigantic consistency bac king Pons and Fleischmann: dozens of world class laboratories had successfully replicated them. By now, hundreds have. Yet the hysterical attacks and dirty tricks continue to this very day. There is virtually no acknowledgment anywhere in academia that th e data proves that they were right and their detractors were wrong. Barry Merriman himself cannot admit this. He refuses to comment on the McKubre and Miles papers. What is galling -- laughable, really -- is that scientists so often wear tin plate halos a nd pretend that they are objective. But instead of blaming scientists, who often just give their opnion, incorrect or narrow that it may be, blame the administrators who follow their advice without thinking thoroughly about it. At most academic institutions they are one and the same. Scientists attacked McCully, not administrators. Medical scientists attacked Marshall, instead of looking at his H. pylori findings. Senior scientists make the decisions at places like MIT, Cal Tech , the DoE and the APS. They are to blame for the cold fusion fiasco. They are the ones who refuse to look at the data or acknowledge the truth. They are manifestly incompetent. If they were in charge of America's corporations we would starve. We would be like the former Soviet Union. No institution is perfect. No group of people is beyond politics, jealousy, anger. But some institutions are so riddled with politics they can no longer function. When the APS cannot deal with 50 sigma calorimetric data from SRI, it can no longer do science. Its leaders are incapable of making a simple objective judgement about basic science. It no longer serves its purpose, its raison d'etre. It is like a corrupt Chinese Warlord army that cannot defend a small town against a handful of organized troops. The institution must be reformed, or it will perish. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 12:31:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mo t.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:17:11 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Attack of the snowballs Resent-Message-ID: <"Rjuny2.0.Ge2.4Vsxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9808 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com *** Shuttle satellite backs comet bombardment theory Early results from the ozone-watching satellite released by the space shuttle Discovery appear to support a theory that Earth is being bombarded daily by thousands of house-sized comets, a scientist said Sunday. The free-flying, German-built satellite rel eased Thursday has detected much more water vapor in the upper atmosphere at northern latitudes than current theories predicted. One possible explanation is that the Earth is being pelted by snowball-like mini-comets that release large clouds of water vap or into the atmosphere. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=4377795-ea5 -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 12:25:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 11 Aug 97 15:17:55 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Upcoming Claytor report Resent-Message-ID: <"Cofc13.0.zO2.MOsxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9807 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Here is something new from Tom Claytor's web page, http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm. This is the abstract of another paper they plan to publish soon, they say. LAUR#96-1825 TRITIUM PRODUCTION FROM PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS T. N. Claytor, M. J. Schwab and D. G. Tuggle, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545 ABSTRACT: A number (22) of pure palladium samples and palladium alloys have been loaded with a deuterium or hydrogen plasma in a system that allows the instantaneous measurement of tritium. By carefully controlling the high pressure plasma conditions, the plasma ca n be constrained to only contact palladium surfaces and to only lightly sputter the palladium. Long run times (up to 200 h) result in an integration of the tritium and this, coupled with the high intrinsic sensitivity of the system( ~ 0.1nCi/l), enables t he significance of the tritium measurement to be many sigma ( >10 ). In addition to the real time tritium measurement, the deuterium gas can be combined with oxygen, at the end of a run, resulting in water samples that were counted in a scintillation coun ter. The results of these confirmatory measurements of the tritium, in these water samples, agree quantitatively with the decrease in tritium as measured by the ion sensor. However, surprising concentrations (up to 1.5 x 106 dpm/ml) of tritium were found in several samples that had been exposed to a hydride inhibitor. We have continued to investigate the effect of hydrogen additions on the output of tritium in these types of experiments and find that hydrogen additions always suppress tritium production. We will show the difference in tritium generation rates between batches of annealed palladium, as received palladium and the palladium alloys (Rh, Co, Cu, Ni, Be, B, Li, Hf, Hg and Fe) of various concentrations to illustrate that tritium generation rate c an vary greatly from alloy to alloy as well as within a specific alloy, dependent on concentration. Other metals (Pt, Hf, Ni, Nb, Ta, V, W, Zr) have also been run in the system as background samples or to determine if tritium could be detected in the gas analysis system. In nearly all cases they have produced results very close to background drift rates. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 13:17:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: 11 Aug 97 16:09:03 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"3Pduq2.0.JF4.r8txp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9811 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, > After ordinary people finish acting emotional, jealous, angry or > arrogant towards a man with an unconventional idea, they do not > launch a crushing 20-year vendetta against him. The feeling I get from reading all the various stories - like this guy with the supposed "cometesimals", ostracised in all kinds of ways - is that there is a strange and unique level of anger among scientists for heresy. They really do seem to lose their reason when any more senior members of their profession break ranks. So the question must be - why? I suspect that the difference is that in industry or whatever the basic stock-in-trade just isn't their "intellectual property" - to misuse a phrase. In science, the threat from a (senior) heretic is that he threatens the whole basis of a fellow's professional life. I think that explains why normally reasonable people behave so oddly. Tolstoy said: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they reached perhaps with great diff iculty, conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." I think we need to understand rather than condemn these people, and try to help them with their emotional problems. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 13:22:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:10:53 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:10:48 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"Mu8cQ2.0.V24.C7txp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9810 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 Barry Merriman wrote: > His so called "scientific atrocities" > are really no more than various scientists acting like ordinary > people, getting emotional, jealous, angry or arrogant. Occasionaly > happens, but it is by and large not a big deal... But if it caused CF to be rejected, and if CF turns out to be real, then it is a very great atrocity indeed. Also: if groups of people exhibit identical arrogance or jealousy, then it becomes a big deal because the behavior will come to be seen as normal within the group. Also: if it causes new ideas to be rejected just because they are new (as described in T. Gold's article(1)), then again it is atrocious behavior for scientists. > But instead of > blaming scientists, who often just give their opion, incorrect > or narrow that it may be. blame the administrators who follow > their advice without thinking thoroughly about it. If the researchers who indulge in emotional opinions and jealousy are called upon to give their UNBIASED OPINIONS AS OBJECTIVE EXPERTS, and rather than excusing themselves as being biased, they give an opinion based on emotional reaction, then they have c ommitted an extremely unprofessional act. I recall that there is discussion of just this problem in Bauer's book SCIENTIFIC LITERACY AND THE MYTH OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Nonscientists (including administrators?) labor under the myth that scientists ar e superhuman "objective observers", and any behaviors caused by jealousy, etc. therefor go unnoticed. Should we really blame administrators, or do scientists themselves sometimes promote the "scientists are less jealous/arrogant than other people" myth. Also: we must beware of the "war crime psychology" mechanism. The scientists can be forgiven, since they only "gave orders" and took no actions themselves? And the administrators can be forgiven because they only "carried out orders", and made the mista ke of assuming that their information came from unbiased experts, when it really came from fallible human beings? This doesn't fly with me. It might be an unfair analogy, but I must point out that ordinary people in Nazi Germany could denounce their Jew ish neighbors to the authorities, but stay safe in the knowledge that they were not responsible for anything that might happen. After all, the authorities didn't have to take their denouncement seriously. And so THAT is why it's sinister. It's ALWAYS sinister for us to absolve ourselves of responsibility and instead to insist that someone else should have realized that the information we gave them was biased. It's ALWAYS sinister to ignore our responsibi lity on the grounds that someone else did the actual dirty work. It's sinister because this is frequently the cause of humanity's most horrendous acts. Now with scientists it might only involve the damage (or destruction) of careers only and never lives , so the Nazi Germany analogy is a bit much. But if the psychological mechanics are similar, then this type of behavior is nothing to minimize. Instead we should intentionally be hypersenstive to it, and fear it greatly. (1)T. Gold, NEW IDEAS IN SCIENCE, see: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 13:45:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:34:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:34:29 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"sxvnu1.0.Z45.RTtxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9812 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 11 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Bill Beaty says ostracized scientists are like corporate > "wistleblowers." This is an interesting comparison, but I think it > misses the mark somewhat. A wistleblower threatens to cost the > corporation money, and he may get the bad guys fired, so the bad guys > have a valid reason to attack him. Immoral, but valid. There is no > valid reason to attack people just because they have new ideas. But a Cold Fusion "whistleblower" threatens to cost the entire hot-fusion community it's prestige, and prestige in science is the coin of the realm. If a group of prominent researchers loudly and publicly ridicules flying machines, ball lightning, parapsychology, etc., then anyone who gives good evidence for these heretical ideas will also make the public hyper-skeptics look like fools. And hence the hyper-skeptics are tempted to pull underhanded tactics to prevent embarrassment. In their place I'd be tempted too. > A scientist with a heretical new idea is like a corporate product > designer with an idea the boss doesn't like. Product designers with new > ideas get fired every day. I have seen it happen. The difference is, 20 > years later the boss does not call competing companies warning them not > to hire the guy. But for a whistleblower, years later the boss MIGHT warn competing companies "hey, this guy is an environmentalist whistleblower, don't touch him," which is the point I was trying to make. I agree that this is a fairly rare occurrence in business, while from what I've seen of science it comes way to close to being normal behavior. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 13:11:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 14:12:16 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, sarfatti@well.com, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, dennis@wazoo.com, wireless@rmii.com, david italy.it.earthlink.net, k@suba.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, schultr ashur.cc.biu.ac.il, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, rbrtbass pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, perkins3@llnl.gov, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, fawolf ix.netcom.com, lucille@telis.org, fbeg@ic.ac.uk Subject: Claytor abstract: Tritium Production From Palladium and Palladium Alloys Resent-Message-ID: <"H-Gd73.0.Yx3.43txp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9809 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm LAUR#96-1825 TRITIUM PRODUCTION FROM PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS T. N. Claytor, M. J. Schwab and D. G. Tuggle, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545 ABSTRACT: A number (22) of pure palladium samples and palladium alloys have been loaded with a deuterium or hydrogen plasma in a system that allows the instantaneous measurement of tritium. By carefully controlling the high pressure plasma conditions, the plasma can be constrained to only contact palladium surfaces and to only lightly sputter the palladium. Long run times (up to 200 h) result in an integration of the tritium and this, coupled with the high intrinsic sensitivity of the system( ~ 0.1nCi/l), enables the significance of the tritium measurement to be many sigma ( >10 ). In addition to the real time tritium measurement, the deuterium gas can be combined with oxygen, at the end of a run, resulting in water samples that were counted in a scintill ation counter. The results of these confirmatory measurements of the tritium, in these water samples, agree quantitatively with the decrease in tritium as measured by the ion sensor. However, surprising concentrations (up to 1.5 x 106 dpm/ml) of tritium w ere found in several samples that had been exposed to a hydride inhibitor. We have continued to investigate the effect of hydrogen additions on the output of tritium in these types of experiments and find that hydrogen additions always suppress tritium pr oduction. We will show the difference in tritium generation rates between batches of annealed palladium, as received palladium and the palladium alloys (Rh, Co, Cu, Ni, Be, B, Li, Hf, Hg and Fe) of various concentrations to illustrate that tritium generation rate can vary greatly from alloy to alloy as well as within a specific alloy, dependent on concentration. Other metals (Pt, Hf, Ni, Nb, Ta, V, W, Zr) have also been run in the system as background sampl es or to determine if tritium could be detected in the gas analysis system. In nearly all cases they have produced results very close to background drift rates. Our most recent paper, Plasma Discharges on Palladium, was published last year and can be viewed by clicking here. The following people can provide you with more information: Thomas Claytor Mark Schwab Visits to this page: Back to Cold Fusion page. Back to NDT&E Home Page. Web site developed by Mark Schwab, please email corrections, questions or comments to NDE lanl.gov X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 15:41:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:23:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:20:12 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: transmission lines Resent-Message-ID: <"p6HXu3.0.-b.p3vxp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9813 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Transmission lines and theory thereof require an nodding acquaintance of impedance and impeadnace effects VS frequency. A short piece of coaxial capble, say RG-59 1 foot long, behaves like a capacitor at DC ... but at varying frequencies can behave as i nductance, resistance, capacitance, open or short .... Start to understand these by looking a a low level high frequency circuits book.... also the ARRL [American Radio Relay League] or Ham radio handbook is also a VER good reference. JHS On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 HLafonte aol.com wrote: > Question, > When a pulse is sent down a transmission line to find where a break in the > line is, where do they get their supply of electrons for the power supply > that is producing this pulse? (Just wondering how it's done.) (The circuit is > broken, remember) > Thanks, Butch > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 15:51:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: 11 Aug 97 18:36:51 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: The institution is the problem Resent-Message-ID: <"zwN9Z2.0.du3.pIvxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9814 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Chris Tinsley discusses the problem of senior scientists being ostracized for heresy. As he says, scientists tend to react more violently when senior people "break ranks." When a young researcher expresses belief in some oddball phenomenon, people will ig nore him or patronize him. Chris quotes Tolstoy describing the reason: because scientists fall in love with their own ideas. Tongue in cheek (I assume!), Chris concludes: I think we need to understand rather than condemn these people, and try to help them with their emotional problems. Well . . . I'll go on condemning them for unprofessional behavior. But I think the root cause of the problem is not the people and not their psychology. I think it is the structure of modern day scientific institutions: universities, journals, government research labs and so on. I assume that people are people everywhere, all about equally prone to good or evil. When I see folks up to no good, I assume they are members of a gang that encourages that behavior. In the early '80s the laws regulating S&Ls wer e revised to encourage speculative, dangerous investments. For all practical purposes, regulation was ended: regulators were fired, emasculated, and given yellow pads and pencils instead of computers. Anyone could have predicted the outcome. The S&L indus try was soon overrun by hoards of thieves and scoundrels who stripped out assents and carried off everything that was not nailed down. Honest S&L owners were driven out of business. They could not compete; it was like trying to sell cars when a dealer dow n the street is fencing stolen automobiles at half price and giving them away to his cronies. Scientists ostracize people, publish scurrilous nonsense on Internet, threaten children, and generally act like teenage hoodlums because they can get away with it. Institutional safeguards have broken down. This will eventually lead to a crisis, which wil l prompt reform and "a new birth of vigilance" as Sen. Smith said after the Titanic disaster. Eventually, the new standards will slip and the institution will again fall into a decadent period again. I believe that all institutions go through these cycles. Some, of course, go into a tail-spin and destroy them selves, like the Renaissance Popes, the Chinese Warlords and Nationalist Armies, and the S&Ls. I do not think we should let scientists off the hook or give them special dispensation to act like brats, just because they fall in love with their own ideas. Computer programmers fall in love with their own creations. So do businessmen, artists, movie di rectors, city planners . . . everyone does. When a hotshot new programmer shows up with an innovation, it hurts the older guy something awful. It tears him up, ruins his life. But you don't see COBOL programmers launching terror campaigns against C++ prog rammers. I cannot believe that the mental anguish of a scientist who sees his theory made obsolete is any worse than the anguish felt by a businessman who has managed Woolworth for 30 years and must now close up shop; or a movie star who has fallen out of fashion and cannot get a part; or a COBOL programmer whose work has been replaced by Windows applications. If the Woolworth manager could get away with it, he would thwart the competition by firebombing the Wallmart warehouse. He would cut his prices bel ow what it cost him and "sweat out" the competition. He would spread false rumors about his rivals, and threaten customers who deal with them. He would employ children in sweat shops. I know he would, because businessmen routinely did those things at the turn of the 20th century, when antitrust laws were a dead letter and law enforcement was lax. See Tarbell's history of Standard Oil. If business ethics become lax again, the old tactics will instantly revive. Scientists today evade responsibility for upholding the ethical standards of their profession. They point the finger at Congress or managers, the way Merriman does. They whine that the public does not appreciate them. They ignore shocking revelations from the supercollider and Hubble projects. The public loses faith, young people are no longer interested in science, and Congress guts funding across the board. And whose fault is it? I say the scientists have brought this crisis upon themselves, through the ir own arrogance, misbehavior, and ethical blindness. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 20:51:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 20:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 20:39:36 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: transmission lines Resent-Message-ID: <"IZH3o1.0.g-5.0jzxp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9815 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 HLafonte aol.com wrote: > >> Question, >> When a pulse is sent down a transmission line to find where a break in the >> line is, where do they get their supply of electrons for the power supply >> that is producing this pulse? (Just wondering how it's done.) (The circuit is >> broken, remember) Think of it this way. If you have a long bar of steel, like a railroad track, you can smack it with a hammer and send a pressure shock down the line. That acoustic wave will reflect off of acoustic impedance discontinuities just the same as the electric al pulse. But now let me ask; where did the metal atoms come from that propogate the shock? Answer, they are in the rail already. The shock is not necessarily a net movement of the atoms in the manner of a flow like you are thinking from your DC curren t analogies. Instead, it is a pressure wave. True, if you make the exact analogy of a TDR, then you take the end of the rail, and you suddenly smack the end of that rail with a dead blow hammer that doesn't bounce, and you will have forced the atoms at the end to move by some number of millionths of an inch in compression. And so they force the next atoms and so on down the line as the pressure front propogates. But notice that nothing really had to move anywhere much to get the wave to move rapidly down the line. This is exactly what is going on. I used this technique in an old mine shaft one time to figure out how far down into the mine the air pipes went. The end was open, so I clapped loudly at the end and then timed the reflected sound energy. The reflections come from any acoustic impedance mismatch where the pipe splits off horizontally, or if the pipe changes to a smaller diameter down in the mine shaft. Sound in air travels about 1,100 ft/s, so accounting for round trip time, you can measure the distance to those discontinuities. Again, notice that the air was already in the pipe, and it is only a pressure wave that is moving, not really the air itself, ie there is no bulk flow of air, but there is a sloshing forward due to the pressure front. Another good analogy is an ocean wave. If you are under water you see the kelp slosh back and forth, but notice that the water is not flowing up the beach and up the rivers and into the mountains. Rather, the water is just sloshing back and forth. The electrons in a pulse, or in a high frequency AC signal are just getting sloshed back and forth. They are in the metal already, so they don't have to "come" from any where. That said, to initiate the pulse, there had to be a greater pressure of electrons in the battery or whatever prior to the pulse, because there is a tiny amount of net electrons that are injected when the switch is flipped. So that is, a net flow of current (considering a step pulse here like in a TDR). For an AC signal, you still have no net current flow, you just have a sloshing back and forth at some frequency (ie a Network analyzer) The difference in the kinds of pulses are easy to imagine with the railroad rail. if you smack it with a hammer, then that is like an impulse if the hammer bounces away and the original position of the end of the rail is restored. That matches the elect rical scheme of switching the cable to high potential, and then pulling it right back to ground again. Or the dead blow hammer where you smack the end and maintain that force after the initial blow, that is like a step voltage increase like if you suddenly connect the high voltage to the end of the cable. A net DC current would be like if your hammer addi tionally succeeded at slipping and pushing the rail down the length of the track so that the metal rail was actually moving. That is like the battery pushing the electrons through the cable so that there is an actual flow of electrons past a point, just like there would be a "flow" of metal atoms past a point if the rail was literally sliding. Consider the rail road ties as the cable I guess, and the rail as the electrons where one is moving relative to the other. Oh well, enough of the analogies. Hope you get the point. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 21:08:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:01:56 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: What causes a battery to run down ? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:01:45 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"JYefG3.0.Xs7.p0-xp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9816 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Does anyone know if it's the electrical IMPULSE or the ELECTRON DRIFT thru a > battery that causes the chemical change (makes the battery run down) ? Typically in electrochemical reactions, you need ion exchange for the chemical reaction to proceed. Call it ion drift instead of electron drift since the battery action might not necessarily have free electrons drifting through the bulk of it. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 21:22:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:17:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:17:09 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Transmission Line Animation Resent-Message-ID: <"S744q.0.Co.AF-xp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9817 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com For those interested in how transmission lines work at impedance discontinuities, check out this web site. The top of the page has some waves and shows their reflections, positive and negative, at some impedance changes in the medium. http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/UT/UT.htm Ross X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 11 22:14:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:03:00 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Claytor, Schwab, Tuggle To: vortex-l eskimo.com (vortex-l) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:02:18 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"yBXFN1.0.gB3.3w-xp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9818 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The abstract that both Jed and Rich just posted -- when was it created? I followed the link to Schwab's page and there he says the paper was to be given at ICCF6 -- which is already history. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 03:46:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:42:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Flying School Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:40:58 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"bIbs03.0.gL5.Xu3yp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9822 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, A website that has a complete course on flight and flight mechanics: http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/fly/how/htm/TableofContents.html Had the Wright Brothers had access to this,their first flight might have been much more impressive. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 22:54:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:48:44 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 19:46:31 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Resent-Message-ID: <"zHkRg2.0.Gn1.xgKyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9852 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick - > On the other hand the "rare" steak that you > grilled over hot lava has all of the right DNA in > it, but, I hope it's not alive. :-) The cow might be dead, but some of the fruit cells in the smoothie I'm drinking might still be alive. I'm a semi-pseudo-vegetarian. > When these react with water they could make > sweet tasting carbohydrates that "fall from the > sky" even from a passing comet. Velikovsky had some ideas along these lines too. Well, speculation's fun, but I was wondering about the ice. They find meteors and meteoric dust in the ice caps. I was wondering if anything like a suspicious chunk of ice dirty with ET debris has ever been identified. I'd think it would have made news if there had been such a discovery (aside from the alleged Chinese discovery of which I've heard nothing more), but maybe people haven't been really looking, perhaps not believing that it would be something y ou could find. I mean, we've heard of the sudden mysterious yellow mud rains, etc. etc. Very suspicious. The weird ET rains even made it to an X-Files ep. Ok, the earth formed, then the oceans accumulated from somewhere (mysterious), then life sprang up in the ocean (again, mysteriously). Now we see that the possible source of the oceans is an ongoing process. Might the source of life in those oceans also b e an ongoing process, arriving from the skies as the water does? I really think somebody ought to be looking out for discontinuities in ancient undisturbed ice layers which might be the remains of an ice-meteor, and get some of that stuff under an electr on microscope. Might be interesting. Think there's any chance of catching a sample directly before it hits the ground? A satellite could watch for hits on the upper atmosphere in the general vicinity a launch facility. Star Wars programs developed fast rockets designed to get an object to a point somewhere in the upper atmospheric fringes Real Fast and Real Accurately. Maybe the technology could be used for something useful now. All you'd get is a little air sample with some vapor, but you could analyze it and compare to controls. I was thinking also - if you saw an ET virus and we were constantly being bombarded by them, then it's the same virus we see all around us anyway. I find myself sort of hoping this is the case because (1), it's easier than confronting the possibility of a n Andromeda Strain, and (2) it would be fun watching scientists explaining how maybe volcanoes blew up through dirty lakes and hurled virus into the upper atmosphere, etc. etc. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 04:50:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 04:44:14 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:43:36 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"ePybp2.0.Rx6.Do4yp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9823 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:29 AM 8/12/97 +0000, Rick wrote: >John - > > > Early results from the ozone-watching satellite > > released by the space shuttle Discovery appear > > to support a theory that Earth is being > > bombarded daily by thousands of house-sized > > comets, a scientist said Sunday. > > [snip] > >Did anyone ever hear anything on the analysis of the ice chunk(s) that >supposedly fell from space? I know it's far fetched that there would be >signs of life in them, but then it's pretty strange that it's snowing that >heavily in space anyway. > >Little would surprise me these days. Even the >Bible has a story in it about how some people lost in the desert survived >for a while on some sort of organic stuff that fell from the sky. It >supposedly tasted sweet. Viral shells are often made of a sort of >sugar-like molecule, right? > >- Rick Monteverde Should be a exothermic reaction between Diacetylene (Supernova Dust) H-C***C-C***C-H, and water, Rick.This would make Ribose, the 4 carbon "sugar" in DNA. Higher "polymer strings" of acetylene have been observed in the Supernova Dust in space. When these react with water they could make sweet tasting carbohydrates that "fall from the sky" even from a passing comet. I discussed this with Carl Sagan a couple of years ago. He didn't have any problem with it. Reactions of water and carbon oxides with acetylene can form carboxylic acids and these can react with ammonia to form amino acids which can undergo "condensation polymerization" to proteins. The hydrogen cynanide H-C***N and cyanogen N***C-C***N which are common in comet dust can form the Nucleotides, thus completing the "recipe" for life forms. On the other hand the "rare" steak that you grilled over hot lava has all of the right DNA in it, but, I hope it's not alive. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 07:53:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 07:45:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:43:29 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: IECEC'97? Resent-Message-ID: <"mHbdw2.0.954.xR7yp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9826 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com There hasn't been a word said on Vortex-L about what happened at the IECEC meeting in Hawaii at the end of July. The long list of topics for the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup, as carried on AOL over the weekend, also didn't have IECEC in it. Were the CF papers actually presented? In particular, did Szpak present his paper? Did he present any XSH results and data? Did Patterson and Cravens take part in the meeting, as originally advertised? If not, does anyone know why they cancelled? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 08:40:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:31:20 -0700 Date: 12 Aug 97 11:29:49 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Mother Nature's Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"JWokv1.0.up6.778yp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9827 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Here is some propaganda from the American Nuclear Society. This is sorta interesting. And when was the last time you heard "our silent servant -- the atom?" 1956? This is written on a bookmark. - Jed MOTHER NATURE'S REACTOR The first nuclear reactor on Earth was made by Mother Nature. In 1972, scientists found the remains of a natural nuclear reactor in a uranium mine in Oklo, Gabon, Africa. They determined that about 1 1/2 billion years ago a nuclear chain reaction occurred in the mine. It generated heat off and on for 500,000 years. But the real importance of this find was that the radioactive wastes, left over from the "reactor," were found right where they were left more than a billion years ago. They hadn't moved or contaminated the area outside the mine. And this was without havi ng any manmade containers and the knowledge we have today to safely store and dispose of solidified nuclear wastes. An important fact to remember about our silent servant -- the atom A bookmark from the American Nuclear Society 555 N. Kensington Avenue La Grange Park, Illinois 60526 1-800-Nucleus * 708-579-8251 E-mail: outreach ans.org http://www.ans.ora "The Future is in the Atom" X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 09:03:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:55:56 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: exeter.city.ac.uk: remi owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:55:25 +0100 (BST) From: Cornwall RO X-Sender: remi@exeter To: vortex Subject: re: atrocities Resent-Message-ID: <"f8Tyb2.0.Dv7.AU8yp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9828 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vortex Rennaisance, Ah! You caught me lurking. One message, that's all then I'm off. Be honest with yourself, you have a good side and an evil side. God (though this will bother Chris) gave you a free will. Evil creates disorder. Good creates the good things in life if we are all to get along for mutual benefit. Recognise the problems we see in our chosen area of endeavour is just to do with the human condition and the choices we make. People have certain 'needs', one of which is to be loved and respected by our fellow humans (though some more than others). Herei n lies the problem: People want adulation etc. etc. and they will do what ever to hold on to this power. This could be quite trivial or very mad and bad, like the person who goes after power - revolutionaries turned dictators say. The solution: A Consitution that protects your freedom to have control of your life, property, contacts, free trade, free speech etc. without impinging on others or others unable to defend themselves e.g. minors or the insane. I generally find that life is a struggle between two types of people: the Doers and the Wish-they-could-Doers. The Doer is quite happy with him/herself and is purely interested in the subject matter. The WTCDs see things cynically, see the 'power' that th e Doer has and the adulation ('treat that imposter just the same as disaster' though). The WTCD then becomes authoritrian (Robert Milton, Forbidden Science) and hence our modern society of Politicians, Lawyers, Taxpersons (non sexist take note) Accountant s. and so on i.e. people legistrating or controlling and people who are the secondhanders who can live in such a cynical system. Life can be simple if these authoritarian or cynical types 'get the hell out of the way' (as John Galt put it in Atlas Shrugged) and let those who can, do. You do this by a CONSTITUTION which upholds yours and everbody's rights. You know freedom and the free-market makes sense! The people you hold back are doing you a service. Think of every labour saving device you use and the sacrificies people have made for YOU - you don't pay for the failure. A man will produce more if he is free to think than if he is a slave. That's what our forebearers learnt in the Rennaisance and Enligtenment - give it up at your peril. Getting to the root of the problem, hopefully, Remi. ................... Shame about the ashes Chris, mind you I tend to fail Tebbit's cricket test... Oh, have you noticed how Freddie's emails always have at least one smileys in. :-) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 15:45:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:17:08 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:16:31 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: transmission lines Resent-Message-ID: <"Ceboa.0.8g3.Jg9yp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9829 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross, Thanks for your time, I need to keep in mind the difference between impulse and current flow, (electron drift). Thanks, Butch LaFonte X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 10:53:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:42:07 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:42:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Honolulu meeting. Resent-Message-ID: <"kPFVv1.0.2s4.k1Ayp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9830 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tom Stolper asked what happened at the Honolulu meeting, since no one else seems to know, here's what Robert Park, had to say about it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. FREE ENERGY: "OVER UNITY" DEVICES GENERATE FREE PARANOIA. Among the 80 or so sessions at the 32nd Energy Conversion Engineering Conference in Honolulu last week, four were devoted to "Innovative Concepts," which turned out to be a euphemism for violations of the first law of thermodynamics, e.g. free energy from space quanta manipulation, Patterson cells (cold fusion), high-density charge clusters, etc. Does this look like a really hot field or what? Alas, there was less than meets the eye. All four sessions were organized and chaired by Patrick Bailey, an en gineer at Lockheed-Martin, who gave his affiliation as the Institute for New Energy. Bailey also gave most of the talks. The talks were content free, but there were important questions raised like, "Is there an attempt by the government to suppress free energy devices?" and "Why is project HAARP planning to modulate the aurora at frequencies similar to brain waves?" X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 14:03:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:52:42 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:33:57 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"c9DiM1.0.Fo.PqCyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9835 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Peter! I posted the message-- and promised you the articles. SORRY...this was just before major computer hassles that threw everything out the window. All resolved now, can I send the articles as scanned GIFs? Fred , > A few months ago someone wrote in some information about a patent for > a thermopile that was made to be 80% efficient due to a small A.C. current > sent through it. I can't remember who posted it but they said they would > send me some information about it which I never received. I forgot about > it until a few days ago when someone told me that someone they once knew > built X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 11:51:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:39:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:35:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: Peter Jas on Aldo Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"XxboC3.0.Wl7.vtAyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9832 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Pete:I am also interested in the possibility of building one if we can get some drawings, for use in our "Tempcast" masonry stove. Commercial TEGs are very expensive, even more expensive (in $/watt) than photovoltaics. A 1 Kw TEG (as referenced below) wou ld seem to me to be very large. Please tell us of any further progress. _________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~j do/ecotecture.htm _______________________________________________________ On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Peter Jason Aldo wrote: > > Hello, > A few months ago someone wrote in some information about a patent for > a thermopile that was made to be 80% efficient due to a small A.C. current > sent through it. I can't remember who posted it but they said they would > send me some information about it which I never received. I forgot about > it until a few days ago when someone told me that someone they once knew > built > a similar device that produces 1000 watts when inserted into a wood stove. > My friend said the device was a stacked thermopile made from two > dissimilar metals that was placed inside a metal tube. This tube was > inserted into a larger tube with an air gap in between (sounds like a > capacitor to me-possibly for producing a oscillating A.C. current ?). My > friend said it was an old Tesla patent. I never heard of it > before.Thats > all the information my friend could remember about it. Does anyone have > any information about this? I can't remeber who posted a message about > this a few months ago. > > > Pete Aldo > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 11:27:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:21:15 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:24:32 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mother Nature's Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"2lyuy2.0.QZ6.QcAyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9831 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >The first nuclear reactor on Earth was made by Mother Nature. In 1972, >scientists found the remains of a natural nuclear reactor in a uranium mine >in Oklo, Gabon, Africa. They determined that about 1 1/2 billion years ago >a nuclear chain reaction occurred in the mine. It generated heat off and >on for 500,000 years. > >But the real importance of this find was that the radioactive wastes, left >over from the "reactor," were found right where they were left more than a >billion years ago. They hadn't moved or contaminated the area outside the >mine..... Read for yourself in: Scientific American, vol. 235, no. 1 (July 1976), p. 36. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 13:20:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:09:28 -0700 Date: 12 Aug 97 16:05:24 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT Mk2 Beta 4 "Rollaway" design Resent-Message-ID: <"SOdZL2.0.iu6.tBCyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9834 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg, > I will ship a SMOT Mk2 Beta 4 "Rollaway" unit to Bill Beaty, Scott > Little, Barry Merriman and Chris Tinsley at my cost. I trust they > will report what they find. Thanks. I'll report in full, including a note in Infinite Energy. My address is: 127 Wollaton Vale, Nottingham NG8 2PE, UK. Tel/fax +44-115-925-4308. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 13:19:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 12 Aug 97 16:05:25 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Another academic science atrocity Resent-Message-ID: <"Nc8111.0.IJ1.DCCyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9833 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rick, > Ah, the English approach. Condescension. Well, partly. But is does have an alternative implication; my son (a very mainstream PhD student) is a great believer in helping others in their journey through life. This process often seems to require him "taking them outside and giving them a moderat e pummeling". He's very good at it. > *That's* why you're generally so nice to us Americans, isn't it. > Helping us out a bit, are you? It has to be said that a well-curled stiff upper lip can be very useful when talking with Americans, but increasingly I find quite a few who have learned how to play the game. What the rest of them don't realise is that it *is* a game, and most Brits fin d it disappointing when they refuse to play - and just get all annoyed instead. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 15:06:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:56:48 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:10:40 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"YUWvc1.0.Hv3.VmDyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9837 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Jorg, I am the miscreant who promised Peter the plans on the 80% efficient thermocouple and didn't deliver :-) I am going to scan off copies to him today if he can decode GIFs on his computer. I will send you these as well. Fred > > Pete:I am also interested in the possibility of building one if we can get > some drawings, for use in our "Tempcast" masonry stove. Commercial TEGs are > very expensive, even more expensive (in $/watt) than photovoltaics. A > 1 Kw TEG (as referenced below) would seem to me to be very large. Please > tell us of any further progress. > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 14:33:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:23:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:29:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: transmission lines Resent-Message-ID: <"HD3rx3.0.xW2.XHDyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9836 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Ross Tessien wrote: > > >On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 HLafonte aol.com wrote: > > > >> Question, > >> When a pulse is sent down a transmission line to find where a break in the > >> line is, where do they get their supply of electrons for the power supply > >> that is producing this pulse? (Just wondering how it's done.) (The circuit is > >> broken, remember) > > Think of it this way. If you have a long bar of steel, like a railroad > track, you can smack it with a hammer and send a pressure shock down the > line. That acoustic wave will reflect off of acoustic impedance > discontinuities just the same as the electrical pulse. But now let me ask; > where did the metal atoms come from that propogate the shock? Answer, they > are in the rail already. The shock is not necessarily a net movement of the > atoms in the manner of a flow like you are thinking from your DC current > analogies. Instead, it is a pressure wave. > Another analogy (that helps me), that might help others.. being Football season = is the electron is *you* at a bowl-game. -You can be part of the "WAVE" if you choose to stand up at the right time, you may even be forced to stand if you pack'd in tight . -AC / DC can include cold weather fan shivers to 'musical chairs' pushing the last guy of the end of the benches :) -and (voltage) well, just let your team make a scoring touch-down! --- Are you still in your same seat?? at least we're all in the same game:) (hey, that bowl is a closed loop in most stadiums -ya?) -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 15:23:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:15:31 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:15:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Fred needs a Web page? Resent-Message-ID: <"CoalF1.0.B75.22Eyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9839 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote (among others): >Hi Jorg, > >I am the miscreant who promised Peter the plans on the 80% efficient >thermocouple and didn't deliver :-) I am going to scan off copies to him >today if he can decode GIFs on his computer. I will send you these as >well. > >Fred Hi Fred, Have you considered getting a Web page? Seems like you have lots of good stuff that would be good for many of us to browse. Might save you some duplication of efforts and postage and the like. There's probably someone in the group that could provide space for you gratis. I may be able to, if you don't have a better offer. Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 20:36:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:32:24 (-050 Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Priority: normal References: <199708060904.EAA28931 dsm7.dsmnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"NAUx4.0.me1.ihIyp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9848 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Ross, > Thanks Dean. I don't suppose you or anyone else knows where I can get > info on historical measurements of the geo-magnetic field? Nope. I wish I knew where to get them, too. I haven't really looked for data on the Internet for over 2 years and it's possible (likely, I hope ) that the data has shown up. I'd also like to see historical surface and air temperatures. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 16:21:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:15:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Fred needs a Web page? Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:19:59 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"qZckJ.0.2n.AwEyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9840 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Dan! Thanks for the suggestion, and the offer! I have thought about doing a web page but have been stopped by the money-- I spent the last dime I didn't have setting up this fancy computer and scanner JUST so I could do what I am doing now on the list. Because of that my wife now gives me funny loo ks when I just buy a new printer cartridge :-) There's also the fact that I don't have a clue as to how to set one up. I've only been online since December, still figuring everything out. If you or someone would like to give me a page and help me do whatever it is needs to be done I would be more than happy to fill it with more obscure information than you'll EVER be abl e to read :-) And maybe I won't put out so many long-winded posts, eh? Fred > > Hi Fred, > Have you considered getting a Web page? Seems like you have lots of good > stuff that would be good for many of us to browse. Might save you some > duplication of efforts and postage and the like. > > There's probably someone in the group that could provide space for you > gratis. I may be able to, if you don't have a better offer. > > Dan > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 18:13:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:57:28 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:57:18 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: beatywj ch.etn.com Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Resent-Message-ID: <"ndip73.0.wC4.tPGyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9842 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com These sites may have been posted here previously. However, *I* just found them, so here they are (again?) ;) L. Frank page: http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu his book "The Big Splash", tales of academic woe: http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/www/blackspot.html .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 13:20:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:06:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:03:37 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Resent-Message-ID: <"vtyo93.0.5g1.UFXyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9864 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred - > No one bothers to point out that the ice is green > rather than yellow. Porta-potty ejecta is usually green, as this is commonly the color of the disinfectant/deodorizer mixed into the waste material. But your point is taken, these incidents are always written off as either that or as chunks falling off of iced airframes. I think it might be possible to find something in the ice caps somewhere. They are fantastic storage refrigerators of everything that falls from the sky over many years. Pollen, meteorites, atmospheric dust, everything. If ice chunks have fallen intact, they are in there somewhere. The presence of a different muddy or colored/t extured chunk against a clean layered background shouldn't be hard to find. But if you weren't thinking to look, or were just mentally writing off such observations as unimportant contamination because you were busy looking for something else, they would be missed. If such ice inclusions exist, wouldn't they be tremendously important? Shouldn't people with access to such areas be looking for them? Or have they been already all along, and it's simply that none have ever been found? This seems like another case of high-fired curiosity meeting lots of cold blank stares. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 19:32:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 19:20:40 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:17:10 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: vo rtex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fred needs a Web page? Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"DCNzO.0.Lw7.tdHyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9844 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Hi Fred, > Have you considered getting a Web page? Seems like you have lots of good > stuff that would be good for many of us to browse. Might save you some > duplication of efforts and postage and the like. > > There's probably someone in the group that could provide space for you > gratis. I may be able to, if you don't have a better offer. > > Dan Hi, :) No disrespect to you, Dan, but Tripod offers 2 megs free gratis, and they have both an HTML editor, and DIY html. I've got my time travel page there, and I'm quite satisfied with their setup. Just a thought... Regards, John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 19:40:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 19:27:08 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:23:12 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: vo rtex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fred needs a Web page? Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"bSxE23.0.zB.xjHyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9846 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Fred Epps wrote: > > Hi Dan! > > Thanks for the suggestion, and the offer! > I have thought about doing a web page but have been stopped by the > money-- I spent the last dime I didn't have setting up this fancy computer > and scanner JUST so I could do what I am doing now on the list. Because of > that my wife now gives me funny looks when I > just buy a new printer cartridge :-) > There's also the fact that I don't have a clue as to how to set one up. > I've only been online since December, still figuring everything out. If > you or someone would like to give me a page and help me do whatever it is > needs to be done I would be more than happy to fill it with more obscure > information than you'll EVER be able to read :-) > > And maybe I won't put out so many long-winded posts, eh? > > Fred Hi Fred, You'r posts may have been long, but they've usually been interesting. Tripod gives away 2 megs, *free*, and they have plenty of help, including an online editor so simple a politician could use it. But, if you'd like input, hints, etc., I'd be happy to lend a virtual hand. E-mail me off list, if you like, and I'll help as m uch as I can. A small warning, though, the homepage'll be free, but you'll get adicted to running it! My GF half jokingly complains that at least she knows that the other woman is my 'pooter/homepage. Let me know, off list, if you're interested, and if so , I'll help as best I can. :) Regards, John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 19:49:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 19:38:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:32:28 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: vo rtex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"_V6r_2.0.pl.RuHyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9847 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 HLafonte aol.com wrote: > > Jorg, > What if that thermopile could operate off the condensor of a heat pump > !!!!!!!!! > That would be to good to be true though, right ? > Butch LaFonte A Stirling engine heat pump, similar to the one shown in the "Free Energy Encyclopedia" is fiendishly simple to build abd operate, and might just fit in to this scenario. Simple, lo-tech, and potentially *quite* effective. :) Regards, John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 20:38:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:36:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Resent-Message-ID: <"xUGkn.0.-m1.2mIyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9849 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:25 PM 8/12/97 -0400, Butch wrote: >What if that thermopile could operate off the condensor of a heat pump? It could, of course...the only question is at what efficiency? First, it is a certainty that the 80% figure being talked about means 80% of Carnot efficiency...not 80% absolute efficiency. The Carnot efficiency is a limiting value above which a "heat engine" cannot go (unless Remi Cornwall is really onto something). The Carnot efficiency limit is given by (Th-Tc)/Th where Th is the absolute temp of the heat source and Tc is the absolute temperature of the heat sink (waste heat dump). Example 1: a steam turbine operates with 600K steam and discharges to a 300K sink. The Carnot limit for its efficiency is (600-300)/600 = 50%. Example 2: a thermopile operates from the condensor of a heat pump. Th = 325K (126F) and Tc = 300K (81F). The Carnot limit is (325-300)/325 = 8%. I would be amazed (but pleased) to find a thermopile that achieves 80% of Carnot efficiency. I have looked at modern semiconductor thermoelectric devices with that in mind and I think that they only achieve a small fraction of the Carnot efficiency (~10% ). I'll check out what the Melcor catalog says tomorrow. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 21:46:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:36:44 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:04:39 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"T2Bl33.0.Lw6.RdJyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9850 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Scott, As it turns out the claimed peak Carnot efficiency is 70%. > At 10:25 PM 8/12/97 -0400, Butch wrote: > > >What if that thermopile could operate off the condensor of a heat pump? > > It could, of course...the only question is at what efficiency? > > First, it is a certainty that the 80% figure being talked about means 80% of > Carnot efficiency...not 80% absolute efficiency. > I would be amazed (but pleased) to find a thermopile that achieves 80% of > Carnot efficiency. I have looked at modern semiconductor thermoelectric > devices with that in mind and I think that they only achieve a small > fraction of the Carnot efficiency (~10%). I'll check out what the Melcor > catalog says tomorrow. > > Scott Little > EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) > little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 12 21:59:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 23:56:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Ragland triode cells Resent-Message-ID: <"oUM142.0.pD4.kwJyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9851 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com We haven't dropped this work, Vorts. It's just that we've been taking a little break to fix some oddities that appeared in our new water-flow calorimeter when we moved it into another room. Basically the thing starting exhibiting an undesirable sensitivity to ambient temperature changes. We added a temperature-controlled chamber around the main part of the calorimeter (the Dewar) and that helped but didn't eliminate the problem. Now we've got the whole calorimeter system in a temperature-controlled chamber and are in the process of checking this new configuration out. more soon. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 00:11:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 23:59:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 06:57:41 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"L0hiI3.0.9J7.FjLyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9853 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:46 AM 8/13/97 +0000, Rick wrote: > >The cow might be dead, but some of the fruit cells in the smoothie I'm >drinking might still be alive. I'm a semi-pseudo-vegetarian. The next best choice for a polymer close to protein would be would be the polyamide, Nylon. The feedstock for polymerization to nylon is an amino acid. Watch out for those nylon panty-hose. Low fat diet similar to horse hoofs or fingernails. > >Velikovsky had some ideas along these lines too. Well, speculation's fun, >but I was wondering about the ice. They find meteors and meteoric dust in >the ice caps. I was wondering if anything like a suspicious chunk of ice >dirty with ET debris has ever been identified. Seems to me that contamination would be a big problem. > >Ok, the earth formed, then the oceans accumulated from somewhere >(mysterious), then life sprang up in the ocean (again, mysteriously). Now >we see that the possible source of the oceans is an ongoing process. I disagree.There is enormous quantities of Hydrogen and Oxygen even as water on the Sun. When all of the carbon,magnesium, aluminum, silicon, and Iron have grabbed up their Oxygen the H2O is the "ash" left over in abundance. >Might the source of life in those oceans also be an ongoing process, >arriving from the skies as the water does? The bottom line is an energy battle. If you start out (before photosynthesis) with carbohydrate ie., plant species from acetylene-water reactions and an energy-hungry species evolves to feed off this species, and so on, it looks like if there was infinite free energy available evolution would stop. :-) > > >I was thinking also - if you saw an ET virus and we were constantly being >bombarded by them, then it's the same virus we see all around us anyway. I >find myself sort of hoping this is the case because (1), it's easier than >confronting the possibility of an Andromeda Strain, and (2) it would be fun >watching scientists explaining how maybe volcanoes blew up through dirty >lakes and hurled virus into the upper atmosphere, etc. etc. Seeing as how "Homo Sap" has been around only for an instant as compared to other species and has damn near ruined the Earth, I'll take my chances with an "Andromeda Strain" anytime. Regards, Frederick > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 00:12:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 00:08:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 00:06:05 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"tfzn42.0.BF.PrLyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9854 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rick! I was wondering if anything like a suspicious chunk of ice > dirty with ET debris has ever been identified. I'd think it would have made > news if there had been such a discovery (aside from the alleged Chinese > discovery of which I've heard nothing more), but maybe people haven't been > really looking, perhaps not believing that it would be something you could > find. I mean, we've heard of the sudden mysterious yellow mud rains, etc. > etc. Very suspicious. The weird ET rains even made it to an X-Files ep. I'm not sure but I think people find odd chunks of ice fairly often. I recall an article in the local paper that sort of sums it up: Lady hears whistling noise Lady finds odd chunk of ice in the yard, a sort of green color. Lady reports find to authorities. Authorities tell Lady and newspaper that the ice is liquid that was ejected from a jet's bathroom facilities. No one bothers to point out that the ice is green rather than yellow. Story gets two paragraphs in the paper and is forgotten. Check with the Fortean Times on this type of event, they must have a web site... Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 10:03:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:47:14 -0700 X-Intended-For: X-Sender: mwm aa.net Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:48:46 +0100 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Gravity Vortex Tectonics First Mumblings Resent-Message-ID: <"GQN_S2.0.ez5.HKUyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9860 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:32 PM 8/12/97, you wrote: >Hi Ross, > >> Thanks Dean. I don't suppose you or anyone else knows where I can get >> info on historical measurements of the geo-magnetic field? > >Nope. I wish I knew where to get them, too. > >I haven't really looked for data on the Internet for over 2 years and >it's possible (likely, I hope ) that the data has shown up. I'd >also like to see historical surface and air temperatures. > >-- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) > > historical temperatures are hard to come by, even just in print. i will look for the geo-magnetism stuff. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 06:25:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 06:15:34 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:11:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: HLafonte@ aol.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, ash@freenet.calgary.ab.ca, greenbuilding@crest.org, ee-building crest.org Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile/Heat Pump Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"KYTMh.0.Jx3.pDRyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9857 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Butch: Further to your suggestion (attached) of a Thermal Electric Generator (TEG) working off a heat pump (HP): this may be especially interesting if: 1) reused, purged (of freon) fridge/freezer condensers were used 2) if the system is set up as a casca ding system 3) if both heating (space + domestic hot water) and cooling (AC + cool closet instead of a fridge) were provided 4) if the HP was water or earth coupled We are planning to do the above, in a 10,000 DDf heating, 44 DDf cooling (68 Df base) area, and have the hardware on-site. This part of the system would be very cost-effective (fridges are being retired by the thousands), but not highly efficient (anticip ated COP may only be about 1.25 - 2.0 as a guess). We may be able to use photovoltaics to operate the system. Anyone willing to help with constructive suggestions, calculations, simulations, products, hardware, construction, etc. is welcomed. It may be interesting to calculate the net Over/Unity (O/U) ratio of a self-sufficient or energy-export home (craddle-to-g rave scenario). Our demonstration project (home/office) has been operating for 3 years now without a gas line, furnace or boiler, but not all ancillary systems/projects are completed yet. _______________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978), environmental/architectural design, ecological planning, consulting on sustainable buildings/communities. Lectures, seminars, workshops. 3 demonstration projects in Canada, +80,000 visitors - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office ACE, ARE, ACT, ASH-Incs., Phone: (403) 239-1882, Fax: (403) 547-2671 Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~ jdo/ecotecture.htm ______________________________________________________ On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 HLafonte aol.com wrote: > > Jorg, > What if that thermopile could operate off the condensor of a heat pump > !!!!!!!!! > That would be to good to be true though, right ? > Butch LaFonte > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 06:34:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 06:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: 13 Aug 97 09:24:48 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Re: SMOT Mk2 Beta 4 "Rollaway" design Resent-Message-ID: <"AyjHZ1.0.qK6.DQRyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9858 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg, > Would like to receive a pre-review before you publish. OK? Yes, I'll do that. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 07:08:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:57:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: "Jo hn R. Tooker" Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, greenbuilding@crest.org, ash@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Subject: DIY solar stirling heat engine Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"qA-9T2.0.NU.yuRyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9859 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John: Is the stirling shown in Goeff's "Free Energy Encyclopedia" a solar operated unit? We are investigating a used satelite TV dish for a small stirling engine. If we had a 500 watt unit, it could give us about 4,000 BTU/h of hot (warm?) water. That wou ld provide us with the majority of our electrical/heating requirements. A stirling co-generator would seem worthy of building to demonstrate another feasible technology as an alternative to dinosaur fuels. Who (other than SunPower) may I contact who has e xperience with DIY stirlings? Any manufacturers still in operation? Any assistance would be appreciated. _________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~j do/ecotecture.htm _______________________________________________________ On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, John R. Tooker wrote: > A Stirling engine heat pump, similar to the one shown in the "Free Energy > Encyclopedia" is fiendishly simple to build abd operate, and might just > fit in to this scenario. Simple, lo-tech, and potentially *quite* > effective. :) > Regards, > John > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 10:20:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:12:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Jason Aldo To: Jorg Ostrowski Cc: "John R. Tooker" , vortex-l@eskimo.com, greenbuilding crest.org Subject: Re: DIY solar stirling heat engine Resent-Message-ID: <"nvN1a2.0.GB.jiUyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9861 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Jorg, A company called Stirling Technologies, which happens yo be right next to Sunpower has done work on stirling heat pumps. Their number is 614-594-2277, Pete Aldo X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 11:01:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:47:40 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:47:05 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Go ahead for Newman two coil test project (Project Sunshine) Resent-Message-ID: <"zgFZf1.0.Zy1.xCVyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9862 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com After alot of thought, I believe the test of the Newman two coil experiment can answer alot of questions. The basic principal of the Newman motor, ( the magnetic field is a product of the mass of the wire, not the current ) can be tested here. The test will have to be well thought out and documented in a proper matter. The testing equipment will have to be near state of the art. Test must be done on video and assisted by a staff of engineers, people with credentials in mechnical and electrical engineer ing, and physics, ect. There must be no "gray" areas in the test results! Coils will be shipped to those who share in the cost if they choose to do so, at their expense, so they can do their own testing. I think 100 pounds per coil would be a good size to test. I will get some figures together on wire ect. and anyone wanting to join in group, please send post. Thanks, Butch LaFonte X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 11:11:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:06:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: DIY solar stirling heat engine Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:04:12 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"3E9WG.0.6a2.7UVyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9863 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:12 PM 8/13/97 +0000, Peter Jason Aldo wrote: >Hi Jorg, >A company called Stirling Technologies, which happens to be right next to >Sunpower has done work on stirling heat pumps. Their number is >614-594-2277, >Pete Aldo > Hello Peter. Back to school? :-) When you get a chance, you might mix up some KCl and HCl in water in a strong clear glass jug.Cap it and expose it to sunlight. An aluminum foil reflector on the back half, also. Probably about 0.1 molar on the HCl and 12% KCl. And a thermometer plus a pressure gauge. Might make a way to get O.U. from sunlight for heat into a Stirling engine. Then again the right emissivity "paint" on the irradiated side of the "jug" could be interesting. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 13:24:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:09:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:10:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Jason Aldo To: "Fred erick J. Sparber" Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: DIY solar stirling heat engine Resent-Message-ID: <"u2PVg1.0.cm4.9IXyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9865 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > When you get a chance, you might mix up some KCl and HCl in > water in a strong clear glass jug.Cap it and expose it to > sunlight. An aluminum foil reflector on the back half, also. > > Probably about 0.1 molar on the HCl and 12% KCl. And a thermometer > plus a pressure gauge. > > Might make a way to get O.U. from sunlight for heat into a Stirling > engine. > > Then again the right emissivity "paint" on the irradiated side of > the "jug" could be interesting. > > Regards, Frederick Hi Fred, Thanks for the recipe. Are you sure its not a bomb? Chemistry is not my area. Would an endothermic reaction occur absorbing the suns radiation rapidly? Would the chemicals not be used up? I graduated a couple of months ago. I've been improving a flux switch alternator that I built for my thesis. It has a negative incremental efficieny as Dieter Baeur put it in his Flux Gate Generator Article. Dieter and Stefan Hartmann gave me advice on te sting for incremental efficiency. Now I'm looking for a job where I can continue working on it since I can longer use the school's equipment. Pete X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 23:51:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:42:30 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:11:19 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"w8SfQ.0.Ie2.KZgyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9870 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:03 PM 8/13/97 +0000, Rick wrote: > >I think it might be possible to find something in the ice caps somewhere. >They are fantastic storage refrigerators of everything that falls from the >sky over many years. Pollen, meteorites, atmospheric dust, everything. If >ice chunks have fallen intact, they are in there somewhere. Agreed. There should be Cyanides and/or Cyanogen, and possibly acetylene (dissolved in the ice) same as the gases seen in the tails of comets. Somewhere down in the Pre-Cambrian-Ordovician (dry) you might find water-reactive compounds such as Magnesium and Calcium Nitrides, Cyanamides, and Carbides (acetylides). All of these can react with water at room temperature to form the ingredients for Li fe, Sugars, Ammonia, Unsaturated Carboxylic Acids, Amino Acids, and the Nucleotides. The Calcium and Magnesium will end up as the carbonates-chlorides or sea shells and Dolomite-marble. At one time the Ocean should've been loaded with these, and perhaps sweeter than honey to boot. From these with geothermal heat, life could've started even before the Sun started to "shine" and long before photosynthesis "evolved". >Shouldn't people with access to such areas be looking for them? >Or have they been already all along, and it's simply that none have ever >been found? This seems like another case of high-fired curiosity meeting >lots of cold blank stares. What we need are some "undisturbed" core samples from say 10 miles depth, or "virgin lava" from a similar depth. Regards, Frederick > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 17:44:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:40:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:42:01 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"wI5BV3.0.3X4.8Gbyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9866 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rick, > I think it might be possible to find something in the ice caps somewhere. > They are fantastic storage refrigerators of everything that falls from the > sky over many years. Pollen, meteorites, atmospheric dust, everything. If > ice chunks have fallen intact, they are in there somewhere. Looking for ice in Antarctica? looking for hay in a haystack :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 17:53:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:45:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:45:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Resent-Message-ID: <"TVnVa1.0.Ld2.GKbyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9867 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The current discussion here seems to be focused on looking for ice chunks or other solid evidence on the Earth's surface. But weren't the 'snowballs' described as being very low-density? If so, wouldn't they just evaporate or otherwise disperse in the atm osphere, and not show up as solid ice? Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 18:41:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:33:07 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:32:31 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile/Heat Pump Resent-Message-ID: <"Znt7i2.0.nz4.I1cyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9868 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jorg, The discharge temperature of CO2 is very high and a group in Norway called Sintef, has developed a CO2 cycle that is more efficient than R12 or it's replacement. Not to mention CO2 is all but free. Butch LaFonte X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 13 18:47:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:39:07 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:38:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Carnot efficiency of TED's Resent-Message-ID: <"7tO3C1.0.sG5.w6cyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9869 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Melcor has a neat web page at http://www.melcor.com They offer free software which predicts the performance of their TED's (Thermo-Electric Devices). They present an example where a TED is operating as a generator between a 200C source and a 25C sink. In this case, they claim an absolute efficiency of 7.5%. I calculated the Carnot limit for these temps at 37%. Thus their TED achieves 20% of Carnot e fficiency...pretty good for TED's, I think. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 00:16:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:09:18 -0700 X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:08:08 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Fogal Discussion, Listserve Resent-Message-ID: <"82E113.0.Ms3.Tygyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9871 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com There is a listserve now for anyone who would like to talk about the Fogal Transistor. Just send a message like this: To: cbt-list-request eskimo.com Subject: subscribe The list is also mentioned now on the web pages: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/fogal_device/ Bill Fogal gave the go on it, and to thanks to Bill Beaty for the suggestion. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ---------------------------------------------------------- -------- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 00:33:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:24:24 -0700 From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:26:21 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ragland triode cells References: <199708130456.XAA20366 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"u5Rul2.0.LK4.dAhyp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9874 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com There is new information on the Sweet magnetic device that can be referenced from http://www.space-research.com/~ajdubla/vta/. The technology seems to depend on creating a free floating magnetic bubble in a BaFe magnet. Why don't you duplicate this experi ment with a very high S/N ratio. The original device was witnessed to have a 1e6 ratio of Pin/Pout. The technology seems to reference bubble memory and create a magnet with a unstable pole structure that can be easily moved by a applied input ac field. The output is derived from the changing field of the bubble interacting with the static poles. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 01:45:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 01:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 01:32:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: gwatson@m icrotronics.com.au Subject: SMOT Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"7MVcJ2.0.eL4.2Ciyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9875 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg: You offered to send me a free SMOT Mk2 rollaway unit for me to test...I accept your offer, but I only want it if you feel onfident that it produces a robust effect. After testing, I'll be glad to ship it back to you, if you like. It should be sent to my home address, 1885 Veteran Ave, #201 Los Angeles, CA 90025 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 02:16:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 02:12:58 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:11:09 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 Resent-Message-ID: <"Ceths.0.ci5.Kmiyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9876 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi All, You will find a new topic about a design of a Scalar waves oscillator my web site at : http://members.aol.com/overunity4/html/scalwidx.htm The TEP v2.1 or the "Time Energy Pump" uses bifilar coils technology for generating standing scalar waves. I shall soon put on my web site a FAQ topic about scalar waves. Thanks to Bob Shannon for answering patiently to all FAQ in Freenrg-list...... :-) In further experiments, I shall propose you to test scalar waves EM propagation and energy collecting. More to come..... Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 05:07:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:04:28 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:04:37 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"e5O-m3.0.sS4.BHlyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9877 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hey, gang, once again I direct your attention to the work of Harold Aspden. One fascinating item he has developed is a thermoelectric converter of astonishing efficiency. A prototype ran a small electric motor with the energy of a melting ice cube. It far exceeded the semiconductor thermoelectric juctions in efficiency. It also f roze water with electrical input. It is discussed in detail in one of his energy reports and summarized on his Web site. It is definitely not your usual device and is a fascinating study in itself. There are three patents available for licensing. Aspden's URL is http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~haspdn/ Mike Carrell ---------- > From: Fred Epps > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? > Date: Wednesday, August 13, 1997 12:04 AM > > Hi Scott, > > As it turns out the claimed peak Carnot efficiency is 70%. > > > At 10:25 PM 8/12/97 -0400, Butch wrote: > > > > >What if that thermopile could operate off the condensor of a heat pump? > > > > It could, of course...the only question is at what efficiency? > > > > First, it is a certainty that the 80% figure being talked about means 80% > of > > Carnot efficiency...not 80% absolute efficiency. > > > I would be amazed (but pleased) to find a thermopile that achieves 80% of > > Carnot efficiency. I have looked at modern semiconductor thermoelectric > > devices with that in mind and I think that they only achieve a small > > fraction of the Carnot efficiency (~10%). I'll check out what the > Melcor > > catalog says tomorrow. > > > > Scott Little > > EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > > 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) > > little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 06:32:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 06:25:13 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John Steck" Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:17:11 -0500 References: <199708140045.RAA20385 pop1.ucdavis.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Attack of the snowballs Resent-Message-ID: <"CHnHc1.0.1V.uSmyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9878 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 13, 7:38pm, Dan Quickert wrote: > The current discussion here seems to be focused on looking for ice chunks or > other solid evidence on the Earth's surface. But weren't the 'snowballs' > described as being very low-density? If so, wouldn't they just evaporate or > otherwise disperse in the atmosphere, and not show up as solid ice? Most are believed to diffuse in the upper atmosphere, some should last well into the lower atmosphere. There have been reports of some making it all the way down. IMO the authenticity of such a find would forever be in debate even if found legitimate. Intercepting one would be infinitely more conclusive. Now that we suspect them, it should just be a matter of time before we discover a method of accurately locating and tracking them. Most likely their signatures have already been recorded, we just didn't know what they were. Only my perspective. 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 07:06:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:02:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:00:57 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Ocean Viruses Resent-Message-ID: <"DiOu73.0.M_5.10nyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9880 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rick, David Freedman wrote an article about viruses in the ocean, "High Seas Lowlife," Discover, Feb. 1992, pp. 53-58. He reviewed the work that had been done in the field, which was growing rapidly. It seems that every drop of seawater is full of viruses and that they play an important role in the ecology of the oceans. Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 09:06:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 18:09:48 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 Resent-Message-ID: <"MSRvx.0.Yw2.Wmoyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9884 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Jean-Louis, I tried it (with significantly different configuration) and see such as waveform on the scope. I had a prebuild bifilar coil of 30mm diameter and 75mm length wounded 0.55 wire. A adapted an other coil as L3. Collector coil was not important. It only need to supply enough high impedance for the transistor to keep the current reasonable range. I used 2N3055. An other modification is a insertion of an 10nF serially to the Base. Direct connection of L3 caused very large currents and not oscillate well. Instead of connecting a probe to circuit, I observed oscillations via an other small coil attached to the probe and inserted inside the bifilar coil.(Probe's large capacitance affected the circuit when attached directly) What I see on the scope is similar to your waveform as: (look with fixed width fonts) | | ||| ||| ||||| ||||| ||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||| ----|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||---- |||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| ||||| ||||| ||| ||| | | +------6uS-----+ 166KHz Signal is modulated with 4MHz. My question is: Is something that can not be explained with a conventional thinking of electronics on this oscilation mode? Note: Inter-winding capacitances, L3-L1/L2 capacitances and the shielding effect of the L3 over bifilar coil (As this capacitance increase the frequency is also increasing. I got 5.5MHz with maximum inter coil capacitance.) have major effects on these coils. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 06:54:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 06:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:56:28 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ixnetcom.com, kirk.shanahan srs.gov, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, storms@ix.netcom.com, jaeger eneco-usa.com Subject: Legal re Data Chem Laboratories Resent-Message-ID: <"akqFE2.0.mE5.Mpmyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9879 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 14, 1997 Vortex, Kirk Shanahan found this legal item about Data Chem Laboratories, who did the Third Party Verification on the Throrium transmutation experiment by the Cincinatti Group. I'm posting it, since inevitably the issue will have to be answered. Rich Murray http://www.taf.org/taf/docs/3Q95.html False Claims Act and Qui Tam Quarterly Review - October, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT TAF AND THE QUARTERLY REVIEW III. DOJ INTERVENTIONS AND UNSEALED CASES 1.U.S. ex rel. Virgin Islands Housing Authority v. Coastal General Contruction Services Corp. et al. (D VI No.__) 2.U.S. ex rel. Relator v. Healthwest Regional Medical Center et al. (WD WA No.__) 3.U.S. ex rel. Higby v. Data Chem Laboratories (D UT No.__) 4.U.S. ex rel. Chisholm v. Wolfe and Wolfe (SD CA No. 94-1063-H (BTM)) 5.U.S. ex rel. O'Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation (ED MO No.__) U.S. ex rel. Higby v. Data Chem Laboratories (D UT No.__ ) In August 1995, a qui tam suit alleging that Data Chem Laboratories submitted erroneous test results was unsealed. The lawsuit was filed in February by Loren Higby, a former chemist at Data Chem. According to the lawsuit, the Army Toxic and Hazardous Waste Agency had contracted with the defendant to analyze water, soil, and other materials for traces of chemicals. Higby c ited technical problems in analytical procedures that affected the testing results for hundreds of samples as well as employee inexperience in working with complicated analytical instruments. According to Higby, Data Chem refused to conduct necessary retesting to correct the problems. DOJ [Department of Justice] has declined intervention in this action. Representing the relator is Loren Lambert (Salt Lake City, UT). X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 08:10:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:05:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:03:31 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"MeKLZ2.0.wU.kwnyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9883 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike Carrell wrote: > >Hey, gang, once again I direct your attention to the work >of Harold Aspden. I looked at the Aspden's URL and his patent list. Way back when, I rolled up two layers of the metallized paper off a cigarette packet and hooked the leads of an ohmmeter to each "plate" and held it above a flame. Darn thing put out a voltage. :-) Seems that the meter leads acted as the "cold junction". You can see a similar effect with paper capacitors held over a flame. Don't expect to save the capacitors though. Tantalums work also. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 08:01:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:06:31 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, kirk.shanahan srs.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom cernvx.cern.ch, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net Subject: Data Chem Laboratories, United States Resent-Message-ID: <"2scKf2.0.OK.Pqnyp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9882 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://eco-web.com/register/01976.html Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="01976.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="01976.html" Content-Base: "http://eco-web.com/register/01976.html" Data Chem Laboratories, United States

Data Chem Laboratories

 United States
Street960 West LeVoy Drive
CitySalt Lake City    UT 84123
CountryUnited States
Telephone(+1) 800 - 356 91 35
SummarySite Assessment and Remediation
Ruler
Cross References
7. Soil Rehabilitation 7    Soil Rehabilitation

7.2 Soil Decontamination & Rehabilitation
Ruler
Copyright © 1994-1997, ECO Services International X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 09:28:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:19:58 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:17:58 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"crlYH1.0.fF1.j0pyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9886 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Below a response by Fred Sparber to my suggestion to dig into Aspden's Energy Science Reports Nos. 2 & 3 on Power from Ice. ---------- > From: Frederick J. Sparber > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? > Date: Thursday, August 14, 1997 11:03 AM > > Mike Carrell wrote: > > > >Hey, gang, once again I direct your attention to the work > >of Harold Aspden. > > I looked at the Aspden's URL and his patent list. > > Way back when, I rolled up two layers of the metallized paper off > a cigarette packet and hooked the leads of an ohmmeter to each "plate" > and held it above a flame. Darn thing put out a voltage. :-) > > Seems that the meter leads acted as the "cold junction". You can see > a similar effect with paper capacitors held over a flame. Don't expect > to save the capacitors though. Tantalums work also. > > Regards, Frederick ----------------- Now what relevance does this have to anything on Aspden's Web site? Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 09:31:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:23:48 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:23:09 -0500 From: "R. R. Stiffler" Reply-To: stiffler@compassnet.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 References: <970814051108_-1471762208 emout20.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"J3qXv1.0.6T1.J4pyp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9887 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com JNaudin509 aol.com wrote: > Hi All, > > You will find a new topic about a design of a Scalar waves oscillator > my web > site at : > http://members.aol.com/overunity4/html/scalwidx.htm > > The TEP v2.1 or the "Time Energy Pump" uses bifilar coils technology > for > generating standing scalar waves. > > I shall soon put on my web site a FAQ topic about scalar waves. > Thanks to Bob Shannon for answering patiently to all FAQ in > Freenrg-list...... :-) > > In further experiments, I shall propose you to test scalar waves EM > propagation and energy collecting. > > More to come..... > > Sincerely, > > Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) > Email : JNaudin509 aol.com > my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ The TEP V2.1 appears extremely similar to the (4) coil BiPEG (Bi-Phase Energy Gate) developed by; Ronald R. Stiffler, EE Dr. Franz Klien Dr. Karl Sunderling In October of 1996 and registered with their attorneys accordingly. The term BiPEG was assigned to a class of circuits being explored at Advanced Technology Group in Texas which displayed significant anomalous effects which indicated the circuits might be engineered to be OU in operation. BiPEG evolved through 36 different circuit configurations, all using the same unconventional configuration. These circuits varied from a basic three coil design to the current design (4) coil system which has powered itself for a period of 18 minutes. It was not the goal of ATG to release public information on BiPEG until adequate understanding and documentation could be obtained. This work is still being done by a number of associated scientists and engineers associated with ATG and under written agre ement. ATG, because of the release of the TEP V2.1 circuit as described above, has no choice at this time but to announce the existence of an OU BiPEG using this design developed by ATG. We have been advised that we have adequate protection in the US to insure ours rights to this design and will take whatever action is required to uphold those rights. We are not happy with such an early announcement as it will only cause additional problems from questions and those that don't believe in the possibility of OU. ATG has a web site which will be announced within the next 72 hours, unless our legal people a dvise otherwise. The site will show a number of BiPEG circuits and discuss the evolution of BiPEG and the existing (4) coil OU device. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 07:40:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:35:40 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 17:30:12 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: vortex-l@esk imo.com Subject: Re: Legal re Data Chem Laboratories Resent-Message-ID: <"qhloP2.0.XV4.xUnyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9881 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 06:49:13 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > August 14, 1997 > Vortex, > > Kirk Shanahan found this legal item about Data Chem Laboratories, who > did the Third Party Verification on the Throrium transmutation > experiment by the Cincinatti Group. I'm posting it, since inevitably > the issue will have to be answered. > Rich Murray > http://www.taf.org/taf/docs/3Q95.html > > False Claims Act and Qui Tam Quarterly Review - October, 1995 Rich, Why has this to be answered? By whom? If a client is not satisfied with the results of an analysis i.e. because it demonstrates that he is polluting the environment (fines to pay!) he will try some tricks of dubious cleanliness. The labs I have supervised had many such conflicts without fatal consequences. The case raised here happened in 1995 and it seem the lab wasn't guilty..it is working. Why is not possible to avoid such non-relevant subjects? Do you really think that this can be correlated with the analysis performed by Robert Liversage for the Cincinnati Group? Let's be serious, gentlemen! 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 10:47:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:36:05 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: , Subject: Re: Legal re Data Chem Laboratories Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:33:28 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"WIzNd.0.P4.38qyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9890 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich Murray posted a reference to legal affairs re. Data Chem, excerpted below: >I'm posting it, since inevitably > the issue will have to be answered. Really? Why? What issue? Answered by whom? >....... a qui tam suit alleging that Data Chem Laboratories.... >Higby cited technical problems in analytical procedures that > affected the testing results for hundreds of samples as well as employee > inexperience in working with complicated analytical instruments. > According to Higby, Data Chem refused to conduct necessary retesting to > correct the problems. DOJ [Department of Justice] has declined > intervention in this action. This is guilt by association. Liversage plainly stated his credentials, which are adequate for the purpose at hand, and the procedure used. I have not seen any evidence that Rich has sent messages to Blue, etc. amending his misunderstanding and misreading of the Miley papers. Now we have another irrelevant issue dragged in. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 11:25:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:14:50 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 18:14:11 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"NFgqs1.0.iP2.Piqyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9893 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:17 PM 8/14/97 +0000, Mike Carrell wrote: >Below a response by Fred Sparber to my suggestion to dig into Aspden's >Energy Science Reports Nos. 2 & 3 on Power from Ice. > >> Mike Carrell wrote: >> > >> >Hey, gang, once again I direct your attention to the work >> >of Harold Aspden. >> >> I looked at the Aspden's URL and his patent list. >> >> Way back when, I rolled up two layers of the metallized paper off >> a cigarette packet and hooked the leads of an ohmmeter to each "plate" >> and held it above a flame. Darn thing put out a voltage. :-) >> >> Seems that the meter leads acted as the "cold junction". You can see >> a similar effect with paper capacitors held over a flame. Don't expect >> to save the capacitors though. Tantalums work also. > >Now what relevance does this have to anything on Aspden's Web site? > >Mike Carrell > Now, Now, Mike. I read some of Aspdens patent list and he describes a patented device using "thin metal bilayers" (Ni-Cu?)between plastic sheets on one of the devices that generates a voltage when heated. I was pointing out a simple experiment that I did about 45 years ago that gets a similar effect, but, probably orders of magnitude less output. No need to go ballistic. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 12:03:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:58:47 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:56:08 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: stiffler compassnet.com Subject: Re : Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 Resent-Message-ID: <"EkMQn2.0.rm3.RLryp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9894 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 14/08/1997 19:00:07 , Ronald R. Stiffler (stiffler compassnet.com) wrote : << The TEP V2.1 appears extremely similar to the (4) coil BiPEG (Bi-Phase Energy Gate) developed by; Ronald R. Stiffler, EE Dr. Franz Klien Dr. Karl Sunderling >> Hi All, The TEP V2.1 device is the result of my recent synergy between Fred Epps, the freenrg-list and vortex-list group and a synergy in March 97 with Ronald R. Stiffler wich has developped since with his team (ATG) the coil BiPEG (Bi-Phase Energy Gate) I shall add also the Ronald Stiffler document about the BiPEG in my web site, as soon as AOL maintenance has released my web site. Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 15:37:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:25:38 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 00:32:33 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Does a magnetic field have weight?(in a gravity field) References: <970814151422_479592490 emout05.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"haIAN1.0.Ul3.XNuyp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9898 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Difficulty is the static magnetic field does not exist by itself as the electromagnetic wave exist. It can not be isolated from the effect which generate it (the current). So simply weighting an magnet will not give the answer because the the energy of th e current carrying elements are also involved. It is hard to imagine an experiment for measuring the weight of the static magnetic field directly, I think. BTW, as the gravity reduce or increase the energy of a EM wave by redshift or blue shift, it can be assumed the EM wave has a gravitational mass. Regards, Ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 14:53:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:46:39 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 17:46:00 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: good question on magnetic field Resent-Message-ID: <"VF8if3.0.X_.zotyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9897 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com BIG question here ! > Does anyone know if there has ever been any test to prove that a magnetic >field has weight ? What I mean is, energy has mass, or so I've heard, the sun >sends so many tons of energy to the earth every day. We all know mass has >energy stored in it. Einstein said we could think of matter as frozen energy. >...................................................... Energy has an effective gravitational mass. M = E/cc Kinetic energy has an effective gravitational mass M = 1/2 Mv v/cc ........................................................ A moving electron has a certain amount of kinetic energy. This kinetic energy is carries by the gravitomagnetic field. The gravitomagnetic field contains an amoumt of postive energy equivalent to the the kinetic energy of moving matter. KE = dp/dv = 1/2 Mv v ....................................................................... Please note that according to General Realtivity dp/dt is a source of gravity. gravity = G dp/dt/(cc r) .............................................................................. ....... .............................................................................. .......................... A moving charge contains a second type of momentum. This momentum is known as inductive reactance. This momentum also tends to keep charges moving and is the source of the EMF that results when an electrical inductor L is open. magnetic energy = 1/2 Lii ........................................................ inductrve momentum is p = Li = L dq/dt .......................................................... Both type of momentum are carried by an induced field. These induced fields contain the positive energy of the motion. All postive energy is associated with an equivalent amount of negative gravitational potential. therefore the fields are the source of gravity. ..................................... Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 17:22:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 17:12:56 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 20:12:19 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: do magnetic fields have weight? Resent-Message-ID: <"AuQKH2.0.kr7.6yvyp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9900 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The ultimate answer to this question is that gravity produces a force and conversely that a force produces gravity. ref my paper The Source of Inertia l and Grav. Mass Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 01:43:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:39:41 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:52:53 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"7VH0W3.0.4Q1.AN1zp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9909 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: Following Mike Carrell's recommendation, I took a second journey to Harold Aspden's web page at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~haspdn and studied it over, again. The use of aluminum especially in "very thin films" in contact with a Polyvinyl Chloride or Fluoride or for that matter,Paper C6(H2O)5 over a flame, :-) is asking for trouble. Aluminum wants to form the superficial hydroxide, Al(OH)3 which will react with the PVDF or the residual polymerization catalysts (Oxygen and Peroxides)plus the Hydrogen Fluoride in the PVDF especially at the surface, or the H2O in paper. Most likely it w ill run the motor without the ice-cube and oscillator. This would explain the "mysterious deterioration in performance" that was plaguing the development effort. In this mode the setup is a "Chemical Battery" the same as the "Volta Pile." Small wonder that it ran a small electric motor. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 01:44:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:39:47 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Full Moon Four Days Away! Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:38:30 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"0p2H43.0.9R1.GN1zp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9910 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: Anyone feeling "out of sorts," Grouchy and Confrontational? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 00:18:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:11:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:07:10 +1000 X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: DIY solar stirling heat engine Resent-Message-ID: <"p09QJ2.0.Tu3.H-gyp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9872 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:57 AM 8/13/97 -0600, you wrote: > In answer to quesstion below the device has not been built but a theory on how one could be used By using both the cooling and heating effects provided by the enviroment. The idea is s based on an idea by Robert Stirling a Scotish experimentor who built a smaller unit and used only the heat side of the unit.. The original idea was only used to pump water Later units were constructed by English experimentors using an electric lamp ,glass closed vessl,and a couple of ball bearings for values Geoff Egel Http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 >John: Is the stirling shown in Goeff's "Free Energy Encyclopedia" a solar >operated unit? We are investigating a used satelite TV dish for a small >stirling engine. If we had a 500 watt unit, it could give us about 4,000 >BTU/h of hot (warm?) water. That would provide us with the majority of our >electrical/heating requirements. A stirling co-generator would seem worthy of >building to demonstrate another feasible technology as an alternative to >dinosaur fuels. Who (other than SunPower) may I contact who has experience with >DIY stirlings? Any manufacturers still in operation? Any assistance would be >appreciated. >_________________________________________________________ >Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect > - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office >Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm >_______________________________________________________ > >On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, John R. Tooker wrote: >> A Stirling engine heat pump, similar to the one shown in the "Free Energy >> Encyclopedia" is fiendishly simple to build abd operate, and might just >> fit in to this scenario. Simple, lo-tech, and potentially *quite* >> effective. :) >> Regards, >> John >> >> > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 00:22:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:15:06 +1000 X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: DIY solar stirling heat engine Resent-Message-ID: <"hunKc2.0.og2.k6hyp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9873 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 06:04 PM 8/13/97 +0000, you wrote: >At 05:12 PM 8/13/97 +0000, Peter Jason Aldo wrote: >>Hi Jorg, >>A company called Stirling Technologies, which happens to be right next to >>Sunpower has done work on stirling heat pumps. Their number is >>614-594-2277, >>Pete Aldo >> >Hello Peter. Back to school? :-) > >When you get a chance, you might mix up some KCl and HCl in >water in a strong clear glass jug.Cap it and expose it to >sunlight. An aluminum foil reflector on the back half, also. > >Probably about 0.1 molar on the HCl and 12% KCl. And a thermometer >plus a pressure gauge. > >Might make a way to get O.U. from sunlight for heat into a Stirling >engine. > >Then again the right emissivity "paint" on the irradiated side of >the "jug" could be interesting. > >Regards, Frederick > >What is HC1 and KC1 Geoff > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 01:47:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:40:02 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 04:52:28 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"ufVrf2.0.4T1.UN1zp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9911 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:41 AM 8/15/97 +0000, Lewis Edward wrote: > > >I think that people int. in cf are totally ignoring this other stuff on >SMOTs and this stuff. and similar stuff. Not so, Lewis. Scalar Wave generators are used at E.L.F. wavelengths for Mindless Control and similar stuff. > >So, what is a SMOT? I think it is an acronym for Spend Money On Toys. > >I don't want to seem rude. But I have no idea. How does interest go the >other way? :-) Interest is set by the Fed, Greenspan or Greenpeace? And all this time I thought that only the Hot Fusion folks were the "Weavers of Invisible Cloth". Don't you see? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 14 23:16:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:52:54 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:58:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Does a magnetic field have weight?(in a gravity field) Resent-Message-ID: <"B5WTx3.0.P64.qw-yp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9905 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Evan Soule wrote: > Consider a water sprinkler, a 20 gallon container of water, and a complete, > integrated, self-contained, self-powered pump system. Place your 'contained' system in another container (bubble) and visualize it in outspace.. What does it weigh ... now/ & again measure later! :) ---- sprewing H20 droplits = mass moving electrons = SAME MASS wherever -ya? did I win?? :)-=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 01:14:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:07:10 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 04:05:27 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"cmWvC3.0.pk6.iu0zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9907 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com V's, I just had a thought; IF the Mills/Farrell theory is correct then could a tokamak like device be used to extract energy from H ? Is a plasma of hydrogen atomic hydrogen needed to react with K ions? Remember you dont have to squeeze the plasma like a D/T (or D/D) tokamak, just enough magnetic fielld to keep the plasma away from the reactor walls. Pre heat some then inject the K catalyst. Could the closed Princeton Tokamak be used (if you dont mind a little left over radioactivity), by modifying the magnets for a lower power input) Just a thought at 1:30 in the morning. Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 20:18:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:12:45 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:10:34 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Zippooo ... and not the cigar lighter!? (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"VKUbI2.0.j8.igHzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9943 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Quick non question.... and thanks. > > Q: I am looking to have a function in NT that will return a >linked list of open handles on a volume. Any leads? Much thanks. > > JHS Get a Mac. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 03:50:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 03:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Hot Rod Calorimetry? Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:46:33 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"sDvUg1.0.Gz1.pF3zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9912 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, In "The Good Old Days" before rechargeable electric drills, my father would use a red-hot stove poker to "drill" a hole in wood. Wood is known to "exotherm" at around 495 F. Is all of the heat from the chemical exotherm, or is part of it from "hydrino" reaction? Is it really such a great idea to throw water on a fire, or hot ashes with all that Potassium in them? A simple calorimetry experiment based on the Leidenfrost Point and Film Boiling of an electrically heated "cartridge" would be to measure the electrical watts into the cartridge vs the temperaure rise of the water in a well-insulated container. Perhaps a little Potassium "salt" dissolved in the water as a catalyst? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 01:23:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:09:06 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vorte x" Cc: "Chris Tinsley" <100433.1541@compuserve.com>, "Peter Glueck" Subject: CF, New Scientist style. Resent-Message-ID: <"Tzmk91.0.j77.261zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9908 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com For your information: A rather clumsy editorial and a paper ("Sticking point") both dedicated to cold fusion, are published in New Scientists 16 August 1997 vol 155 no 2095. The return of cold fusion is greeted, however it is the muonic sort. It seems that hot fusion having great problems, is trying new ways to a viable technology. The approach described in the paper is not revolutionary at all. I hope to be alive and well in the very day when New Scientist and other journals of the Establishment will accept and embrace our kind of cold fusion. 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 05:15:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:09:17 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"a8JXn.0.eJ3.UU4zp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9914 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:05 AM 8/15/97 -0400, Vince wrote: >V's, > >I just had a thought; IF the Mills/Farrell theory is correct then could a >tokamak like device be used to extract energy from H ? >Is a plasma of hydrogen atomic hydrogen needed to react with K ions? >Vince >Las Vegas Nevada > An excellent idea! Even if Mills/Farrell are wrong, this approach should work! Ed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 05:59:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 05:54:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"KxW_23.0.f64.O65zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9915 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:09 PM 8/15/97 +0000, Ed Strojny wrote: >At 04:05 AM 8/15/97 -0400, Vince wrote: >>V's, >> >>I just had a thought; IF the Mills/Farrell theory is correct then could a >>tokamak like device be used to extract energy from H ? >>Is a plasma of hydrogen atomic hydrogen needed to react with K ions? > >>Vince >>Las Vegas Nevada >> >An excellent idea! Even if Mills/Farrell are wrong, this approach should work! >Ed > Ed, why not just substitute hydrogen for argon in fluorescent light bulbs? > Add a bit of potassium, too? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 05:57:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 05:53:44 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:53:06 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"kM4_62.0.237.M55zp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9916 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:52 PM 8/15/97 +0000, Peter wrote: >On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:39:41 -0700, >Frederick wrote re. an Aspden device: > >> The use of aluminum especially in "very thin films" in contact >> with a Polyvinyl Chloride or Fluoride or for that matter,Paper >> C6(H2O)5 over a flame, :-) is asking for trouble. >> >> Aluminum wants to form the superficial hydroxide, Al(OH)3 which >> will react with the PVDF or the residual polymerization catalysts >> (Oxygen and Peroxides)plus the Hydrogen Fluoride in the PVDF >> especially at the surface, or the H2O in paper. Most likely it will >> run the motor without the ice-cube and oscillator. > >It wouldn't do all these bad things, because: > >a) the superficial aluminum OXIDE is fairly inert; > >b) PVC contains only ppb's of rezidual initiator..the usual >peroxidicarbonates are decomposed during monomer removal and drying >stages; (I have worked 25 years with this stuff, made my PhD re. >PVC morphology and I am very pleased and nostalgic..good old days! >when I read about it; thanks Frederick!) > >c) PVDF is thermally stable and emanates HF only in the last stages >of thermal destruction; > >d) water from paper wouldn't react with Al2O3. > >A few tens of molecular layers of aluminum oxide (if present) cannot >develop measurable energy. > >Otherwise, everything is OK :-) > >Peter You made my day, Peter. :-) One less "Artifact" to contend with. Regards, Frederick >-- >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 > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 10:54:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:44:24 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field Resent-Message-ID: <"q9SZh1.0.F27.UQ9zp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9924 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:54 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote: >Energy has weight. Magnetic fields contain energy so they have weight. > >The weight is very little. > >The mass energy of the universe is a constant. > >The weight of the universe is a constant. > >Energy energy in all of its forms has weight. > >Frank Z > > IMHO, not weight. Energy has mass. 1/2 mu * H*H = energy = m * c^2 Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 05:20:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 05:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:52:19 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: vortex -l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 80% efficient thermopile??? Resent-Message-ID: <"rxP-T2.0.bD3.iO4zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9913 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:39:41 -0700, Frederick wrote re. an Aspden device: > The use of aluminum especially in "very thin films" in contact > with a Polyvinyl Chloride or Fluoride or for that matter,Paper > C6(H2O)5 over a flame, :-) is asking for trouble. > > Aluminum wants to form the superficial hydroxide, Al(OH)3 which > will react with the PVDF or the residual polymerization catalysts > (Oxygen and Peroxides)plus the Hydrogen Fluoride in the PVDF > especially at the surface, or the H2O in paper. Most likely it will > run the motor without the ice-cube and oscillator. It wouldn't do all these bad things, because: a) the superficial aluminum OXIDE is fairly inert; b) PVC contains only ppb's of rezidual initiator..the usual peroxidicarbonates are decomposed during monomer removal and drying stages; (I have worked 25 years with this stuff, made my PhD re. PVC morphology and I am very pleased and nostalgic..good old days! when I read about it; thanks Frederick!) c) PVDF is thermally stable and emanates HF only in the last stages of thermal destruction; d) water from paper wouldn't react with Al2O3. A few tens of molecular layers of aluminum oxide (if present) cannot develop measurable energy. Otherwise, everything is OK :-) 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 07:13:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:11:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Magnesium-Water Fires Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:09:47 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"b5Pil.0.NE7.TE6zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9918 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: Recent thoughts that Magnesium might do better than Potassium in the CF related effects (especially with the exploding pickles which contain Magnesium in the Chlorophyll) pose the question of Magnesium burning in water; Mg + H2O = MgO + 2 H. Might the "hydrino" be formed in this vigorous reaction, be it according to Mills' theory or the photon-Light Lepton pair production-hydrino (L-PP or L-Paso?) :-) theory? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 06:35:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:39:04 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu, drom vxcern.cern.ch Subject: [Fwd: Mark Hugo re: "Make/Buy" CG-type LENT cell?] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Au3U9.0.416.Oe5zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9917 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pahrump.com (root pahrump.com [205.226.146.4]) by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA24725 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rbrtbass.pahrump.com (user05.pahrump.com [205.226.146.105]) by pahrump.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08995; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:40:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199708150540.WAA08995 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Stan Gleeson" , "Bennett Miller" , "Philip Stone" , "Martha Krebs" , "Thomas N. Claytor" , "Leaf Turner" , "Siegfried Hecker" , "Raymond J. Juzaitis" , "Richard C. Slansky" , "Don A. Baker" , "Warren F. Miller" , "Peter D. Barnes" , "Ronald McFee" , "Wayne Green" , "Hal Fox" , "Chris Tinsley" <100433.1541 compuserve.com>, "Jed Rothwell" <72240.1256 compuserve.com>, "Eugene F. Mallove" <76570.2270 compuserve.com>, "Mitchell Swartz" , "George Miley" , "Yeong Kim" , "Edmund Storms" , "Paul Evans" , "Jan Kucherov" <76002.1473 compuserve.com>, "Fred Jaeger" , "John S. Vetrano" , "Eric Wyse" , "Ronald Brodzinski" Cc: "Scott Chubb" , "Nicholas Palmer" <70374.3025 compuserve.com>, "John Bockris" , "Gordon Brightsen" , "Bill Ward" , "Charles McNeill" , "Douglas Morrison" , "David A. Scott" , "Ed Wall" , "Grant Hudlow" , "Gary Steckly" , "Horace Heffner" , "Joseph N. Ignat" , "James Bowery" , "James A. Carr" , "James Powell" , "C. D. Johnson" , "Steven E. Jones" , "Elliott Kennel" , "Kerry S. Lane" , "Kirk Shanahan" , "Scott Little" , "Larry Vardiman" , "Tom Van Flandern" , "Mike McKubre" , "Martin Kendig" , "Dave Nagel" , "James T. Lo" , "Peter Glueck" , "Paul Koloc" , "Hal Puthoff" , "Mike Windell" , "Robert D. Eagleton" , "Robert Huggins" , "Rich Murray" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Robert M. Wood" , "Steve Okerlund" , "Tim Mitchell" Subject: Mark Hugo re: "Make/Buy" CG-type LENT cell? Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:37:24 -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 Next Tuesday, at the latest, all of the details of the Cincinnati Group (CG) Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation (LENT) cell, called LENT-1, will be printed in Gene Mallove's magazine "Infinite Energy", and LENT^[tm]-1 Kits will be offered for sale. Mark Hugo has sent me a valuable soliloquoy on the eternal question facing experimenters: "make or buy"? R.W.Bass ---------------------------------------------------- Hello again Bob Bass! I've got my U and Thorium at the U. of MN, waiting for me to pick it up. Then I'm sitting here debating the best way to go about things. Do you mind if I vent? The overall cost of this effort, for an institution, or an organized group is a "passing gas in the wind". For me, I see that it may cost me $10K in the next year, something I'm not happy about. HOWEVER, it is sooooooo important. Now I talked to Stan Gleason yesterday, and gave him several Emails of graphics of pages from texts on Stainless Steel, Teflon, and Zirconium. My references show NO Ti or Cu in Teflon, Zirconium or SS (304). Then Stan did (verbally, to me) indicate that they have digested the Zirc. and the SS and done complete ICP/Mass spec. That sounds like "case closed" to me. But (AS YOU HAVE WARNED) Stan did discuss "changes" to the basic cell geometry which made results (effectiveness) drop dramatically. So we agreed that a hasty run off and make some feeble attempt to duplicate, with a variety of subtly changed parameters may not work at all. I want to sound this warning now! It may be worthwhile to make it clear that UNTIL ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROCESS ARE UNDERSTOOD, sticking to the 1.5 inch Zirc tube, 60 PSI, 250 degrees F., 100VAC, 1 Amp, 1 gram Thorium per 25 ml H2O, 1 ml HCL, horizontal cell protocol might be imperative. I thought it was revealing that Stan and group had figured out that the horizontal geometry and .125" clearance zirc disk to cylinder generates a tremendous convection/flow in the cell. Which seems connected in a big way to successful results. Thus I am wondering if I should "hold off" until I can get the kit..... I'm also thinking that eventually the Teflon, despite our knowing it's chemical innert nature, needs to be vaporized, the vapours Atomic Absorbed, or ICP/Mass spec, and the residual (if any) digested, analysed for chem content, scint. counted, etc. To finish the "mass balance" on the cell(s). This is going to be an incredibly interesting study in human nature. Rigid thinking versus creativity, openess versus closed minds. "Dinasour brains" as an associate of mine on this end says! (Funny how "quasi-retired guys" like yourself have more freedom and flexibility than those tied in at formal institutions, doing "real" research.... tells us something doesn't it?) A certain "contact" at a certain "formal institution" has told me that the beaurcracy around him would make it take 3 to 4 months to just SET UP for the first experiment, GIVEN the device in hand! (think of M&M's)..... I think I can beat that. PS, do you know why you can get U and Thorium without NRC interference? No, it isn't all connected with their activity level....! Mark H. -------------------------------------------- From: Robert Bass Subject: NDA & Replication of the CG experiment Date: Friday, August 08, 1997 1:48PM Hal Puthoff Scott Little EarthTech Int'l [signed DNA] cc: Peter Glueck [also NDA'd] cc: Mike McKubre [to DNA] cc: Mark Hugo [to DNA] cc: Steven E. Jones [did exp't] cc: Eric Wyse, Ron Brodzinski [did exp't at PNNL] Hal & Scott, I am glad that Gene is going to give EarthTech a "head start" on replication of the CG miracle, but I as a fumble-fingered NON- experimentalist want to give you my two-cent's worth of advice. The blueprints that Gene will give you an advance peek at are to scale and correct; however, you will have to use a drafting instrument and _measure_ everything yourself and have it built and machined to an accuracy of better than 5 thousands of a inch, or it won't fit together! I watched them assemble one, and even if it has been machined perfectly it takes two _pairs_ of hands (4 hands) about 30 minutes to either assemble or disassemble it. I also drafted an "enabling disclosure" for their patent fil ing, so I know intellectually (if not literally "hands-on") what is in that cell and what apparently makes it work [including some very fine spacings between two electrodes that may not be obvious from the blueprints]. Incidentally, the blueprints give the false impression that the cylinder is vertical; however, it doesn't work unless it is horizontal; it is probably electro-hydrodynamical &/or electro-magneto-hydro- dynamical as well as electro-chemical! Also, in my opinion, it is a dangerous device which could blow up (I saw steam leaking from one which had been inadequately screwed together sufficiently tight) and shower you with shrapnel UNLESS the rubber-O-rings fail first. I would rather trust my l ife to a design that has been built and tested many times than to make some false assumptions in building it [the non-conducting aspects of the gaskets and the mechanical strength of the O-rings versus mechanical strength of the steel end-plates & bolts are _critical_ to safe ty] and then find out (after blowing up my lab) that I had made an erroneous assumption somewhere. I do not in my heart believe that Gene is going to print the kind of "enabling disclosure for amateurs" that I would like to see; I have tried in vain to g et them to put in the tiniest details like the minute measurements in 1/32 of an inch in the blueprints and what is insulated from what and what is conductively in contact with what, but they consider these details "obvious" to Mr. PHOSITA. What they are publishing is OK _LEGALLY_ an "enabling disclosure" in that it would enable the hypothetical Mr. PHOSITA (Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art) to "make & use _without_ UNDUE experimentation" according to Intellectual Property Law, but th e PTO is willing to assume that Mr. Phosita has a $1 Billion bankroll, and a literal Army of "routineer" assistants, and "undue" experimentation might mean as much work as building the Great Pyramid. Even though I regard the disclosure as Legally "Enabling" I have serious doubts about whether or not it is Morally "Enabling" to neophytes (anyone who has not had as much experience with this type of technology as the CG in past 3 years). Obviously, if you re-design it and machine your own, the value of your independent replication will be scientifically greater, but as a non-experimentalist I predict that you will get mired-down in R&D that could be avoided by simply _buying_ a KIT from the CG. If you and Scott value your _time_ then it may be cheaper to just _buy_ one from the CG; they have ordered enough [deleted] [deleted], etc. to manufacture many duplicates in serial order, and if you place the second order (I believe that the U of Colorad o already has in a verbal order, and Mark Hugo & Dr. Oriani at U of MN are talking excitedly about same) you may still beat the crowd. Best personal regards, Bob ------------------------------------------------------- forwarded by: Dr. Robert W. Bass P.O.Box 1238, Pahrump, NV 89041-1238; phone/FAX (702) 751-0932/0739 Voice-Mail: (702) 387-7213 e-Mail: rbrtbass pahrump.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 08:03:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:56:16 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:54:29 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field Resent-Message-ID: <"S7QOf3.0.Ly.Cu6zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9920 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Energy has weight. Magnetic fields contain energy so they have weight. The weight is very little. The mass energy of the universe is a constant. The weight of the universe is a constant. Energy energy in all of its forms has weight. Frank Z X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 12:27:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:17:25 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:16:42 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field Resent-Message-ID: <"FO5Ki.0.Wk2.4jAzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9930 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell, Can this mass be affected by a gravitional field? If so won't it have weight? What is IMHO ? Thanks, Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 12:57:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:52:43 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:58:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hot Rod Calorimetry? Resent-Message-ID: <"tguHr1.0.FS4.AEBzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9931 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >In "The Good Old Days" before rechargeable electric drills, my father >would use a red-hot stove poker to "drill" a hole in wood. > >Wood is known to "exotherm" at around 495 F. Is all of the heat from >the chemical exotherm, or is part of it from "hydrino" reaction? > >Is it really such a great idea to throw water on a fire, or hot ashes >with all that Potassium in them? > >A simple calorimetry experiment based on the Leidenfrost Point and >Film Boiling of an electrically heated "cartridge" would be to measure >the electrical watts into the cartridge vs the temperaure rise of >the water in a well-insulated container. > >Perhaps a little Potassium "salt" dissolved in the water as a catalyst? > >Regards, Frederick Hi Fred, I was camping last week-end, and was/DID keep(ing) a Fire going in the RAIN (an all nighter too). It was obvious to me that 'fanning' the surface of the fire helped, but the real 'Fire' was at the very core of my wood-pile of burning coals. 5 Hours later / the 'unchanged shapes' of the initial twigs I started it with (albeit coal ash) were still visable and could be softly blown on to replenish it to flame for a wet breakfast. ----- Reminded me of a Cole-man lantern mantle bag. Once lit, it turns to ash! you can't touch it -else it will break/shatter- but even though it's ash can hold the "combustion area" necessary for lighting it. ----- Surface -vs- Core: I wanted surface Fire (Flame) : 'It' wants core Fire (exothermic survival) I wonder'd if the CETI Cells weren't going after the "SURFACE" fire and maybe should be going after the "CORE" instead? Thoughts?? -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 13:49:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:47:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:44:30 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"zl94r3.0.cC6.Z1Czp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9932 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:53 PM 8/15/97 +0000, Frederick wrote: >At 12:09 PM 8/15/97 +0000, Ed Strojny wrote: >>At 04:05 AM 8/15/97 -0400, Vince wrote: >>>V's, >>> >>>I just had a thought; IF the Mills/Farrell theory is correct then could a >>>tokamak like device be used to extract energy from H ? >>>Is a plasma of hydrogen atomic hydrogen needed to react with K ions? >> >>>Vince >>>Las Vegas Nevada >>> >>An excellent idea! Even if Mills/Farrell are wrong, this approach should work! >>Ed >> >Ed, why not just substitute hydrogen for argon in fluorescent light bulbs? >> >Add a bit of potassium, too? :-) > >Regards, Frederick > Potassium metal melts at 63.5 deg C and boils at 760 deg C at 1 atm. If it were not so reactive I would be putting K into my reactor. With good control metallic K may be the way to go. Ed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 13:53:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:50:17 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Streaming Potential and Triboluminescence? Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:49:37 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"PRpSe.0.DF7.84Czp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9933 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: When a liquid-solid interface is in shear as in the Griggs Pump or liquid flow through a porous plug (or the liquid flow in the CETI Cell) there should be low energy photons generated,ie., triboluminescence. This falls under "Electrokinetic Phenomena" or Streaming Potential. Might it be possible to "see" this luminescence with suitable Infrared or Near Infrared viewing equipment looking at high pressure -high velocity constricted flow in quartz or glass tubing? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 14:35:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:28:31 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:24:52 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: John Schn urer , vortex Subject: Zippooo ... and not the cigar lighter!? (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"TfeJp.0.J81.-dCzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9935 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Quick non question.... and thanks. Q: I am looking to have a function in NT that will return a linked list of open handles on a volume. Any leads? Much thanks. JHS X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 14:39:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Hot Rod Calorimetry? Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 21:27:18 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"4brnD3.0.6g.aeCzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9934 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:58 PM 8/15/97 +0000, Steve wrote: >Hi Fred, > > I was camping last week-end, and was/DID keep(ing) a Fire going in the >RAIN (an all nighter too). Sounds miserable, reminds me of a fishing trip where three grown men spent (an all nighter) under a pickup truck. :-) Two of us being of medium build managed as well as could be expected in spite of a skunk that dropped by to check us out. The other guy was a big burly fellow that had to scrape out a hole so he get get under the truck. He spent the night imbibing on a bottle of Fire-Water. After a good (but wet) breakfast got in a bit of trout fishing until the "imbiber" slipped and fell on some boulders and broke three ribs. I ain't been fishing since. >Reminded me of a Cole-man lantern mantle bag. Once lit, it turns to ash! >you can't touch it -else it will break/shatter- but even though it's ash >can hold the "combustion area" necessary for lighting it. Those are Thoria aren't they? :-) > >I wanted surface Fire (Flame) : 'It' wants core Fire (exothermic survival) >I wonder'd if the CETI Cells weren't going after the "SURFACE" fire and >maybe should be going after the "CORE" instead? > >Thoughts?? > On the farm in Pennsylvania when I was a kid we kept work horses for when the weather was too wet for tractors. It was not unusual for the piles of horse manure to catch fire on their own and incinerate the thermophilic bacteria that got things going. :- ) Toasted the fishing worms in there too. :-) Regards, Frederick > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 14:40:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:35:39 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward To: vortex- l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 Resent-Message-ID: <"lDGsT2.0.E-.slCzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9936 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi. Thanks for the info. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 19:20:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:20:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:13:50 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field References: <970815151435_-867960613@emout14.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"04xq63.0.va3.LvGzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9942 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 06:55 PM 8/15/97 -0500, John wrote: >Butch wrote: >> Can this mass be affected by a gravitional field? If so won't it have weight? > >Weight varies with distance from the gravitation source and the mass of >the gravitational source, whereas mass of the object is constant -- therefore >mass is a different concept, since if you are a 1000 light years from >anywhere, you will have very little weight, but your mass will still be >the same. > >Most people use the terms interchangebly, so we all know what you are saying. >But there is a technical difference between them. > >> What is IMHO ? > >"In My Humble Opinion." > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - > > They are not interchangeable. Weight is a force. Mass is that property of an object that determines what it will do when acted upon by a force. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 17:04:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:57:08 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:55:37 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"tqSFR2.0.yl5.HpEzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9937 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Butch wrote: > Can this mass be affected by a gravitional field? If so won't it have weight? Weight varies with distance from the gravitation source and the mass of the gravitational source, whereas mass of the object is constant -- therefore mass is a different concept, since if you are a 1000 light years from anywhere, you will have very little weight, but your mass will still be the same. Most people use the terms interchangebly, so we all know what you are saying. But there is a technical difference between them. > What is IMHO ? "In My Humble Opinion." -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 17:56:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:53:21 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:51:24 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"Fbivg.0.zo.zdFzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9939 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 97-08-15 11:07:14 EDT, you write: >From: mikec snip.net (Mike Carrell) > VCockeram asked if a Tokomak structure could be used in the Mills BLP > reaction mode, as H could be confined in the toroidal field. > The answer is no, following Mills' theory. Tokomaks operate on plasmas.... OK, thanks. Thats why I asked if the plasma could be made up of "hydorgen atoms" (atomic hydrogen) >The model for the BLP gas-phase reactor is a cloud of mixed hydrogen >*atoms* and potassium carbonate *atoms* ..... Mike, I believe potassium carbonate is used in the BLP electrolytic cell, not the gas phase reactor..(gas phase uses potassium nitrate KNO3?) >The notion of magnetic confinement in the fashion of a Tokomak it not >bad, >as a way of enhancing the reaction, but the Tokomak ..... > Mike Carrell I was thinking about the state of hydrogen in the solar corona where, according the the Mills theory, this catalytic reaction is what causes the corona temperature to be about TWICE the solar surface temperature. (Gee, that would be nice if I could stand six feet away from a potbelly stove and be twice as warm as the stove surface temperature.....save a lot of fuel that way :) .....(also burn down a lot of houses!!) Anyway, thanks for all the responses for a thought on a night when I couldent get to sleep. Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 19:14:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:07:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:07:42 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"Pkakj3.0.L86.ojGzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9940 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > I was thinking about the state of hydrogen in the solar corona where, >according the the Mills theory, this catalytic reaction is what causes the >corona temperature to be about TWICE the solar surface temperature. The corona ranges in temp from about 6 M to about 100M degrees vs about 6k degrees for the surface of the photosphere. So the ratio is more like a thousand x and not 2x. But the reason is because aether is pouring out of the sun, and not because of hydrinos. The drop in aether pressure as the fluid of our ocean of a universe pours out of the fluidized bed of particles leads to a sudden expansion of the aether. That expa nsion leads to an acceleration in the flow velocity, and there is a corresponding highly curved region of spacetime in the 100 km thick coronal transition region. It is accross that boundary that the ions are accelerated. And SOHO has observed that the ions appear to be accelerated in an inertial manner, as one would expect if it is the stuff of the ocean we call a universe that is inducing the heating. ie, O and H ions are at the same velocity dispersion, yet their MW ar e very much different leading to it not being very easy to conjure up an EM heating mechanism since you need a different frequency of energy for each ion involved. And O and H are not the only two ions that appear to have similar velocity dispersions. The result is so surprising that the SOHO researchers allocated a bunch more time to study the spectral line widths of a larger variety of ions using a different spectrometer. Initial results were that the same pattern was found, but I have not read a pu blished article about this and don't think one is out yet. If anyone has seen an article, let me know. The original articles, last year, only studied O and H whereas the new studies would have been published this spring or after. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 15:36:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 15:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:25:45 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field Resent-Message-ID: <"ENsnv.0.Gu5.tfYzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9964 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank - > Energy has weight. Magnetic fields contain > energy so they have weight. I thought from following discussions here that magnetism was actually a lower energy state that non-magnetism. By that logic, shouldn't magnetic things (with their fields) have very slightly less mass than non-magnetized material? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 15:36:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 15:33:27 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:31:19 -1000 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT Mk2 Beta 4 "Rollaway" verification Resent-Message-ID: <"EHK0N.0.dy1.sgYzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9966 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike - > What more do you want? There is clearly an > anomaly. Answering the remaining questions is > an exercise to be left to the students. The only > issue is if somehow the energy of the > neodymium magnet is somehow dissipated -- > and all experience with motors with permanent > magnet rotors says it is not. I don't think the question is exclusively one of the magnet being dissipated, but is also one of the ball becoming magnetized. The latter is probably much easier to test for, too. I dont think as yet that there is "clearly' an anomaly. At least it isn't clear to me - do you think I'm being unfair? I've been 'complaining' here, but I don't think that I'm moving any goalposts. I'm just saying I never saw the goal being scored in the first place from my perspective up here in the cheap seats where we rank amateurs hang out. Greg made a claim that rollaways were possible with a design as early as a few versions ago. Some people have apparently verified the claim. But besides my own ina bility to do so, it troubles me that certain other people with some skill in experimentation have not been able to duplicate the feat. My failure doesn't count for much to me, because I doubt my own ability to some extent. So I want to see it, or at least see the skeptics here admitting that it works. Then there's the question of the original call for a closed loop. Evidence from that category has been even less convincing. Greg's reasons may be valid and concern patents and so forth, but neverthless, that's how it is. Until I know differently, I must remain skeptical. Not negative, just skeptical. I *want* to believ e. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 22:19:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:09:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 Resent-Message-ID: <"neSov.0.K31.SPJzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9946 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Hi Jean-Louis, > >I tried it (with significantly different configuration) and see such as >waveform on the scope. > >I had a prebuild bifilar coil of 30mm diameter and 75mm length wounded >0.55 wire. A adapted an other coil as L3. Collector coil was not >important. [snip] Hi Hamdi, Is the collector coil used for scalar to vector translation of the bifilar coil scalar wave? Otherwise how do you get back the scalar wave with the added energy from harmonics(1) for powering a load? How can we power a load in Jean-Louis or in your bifi lar coil circuit? Best Regards, Michael Randall Ref: 1. Energy Geometry and the MRA, by Joel McClain, Extraordinary Science Jan/Mar 1996. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 15 23:29:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:28:22 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 02:26:37 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"DErac3.0.Nw2.3YKzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9948 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 97-08-15 23:29:28 EDT, you write: From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessie) >vin< > > I was thinking about the state of hydrogen in the solar corona where, > >according the the Mills theory, this catalytic reaction is what causes the > >corona temperature to be about TWICE the solar surface temperature. >ross< > The corona ranges in temp from about 6 M to about 100M degrees vs >about 6k > degrees for the surface of the photosphere. So the ratio is more like a > thousand x and not 2x. >> 1000....well I tend to be a little conservative... Ross have you downloaded the data from blacklightpower.com on the solar spectrum and the findings there that point to the extream ultraviolet lines? Interesting stuff. Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 04:46:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:41:13 -0700 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:22:25 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: "R. R. Stiffler" Subject: Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 References: <199708160509.WAA17007@germany.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"PT1zR3.0.Vz4.N7Pzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9951 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I wrote: > > Collector coil was not important. > [snip] > Michael Randall wrote: > Hi Hamdi, > > Is the collector coil used for scalar to vector translation of the > bifilar coil scalar wave? Otherwise how do you get back the scalar > wave with the added energy from harmonics(1) for powering a load? How > can we power a load in Jean-Louis or in your bifilar coil circuit? > I know nothing about the nature of scalar waves. I need to read your referenced article. Is it on the NET? What I am saying is the geometry and inductance range of the collector coil was not "critical" or "important" to obtain the waveforms that observed from my setup. Of course the circuit does not oscillate anyway without this inductance. I am looking to the circuit output with conventional mind until something can not be explain with this context. I know the circuit oscillate in highly unconventional fashion as forcing current flow from collector circuit to base circuit by conducting the base-emitter junction reversely and creating some odd delaying and extreme non-linear effects. Also the bifilar coil capacitive scheme give coil a highly complex structure far from be described as inductance or zero inductance. As I am currently cooperating with R.R. Stiffler on OU research based on his various designs, I accumulated lot of know-how and knowledge and practice about such designs. As Naudin announced the circuit, I immediately recognize it as Stiffler style but i thought as a coincidence this resemblance. Than after communicating with Stiffler and reading the related postings on vortex, I understand that is not a pure coincidence. In this circumstance my situation is not allow to "freely" discuss and share my expe rience on this circuit on this open forum, because I may lead to an unfair competence with Stiffler on this also Stiffler originated design. Even it is not Stiffler originated, its resemblance and similar apparent working principles may cause also an unfa ir usage of the know-how that I had build. Although Stiffler did not see a problem on my open contribution to Naudin's circuit, but this is a critical issue as I stated above. I will not totally resign from this specific discussion, but try to contribute in a symmetrical fashion as vortexians contribute and offers their knowledges. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 02:32:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 02:27:00 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnesium-Water Fires Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:26:49 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970815140945.AAA11147 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"YRg-F3.0.nG2.a9Nzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9949 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:09:47 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >To Vortex: > >Recent thoughts that Magnesium might do better than Potassium in >the CF related effects (especially with the exploding pickles which >contain Magnesium in the Chlorophyll) pose the question of >Magnesium burning in water; Mg + H2O = MgO + 2 H. > >Might the "hydrino" be formed in this vigorous reaction, be it >according to Mills' theory or the photon-Light Lepton pair >production-hydrino (L-PP or L-Paso?) :-) theory? > >Regards, Frederick > If at all, then it would have to be the latter Frederick. The ionisation energies for Mg are all "wrong" (i.e. no combination forms a nice multiple of 27.2 eV). Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 02:32:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 02:28:27 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Cincy Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:27:03 GMT Organization: Improving Resent-Message-ID: <"jBJ103.0.FQ5.uANzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9950 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To those doing LENR with Thorium, I would like to suggest that Pu may make an even better starting product. It has both a lower Debye temp. and a lower melting point. It also goes through a whole series of phase changes before reaching the melting point. This makes it an almost ideal material for this purpose. Tack onto that the fact that it is the one thing that the government would most dearly like to get rid of, and it seems to me that you have a winning combination. The one fly in the ointment is that you can't put too much of it in one place at one time, if you don't want to risk a nuclear explosion. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 05:26:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 05:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:05:44 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"_JZ8I3.0.JM.SjPzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9952 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vince, you may be right about KNO3 instead of KCO3. I know that Mills attributes the corona heat to a kind of chain reaction whereby hydrinos can catalyze both hydrogen atoms and further reduction in the energy states of other hydrinos. This latter mode s eems so pat, so fortuitous, that I'm a bit suspicious. Nature isn't usually so tidy -- but surprises abound. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 08:06:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:59:27 -0700 Date: 16 Aug 97 10:56:51 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: VORTEX Subject: INFINITE ENERGY #13/14 Mailing Resent-Message-ID: <"hT_uj.0.If2.E1Szp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9954 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vortexians, At long last -- the Special 128-page Double Issue of Infinite Energy (#13 & #14) will be back from the Printer this Tuesday. We will mail out the issues ASAP -- most go via bulk mail, but for those of you who have been most vocal about discussing transmut ation, cold fusion, SMOTS, and such, we *may* have enough in the cookie jar to send some via first class -- just to stir up "trouble" on this forum. Of course, the foreign subscribers' issues all go air mail anyway. Let's hear it for the Age of Electro-Alchemy (or Electroalchemy) which is what this is all about. I may have been the first to use that term. I think I mentioned that term to Jed, who then posted it back to me in an e-mail. I know that the term came into my consciousness last Monday at about 2 p.m, after a sleepless night putting the issues to bed and delivering them to the printer. Or did some other person tell me this term earlier? Your wait for #13/14 will have been worth it, I trust. Cheers, Gene Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief Infinite Energy Magazine Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302 Phone: 603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 76570.2270 compuserve.com or editor infinite-energy.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 09:36:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:26:00 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"RNS2X2.0.Oy4._JTzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9956 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 97-08-16 07:22:31 EDT, you write: << From: estrojny freeway.net (Edwin Strojny) .........boils at 760 deg C at 1 atm. If it were not so reactive I would be putting K into my reactor. Ed. >> Ed, Reactivity not a problem if the reactor chamber is kept full of H2 gas at all times, correct? Maintenance problems if the chamber has to be opened though. It would have to be done in an inert gas chamber. Not too big a deal from where I'm thinking. The thing to getting this reaction to really get going where 99 to 100% of the supply gas (H2), will be _completely_ shrunken down to the point where the single electron of the H atom contacts the nucleus. Think about it; NO EXAUST!! The problem here as I see it is a way to reliably produce hydrogen ATOMS from H2 gas, and keep the H in the atomic state long enough to completely react with the K+ and K++ ions. How can we do this ? Reliabilly and ecnomically? I seem to remember reading somewhere in the Blacklight Power web pages (there is so much stuff here) that when the electron contacts the nucleus it releases a photon in the soft X-ray region of the spectrum. Dangerious flying about but no problem in a re actor vessel where steel walls will stop everything except what we want....big time heat!! ****opinion alert on**** If this all works out this is going to truly be the holy grail of energy production. ****opinion alert off**** Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 09:34:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:27:55 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:26:04 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"sY6ki.0.ny4.5KTzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9957 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >In a message dated 97-08-16 08:22:53 EDT, you write: >From: mikec snip.net (Mike Carrell) >I know that Mills attributes the corona heat to a kind of chain reaction >whereby hydrinos can catalyze both hydrogen atoms and further reduction >in the energy states of other hydrinos. << Mike Carrell >> Mike (and all V's), If you havn't already done so I strongly suggest you download the ADOBE READER (tm) freeware from the Adobe website. Links to Adobe can be found at the Blacklightpower.com site. It's a 3.5 meg download and took approx 20 to 30 minutes thru aol. (I can't r emember the time it took exactly but it wasn't too much of a chore). (sit back, think and enjoy a cool one) This will allow you to download and store/print all the data at the BLP site. There are tons of information there but you DO need the Adobe reader to see it. Regards to all, Vince Las Vegas Nevada ***disclaimer*** "I am in no way connected with the Blacklight Power Co." (but I sure wish I was) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 10:04:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:47:08 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:38:58 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com, david@vesicle.ibg.uu.se, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, 72240.1256 compuserve.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, fstenger interlaced.net, 101544.702@compuserve.com, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, zap@dnai.com, reed@zenergy.com, JEFFJ ep.state.az.us, herman@college.antioch.edu, Lentin@imaginet.fr, barry math.ucla.edu, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, jayneg@grove.iup.edu, denislee nji.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, rseese@gpu.com Subject: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"jR35r.0.JO6.AcTzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9958 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ref url Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop 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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 10:05:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:50:41 -0700 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:50:35 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"sRZKC3.0.WW6.WfTzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9959 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >The thing to getting this reaction to really get going where 99 to 100% of >the supply gas (H2), will be _completely_ shrunken down to the point where >the single electron of the H atom contacts the nucleus. > Think about it; NO EXAUST!! > >The problem here as I see it is a way to reliably produce hydrogen ATOMS from >H2 gas, and keep the H in the atomic state long enough to completely react >with the K+ and K++ ions. If the electron falls into a proton, you get a neutron, not nothing. The proton has an energy of 931 MeV as I recall, while the electron is at 0.511 MeV. One is not going to get rid of the other. If you did form a neutron, then that would subsequently decay into a proton and an electron unless it was forced into another nucleus. So you are going to have exhaust of one sort or another even with his hydrinos. Ross X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 11:52:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:43:47 -0700 From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 14:43:11 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"V9m1j1.0.as1.XJVzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9960 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 97-08-16 13:19:50 EDT, you write: From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessie) > If you did form a neutron, then that would subsequently decay into a proton > and an electron unless it was forced into another nucleus. > Ross < Is not a proton and an electron a hydrogen atom? How can this be? Assuming (a BIG assumption here) , the Mills/Farrell theory is correct, which sez the hydrogen atoms go through successive shrinkages ie: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 ----and so on down to the point (I forget how many steps, something like 177 I think) where the electron contacts the nucleus (the proton). Are you saying that after all this shrinkage you end up with the equivelent of what you started with? A neutron which decays to a proton and an electron. Gee, if this is so then you would be able to start the process all over again...but I dunno bout this...seems like something for nothing to me. ie: An H atom----> shrink it all the way down and get a bunch of energy out of it----then end up with a H atom in the end, ready to start over again. Puzzeled (as is usual) Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 12:39:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:33:17 -0700 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:33:12 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"zEFlX3.0.Jc3.y1Wzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9961 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Is not a proton and an electron a hydrogen atom? How can this be? > > Assuming (a BIG assumption here) , the Mills/Farrell theory is correct, >which sez the hydrogen atoms go through successive shrinkages ie: 1/2, 1/3, >1/4, 1/5 ----and so on down to the point (I forget how many steps, something >like 177 I think) where the electron contacts the nucleus (the proton). > >Are you saying that after all this shrinkage you end up with the equivelent >of what you started with? A neutron which decays to a proton and an >electron. If the electron falls into the nucleus, you would have a neutron, and in time that neutron would decay. But Mills is doing something a bit different. The electron can be in more losely bound states if you put energy into the hydrogen atom. And it can (according to Mills) be in more tightly bound states if you take energy out of it. But for the electron to get all the way into the nucleus would requir e an input of a bunch of energy as best I can figure from his theory (which I have not reviewed carefully BTW). Thus, you are sort of pulling energy out of the electron orbit, and by extension from the entire atom since the two things are coupled and the large amount of energy no doubt comes from the nucleus, and not from the electron mass itself. So while the ele ctron may become more tightly bound to the nucleus, this is because it is loosing energy. So for that electron to be able to get into the nucleus, ie proton, would require a large amount of energy to penetrate inward. Ergo, you aren't going to get the electron into the proton to form a neutron in this way. You are going to have to get rid of the hydrinos, and let spacetime turbulence or photon absorption "heat" them back up to normal hydrogen atoms energy levels. But as that is endothermic, you are going to throw them out into space and let the sun and stars do that. hydrinos might make a good referigerant though, ie like quasi nuclear dry ice! Your ice cubes might last for days in a drink :-) Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 17:01:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:58:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 19:53:25 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field References: <970815105223_-420386908@emout12.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"P2f7y.0.ri.TwZzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9969 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com No, the generated magnetic field has more energy. What decreases in energy when a circuit is turned on, is the WHOLE SYSTEM which includes the power source, etc. The power source (and its internal impedance) although often neglected, are impt to such calculations. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) =============================================== At 12:25 PM 8/16/97 -1000, Rick wrote: >Frank - > > > Energy has weight. Magnetic fields contain > > energy so they have weight. > >I thought from following discussions here that magnetism was actually a >lower energy state that non-magnetism. By that logic, shouldn't magnetic >things (with their fields) have very slightly less mass than non-magnetized >material? > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 13:25:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 13:18:32 -0700 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 13:18:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"m3YQM.0.l75.NiWzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9962 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > Ref url > > Breakthrough > Propulsion Physics Workshop > HI Frank, I looked it up. It looks like it was an extremely entertaining conference. I imagine that most Vortexians would have liked to attend! Can anyone (Hal Puthoff?) report on the Gravity Shield work as presented? Cheers, Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 18:10:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 18:09:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 21:06:16 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"zJBX23.0.Vb2.zyazp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9970 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:26 PM 8/16/97 -0400, Vince wrote: >In a message dated 97-08-16 07:22:31 EDT, you write: ><< From: estrojny freeway.net (Edwin Strojny) > > > > .........boils at 760 deg C at 1 atm. If it > were not so reactive I would be putting K into my reactor. > Ed. >> > >Ed, Reactivity not a problem if the reactor chamber is kept full of H2 gas >at all times, correct? Maintenance problems if the chamber has to be opened >though. It would have to be done in an inert gas chamber. Not too big a deal >from where I'm thinking. I don't have a problem with this being done industrially. My problem is that I work in my garage and I don't have the facilities to handle elemental potassium in a manner that would gaurantee that it would still be in an elemental state before I got the hydrogen to it. Lithium I can handle, it is not nearly as reactive as potassium. >The problem here as I see it is a way to reliably produce hydrogen ATOMS from >H2 gas, and keep the H in the atomic state long enough to completely react >with the K+ and K++ ions. >How can we do this ? Reliabilly and ecnomically? My idea along these lines is to have palladium powder present with the potassium. If hydrogen is in the atomic state within palladium and potassium is in contact with the palladium, then shouldn't atomic hydrogen be available for reaction at the right te mperature (whatever that may be)? >****opinion alert on**** >If this all works out this is going to truly be the holy grail of energy >production. >****opinion alert off**** > >Vince >Las Vegas Nevada > Ed Strojny X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 19:26:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 19:16:32 -0700 Reply-To: <@snip.net> From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 21:10:45 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"i83fq2.0.0W.-xbzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9971 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Since I have read Mills BLP Web site materials, and paged through his book, and had a couple of conversations with Mills and Farrell, I will adventure some comments on the current discussion. The usual assumption when viewing some new theory is that it must somehow be like one's own pet theory, so one tries to explain everything else according to one's own idea of how things really are. The BLP reaction is catalytic, the H atom loses energy to a pair of potassium ions which together absorb exactly the right amount of energy to trigger a resonant condition and a drop to a lower energy level of the H atom. In this state it does not radiate and is undetectable by ordinary spectroscopy. The energy acquired by the potassium ions is dissipated as kinetic and radiant energy and can be captured for useful output. Hydrino atoms can form dihydrino molecules, which have been detected by tests poste d on the BLP Web pages. The dihydrino molecules do not participate in chemical reactions and so should be environmentally benign, floating to the upper atomosphere and perhaps being regenerated as H2 by the radiation flux from the sun. Dihydrino molecules also diffuse through metals, which is an engineering problem in building high powered reactors with a high "gain". The energy released by one transition is far greater than that of combustion of the same atoms to water with oxygen. The transitions to the lower quantum states of the hydrogen atom have the same resonant energy value, so further catalysis is possible, an d apparently happens in some of the tests. Tests with the liquid cells have given energy yields from 100 to 1000 times greater than combustion; the variation is presumeably a matter of the efficiency of the repeated catalysis of hydrinos. By Mill's theory, there are a succession of energy states possible, until the hydrino resembles a neutron. I see no evidence that these have been experimentally achieved, nor that such are necessary for the product plans of BLP. Mills' model of the hydrogen atom sees the electron as an orbitsphere capable of modes of existence which can be delimited by Fourier analysis from classical electrodynamics, thus forming a bridge to the rules of quantum mechanics and a theory which he cl aims is mathematically consistent over 45 orders of magnitude. Now the ultimate source of the energy in these various modes can be debated as being ZPF or what have you. Hydrinos can be pumped back to the normal quantum level by irradiation with x-rays, and endothermic process. In the gas phase reactors, getting atomic hydrogen is easy, you just expose H2 to a hot filament, and it breaks apart in to H and H. Mike Carrell ---------- > From: Ross Tessien > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought > Date: Saturday, August 16, 1997 3:33 PM > > > > Is not a proton and an electron a hydrogen atom? How can this be? > > > > Assuming (a BIG assumption here) , the Mills/Farrell theory is correct, > >which sez the hydrogen atoms go through successive shrinkages ie: 1/2, 1/3, > >1/4, 1/5 ----and so on down to the point (I forget how many steps, something > >like 177 I think) where the electron contacts the nucleus (the proton). > > > >Are you saying that after all this shrinkage you end up with the equivelent > >of what you started with? A neutron which decays to a proton and an > >electron. > > > If the electron falls into the nucleus, you would have a neutron, and in > time that neutron would decay. > > But Mills is doing something a bit different. > > The electron can be in more losely bound states if you put energy into the > hydrogen atom. And it can (according to Mills) be in more tightly bound > states if you take energy out of it. But for the electron to get all the > way into the nucleus would require an input of a bunch of energy as best I > can figure from his theory (which I have not reviewed carefully BTW). > > Thus, you are sort of pulling energy out of the electron orbit, and by > extension from the entire atom since the two things are coupled and the > large amount of energy no doubt comes from the nucleus, and not from the > electron mass itself. So while the electron may become more tightly bound > to the nucleus, this is because it is loosing energy. So for that electron > to be able to get into the nucleus, ie proton, would require a large amount > of energy to penetrate inward. > > Ergo, you aren't going to get the electron into the proton to form a neutron > in this way. You are going to have to get rid of the hydrinos, and let > spacetime turbulence or photon absorption "heat" them back up to normal > hydrogen atoms energy levels. > > But as that is endothermic, you are going to throw them out into space and > let the sun and stars do that. > > hydrinos might make a good referigerant though, > ie like quasi nuclear dry ice! Your ice cubes might last for days in > a drink :-) > > Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 21:00:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 21:00:02 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 23:58:17 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"9IhCe1.0.ea5._Sdzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9972 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >In a message dated 97-08-16 20:15:16 EDT, you write: >From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) > But for the electron to get all the way into the nucleus would require an >input of a bunch of energy as best I can figure from his theory (which I have >not reviewed carefully BTW). Well from what I see from the theory, Mills can extract approx. 27.2ev with each step down that the electron takes as it gets closer to the nucleus. Now the electron (negative charge), really would like to snuggle up to the nucleus as the proton has a positive charge....and there are a finite number of inward steps the electron can make as the proton (nucleus) does have a diameter that has been measur ed. (a really small ruler? ). (how did the diameter of get measured?) Being that the proton does have a distinct radius...and with each shrinkage the electron orbital radius is getting smaller and smaller and..... poof! The negativly charged electron comes in contact with the positivly charged nucleus (proton). Do not like charges cancell? I think it would seem so. This is a very open new field here. It's going to take a lot of thinking to get this all sorted out. Ross, download the theory stuff from the BLP site. If you like math, you will love it. (I dont like / have the math but I struggled through enough to get an understanding of what they think is going on). BTW, the theory explains ALL excess heat from ALL electrolytic, D2O, tritium production, neutrons ect. In fact Professor John Farrell posted to S.P.F back in 1991 how the theory explained the P&F excess heat thing up in Utah. I still have the original har dcopy of his posts. Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 21:01:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 21:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:59:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: A Scalar Wave generator, The TEP V2.1 Resent-Message-ID: <"zI-Ye2.0.Jb5.VTdzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9973 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:14 AM 8/17/97 +0400, you wrote: >Michael Randall wrote: > ><...> >> Hi Hamdi, >> >> Can you comment on how to extract ou energy from this type of circuit? >> >> Best Regards, >> Michael Randall > >Extraction of energy in electricity form out of the circuit is extremely >difficult as the whole circuit is an oscillator and probably the build <....> Hi Hamdi, Thank you for your valued comments. I hope to build a unit. This is all new to me but it looks interesting so I'll give it a try. Best Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 16 22:43:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 22:39:28 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 00:40:15 -0500 From: John Logajan Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: good question on magnetic field References: Resent-Message-ID: <"ip7rl1.0.u-5.Ewezp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9974 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Energy has weight. Magnetic fields contain > > energy so they have weight. > > I thought from following discussions here that magnetism was actually a > lower energy state that non-magnetism. By that logic, shouldn't magnetic > things (with their fields) have very slightly less mass than non-magnetized > material? In permanent magnetic material, the external magnetizism depends upon the alignment of domains of the atoms. So the difference between a magnetized hunk and an unmagnetized hunk of the same material is simply the amount of disarray. In this case, since it took energy to throw the material into disarry, the disarry has mass (stored, no doubt, in the conflicting magentic fields.) You don't really demagnetize the atoms, you just jumble their orientation. In an electro-magnet, say a super-conductor in perpetual loop mode, we had to add energy to get the magnetic field up, and it will decay to a non-magnetic field if resistance appears in the circuit and turns the electric energy into thermal energy. -- - 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 - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 06:07:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 06:06:19 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:04:44 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199708161933.MAA08169 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"T0T1p2.0.6x5.8Tlzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9978 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:33:12 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >But as that is endothermic, you are going to throw them out into space and >let the sun and stars do that. Where they get added to the 90% of the universes mass, that is already in the form or hydrinos. [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 06:08:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 06:06:11 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:04:46 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970817021657847.AAA150 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"fOWZs2.0.lw5.0Tlzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9975 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 21:10:45 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: [snip] >The dihydrino molecules do not participate in chemical reactions and so >should be environmentally benign, floating to the upper atomosphere and >perhaps being regenerated as H2 by the radiation flux from the sun. >Dihydrino molecules also diffuse through metals, which is an engineering >problem in building high powered reactors with a high "gain". This appears to have been J.W. Keely's main problem in trying to run an engine on the gasses produced. They penetrated every seal he could come up with. [snip] >Now the ultimate source of the energy in these various modes can be debated >as being ZPF or what have you. Hydrinos can be pumped back to the normal >quantum level by irradiation with x-rays, and endothermic process. Now this I find hard to comprehend. If they are both non radiative and non absorptive in their shrunken state, then they should only be able to absorb x-ray energy during a fortuitous catalytic collision (such as when they were made). The difference is th at it is easy to produce a photon when such a collision takes place (and shrink), but hard to find one that would allow expansion (just when you need it). Consequently this would appear to be statistically speaking, pretty much a one way process (i.e. hydrinos tend to shrink, and never expand again). [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 06:08:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 06:06:31 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:04:47 GMT Organization: Improving References: <970816235816_-968944792 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"d-4zJ3.0.pw5.0Tlzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9976 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 23:58:17 -0400 (EDT), VCockeram aol.com wrote: [snip] >Well from what I see from the theory, Mills can extract approx. 27.2ev with >each step down that the electron takes as it gets closer to the nucleus. No, actually much more. The energy difference between the levels increases with depth. The 27.2 eV refers only to the amount that is absorbed by the resonance. The rest of the difference between the two levels is released as a photon. I think this is why he talks about UV photons. Only I don't understand yet why he *seems* to ignore the resonance energy when calculating the energy of the photon (could just be that I don't understand it well enough yet). >BTW, the theory explains ALL excess heat from ALL electrolytic, D2O, tritium >production, neutrons ect. In fact Professor John Farrell posted to S.P.F back >in 1991 how the theory explained the P&F excess heat thing up in Utah. I >still have the original hardcopy of his posts. It may however have some difficulty explaining LENR. Or at least require that a link with nuclear reactions be explored. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 06:09:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 06:06:43 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:04:48 GMT Organization: Improving References: <970816122601_-1873384627 emout18.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"WOr6_.0.uw5.0Tlzp"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9977 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:26:04 -0400 (EDT), VCockeram aol.com wrote: [snip] >If you havn't already done so I strongly suggest you download the ADOBE >READER (tm) freeware from the Adobe website. Links to Adobe can be found at If you are a win95 user, then it also pays to download the extra fonts from the lanl preprint server. This lets you use Adobe reader to read preprints as well. [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 08:15:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 08:08:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Hydrinos and Epsom Salts? Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 15:06:13 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"jv3tH3.0.dj.FFnzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9979 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: Sandia National Laboratories and the National Renewable Energy Lab NREL, had a parabolic solar concentrator that focused on a quartz "pipe" that contained water and toxic wastes that were being "cleaned up" by photolysis. The thing was something like 500 feet long and the reflector a couple of feet at the "throat". I'm about half tempted to see if they still have it, and might run an aqueous mix of MgSO4 "Epsom Salts" along with enough Sulphuric Acid H2SO4 to get down to a pH of 1 or 2,through it to see if there is any anomalous heat produced, ie.,hydrino production . This setup would also be amenable for checking for hydrino production with aqueous KCl (Potassium Chloride) and HCl (Hydrochloric Acid). If such is the case, the Ocean should be producing hydrinos like gangbusters, and maybe "depleting" the Potassium by transmuting it to Calcium, also. One can always "recycle" the Epsom Salts for the other purpose. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 09:37:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:25:54 -0700 From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:25:19 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"w-YNh2.0.YB4.HOozp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9981 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >In a message dated 97-08-17 07:15:56 EDT, you write: > From: estrojny freeway.net (Edwin Strojny) > My problem is that I work in my garage and I don't have the facilities to >handle elemental potassium in a manner that would gaurantee that it would >still be in an elemental state before I got the hydrogen to it. One way is to build a glove box out of plywood with a plexiglass front. Make the box just big enuf for your needs. Seal it with RTV silicone. Use argon from a welders supply (cheap) to purge all air from the box. Load reactive stuff into reactor chamber in the glove box. Close up the reactor, remove from the box then purge the argon from the sealed reactor chamber with H2. Of course you must observe safety at all times. My father, a chemist always told me to work with the smallest amount of chemicals pos sible when doing ANY experiment. This way if you get something you don't want or expect the damage is minimized...to both you and the garage. I too, work in a garage and am thinking of trying this but I'm waiting on some more info from the BLP website > My idea along these lines is to have palladium powder present with the > potassium. If hydrogen is in the atomic state within palladium and > potassium is in contact with the palladium, then shouldn't atomic hydrogen > be available for reaction at the right temperature (whatever that may be)? > Ed Strojny < Hm... problem I see with that is the palladium outgasses at the high temps (300+C) the reactor runs at it, and will recombine to form H2 gas. A way to produce _big time amounts of atomic H_ in the presence of K+ and K++ ions is what is needed. No need for expensive palladium or other precious metals. What we want is a really cheap, safe way to react H with K at a high temperature. BLP had a problem with the K condensing on the reactor walls when they ran the reactor in a water bath calorimeter. O.K...no problem. Keep the reactor walls hot so the K w on't condense. Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 09:53:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:42:11 -0700 From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:41:37 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"L4tU53.0.4-4.Ydozp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9982 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 97-08-17 09:16:15 EDT, you write: From: rvanspaa eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandon) >Now this I find hard to comprehend. If they are both non radiative and > non absorptive in their shrunken state, then they should only be able > to absorb x-ray energy during a fortuitous catalytic collision (such > as when they were made). The difference is that it is easy to produce > a photon when such a collision takes place (and shrink), but hard to > find one that would allow expansion (just when you need it). > Consequently this would appear to be statistically speaking, pretty > much a one way process (i.e. hydrinos tend to shrink, and never expand > again). > [snip] > Robin van Spaandonk >> Agreed Robin. It would seem that the excess hydrino's from a reaction would need to be in an area of exremely high energy (the sun?) to be pumped back to the ground state Hydrogen. But....why have an excess hydrino's exaust from a reactor? Seems like a waste to me. Lets react ALL the hydrino's all the way down to an X-Ray photon. More energy that way....and no exaust pipe...AND...no emissions for people to complain about!! Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 11:09:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:04:01 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:03:10 -0500 From: "R. R. Stiffler" Reply-To: stiffler@compassnet.com To: Vortex Mail List Subject: New Web Site Resent-Message-ID: <"g6GCj3.0.4z7.Fqpzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9983 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Advanced Technology Group is officially announcing a web site dedicated to Over Unity and other research. Because of conditions beyond our control we have brought you this site ("before its time"). It is being build by the hour. Our first content will cover BiPEG (Bi-Phase Energy Gate) and our work with different bifilar coil designs. We are adding circuits ant text first, this will be followed by charts, graphs and scope pictures. Please be patient and view often to see the latest additions. We have been working behind the sciences so to speak, but not for legal reasons will present some of our work in the quest to obtain over unity. You can view the site at; http://www.compassnet.com/~isworld/atg.htm X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 17:16:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 17:10:50 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 17:53:30 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"dhENG2.0.nu2.8Cvzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9985 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vince said: > But....why have an excess hydrino's exaust from a reactor? Seems like a waste > to me. Lets react ALL the hydrino's all the way down to an X-Ray photon. More > energy that way....and no exaust pipe...AND...no emissions for people to > complain about!! A major problem is reaching high power levels is containment of the hydrinos as they are produced so they can participate in further reactions. If you can fingure out how to keep them around to react further, call Mills. I'm sure he would be happy to know how. BTW, I'm not sure a highly shrunken hydrino becomes an X-Ray photon. My understanding is that it takes X-rays to pump a hydrino back to a normal state, and this is one way of detecting them. I may be mistaken. But get Adobe Acrobat and read the technical papers on the Web site. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 18:12:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 18:06:32 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos and Epsom Salts? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 01:06:20 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970817150611.AAA26652 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"tiVOP3.0.ey4.N0wzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9986 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 15:06:13 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: [snip] >I'm about half tempted to see if they still have it, and might run >an aqueous mix of MgSO4 "Epsom Salts" along with enough Sulphuric >Acid H2SO4 to get down to a pH of 1 or 2,through it to see if there >is any anomalous heat produced, ie.,hydrino production. I already pointed out in a previous post that according to Mills (as I see it), Mg is useless for the production of Hydrinos. > >This setup would also be amenable for checking for hydrino production >with aqueous KCl (Potassium Chloride) and HCl (Hydrochloric Acid). Not sure what the acid is for. (Has a tendency to supply protons, not nascent hydrogen atoms). However, straight potassium metal in water would produce both lots of nascent hydrogen, and lots of K+ at the same time, and in the same location. Perhaps it's worthwhile measuring the heat produced when K reacts with water? [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 21:21:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 21:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Hydrinos and Epsom Salts? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 02:09:54 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"Ywh2V.0.2Y3.Pnyzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9988 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:06 AM 8/18/97 +0000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >I already pointed out in a previous post that according to Mills (as I >see it), Mg is useless for the production of Hydrinos. > After watching a quarter-century of "expert" opinion in biomass conversion kinetics getting shot down by an experiment, I'll opt for the experiment. :-) Check out; www.sandia.gov search; "Detoxification" AND "Solar" and www.nrel.gov I worked with George Samara in the early 60's. He's getting older, too. > >Not sure what the acid is for. (Has a tendency to supply protons, not >nascent hydrogen atoms). If check your advanced chemistry I think that you will find that the "protons" cycle between a charged and "nascent" state with a lifetime of around 1.0E-13 seconds. So why not use an acid? > However, straight potassium metal in water >would produce both lots of nascent hydrogen, and lots of K+ at the >same time, and in the same location. Straight potassium in water goes 2 K + 2 H2O ----> 2 KOH + 2 H which can be VERY EXPLOSIVE if there is any Oxygen around. I used high purity potassium in heat pipes in large quantities. Anhydrous ammonia can be used to dissolve it out of the Nickel pipes-wicks. Safest way that I found to dispose of potassium metal was to cover it with DRY Sand in a metal barrel and have the Fire Department pour in water from a hose from behind a blast shield twenty feet back. :-) Perhaps it's worthwhile measuring >the heat produced when K reacts with water? Sure, if you are in good standing with your local Fire Dept. :-) Regards, Frederick >[snip] >Robin van Spaandonk >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on >temperature. >"....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." >PS - no SPAM thanks! >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 20:29:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:23:04 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: question on mass Resent-Message-ID: <"45QnQ3.0.cI2.-4yzp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9987 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com a] If you have pendulum and measure its period ..... b] the weight is a black box c] then energize the 'black box' on the end of the pendulum ... ..and ... d] the pendulum period changes .... THEN: e] what have we changed .... mass, inertial effect, gravity??? J On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, John Logajan wrote: > Butch wrote: > > Can this mass be affected by a gravitional field? If so won't it have weight? > > Weight varies with distance from the gravitation source and the mass of > the gravitational source, whereas mass of the object is constant -- therefore > mass is a different concept, since if you are a 1000 light years from > anywhere, you will have very little weight, but your mass will still be > the same. > > Most people use the terms interchangebly, so we all know what you are saying. > But there is a technical difference between them. > > > What is IMHO ? > > "In My Humble Opinion." > > -- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 22:18:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:15:36 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: Pro gress Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:14:19 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"rrJVG2.0.895.tfzzp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9990 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id WAA23817 This is not a technical note, only a general statement. I have been on the firing line for some time regarding claims in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation. During the past couple of years we have seen CETI sell kits originally designed for heat, then changed to transmutation. Now we see Cincy attempting to sell kits to deactivate a single radioactive isotope. In light of the tests which were completed this past week, we have decided to step into a new realm and license corporations technology which allows for the commercial production of precious metals. It took years to get to the point of "total repeatabili ty" and now we feel confident with our progress and position. We will continue to work with Barry, Scott and a select few in isolating the theoretical mechanics. As far as the reality of transmutation, it is obvious to me that there is merit to the claims made by observers such as Cincy and others. But if they were in control of a commercial process or even a repeatable experiment, one doesn't have to sell the kits, just sell (or license) the technology. Third party peer review is phenomenal in research. In the commercial world corporations are only interested in "proof by demonstration" not the theory behind such. Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 22:19:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:15:12 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:27:04 -0700 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc1.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: INFINITE ENERGY #13/14 Mailing References: <970816145651_76570.2270_FHU50-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"uHX851.0.f75.Tfzzp"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9989 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gene -- You wrote: > We will mail out the > issues ASAP -- most go via bulk mail, but for those of you who have been > most vocal about discussing transmutation, cold fusion, SMOTS, and such, > we *may* have enough in the cookie jar to send some via first class -- > just to stir up "trouble" on this forum. I will be glad to add to the kitty to allow you to send mine First Class. Please let me know how much I would need to send to upgrade this (and possibly all future issues) to First Class. (By the way, in response to a previous message from you, the pictures of my Infinite Energy license plate frame are still in the camera. After I develop them, I will send you one.) -- Bob Horst X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 22:52:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:49:42 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 01:47:56 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Resent-Message-ID: <"W6lyD.0.fz5.q9-zp" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9991 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >In a message dated 97-08-17 20:42:52 EDT, you write: > From: mikec snip.net (Mike Carrell) > containment of the hydrinos <> Mike, do the hydrinos diffuse through a reactor wall so fast that they are lost? I do know that BLP's test reactor (gas phase) does have holes in it to allow EUV spectrometer readings, and yes, thats an escape point for any loose hydrino's, but a steel wall with no openings? > BTW, I'm not sure a highly shrunken hydrino becomes an X-Ray photon. I will look through the papers and see if I can provide a reference....don't hold your breath, it may have been something I read on this forum. >Mike Carrell Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 17 23:17:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:14:56 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:14:31 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: question on mass Resent-Message-ID: <"RDPjX2.0.uf6.UX-zp" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9992 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >a] If you have pendulum and measure its period ..... b] the weight is a >black box c] then energize the 'black box' on the end of the pendulum ... >..and ... >d] the pendulum period changes .... > > THEN: > >e] what have we changed .... mass, inertial effect, gravity??? > J The universe is filled with acoustic energy in aether. Particles are convergent resonances of acoustic energy in aether not unlike the oscillation of a sonoluminescent bubble. "Energy" is "aether in motion" in one form or another, and it interferes with the transport of wave energy through a given region of the universe. Thus, the atoms in your box and making up your box are regions in and of the ocean of aether we call a universe, buzzing in specific manners. When you fill your box with more "energy", you are inducing additional and or more intense motions of the waves local to the box. Thus, those waves will interfere with wave energy coming from the distant universe to a greater extent. That increase in interference will lead to a greater thrust away from the rest of the universe (ie away from up, or, down). And because those motions are phase and frequency coupled to local spacetime, and because the earth and its matter is too, you wil l *not* be increasing the interference with wave energy headed upward after having been filtered by the earth. Therefore, the thrust imposed on your box with more energy in it results in a net downward amplification. But gravitation is a thrust downward toward the earth, your local filter of messy deep space wave energy. The earth is not pulling you down. That is what is happening in your box. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 17:42:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Hydrinos Tokamak's thought Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:39:52 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"DIWt61.0.AR2.ZjE-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10009 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vince, even hydrogen atoms will leak though many metals, and hydrinos are smaller. Farrell told me that stainless steel is highly permeable to hydrinos. He mentioned that BLP was procuring a reactior vessel of molybdenum for a high power prototype. Suppos edly it can withstand temperatures above 1000 C can have minimal permeability to hydrinos. Note that one of the tests for hydrinos involves a hollow nickel cathode in an aqueous reactor. The cathode is evacuated and coupled to a mass spectrometer. The hyridos have to penetrate the nickel to get measured. The reason for the hole in the EUV test is that there is no physical window which is transparent at the wavelength of interest. Since the vapor phase reaction takes place at reduced pressure, and the spectrophotometer has to be protected from the vapors, the only way forward is a pinhole apertu re to look through and an intermediate chamber which is continuosly pumped. Not an easy experiment. I had questioned Farrell why there is a report of 100 to 1000 times combustion for energy yields, and he said that was what was observed in several runs. Presumeably the variation is in the percent of multiple shrinkages obtained, for reasons which may be unclear. I speculated that while others could esily set a reactor up once they become convinced the process is real, and patents will run out, operation at consistently higher process yields would require design and application know-how. BLP could mainta in a lead with its head start, and thus continue to realize license revenue over an extended period of time. Farrell confirmed that this is the perspective that BLP sees. I'm mildy irritated at the current discussion on vortex by people who haven't taken the trouble to read the Mills material and chatter on about things they think are like Mills' work. There is always the possibility that there are many paths up the mounta in. Regards, Mike X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 12:12:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:53:13 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:49:16 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"m58Sj1.0.kO6.Ne9-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9997 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John: 1. div H = 0 2. Whether a paramagnetic, ferritic, ferromagnetic, or antiferromagnetic material, I think the force you are refering to is magnetophoresis and results from force magnetic = d/dx (magnetic coenergy) and the coenergy is like ~1/2 * mu * H * H also, it is easier to calculate from the Maxwell Stress Tensor, and is similar to the dielectrophoretic force that makes water enter a vertical plate capacitor when the field is of high enough electric field intensity and the freq above the dielectric relaxation time. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) ======================================== At 01:00 PM 8/18/97 -0500, you wrote: >Couple of questions for the magnet folks: > >1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. > >2) Is there a specific name for the attraction on a ferrite that is in >proximity to two like poles? > > > >-- >John E. Steck >Prototype Tooling >Motorola Inc. > >"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" > -- Willie Wonka > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 11:40:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:31:28 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:00:20 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"SaHBv3.0.Zc4.-J9-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9995 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Couple of questions for the magnet folks: 1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. 2) Is there a specific name for the attraction on a ferrite that is in proximity to two like poles? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -- Willie Wonka X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 11:43:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:37:50 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Old McDonald? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:36:24 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"OmCPL2.0.JB5.yP9-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9996 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: With school starting and a lot of K-12 vocalists wanting to emote. Anyone for a chorus of the 90's version of "Old McDonald had a Farm"? Is Gene singing, EI, IE , O..u, with a quack-quack here, and a quack-crack there EI, IE, O..u? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 13:27:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:22:17 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:19:24 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re:Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"idKkn.0.wP5.sxA-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10003 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thanks for the replys, (even the silly one). Found an interesting paper that may be of interest to other xMOD questers: -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -- Willie Wonka X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 13:28:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:21:56 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:21:16 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"30vaP3.0.QO5.ZxA-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10002 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com For those interested, here is a copy of the paper I presented at the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics conference at Lewis Research Center last week. Hal Puthoff Can the Vacuum be Engineered for Spaceflight Applications? Overview of Theory and Experiments H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin 4030 W. Braker Lane, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78759-5329 Voice (512) 346-9947, Fax (512) 346-3017, E-mail: puthoff aol.com ABSTRACT Quantum theory predicts, and experiments verify, that empty space (the vacuum) contains an enormous residual background energy known as zero-point energy (ZPE). Originally thought to be of significance only for such esoteric concerns as small perturbatio ns to atomic emission processes, it is now known to play a role in large-scale phenomena of interest to technologists as well, such as the inhibition of spontaneous emission, the generation of short-range attractive forces (e.g., the Casimir force), and t he possibility of accounting for sonoluminescence phenomena. ZPE topics of interest for spaceflight applications range from fundamental issues (where does inertia come from, can it be controlled?), through laboratory attempts to extract useful energy fro m vacuum fluctuations (can the ZPE be "mined" for practical use?), to scientifically-grounded extrapolations concerning "engineering the vacuum" (is "warp-drive" space propulsion a scientific possibility?). Recent advances in research into the physics of the underlying ZPE indicate the possibility of potential application in all these areas of interest. INTRODUCTION The concept "engineering the vacuum" was first introduced by Nobel Laureate T. D. Lee in his book Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory. As stated there: "The experimental method to alter the properties of the vacuum may be called vacuum engi neering.... If indeed we are able to alter the vacuum, then we may encounter some new phenomena, totally unexpected." Recent experiments have indeed shown this to be the case. With regard to space propulsion, the question of engineering the vacuum can be put succinctly: "Can empty space itself provide the solution?" Surprisingly enough, there are hints that potential help may in fact emerge quite literally out of the vacuum o f so-called "empty space." Quantum theory tells us that empty space is not truly empty, but rather is the seat of myriad energetic quantum processes that could have profound implications for future space travel. To understand these implications it will serve us to review briefly the historical development of the scientific view of what constitutes empty space. At the time of the Greek philosophers, Democritus argued that empty space was truly a void, otherwise there would not be room for the motion of atoms. Aristotle, on the other hand, argued equally forcefully that what appeared to be empty space was in fact a plenum (a background filled with substance), for did not heat and light travel from place to place as if carried by some kind of medium? The argument went back and forth through the centuries until finally codified by Maxwell's theory of the luminiferous ether, a plenum that carried electromagnetic waves, including light, much as water carries waves across its surface. Attempts to measure the properties of this ether, or to measure the Earth's velocity through the ether (as in the Michelson-Morley experiment), however, met with failure. With the rise of special relativity which did not require reference to such an underlying substrate, E instein in 1905 effectively banished the ether in favor of the concept that empty space constitutes a true void. Ten years later, however, Einstein's own development of the general theory of relativity with its concept of curved space and distorted geome try forced him to reverse his stand and opt for a richly-endowed plenum, under the new label spacetime metric. It was the advent of modern quantum theory, however, that established the quantum vacuum, so-called empty space, as a very active place, with particles arising and disappearing, a virtual plasma, and fields continuously fluctuating about their zero baseli ne values. The energy associated with such processes is called zero-point energy (ZPE), reflecting the fact that such activity remains even at absolute zero. THE VACUUM AS A POTENTIAL ENERGY SOURCE At its most fundamental level, we now recognize that the quantum vacuum is an enormous reservoir of untapped energy, with energy densities conservatively estimated by Feynman and others to be on the order of nuclear energy densities or greater. Therefore , the question is, can the ZPE be "mined" for practical use? If so, it would constitute a virtually ubiquitous energy supply, a veritable "Holy Grail" energy source for space propulsion. As utopian as such a possibility may seem, physicist Robert Forward at Hughes Research Laboratories demonstrated proof-of-principle in a paper published in 1984, "Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of Charged Foliated Conductors." F orward's approach exploited a phenomenon called the Casimir Effect, an attractive quantum force between closely-spaced metal plates, named for its discoverer, H. G. B. Casimir of Philips Laboratories in the Netherlands. The Casimir force, recently measur ed with high accuracy by S. K. Lamoreaux at the University of Washington, derives from partial shielding of the interior region of the plates from the background zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field. As shown by Los Alamos theorist Milonni and his colleagues, this shielding results in the plates being pushed together by the unbalanced ZPE radiation pressures. The result is a corollary conversion of vacuum energy to some other form such as heat. Proof that such a process violates neither energy nor thermodynamic constraints can be found in a paper by D. Cole and myself published in 1993 under the title "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum." Attempts to harness the Casimir and related effects for vacuum energy conversion are ongoing in our laboratory and elsewhere. The fact that its potential application to space propulsion has not gone unnoticed by the Air Force can be seen in its request f or proposals for the FY-1986 Defense SBIR Program. Under entry AF86-77, Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory (AFRPL) Topic: Non-Conventional Propulsion Concepts we find the statement: "Bold, new non-conventional propulsion concepts are solicited.... T he specific areas in which AFRPL is interested include.... (6) Esoteric energy sources for propulsion including the zero point quantum dynamic energy of vacuum space." Several experimental formats for tapping the ZPE for practical use are under investigation in our laboratory. An early one of interest is based on the idea of a Casimir pinch effect in non-neutral plasmas, basically a plasma equivalent of Forward's elect romechanical charged-plate collapse (see Puthoff, 1990). The underlying physics is described in a paper submitted for publication by myself and M. Piestrup, and it is illustrative that the first of several patents issued to a consultant to our laboratory , K. R. Shoulders, contains the descriptive phrase "... energy is provided... and the ultimate source of this energy appears to be the zero-point radiation of the vacuum continuum." Another intriguing possibility is provided by the phenomenon of sonoluminescence, bubble collapse in an ultrasonically-driven fluid which is accompanied by intense, sub-nanosecond light radiation. Although the jury is still out as to the mechanism of lig ht generation, Nobelist Julian Schwinger has argued for a Casimir interpretation. Possibly related experimental evidence for excess heat generation in ultrasonically-driven cavitation in heavy water is claimed in an EPRI Report by George and Stringham of E-Quest Sciences, although attributed to a nuclear micro-fusion process. Work is under way in our laboratory to see if this claim can be replicated. Yet another proposal for ZPE extraction is described in a patent issued to Mead and Nachamkin. The approach proposes the use of resonant dielectric spheres, slightly detuned from each other, to provide a beat-frequency downshift of the more energetic hig h-frequency components of the ZPE to a more easily captured form. We are discussing the possibility of a collaborative effort between us to determine whether such an approach is feasible. Finally, an approach utilizing micro-cavity techniques to perturb the ground state stability of atomic hydrogen is under consideration in our lab. It is based on a 1987 paper of mine in which I put forth the hypothesis that the nonradiative nature of the ground state is due to a dynamic equilibrium in which radiation emitted due to accelerated electron ground state motion is compensated by absorption from the ZPE. If this hypothesis is true, there exists the potential for energy generation by the applic ation of the techniques of so-called cavity quantum electrodynamics QED. In cavity QED, excited atoms are passed through Casimir-like cavities whose structure suppresses electromagnetic cavity modes at the transition frequency between the atom's excited and ground states. The result is that the so-called "spontaneous" emission time is lengthened considerably (for example, by factors of ten), simply because spontaneous emission is not so spontaneous after all, but rather is driven by vacuum fluctuations. Eliminate the modes, and you eliminate the zero-point fluctuations of the modes, hence suppressing decay of the excited state. As stated in an April 1993 Scientific American review article on cavity QED, "An excited atom that would ordinarily emit a lo w-frequency photon cannot do so, because there are no vacuum fluctuations to stimulate its emission...." In its application to energy generation, mode suppression would be used to perturb the hypothesized dynamic ground-state absorption/emission balance to lead to energy release (patent pending). An example in which Nature herself may have taken advantage of energetic vacuum effects is discussed in a model published by ZPE colleagues A. Rueda of California State University at Long Beach, B. Haisch of Lockheed-Martin, and D. Cole of IBM. In a pape r published in the Astrophysical Journal in 1995, they propose that the vast reaches of outer space constitute an ideal environment for ZPE acceleration of nuclei and thus provide a mechanism for "powering up" cosmic rays. Details of the model would appe ar to account for other observed phenomena as well, such as the formation of cosmic voids. This raises the possibility of utilizing a "sub-cosmic-ray" approach to accelerate protons in a cryogenically-cooled, collision-free vacuum trap and thus extract energy from the vacuum fluctuations by this mechanism. THE VACUUM AS THE SOURCE OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA What of the fundamental forces of gravity and inertia that we seek to overcome in space travel? We have phenomenological theories that describe their effects (Newton's Laws and their relativistic generalizations), but what of their origins? The first hint that these phenomena might themselves be traceable to roots in the underlying fluctuations of the vacuum came in a 1967 study published by the well-known Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov. Searching to derive Einstein's phenomenological eq uations for general relativity from a more fundamental set of assumptions, Sakharov came to the conclusion that the entire panoply of general relativistic phenomena could be seen as induced effects brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energ y of the vacuum due to the presence of matter. In this view the attractive gravitational force is more akin to the induced Casimir force discussed above, than to the fundamental inverse square law force between charged particles with which it is often co mpared. Although speculative when first introduced by Sakharov, this hypothesis has led to a rich and ongoing literature (including a contribution of my own in 1989) on quantum-fluctuation-induced gravity, a literature that continues to yield deep insigh t into the role played by vacuum forces. Given an apparent deep connection between gravity and the zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum, a similar connection must exist between these self-same vacuum fluctuations and inertia. This is because it is an empirical fact that the gravitational and i nertial masses have the same value, even though the underlying phenomena are quite disparate. Why, for example, should a measure of the resistance of a body to being accelerated, even if far from any gravitational field, have the same value that is assoc iated with the gravitational attraction between bodies? Indeed, if one is determined by vacuum fluctuations, so must the other. To get to the heart of inertia, consider a specific example in which you are standing on a train in the station. As the train leaves the platform with a jolt, you could be thrown to the floor. What is this force that knocks you down, seemingly coming ou t of nowhere? This phenomenon, which we conveniently label inertia and go on about our physics, is a subtle feature of the universe that has perplexed generations of physicists from Newton to Einstein. Since in this example the sudden disquieting imbala nce results from acceleration "relative to the fixed stars," in its most provocative form one could say that it was the "stars" that delivered the punch. This key feature was emphasized by the Austrian philosopher of science Ernst Mach, and is now known as Mach's Principle. Nonetheless, the mechanism by which the stars might do this deed has eluded convincing explication. Addressing this issue in a 1994 paper entitled "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force," Haisch, Rueda and I were successful in tracing the problem of inertia and its connection to Mach's Principle to the ZPE properties of the vacuum. In a sentence, although a uniformly moving body does not experience a drag force from the (Lorentz-invariant) vacuum fluctuations, an accelerated body meets a resistance (force) proportional to the acceleration. By accelerated we mean, of course, accelerated relative to the fixed stars. It turns out that an argument can be made that the quantum fluctuations of distant matter structure the local vacuum-fluctuation frame of reference (see Puthoff, "Source...," 1989). Thus, in the example of the train the punch was del ivered by the wall of vacuum fluctuations acting as a proxy for the fixed stars through which one attempted to accelerate. The implication for space travel is this: Given the evidence generated in the field of cavity QED (discussed above), there is experimental evidence that vacuum fluctuations can be altered by technological means. This leads to the corollary that, in princ iple, gravitational and inertial masses can also be altered. The possibility of altering mass with a view to easing the energy burden of future spaceships has been seriously considered by the Advanced Concepts Office of the Propulsion Directorate of the Phillips Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base. Gravity resear cher Robert Forward accepted an assignment to review this concept. His deliverable product was to recommend a broad, multi- pronged effort involving laboratories from around the world to investigate the inertia model experimentally. After a one-year investigation Forward finished his study and submitted his report to the Air Force, who published it under the title Mass Modification Experiment Definition Study. The Abstract reads in part: ".... Many researchers see the vacuum as a central ingredient of 21st-Century physics. Some even believe the vacuum may be harnessed to provide a limitless supply of energy. This report summarizes an attempt to find an experiment that would test the Ha isch, Rueda and Puthoff (HRP) conjecture that the mass and inertia of a body are induced effects brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum.... It was possible to find an experiment that might be able to prove or disprove th at the inertial mass of a body can be altered by making changes in the vacuum surrounding the body." With regard to action items, Forward in fact recommends a ranked list of not one but four experiments to be carried out to address the ZPF-inertia concept and its broad implications. The recommendations included investigation of the proposed "sub-cosmic- ray energy device" mentioned earlier, and the investigation of an hypothesized "inertia-wind" effect proposed by our laboratory and possibly detected in early experimental work by Forward and Miller, though the latter possibility is highly speculative at this point. ENGINEERING THE VACUUM FOR "WARP DRIVE" Perhaps one of the most speculative, but nonetheless scientifically-grounded, proposals of all is the so-called Alcubierre Warp Drive. Taking on the challenge of determining whether Warp Drive a la Star Trek was a scientific possibility, general relativi ty theorist Miguel Alcubierre of the University of Wales set himself the task of determining whether faster-than-light travel was possible within the constraints of standard theory. Although such clearly could not be the case in the flat space of special relativity, general relativity permits consideration of altered spacetime metrics where such a possibility is not a priori ruled out. Alcubierre's further self-imposed constraints on an acceptable solution included the requirements that no net time dist ortion should occur (breakfast on Earth, lunch on Alpha Centauri, and home for dinner with your wife and children, not your great-great-great grandchildren), and that the occupants of the spaceship were not to be flattened against the bulkhead by unconsci onable accelerations. A solution meeting all of the above requirements was found and published by Alcubierre in Classical and Quantum Gravity in 1994. The solution discovered by Alcubierre involved the creation of a local distortion of spacetime such that spacetime is expande d behind the spaceship, contracted ahead of it, and yields a hypersurfer-like motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region. In essence, on the outgoing leg of its journey the spaceship is pushed away from Earth and pulled towards its distant destination by the engineered local expansion of spacetime itself. (For follow-up on the broader aspects of "metric engineering" concepts, one can refer to a paper published by myself in Physics Essays in 1996.) Interestingly enough, the engineering requirements rely on the generation of macroscopic, negative-energy-de nsity, Casimir-like states in the quantum vacuum of the type discussed earlier. Unfortunately, meeting such requirements is beyond technological reach without some unforeseen breakthrough, as emphasized by Pfenning and Ford in a recently submitted manus cript. Related, of course, is the knowledge that general relativity permits the possibility of wormholes, topological tunnels which in principle could connect distant parts of the universe, a cosmic subway so to speak. Publishing in the American Journal of Physics in 1988, theorists Morris and Thorne initially outlined in some detail the requirements for traversible wormholes and have found that, in principle, the possibility exists provided one has access to Casimir-l ike, negative-energy-density quantum vacuum states. This has led to a rich literature, summarized recently in a 1996 book by Matt Visser of Washington University, St. Louis. Again, the technological requirements appear out of reach for the foreseeable f uture, perhaps awaiting new techniques for cohering the ZPE vacuum fluctuations in order to meet the energy-density requirements. CONCLUSIONS We began this discussion with the question: "Can the vacuum be engineered for spaceflight applications?" The answer is: "In principle, yes." However, engi neering-wise it is clear that there is a long way to go. Given the cliche "a journey of 1000 mile s begins with the first steps," it is also clear that we can take those first steps now in the laboratory. Given that Casimir and related effects indicate the possibility of tapping the enormous residual energy in the vacuum-fluctuation ZPE, and the demo nstration in cavity QED that portions of the ZPE spectrum can be manipulated to produce macroscopic technological effects such as the inhibition of spontaneous emission of excited states in quantum systems, it would appear that the first steps along this path are visible. This, combined with newly-emerging concepts of the relationship of gravity, inertia and warp drive to properties of the vacuum as a manipulable medium, indicate yet further reaches of possible technological development, although requiri ng yet unforeseen breakthroughs with regard to the possibility of engineering vacuum fluctuations to produce desired results. Where does this leave us? As we peer into the heavens from the depth of our gravity well, hoping for some "magic" solution that will launch our spacefarers first to the planets and then to the stars, we are reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's phrase that high ly-advanced technology is essentially indistinguishable from magic. Fortunately, such magic appears to be waiting in the wings of our deepening understanding of the quantum vacuum in which we live. REFERENCES Lee, T.D. (1988) Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academic, London. Feynman, R.P., and Hibbs, A.R. (1965) Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, McGraw-Hill, New York. Forward, R.L. (1984) "Extracting electrical energy from the vacuum by cohesion of charged foliated conductors", Phys. Rev. B, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1700-1702. Casimir, H.G.B. (1948) "On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates", Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. van Weten., Vol. 51, No. 7, pp. 793-796. Lamoreaux, S.K. (1997) "Demonstration of the Casimir force in the 0.6 to 6 mm range", Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 5-8. Milonni, P.W., Cook, R.J., and Goggin, M.E. (1988) "Radiation pressure from the vacuum: Physical interpretation of the Casimir force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 1621-1623. Cole, D.C., and Puthoff, H.E. (1993) "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum", Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 1562-1565. Puthoff, H.E. (1990) "The energetic vacuum: Implications for energy research", Spec. in Sci. and Tech., Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 247-257. Puthoff, H.E., and Piestrup, M.A. (1997) "On the possibility of charge confinement by van der Waals/Casimir-type forces", subm. to Phys. Lett. B. Shoulders, K.R. (1991) "Energy conversion using high charge density", U.S. Patent No. 5,018,180, issued May 21, 1991. Schwinger, J. (1993) "Casimir light: The source", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 90, pp. 2105-2106. George, D.R., and Stringham, R.S. (1996) "Technical report on the demonstration of new technology producing heat and nuclear products via cavitation induced micro-fusion in the E-Quest Sciences Mark II research device", EPRI Project Final Report, Work Ord er #3170-28, Palo Alto, CA, May 1996. Mead, Jr., F.B., and Nachamkin, J. (1996) "System for converting electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy", U.S. Patent No. 5,590,031, issued Dec. 31, 1996. Puthoff, H.E. (1987) "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state", Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 35, No. 10, pp. 3266-3269. Haroche, S, and Raimond, J.-M. (1993) "Cavity quantum electrodynamics", Sci. Am., April 1993, pp. 54-62. Rueda, A., Haisch, B. and Cole, D.C. (1995) "Vacuum zero-point field pressure instability in astrophysical plasmas and the formation of cosmic voids", Astrophys. J., Vol. 445, pp. 7-16. Sakharov, A. (1968) "Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation", Sov. Phys.-Dokl., Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 1040-1041. Puthoff, H.E. (1989, 1993) "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 2333-2342; Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 3454-3455. Haisch, B., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, H.E. (1994) "Inertia as a zero point field Lorentz force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 679-694. Puthoff, H. E. (1989, 1991) "Source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point energy", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 4857-4862; Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 3385-3386. Forward, R.L. (1996) "Mass modification experiment definition study", J. Sci. Exploration, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 325-354. Forward, R.L., and Miller, L.R. (1967) "Generation and detection of dynamic gravitational-gradient fields", J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 512-518. Alcubierre, M. (1994) "The warp drive: Hyper-fast travel within general relativity", Class. Quant. Grav., Vol. 11, pp. L73-L77. Puthoff, H.E. (1996) "SETI, the velocity-of-light limitation, and the Alcubierre warp drive: An integrating overview", Phys. Essays, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 156-158. Pfenning, M.J., and Ford, L.H. (1997) "The unphysical nature of 'warp drive' ", subm. to Class. Quant. Grav. Morris, M., and Thorne, K.S. (1988) "Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity", Am. J. Phys., Vol. 56, No. 5, pp. 395-412. Visser, M. (1996) Lorentzian Wormholes, AIP Press, Woodbury, NY. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 12:21:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:16:27 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:27:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Magnets Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"xKhQD1.0.eX.8-9-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9998 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 18 Aug 97 at 13:00 "John E. Steck" wrote: > Couple of questions for the magnet folks: > > 1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. Yes. > 2) Is there a specific name for the attraction on a ferrite that is in > proximity to two like poles? A Polish 3-way affair, and the ferrite usually gets the worst of it. > "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" > -- Willie Wonka Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================ Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates - Custom Software Development - - Quality Control Engineering - ============================================ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 14:07:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:03:21 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"Gia8E3.0.6N.OYB-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10004 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thanks very much for the post Hal. It was fascinating reading. I shall read up on Forward's proposals to test your theory that mass is the result interactions with the ZPE of the vacccuum. I am left wonder at what searches for the Higgs particle will find . Your theory appears to have no place for the Higgs field which is so essential for the Standard Model of Particle Physics. I also wonder about the effects of Casimir modes on the other forces in nature, the Strong force as described by QCD and the Weak force. I imagine that the scales for the weak force are much too small to be technologically interesting but QCD may be effec ted on a nuclear scale. We have some interesting data that may have something to say about the latter. Cheers Martin Sevior PS. Were results from the "Gravity Shield" experiments reported? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 13:20:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:16:05 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: <9708181300.ZM2199 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:19:19 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"MKoL81.0.kv4.0sA-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10000 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >1. div H = 0 This is true only in vacuum. In other materials, div H is not necessarily zero. It is div B = 0. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 13:25:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:20:53 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:24:47 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"ksnFC1.0.tJ5.ZwA-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10001 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Couple of questions for the magnet folks: > >1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. > >2) Is there a specific name for the attraction on a ferrite that is in >proximity to two like poles? > >-- >John E. Steck >Prototype Tooling >Motorola Inc. > >"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" > -- Willie Wonka 1) Simultaneously both ways -- in alternating lines (shells) of force. 2) Ehrenhaft also commented regarding "magnetophoresis": " (1) PARTICLES OF MATTER, IRRADIATED BY A CONCENTRATED BEAM OF LIGHT, MOVE IN A HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC AS WELL AS MAGNETIC FIELD IN OR AGAINST THE LINES OF FORCE. (Electro-photophoresis, magneto-photophoresis). I have therefore concluded that these particles are charged under the impact of light. There exist not only electric, but also magnetic charges. (2) PARTICLES OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE MOVE SIMULTANEOUSLY TOWARD AND AGAINST THE PROPAGATION OF THE LIGHT." Best regards, Evan "Federal Express and UPS have decided to merge. The new company name: FED-UP." --- anon. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 14:39:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:33:25 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:33:58 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference References: <970818161938_1125003804 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"DJggI3.0.Hn2.Y-B-p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10005 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Puthoff aol.com wrote: > > For those interested, here is a copy of the paper I presented at the NASA > Breakthrough Propulsion Physics conference at Lewis Research Center last > week. > (snip Hal's paper) Excellent paper, Hal! Thanks for the post. Do you know how your ideas were received? Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 15:28:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:16:27 -0700 Date: 18 Aug 97 17:51:54 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Thorium Resent-Message-ID: <"c1XBA3.0.wv6.vcC-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10006 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts, everyone, I posted this elsewhere, but it might just be worth copying here. I suppose I'm sort of solicting predictions, although Mark Twain (Sam Clemens) is supposed to have said that predicting is always dangerous - especially about the future. Anyone care to venture a prediction on what would happen and how long it would take - if the Cincinnati Group's kits do perform as advertised? Chris ----------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be of interest to some to know that our magazine Infinite Energy is being mailed out to subscribers today and tomorrow. It's a double-sized issue, and contains the promised full disclosure of how to convert radioactive thorium into non-radiocative elements in a few minutes. Basically, it is astonishingly crude - 60Hz ac is passed between two zirconium electrodes, through a slightly acidified solution of thorium chloride. However, it isn't quite that easy. The cell gets very hot (nearly 300C) and has to be hermetically sealed. And apparently the geometry of the cell is critical. A (probably adequate for making one's own cell) description is included, but I think most pe ople would be better off buying the cells from the makers. Does it work? Well, it seems so but we cannot be quite certain despite several apparent independent confirmations. Do appreciate that if it does work, then there is a hole right through what we have believed is true of physics. But it should be borne in mind that the inventors are offering *a money-back guarantee*. Alchemy or your money back. What interests me is what will happen now if it works as advertised? No self-respecting university would ever publish a paper showing that this process works, yet we know that the path now being taken by the inventors of this process is the only practica l way forward. Secret deals and negotiations won't work, you have to be like a street vendor with some new kind of fruit on offer: you offer it cheap, and find out if people like it. If one of them is rotten, you give the customer his money back. What you don't do is to try to cut some secret deals with governments or big corporations whereby you sell details of how to breed this new fruit. I just wonder how long the science community would take to accept something they know isn't possible. Not that it matters very much what they think, but I have a kind of morbid interest in such things. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 16:06:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:01:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 02:20:41 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"Mfa983.0.ah2.rGD-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10007 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thank you Hal, for your article and for your sending to us. As I reading it, a basic question came to my mind: ZPE should not be considered as the energy of matter or EM on the Special Relativity(and/or GR) context or it has a maximum density limit, otherwise as a source of gravitation (in GR context) it will curve the space-time and we will detect it with geometr ical (astronomic) measurements. ZPE should not be truly an energy or negative energy form having a substantial density filing the space(otherwise it will be detected) or there are radical flaw on SR and the GR. Anyway, it seems that the ZPE is not compati ble with them. There are post GR theories aimed to explain the source of gravity and they will be the enlargement of the GR if they prooved (not every theory trying the explain the source of the gravity is compatible with GR, even SR), but it seems to me that ZPE and GR will be never coexisted. (I tried to answer the question which came to my mind) Please tell am I thinking correct or what? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 17:26:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:20:38 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 03:40:12 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Is this a EM anomaly? Resent-Message-ID: <"H6_o8.0.S87.LRE-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10008 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: The thing that I observed while playing a kind of bifilar coil look like a RF electromagnetism anomaly. Setup can be descibed as follow: - A source of magnetic/electromagnetic radiation. Frequency is 26MHz, second harmonic is present( a sawtooth is formed when phase is suitable) - A 5 turn of 35mm coil attached to a probe to monitor the magnetic field component of the EM field. - There is no noticable external EM radiation. - Scope is NOT subjected to other signals coming from the circuit - Coil and the probe is attached to a plasic stick to keep for my body and my arm far enough from the coil and the EM source. - Metal surfaces(table) are present close (25cm) to the source. - Probe capacitance and the coil does not resonate at this frequency. The anomaly is when the coil is move forvard and backward to the sources (eg. 40 to 50 cm) the amplitude ratio and phase of the harmonics are significantly changed as 90 to 180 degrees. This observation made from different angles and from distance to the source and this behavior is always observed. Plus, the turning of the coil(probe) also completely change the phase of the harmonics. Anyway any movement of the coil affect the waveform. As the 52MHz wavelength is ~6 meter, 10cm of movement could not revert phases of harmonics of a signal. Also when the coil(probe) is turned the inducted waveform is completly changing. What is happening? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 18:28:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:22:55 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 21:22:18 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"HT0uK1.0.o92.jLF-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10010 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi, Astute observation. In the Sakharov-Puthoff model of gravity the ZPE is not a source of metric distortion. Rather, the ZPE "jiggles" particles of matter, whose correlation of ZPE-induced motion results in attractive forces between the particles - see a footnote describing this in H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989). Errata, Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993). This, of course, fits with the observation that in fact our universe is not curled up in a Planck-sized ball. Unless you wanted to say that the ZPE doesn't exist, which wouldn't agree with other results. Best regards, Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 18:39:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:28:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 21:26:31 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"YM1_52.0.La4.bQF-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10011 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/19/97 12:59:26 AM, you wrote: <> Thanks. My ideas were very well received. In the breakout sessions at the end of the conference wherein several groups met independently to make a prioritized list of what NASA should do, ZPE came out on top generally, with my suggestions as to specific projects cited often. Best regards, Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 18:51:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:40:35 -0700 X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 21:37:26 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"QxfMj1.0.en2.IcF-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10012 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Addressing this issue in a 1994 paper entitled "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field >Lorentz Force," Haisch, Rueda and I were successful in tracing the problem of >inertia and its connection to Mach's Principle to the ZPE properties of the >vacuum. In a sentence, although a uniformly moving body does not experience >a drag force from the (Lorentz-invariant) vacuum fluctuations, an accelerated >body meets a resistance (force) proportional to the acceleration. > Thank you Hal. The above excerpt from your excellent paper stimulated a question. Do any of the theories predict that a highly charged, highly accelerating object will interact with the ZPE in an unusual fashion? In other words, would the predicted force required to maintain the same acceleration in a charged, and an uncharged object, be identical? Thanks, Colin Quinney. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 19:04:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:55:18 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: hamdix verisoft.com.tr Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:38:56 -0700 Subject: ZPE Article in Scientific American References: <33F8CAB9.95E5A00C verisoft.com.tr> X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-13 From: tv juno.com (Tim D Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"P-UhB3.0.pE3.5qF-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10014 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Hamdi, With reguard to ZPE and Special and General Relativity, There was an article in Scientific American in the late 1980's called " The Classical Vacuum " by Timothy something that might answer some of your questions. Sorry I don't have the exact reference at hand but it is easy to find. It talked about how the intensity of the zero point energy increased by the cube of the frequency and so would be seen the same in both an accelerated and unaccelerated frame of reference. Tim Vaughan ( tv juno.com ) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 19:32:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 19:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:36:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"YyaLG2.0.5R6.-LG-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10016 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, John E. Steck wrote: > >1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. > >2) Is there a specific name for the attraction on a ferrite that is in >proximity to two like poles? > errr humm, SOUTH to NORTH (with following) 1/3 of PMM article.. ------------------ from encyclopedia of physics /rita g. lerner & george l trigg second edition isbn 0-89573-752-3 pg #692 ---- MAGNETs (PERMANENT) and Magnetostatics A.E. Berkowitz "Permanent magnets are useful because they produce a constant magnetic flux density in their vicinity. This occurs because permanent magnet materials (PMM) can sustain a significant intensity of magnetization in the absence of any external applied magn etic field. In this article, some of the more important properties of PMM will be introduced and their magnetic behavior will be reviewed. Figure 1 shows schematically the intensity of magnetiz- ation 'M' dashed '===> arrow' and lines representing the flux density in and around a rod of PMM in zero applied field after a saturation field has been APPLIED IN DIRECTION OF 'M'. The flux lines are shown as emanating from the north to south pole distributions at the ends of the magnet. THE CONCEPT of MAGNET POLES IS AN ENTIRELY FICTITIOUS but extremely useful analytical tool for calculating field strengths around magnetized media. Actually, the fields result from divergences in 'M'. The flux density 'B' outside a magnetized body is the gradient of a scalar potential (I) .. ....... ...... ......." 2/3 = equations. ----- ----------------- fig 1 in ascii (ugh) see book for pic. ----------<------------- Flux Lines /\ ( ---------<-------------) /\ \ ____/__________________________\____ / \ : / \ : / \: / \\ \ :/ <------:S ==========='M'=============> N :-------> /: \ // / : \ / : \ / : \ / ----\--------------------------/---- \ \/ \ / \/ ( ---------<-----------) ----------<----------- Flux line North to South 'M' Magnetizism =====> ** South to North ** ------------------------------ I guess it's just in how you call it, I thought I was following Gregs SMOT pictures to a tee, until I put my smot- magnetic NORTH face next to a compass and saw it attracted the North POLE pointer :) 50-50 so I turned my chair around! ;) -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 20:00:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 19:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 19:53:23 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets References: <199708181916.PAA12568 mail.enter.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"o27E3.0.13.9lG-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10017 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John E. Steck" wrote: > 1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. A north magnetic pole is usually defined completely arbitrarilly as the pole of a magnetic compass which points towards the Earth's north pole. Ironically, this means that the north pole of the earth is actually a south magnetic pole. Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 20:49:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:43:50 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 23:40:06 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: chronos@e nter.net cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: How do we know???Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"Yed9a3.0.b7.rPH-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10019 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Love the question.... but how do we know the direction of magnetic 'flow" ??? J On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Robert G. Flower wrote: > > On 18 Aug 97 at 13:00 "John E. Steck" > wrote: > > > Couple of questions for the magnet folks: > > > > 1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. > > Yes. > > > > 2) Is there a specific name for the attraction on a ferrite that is in > > proximity to two like poles? > > A Polish 3-way affair, and the ferrite usually gets the worst of it. > > > > "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" > > -- Willie Wonka > > > > Best regards, > > Bob Flower > > ============================================ > Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates > - Custom Software Development - > - Quality Control Engineering - > ============================================ > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 23:04:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 23:01:18 -0700 X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 01:57:58 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"n76vK2.0.TG5.jQJ-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10020 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:53 PM 8/18/97 -0700, Robert Stirniman wrote: >John E. Steck" wrote: > >> 1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. > >A north magnetic pole is usually defined completely >arbitrarilly as the pole of a magnetic compass which >points towards the Earth's north pole. Ironically, this >means that the north pole of the earth is actually a >south magnetic pole. > >Regards, >Robert Stirniman > I have to disagree. The earth was here before the compass was invented, so The North pole of the earth should get preferential recognition as *the* North Pole, ..but would that mean that all *compasses* are mislabeled? How did we ever get into such a state.? Wasn't electric current direction wrong for 150 years or so? There's a group of magnet-healing doctors that just call poles positive and negative. That's neat. If magnetism flows from the south pole to the north pole, and the South Pole is positive, then the magnetic flow is from positive to negative. Hope this helps. Colin Quinney. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 23:14:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 23:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:18:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: chronos enter.net Subject: Re: How do we know???Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"Qwin82.0.KJ5.ybJ-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10021 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > Love the question.... but how do we know the direction of >magnetic 'flow" ??? > Arb: 'Polaris' (north star) hummm, is NORTH... hummmm, & UP! at least on the maps too. Interesting that we live South of town and the wife always wants to go 'downtown'. Maybe the women should have been involved in this one around 5-8,000 BC :) -=se=- I know i don't stop & ask directions! :) If a man is in the forrest with no woman to hear him, IS HE STILL WRONG? -------------- If a woman is in the forrest with no man to hear her, IS SHE STILL COMPLAINING?? hummmmmmmm :) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 00:51:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 10:46:24 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: scalar EM paper ( References: Resent-Message-ID: <"wkOmP2.0.Pk6.X_K-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10022 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thank you much (William Beaty). I downloaded it a month ago, scanned it quickly and totally forgotten. I t seems that I need to examine it deeply and maybe answer the anomalies observed last night on EM fields around the bifilar coil. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 01:19:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 01:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 01:15:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com, vortex-l mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thorium Resent-Message-ID: <"hRpr_3.0.V5.ZPL-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10023 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: I just wonder how long the science community would take to accept something they know isn't possible. --- Happens all the time---how long it takes is a function of many factors, not the least of which is how well the experiment works. Some things like Hi T superconductivity were accepted in a matter of months, while other things like continental drift required a long gestation period. Personally, I like to wonder how long it takes the fringe community to reject a concept that does not work. It seems to be infinite :-) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 01:49:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 01:44:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:28:28 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" , cincygrp@ix.netcom.com Resent-Message-ID: <"QOUSc.0.uY2.vpL-p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10024 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: predictions re. Cincy's process Dear Vortexers, Chris' rhetorical question: ..how long the science community would take to accept something they know isn't possible?" refering to the Cincy Group's transmutation process can get only partial answers now. One source could be the attitude of those few who have independently confirmed the results. We know about Rob Liversage's lab--total confirmation, a straight YES! What about the other labs? Do they deny the positive results or agree only with anonymous c onfirmation "I know you are right but cannot publish such non-conformist results I cannot afford to lose my clients" and so on. Who can tell? I know that Steven Jones, whose attitude toward CF and its Family was very hostile during the last years, also made some tests; what does he say? Or has he made seppuku? Perhaps, Chris' question can be presented proactively: "What have we to do in order to help and accelerate the acceptance of this process by the scientific community?" Some suggestions: a) We have to accept first that this is an entirely NEW nuclear process. As told in the Cincy Group's motto: "Call to me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, WHICH YOU DON'T KNOW", this process is useful, beneficial, a blessing for mankind and first of all it is NEW!! Actually it is a quadruple mystery (stimulated by low energy triggers, giving birth only to stable isotopes, neutrons missing, nuclear energy lost) and any trial to explain it by classical, semiclassical nuclear science is only the equivalent of passing a chasm by smallish steps. We are not allowed to forget that: "The unknown is not be caught in the net of the known" (Krishnamurti). Such unconvincing, vulnerable explanations will be routinely murdered by the establishment's bravos. And they wouldn't say the explanation is inadequate, they will claim the process is non-existent. b) A possible radically new explanation as my "collective stimulated neutron decay" plus "negative excess energy" (i.e. released energy joining space energy) needs more quantitative data, balances of elements and isotopes as precise as possible. I think t he process starts by the simultaneous decay of a number of neutrons in protons ( a collective Santilli process) followed by the fragmentation of the Th nucleus in four Ti nuclei or three Cu nuclei; the first being the more probable process. The rest of the nuclear material is also recovered forming nuclei. And this is a quite significant mass , in the first case you get 2 protons and 30-46 extra neutrons depending on the Ti isotope formed. In the second case, there are three extra protons and 34 extra neutrons for Cu-65 and 40 ones for Cu-63. Why is not 30 -Zn formed? This would be a clue for the new mechanism. Great complexity, great possibilities for research. What we need is DATA, both for Th and U, variability, the effect of different factor, complete analyses. What do we have now? I am eagerly waiting for IE 13/14 and for other data. The game has just started. Can we, using the classical or non-classical (Brightsen, Monti) models define stable isotopes--what distinguishes them exactly from the radioactive ones? Here only stable isotopes _can_ be generated , and this is an other essential clue of the Cincy proc ess. At this point even the establishment could help. In conclusion we need open minds and solid facts in the CF House first later we shall be able to start a real dialogue with the Establishment. And eventually win. Best wishes, 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 08:09:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:04:16 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:02:27 -0400 (EDT) To: Puthoff aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: zpe Hamdi's comments Resent-Message-ID: <"NCgO-.0.U37.jNR-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10025 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hal Puthoff writes of a vast quantity of ZPE that exists in local space. Energy has weight proportional to its equivalent mass =E/cc .............................................................................. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 08:38:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:33:33 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 10:33:18 -0500 References: <3.0.32.19970819015726.007b6100 inforamp.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"JsM8A1.0.pT5.BpR-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10026 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 19, 1:03am, Quinney wrote: > There's a group of magnet-healing doctors that just call poles positive and > negative. That's neat. If magnetism flows from the south pole to the north > pole, and the South Pole is positive, then the magnetic flow is from > positive to negative. Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to visualize. I was sketching out a possible magnet configuration, recognized a potential directional bias of a particular system, but stumped on which direction the setup would actually go. I recalled a fie ld diagram I had seen recently, but did not have it handy to reference. The suggestion that magnets are foci of aether/zpe flow keeps sticking in my head and my visualizations seem to want to follow along those lines. I have been postulating on this model and have begun to wonder if magnetic attraction is nothing more than a n amplified or localized Casimir Effect due to the evacuation or lowering of the energy density between the magnet and the conductive ferrite by this directional flow. The magnet and ferrite are *pushed* together, not *pulled* together. To me, this ins ight seems significant with respect to understanding setup configurations and overcoming "blue holes". I am not at present up to speed on accepted magnetic theory with respect to my postulate. Any insights or admonishments for this novice? 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -- Willie Wonka X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 08:50:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:47:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: scalar EM paper ( Resent-Message-ID: <"vddqi3.0.kF6.H0S-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10027 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Hamdi, >I downloaded it a month ago, scanned it quickly and totally forgotten. I >t seems that I need to examine it deeply and maybe answer the anomalies >observed last night on EM fields around the bifilar coil. Have you seen any expanding waveforms in your bifilar coil circuit? Does the transistor also cool down below ambient temperature during operation? Regards, Michael Randall X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 09:35:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:28:46 -0700 Date: 19 Aug 97 12:26:39 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"5zhw_2.0.Wj.ycS-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10029 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Chris Tinsley wondered "how long the science community would take to accept something they know isn't possible." Barry Merriman answers: Happens all the time---how long it takes is a function of many factors, not the least of which is how well the experiment works. Some things like Hi T superconductivity were accepted in a matter of months, while other things like continental drift required a long gestation period. Ease of reproducibility, or "how well it works" are often cited by scientists as key reasons why results are accepted quickly, slowly, or rejected. However, the history of science and technology show that reproducibility has no connection with acceptance. Barry's statement is a myth. It is one of the many unexamined, baseless ideas that scientists have about their own profession. Many scientific breakthroughs have been extraordinarily difficult to reproduce, and they have barely "worked" at all, yet they have been accepted by all scientists and journals. Recent examples include the hot fusion tests at the PPPL, the top quark exper iment, and the latest discoveries from the Mars explorer. Other experiments have easy to replicate, they have been confirmed by top experts around the world, yet they have been rejected by nearly all scientists and venomously attacked for years. Examples include the germ theory and pasteurization, Goldberger's discovery that malnutrition causes pellagra in the Deep South, semiconductors in the 1930s and 40s, Ovshinsky's amorphous photovoltaics, Marshall's discovery that H. pylori causes ulcers and can be cured with antibiotics, and, of course, cold fusion. We think of cold fusion as being "difficult to replicate" but in fact it has been widely replicated, and it is much easier to replicate than many similar catalytic and electrochemical processes. I have spoken to experts in HTSC and other material sciences , and they say "nothing is easy to replicate." HTSC has been widely observed in different labs, but most of the actual samples people look at have been prepared by a handful of experts and purchased from places like Edmond Scientific. Few scientists could make an HTSC from scratch. The failure rate of the early HTSC and early transistors was far higher than the failure rate of cold fusion devices made according to the Storms protocols by people skilled in the art. There are also many examples of easily reproduced technologies (as opposed to basic science) that were rejected with malice. Examples include chronometers; ironclad warships; analog computer gun sites on battleships; effective railroad brakes and coupling s, sufficient lifeboats on passenger ships; oil well drilling techniques that did not waste a large fraction of the crude oil by spilling it or leaving it inaccessible; and automobile seatbelts. You might think that the captains of industry were eager to adapt these innovations, because they won critical battles, saved fantastic amounts of money, saved lives, and prevented lawsuits and insurance claims. But the fact is, in every case listed here and in thousands of other well documented examples, innovati ons had to be forced upon industries, usually by fanatically stubborn individuals in long political battles. It took an act of Congress to force the railroads to use couplings that did not dismember hundreds of workers every year. Resistance to innovation is and always has been a hallmark of establishments, including established science and industry. Barry mentions "other things like continental drift required a long gestation period" but he offers no hypothesis to explain why these other things took so long. There must be other controlling factors. I believe I can explain the duration and the extent of hostile resistance with reference to just a few controlling factors. A breakthrough will be accepted easily if it fits a certain pattern: 1. It must originate in a major establishment lab. 2. It should be discovered by a high ranking male, preferable white Anglo-Saxon, at an east-coast U.S. or Northern European lab. Discoveries made by minorities, women, and low ranking lab workers often face stiff resistance, especially from avowed racists like D. Morrison (see his "regionalization of results" theory.) Two famous recent examples of the disastrous consequences of a low ranking woman making a discovery were seen in research in AIDS as manifested in female patients, and in the obnoxious billi on dollar Hubble telescope fiasco triggered by Linda Morabito's 1979 Voyager discovery. (See E. Chaisson, "Hubble Wars," p. 102.) 3. The experiment will be more readily accepted if it costs vast sums of government money and it cannot be reproduced except in one lab, like the top quark. (This is the exact opposite of conventional notions about reproducibility in science.) 4. It must not gore anyone's ox. It must not threaten any pet theory of an important, living scientist. HTSC were accepted because the people who came up with low temperature superconducting theories were dead or unimportant. 5. It must have no practical use or obvious, near-term economic impact. If there had been a thriving industry in low temperature superconductors, the HTSC discoverers would still be fighting against the kind of hysterical calumny faced by Goldberger, Mars hall, Pons and Fleischmann. 6. In cases where there is an economic impact, there should be no losers. The X-Ray was accepted because there was no established method of looking inside solid objects, and nobody's job was threatened by it. The NMR was accepted because it was manufactur ed by the same companies that make X-Ray machines. Even though the physics of the NMR and the X-Ray differ, socially the NMR looks like an incremental improvement rather than a radical innovation. In short, the progress of science and the acceptance of new theories is primarily a function of politics, rivalry, competition, power struggles, greed, wealth and stupidity. These are the controlling factors in most other areas of society like commerce, s how business, and war. Their origin is obvious to an impartial observer. Such emotions dominate the lives of our cousins the chimpanzees, gorillas, other intelligent primates, and in less complex manifestations they dominate the actions of most other mamm als. At best, these instincts drive people to extraordinary achievements. Healthy competition is the lifeblood of our economy. But when aggressive instincts are not directed toward constructive ends, and when they are not tempered by rationality, love, in spiration, enlightened self-interest, and 'the better angels of our nature,' they cause havoc. In the age of nuclear weapons and world-wide environmental destruction, they might lead to the extinction of the human race. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 09:53:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:43:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:42:59 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Hal; Re: NASA posts the results... Resent-Message-ID: <"jxPRq.0.VP1.TqS-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10030 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Hamdi, > >Astute observation. In the Sakharov-Puthoff model of gravity the ZPE is not >a source of metric distortion. Rather, the ZPE "jiggles" particles of >matter, whose correlation of ZPE-induced motion results in attractive forces >between the particles - see a footnote describing this in H. E. Puthoff, >"Gravity as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989). > Errata, Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993). This, of course, fits with the >observation that in fact our universe is not curled up in a Planck-sized >ball. Unless you wanted to say that the ZPE doesn't exist, which wouldn't >agree with other results. > >Best regards, >Hal Puthoff > Greetings Hal; If the quantum vacuum is jittery; If the jitter is organized into a structure of nodes (aka spacetime); If particles are soliton like *coupled* oscillations driven by spacetimes motions, phase and frequency locked to one another; Then, large bodies of matter resonances will filter out some of the jitter coming from distant galaxies which are at Doppler shifted, and therefore mismatched, frequencies. A resonating thing can only frequency lock to one frequency, and from the distant universe we receive QVF or ZPE jitter that is of different frequencies due to the Hubble expansion. Thus, we are pushed down against the earth due to the filtering of that noisy energy by the earth, and by our bodies particles because the earth is a nea rby (ie very large view factor group of oscillators). But note that unlike what one would think (ie that distant galaxies matter would contribute less and less to the total power of the ZPE locally in our galaxy), distant galaxies at all variety of Hubble flow Doppler frequency shift values will have the sam e power on a cosmological basis. This is because in addition to the power coming from a given galaxy 3 billion light years away having dropped off by the 1/R^2 view factor, the spherical shell with radius 3 billion ly's is growing in numbers of galaxies commensurately. So, aside from very nearby clumps of matter (earth sun MW stars), the balance of the universe has about a homogenous power per frequency value (ie consider the Planck scale QVF / ZPE oscillations to be at about E45 Hz, and then Doppler shift that based on the Hubble parameter for the distance to the galaxy under question). So, gravity then is IMO, essentially a frequency of the ZPE jitter filtering mechanism which is pushing objects that are frequency coupled toward one another. Notice an important thing, if you have a phase angle variance between two coupled oscillators, their wave motions interacting with the medium can induce either a thrust toward or away from, one another. (Ergo strong, EM, and phase angle conservation of oscillators in composite clump of resonances = weak. These are all related to the phase angles of their wave energy) However, a frequency interference between two oscillators in a medium can induce only one result; a Repulsion. We are pushed toward the earth by the interference if you prefer, or by a filtering mechanism if others prefer, of wave energy arriving here f rom distant reaches of the universe. Notice that despite what we normally think, that arriving energy is **not** weak in power because the numbers of galaxies at each radius due to area growing by R^2 exactly offsets the reduction in power contribution f rom each individual galaxy due to the 1/R^2 effect we all know and love. Any way, thanks for the post and for continuing to push in the direction you are. It is a bit different than my approach, but it is a heck of a lot more rational than is the current set of beliefs adopted by the physics community. The reason I posted this was to get you to think about your comment on the "jitter" pushing things toward one another. Notice that if the jitter is random, it will push things away from the origin of the jitter, but if the jitter is uniform, then like Hu ygens and two pendulums, the oscillators will frequency couple and will **not** push one another away. It is taking that fact to heart (that two pendulums don't push away **after** phase and frequency locking) that makes the action mechanism of gravitation easy to understand, IMO. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 09:49:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:43:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:43:01 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments Resent-Message-ID: <"w5dmD.0.wP1.WqS-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10031 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Hal Puthoff writes of a vast quantity of ZPE that exists in local space. >Energy has weight proportional to its equivalent mass =E/cc >.............................................................................. > > But if the energy density is uniform in all directions, then there is no net gravitational spacetime curvature induced, anywhere. This is like air pressure, gage pressure, and absolute pressure. The force on the front of your body right now is about 10, 000 pounds of force, but it is balanced on all sides so you probably don't know you are being crushed together! Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 09:50:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:44:56 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:43:08 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"HQ-_i2.0._X1.7sS-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10032 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/19/97 4:25:28 AM, Martin Sevior wrote: <> Since a primary purpose of the Higgs particle is to give mass to particles, it is true that an underlying ZPE model for mass would displace the Higgs concept. Interestingly enough, Higgs himself in an interview expressed scepticism about his own proposal and bemusement that it had been taken so seriously. <> Clearly, all fields possess ZPE, and the suppression of ZPE modes in any such fields leads to Casimir/van der Waals effects. <> Only that they are still setting up the experiments, fabricating disks, etc., and won't have solid results to report for a few months yet. Hal Puthoff ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 18 20:40:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by mrin57.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id UAA02783; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:40:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) id OAA01488; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:03:21 -0700 Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:03:21 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Marti n Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference In-Reply-To: <970818161938_1125003804 emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Gia8E3.0.6N.OYB-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10004 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >> X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 10:02:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:56:32 -0700 Date: 19 Aug 97 12:52:24 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Thorium Resent-Message-ID: <"N69ZC.0.752._0T-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10033 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry, > Some things like Hi T superconductivity were accepted in a matter > of months, while other things like continental drift required a > long gestation period. Yes, the latter took sixty years and I'm told that people were being fired for heresy in the matter as late as the early 60s. At school (late 50s) I was told that continental drift was obviously true to anyone but a complete idiot, but that no mention of it - even as a theory - was permitted in the national examinations, or papers would be failed or marked down severely. And there is a difference here. Continental drift and high temp superconductivity were just very unlikely. The CG claim really *IS* impossible. > Personally, I like to wonder how long it takes the fringe > community to reject a concept that does not work. It seems to be > infinite :-) We do our bit to try to put things to rest, as with the Meyer business. We publish our negative findings. As regards the Cincinnati Group work, you will (I hope) be delighted that the full disclosure and offer of sale of kits with a money-back guarantee will settle the matter one way or the other very quickly indeed. The danger here is in lumping the whole of "the fringe" together. I certainly have fallen into exactly that trap by assuming that the kind of hide-bound idiocy seen from professional scientists on Compuserve's Science forum was entirely typical of scient ists at large. I would just ask that you should not lump everything 'fringy' as automatically dubious. Did you ever compare the New Scientist article of 1 MAy 93 with the actual contemporaneous PLA F&P paper to which it refers? Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 10:02:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:56:35 -0700 Date: 19 Aug 97 12:52:25 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Resent-Message-ID: <"9sGVa3.0.M52.11T-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10034 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Peter, > Chris' rhetorical question: It wasn't rhetorical! > "What have we to do in order to help and accelerate the acceptance > of this process by the scientific community?" Some suggestions: To be honest I can't really see how your suggestions would help very much. I think we (or rather Gene) has done the one and only thing which might help this work: persuaded the group to disclose the process and sell kits with a money-back guarantee. That guarantee is interesting. Imagine that the process works. Now, if someone wants to say it does not, or will not give a positive report, then one may well ask why they have not asked for their money back. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 08:58:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:53:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:55:47 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Is this a EM anomaly? Resent-Message-ID: <"sI-A62.0.pL1.06S-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10028 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: >[snip] >- A source of magnetic/electromagnetic radiation. Frequency is 26MHz, >second harmonic is present( a sawtooth is formed when phase is suitable) > >- A 5 turn of 35mm coil attached to a probe to monitor the magnetic >field component of the EM field. >[snip] >- Probe capacitance and the coil does not resonate at this frequency. > >The anomaly is when the coil is move forvard and backward to the sources >(eg. 40 to 50 cm) the amplitude ratio and phase of the harmonics are >significantly changed as 90 to 180 degrees. This observation made from >different angles and from distance to the source and this behavior is >always observed. Plus, the turning of the coil(probe) also completely >change the phase of the harmonics. Anyway any movement of the coil >affect the waveform. > >[snip] Also when the coil(probe) is turned the >inducted waveform is completly changing. > >What is happening? This appears very much like a typical case of mixed magnetic and electric response. Your coil is not shielded against electrostatic pickup, hence its metallic mass picks up electric field by acting as a capacitor plate, not just by magnetic induction. At low frequencies the inductive reactance of the coil is low enough to short circuit the electrostatic pickup, but a "5 turn of 35mm coil" at 26 MHz has enough reactance that this is no longer so effective. The variable direction response is explained by re calling that (1) the electrostatic and electrodynamic components of electric field E of the experimental system are not identical, and (2) the directional sensitiviey of the probe is different for the two components. I suggest that you test your probe. Test its response to the mainly electrostatic field between two metal plates. A probe responding to only dB/dt will give only a small response, corresponding to the displacement current. The probe coil must have a good Farady shield to block the electrostatic component of E. If you don't understand Farady shielding, then you cannot take meaningful data nor interpret them in an experiment of this kind. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 10:17:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:12:29 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference Resent-Message-ID: <"4hLej1.0.mp4.eHT-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10035 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/19/97 6:00:50 AM, Colin Quinney asked: <> The ZPE-induced-inertia-mass model assumes all particles interact with the ZPE as charged particles (even neutrons as a collection of charged quarks). Charging a neutral macroscopic body doesn't change the picture much. Of course, charging does produce fields that contribute to mass via E = mc^2, so perhaps a fully relativistic analysis would show something, especially if you reached the level of a Re issner-Nordstrom General Relativistic solution. Best regards, Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 11:15:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:11:59 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: 9.5 watts for 2 minutes To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:10:35 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"FsmEc1.0.wA7.d7U-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10037 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Butch wrote: > Could someone tell me how many joules of energy would be produced by 9.5 > watts over a two minute period ? Sure, a watt is a joule per second, therefore since there are 120 seconds in two minutes, 120 x 9.5 = 1140 joules. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 11:50:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:44:46 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Magnets Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:26:22 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"L5u793.0.CQ7.TcU-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10040 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi John, Colin, and all, > > > There's a group of magnet-healing doctors that just call poles positive and > > negative. That's neat. If magnetism flows from the south pole to the north > > pole, and the South Pole is positive, then the magnetic flow is from > > positive to negative. Roy Eugene Davis was the original experimenter on this subject. Somewhere in my piles of junk I have a book of his showing the flow of "aetheric" energy between the poles. When I find it I will send it to you. I believe he has at least one patent based on this idea too, but I don't know the # > > > The suggestion that magnets are foci of aether/zpe flow keeps sticking in my > head and my visualizations seem to want to follow along those lines. It is claimed in the research of Hans Reichenbach (19th cen. experimenter and inventor of creosote) that a "sensitive" can see streamers of energy with very specific behaviors coming out of the poles of a magnet. He repeated these observations with many "sensitives" with identical results. I have been told that if you sit with a magnet in a pitch back room-- it must be ABSOLUTELY light tight-- for several hours, you can see these streamers of energy coming off of magnets, mineral crystals, and even copper plates that have sat in the sun for a while. I have > been postulating on this model and have begun to wonder if magnetic attraction > is nothing more than an amplified or localized Casimir Effect due to the > evacuation or lowering of the energy density between the magnet and the > conductive ferrite by this directional flow. The magnet and ferrite are > *pushed* together, not *pulled* together. To me, this insight seems > significant with respect to understanding setup configurations and overcoming > "blue holes". There is also a paper in my collection (sorry I don't remember the name) that says that the attraction between magnets is the result of a reduction in energy density of space between them. He uses a hydrodynamic model and has some interesting figures. I will dig that up for you too. It might take me a while to find this stuff --I'm not sure which pile its in :-) I think this could be a productive approach. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 11:35:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:29:35 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance To: vortex -l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:29:31 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"6TUIA.0.Wb6.EOU-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10038 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry wrote: > how long it takes is a function of many factors, > not the least of which is how well the experiment works. Some things > like Hi T superconductivity were accepted in a matter of months, while > other things like continental drift required a long gestation period. Jed wrote: > In short, the progress of science and the acceptance of new theories is > primarily a function of politics, rivalry, competition, power struggles, > greed, wealth and stupidity. I believe Barry's is the optimistic view and Jed's is the pessimistic view and that most cases fall somewhere inbetween, with a high degree of variability. >From a economic (cost) stand point, given the current culture, there is a high cost to being wrong in promoting a new theory, but a low cost to being wrong in opposing a new theory, therefore one would expect behaviors that minimize exposure to such cost s. On the other hand, there is a high reward for being right about a new theory -- so there will always be those few risk takers that press forward. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 11:54:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:48:20 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:45:07 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Is this a EM anomaly? References: Resent-Message-ID: <"v_ae61.0.5e7.nfU-p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10043 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > >[snip] > > Plus, the turning of the coil(probe) also completely > >change the phase of the harmonics. Anyway any movement of the coil > >affect the waveform. > > > >[snip] Also when the coil(probe) is turned the > >inducted waveform is completly changing. > > > >What is happening? > > This appears very much like a typical case of mixed magnetic and > electric response. Your coil is not shielded against electrostatic pickup, > hence its metallic mass picks up electric field by acting as a capacitor > plate, not just by magnetic induction. At low frequencies the inductive > reactance of the coil is low enough to short circuit the electrostatic pickup, > but a "5 turn of 35mm coil" at 26 MHz has enough reactance that this is no > longer so effective. The variable direction response is explained by recalling > that (1) the electrostatic and electrodynamic components of electric field > E of the experimental system are not identical, and (2) the directional > sensitiviey of the probe is different for the two components. > > I suggest that you test your probe. Test its response to the mainly > electrostatic field between two metal plates. A probe responding to > only dB/dt will give only a small response, corresponding to the > displacement current. > > The probe coil must have a good Farady shield to block the > electrostatic component of E. If you don't understand Farady shielding, then > you cannot take meaningful data nor interpret them in an experiment of this > kind. > > Michael J. Schaffer > General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA > Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 Thank you for your letter. Indeed large shifting of the harmonics when the coil turned 180 degree is exactly the electrical field job as you pointed. I will build a Faraday shielding and repeat the experiment. As a note, moving the probe forward to coil a s I described does not largely modify waveforms but it can be clearly seen. I figured an other explanation for the effect to responsible for the lateral movements of the probe(keeping same distance to the center of the source coil as: The source bifilar coil is 12cm long and 3cm diameter. If multiple dipoles are generated (one or more dipole for each harmonics), the will create an interference pattern in space around. This is very likely (multiple dipoles) because, I observed the diffe rence on amplitude and phase of the harmonics while scanning the field as proximity.(There are other interesting observations as strong inductions occurs when the probe is oriented radially the source coil to its longitudinal middle point.) New observations prior to your letter, made with a smaller (2 turn of 23mm diameter) sense coil did reduced the turning effect but moving effects are remained same. I observed the electrical component of the field more than my expectation, enough large to affect the experiment. Probe shielding against electrical field is acceptable as placed on the proximity of the source coil the signal captured is remain under 5mVpp.(coil induced voltage is 30mVpp. on average. It can be thought good enough for this rude experimentation. I could not successfully build a faraday shield (I could not ground it effectively in my first attempt. (I could not suppress the large signal build on it). It seems to me the dipoles effect can be taken account for this configuration. But still the long wavelength of the source is a difficulty. ---12 cm ---- ============= 1 2 1 2 1 ============= <-------------- | | | | 40 cm | | | | | <--- probe (1) and (2) shows the nodes of 1'st and the 2'th harmonics "as example" according my hypothesis. I did not still located them. Note that the source coil is a bifilar single layer tightly wounded with 0.40mm wire and one end is shorted and oscillate (resonate) at 26MHz despite the large inter winding capacitances are present. Not only the entry portion of the coil is active, the l argest field is generated on close to the shorted end of the coil. I think they completely lose the inductive character on frequency in order of magnitude on their usable range and behave like transmission lines, not only bifilar coils but normal coils al so. The scope bandwidth that I am using currently is on the limit, but I have to opportunity to gather an other scope having enough BW for this operation. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 11:56:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:43:22 -0700 From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:45:18 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance References: <970819162638_72240.1256_EHB37-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rR9-d1.0.SI7.8bU-p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10039 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com you got it. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 11:50:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:45:23 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments References: <970819110203_347551553 emout03.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"JLnIH.0.gJ1.VgU-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10041 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > > Hal Puthoff writes of a vast quantity of ZPE that exists in local > space. > Energy has weight proportional to its equivalent mass =E/cc > Yes, this is my argument. If so, the mass equivalent of this energy should curve the spacetime and it should be noticed with astronomic observations if its density is large enough(I am unable to do a relevant calculation to show the upper limit density o f the ZPE. (At least, it should not preclude the hubble expansion of the universe.) This is a correct replay to your letter ? hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 11:54:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:48:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:45:32 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: scalar EM paper ( References: <199708191547.IAA29028 denmark.it.earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"v8LOI.0.Hd7.gfU-p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10042 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael Randall wrote: > > Have you seen any expanding waveforms in your bifilar coil circuit? There are lot of interesting things on bifilars which keep me for three day experimenting on them. I am working on a simple self oscillating circuit for only examine the behaviour of bifilar coils passing the same current on each windings. Still large co mplex fields are inducting on it that seems contrary to my basic physics knowledge. > Does the transistor also cool down below ambient temperature during operation? No, It is getting hot because it is driven unoptimized an with large supply voltage. One or two months ago i indirectly observed such a thing (I have no temperature measurement instruments) as the transistor characteristics change during operation and sto pped to oscillate the circuit but continued to working if it is kept warm. I did not returned to this experiment but it occurred once and hardly repeatable. I did not catched it after minor modification on the setup.(wiring, trimer adjustments, coil coupl ings) > > Regards, > Michael Randall Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 12:15:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:09:32 -0700 Date: 19 Aug 97 15:07:12 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"DyBOP1.0.7I1.gzU-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10044 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, Nice piece of polemic, but (like Barry and others) - no predictions. ((actually, it was a *very* nice pice of polemic...) Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 12:15:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:10:41 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments References: <199708191643.JAA23283 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"OxRJj3.0.lI2.k1V-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10045 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross Tessien wrote: > > >Hal Puthoff writes of a vast quantity of ZPE that exists in local > space. > >Energy has weight proportional to its equivalent mass =E/cc > > But if the energy density is uniform in all directions, then there is > no net gravitational spacetime curvature induced, anywhere. This is > like air pressure, gage pressure, and absolute pressure. The force on > the front of your body right now is about 10,000 pounds of force, but > it is balanced on all sides so you probably don't know you are being > crushed together! > > Ross Tessien Hi Ross, thank you for your previous letter to explain the black hole phenomenon according your theory. The example that you given above on homogen energy distribution on universe is causing an cosmological problem, first recognized by Newton than by Einstein. As he figured that any non zero homogen distribution of mass along an infinite space should build enough gravitational field to convert the universe to a big black hole and collapse. As the hubble expansion had not discovered prior to foundation of GR he invented the "cosmological constant" as a negative gravitational force building on astronomical di stances to avoid the universe to collapse. Still the "cosmological constant is being discussed but he commented it later as "the biggest mistake that I did on my life" or a similar sentence. Because he assumed the universe was static. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 12:38:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot. com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:32:31 -0500 References: <199708191846.LAA18610 mail1.halcyon.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"kWuAj2.0.s53.sKV-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10046 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 19, 1:45pm, Fred Epps wrote: > Roy Eugene Davis was the original experimenter on this subject. Somewhere > in my piles of junk I have a book of his showing the flow of "aetheric" > energy between the poles. When I find it I will send it to you. > > I believe he has at least one patent based on this idea too, but I don't > know the # > There is also a paper in my collection (sorry I don't remember the name) > that says that the attraction between magnets is the result of a reduction > in energy density of space between them. He uses a hydrodynamic model and > has some interesting figures. I will dig that up for you too. Thanks! Hydrodynamics inspired me as well. Nice to hear some of my ideas are not as crazy as I think they sound. In the mean time I will do a few keyword searches and see if I can save you some effort. > It might take me a while to find this stuff --I'm not sure which pile its > in :-) No rush. I have the same filing system and I am intimately aware of how it misbehaves when it wants to. > I think this could be a productive approach. It has been quite useful for me so far. I am finding it easier to quickly "see" fields in system configurations this way without having to turn to a simulation for concept evaluation. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -- Willie Wonka X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 12:57:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:50:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:46:08 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"I-ivb.0.Mw3.lZV-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10047 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote a wonderful article. If OU is become practical technology, I suggest for their first implementations should be ambiguitious as a kind of fishing hook, a kind of compass, or other replacement of conventional simple measurement devices almost based on side effects or based on d ependence on environment conditions of the OU phenomenon, but no energy production devices. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 14:53:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:45:07 -0700 (PDT) From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:45:50 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance References: <33F9F800.69618900 verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"PuHxW.0.MF.WFX-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10048 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com What would OU do to the current world trade balance? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 15:05:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:56:29 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:56:18 -0500 References: <33F9F800.69618900 verisoft.com.tr> <33FA140E.2ED6@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"H6N4U3.0.WR2.CQX-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10049 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 19, 4:52pm, ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > What would OU do to the current world trade balance? Same thing as alchemy manufacturing of precious metals. 8^) It will get all "higgly-piggly" (<- highly scientific term for "really interesting") -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -- Willie Wonka X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 15:22:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:16:13 -0700 Date: 19 Aug 97 18:14:44 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Clarifications on reproducibility & acce Resent-Message-ID: <"Owqec1.0.iS3.iiX-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10050 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Re-reading that message, I see I have given the wrong impression about a few things. First, let me hasten to explain that I am only talking about major, radical breakthroughs, not run-of-the-mill innovation. When a scientist makes an ordinary discovery it will be judged by reproducibility, "how well it works," how well it fits existing th eory, and other textbook evaluations. Ho-hum technology is also judged rationally, except when Wall Street looks at Web Browsers. My discussion was limited to discoveries that were considered highly controversial, radical or unbelievable, like over-the-ho rizon radio or washing your hands before surgery. In retrospect, we sometimes wonder why these things were so controversial. Why were doctors so upset by the suggestion they wash their hands? (My hypothesis: because Semmelweis was a low-ranking intern. If he had been the Director of the Institute every doctor in Europe would have accepted the idea in six months. See Rule 2: ideas should come from high ranking males; dominant members of the troop.) John Logajan wrote: I believe Barry's is the optimistic view and Jed's is the pessimistic view and that most cases fall somewhere in-between, with a high degree of variability. I think mine is the historical view, rooted in the record of how science really has worked, rather than in mythology or textbook notions about how it is supposed to work. The high degree of variability is caused by perceived level of novelty (as I just sa id), and by the level controversy stirred up by people who fear they will lose money. Much of the rabid opposition to Edison's incandescent light appears to have originated from people in the gas light business. I am not personally optimistic or pessimistic. I believe I take things as they are. I often say that people act like chest-beating primates, driven by instincts and rivalry. Many people misunderstand this. I am not disparaging people! I'd like to state em phatically that I think monkeys, chimps, gorillas, and Homo sapiens are wonderful creatures. They are "the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals" as Hamlet said. There is nothing wrong with animals acting like animals. It is not immoral. It is charm ing! Chimpanzees can be noble, loving, wonderful beasts. You should see how they treat their pet kittens. My point is that many people believe our society and our actions are driven by pure rationality -- pure logic. And of course, like the other primates , we usually do what is best for ourselves. But sometimes our instincts betray us and drive us to act in ways that a purely rational creature, like a sentient computer, would not understand. Look at war, love affairs, jealous rage . . . People who think w e are only rational, without instincts, will never understand the dynamics of society. A scientist who does not acknowledge his own animal nature cannot understand himself or his colleagues. He will see an A.P.S. spokesman or a New Scientist editor acting like any other enraged primate defending its territory. Instead of accepting this behavior for what it is, he will assume the guy is doing rational science as 'a responsible skeptic.' It would not surprise you to learn than guy with a PhD and a Nobel Pri ze has fallen head over heals in love, he is ruining his life and making a fool of himself. So why should it surprise you to learn that driven by jealous rage he has tossed aside a lifetime of learning and rejected cold fusion (or the airplane, or contine ntal drift) despite overwhelming experimental evidence? It is odd that scientists, of all people, should resist this model of human behavior. The model itself is one of the glories of science. I might add that in no way does this model conflict with religion, ethics or law. I can never understand people who oppose evolution, or people who think it is wrong to compare our social behavior with that of other primates. Science has elevated other animals. It has given us more reason to cherish them. It has not given us any reason to respect mankind less, or to lower our moral standards. John Logajan explains: From a economic (cost) stand point, given the current culture, there is a high cost to being wrong in promoting a new theory, but a low cost to being wrong in opposing a new theory . . . Right. And that is because our economic system is set up along the same lines as our other institutions. It is run by dominant members who keep others in line with punishments and rewards. Of course it must also be functional. It cannot enforce too much d iscipline, or junior members will revolt and innovation will cease. I do not think this is a problem with "current culture." It has always been with us, in every era and every nation I know of. Actually, our era is one of the most innovative on record. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 15:49:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:40:45 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re; Re: 9.5 watts for 2 minutes Resent-Message-ID: <"DX0Jv3.0.Km1.t4Y-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10051 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Butch wrote: >> Could someone tell me how many joules of energy would be produced by 9.5 >> watts over a two minute period ? > >Sure, a watt is a joule per second, therefore since there are 120 seconds >in two minutes, 120 x 9.5 = 1140 joules. Butch, You ought to go buy a CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. In it is a conversion table, but also you will find all manner of information you are asking about. There are tables of isotopes and their masses, so you can do your own E=mc^2 calculations of energy production from this nuclear reaction or that, there are properties of the planets, there are properties of materials, chemicals, all manner of information. You shouldn't be without it and it will last you a life time of R&D Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 16:55:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:49:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:39:46 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"81IpV3.0.Co3._3Z-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10053 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi all, > What would OU do to the current world trade balance? I'm not sure what it would do to the world trade balance in particular. In general, it seems that it would depend a lot on what form of O/U it was. If whatever it was required critical components and machining and therefore was being sold by manufacturers then the shakeup would be bad but eventually a new capitalist structure would evolve based around new commodities. I believe the current power cos . etc. would mostly survive and coopt the technology. If the O/U was something that could be built by any reasonably-skilled person it would cause a change in our civilization equalled only by the transition from hunting to agriculture. Many productive a ctivities would decentralize and some form of anarchism (NOT anarchy) might result. Energetic, economic, political, and psychological power are very closely related. I'm not an economist or futurist so I offer these ideas as merely my opinions. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 16:47:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:45:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:48:12 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"uKua72.0.zf3.L0Z-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10052 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On Aug 19, 4:52pm, ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > >> What would OU do to the current world trade balance? > >Same thing as alchemy manufacturing of precious metals. 8^) > >It will get all "higgly-piggly" (<- highly scientific term for "really >interesting") > >-- >John E. Steck >Prototype Tooling >Motorola Inc. > >"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" > -- Willie Wonka Is your highly scientific term similar to the economic term describing what OU would do to the world _market_place: "It would get all "piggly-wiggly"? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 18:54:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:46:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:44:47 -0500 (CDT) From: John Fields Subject: singularity To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"-Muh7.0.cH4.Wna-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10054 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com If one were to excite a series resonant circuit comprising a lossless inductor and capacitor at the resonant frequency of the combination, would a singularity be generated at the junction of the inductor and capacitor? John Fields ----------- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 23:14:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:14:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 02:09:18 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"KJvFg2.0.8X1.5je-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10065 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Although it is good to try simplistic models here are some more thoughts. First, the there is a rate at which the knowledge diffuses over the population, who may accept or reject it. The internet has changed all the time delay, but with the result that bad "science" may displace good science for several reasons. Second, reproducibility is a complicated problem and there are both clinical and statistical basis for signficance of data. And the latter is much more difficult to achieve for bio-type experiments usually. Third, dont think many scientists would ignore data if it is in good form, usually achievable through peer review. However, many don't go this route. Or dont prepare the data to make -> information. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) At 08:27 PM 8/19/97 -0700, Barry wrote: > >Chris Tinsley wrote: > >Jed, nice piece of polemic, but like barry, no predictions. >-- > >This is well understood territory---the penetration of new >ideas/inventions into a population has been shown to follow >a logistic growth law quite accurately in many disparate >examples. I.e., > >dA/dt = R A( 1 - A ) > A(0) = A0 > >wher 0 < A < 1 is the percentage of the population that "Accept" >the new thing. A0 is the initial acceptance, and R is the acceptance >rate. > >Thus, given a measurement of acceptance at two differnt times, A0 >and R can be determined in this model, and the acceptance at >any later time can be predicted. One could consider more >complicated models, or try to figure out how R depends on various >factors, but in any case this type of law is the natural starting >place for modeling acceptance. Lengthy articles with many real world >examples have been written. > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 20:09:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:05:20 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:59:38 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: vo rtex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"tLNtv.0.QW7.lxb-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10056 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > > What would OU do to the current world trade balance? Probably put the oil and electricity conglomerates in to a *major* tizzy! :) Regards John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 00:09:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:07:21 -0700 (PDT) From: atech@ix.netcom.com X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 03:11:25 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"z-IHF1.0.T03.bUf-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10067 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I predict that an early application of OU would be energy intensive process like steel recycling. If someone came up with an efficient design but couldn't get it manufactured and marketed, he could setup shop with his prototype by any junk yard. At 03:07 PM 8/19/97 EDT, you wrote: >Jed, > >Nice piece of polemic, but (like Barry and others) - no predictions. > >((actually, it was a *very* nice pice of polemic...) > >Chris > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 00:22:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:20:19 -0700 From: atech@ix.netcom.com X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 03:25:53 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"jWkmm3.0.Kd1.ngf-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10068 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I too have this problem. I found, however, that hiring someone to help organize and maintain organization will do wonders for one's psychological level, comfort, and efficiency. Regards; Dennis C. Lee At 11:26 AM 8/19/97 -0700, you wrote: Somewhere in my piles of junk X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 20:29:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:27:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"G75mF.0.a73.mHc-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10057 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: Jed, nice piece of polemic, but like barry, no predictions. -- This is well understood territory---the penetration of new ideas/inventions into a population has been shown to follow a logistic growth law quite accurately in many disparate examples. I.e., dA/dt = R A( 1 - A ) A(0) = A0 wher 0 < A < 1 is the percentage of the population that "Accept" the new thing. A0 is the initial acceptance, and R is the acceptance rate. Thus, given a measurement of acceptance at two differnt times, A0 and R can be determined in this model, and the acceptance at any later time can be predicted. One could consider more complicated models, or try to figure out how R depends on various facto rs, but in any case this type of law is the natural starting place for modeling acceptance. Lengthy articles with many real world examples have been written. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 20:31:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:27:52 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Trade balance To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:27:41 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"oWHsf.0.3j.rGc-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10058 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ehammond pacbell.net askes: > What would OU do to the current world trade balance? Nothing, since trade always balances. Trade imbalance is a measurement artifact, despite the widespread media/populist misunderstanding to the contrary. Certainly lower cost energy would disrupt certain existing industries, but it would also create more news ones. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 20:38:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:35:02 -0700 Date: 19 Aug 97 23:34:09 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: O-U effects on marketplace Resent-Message-ID: <"kapDj1.0.L-.aNc-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10059 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex John E. Steck thinks that an o-u machine will make the economy "piggly-wiggly." Piggly-Wiggly happens to be the name of a grocery chain in Georgia. See the movie "Driving Miss Daisy." Fred Epps predicts the power companies will survive unless the machine can be built by "any reasonably-skilled person." As it happens, I just wrote an article about this subject in I.E. After weeks of deep research and discussion with experts worldwide, with characteristic boldness I conclude that . . . . . . It All Depends. O-u might produce an economic calamity, but then again maybe not. We will decide what to make to make of it. People have free will. We can make the future come out any way we like, or any way we fear. I disagree with Fred. Conventional safety laws and building codes will prevent the use of home-made devices. You are not allowed to build your own furnace or HVAC system in cities or most towns, and that's a good thing considering how inept most people ar e. Any widely used energy system must be manufactured by medium to large corporations after extensive testing by Underwriters Laboratory and other insurance company testing labs, local and national government safety inspectors, the National Bureau of Stan dards (whatever they call it now) and a few dozen others. That is why kerosene heaters have been effectively banned. You can buy one, but you cannot insure your house if you decide to use it. That is life in the modern age. If you don't like it, learn abo ut life before this red tape was put in place, back when men were men, families were asphyxiated in their sleep, and houses, neighborhoods & cities burned down regularly. If you think kerosene heaters are a good idea you should see what one did to the son of a friend of mine in Japan, where they are still common. Or consider the day back around 1920 in Freeport, Long Island when my grandfather discovered an out-of-control kerosene lamp about to explode. He heaved it through it through a glass window. Such charming antique technology! No, we cannot return to the he-man days of yore. But I predict the power companies will go out of business anyway. They cannot "co-opt" the technology the way Fred predicts. How can Georgia Power co-opt Sears or Hitachi or Kmart? Sears will sell you the co-generator (heating and power generator), and you will kiss the power company good bye. They will sell it because people will want it, because it saves money. If Sears does not sell it, someone else will and Sears will go out of business. In a free, democratic, capitalistic society, consumers rule. Whatever they want, they get. No power on earth can stop them. Nothing can co-opt them. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 20:48:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:47:16 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:45:57 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"jyqHQ.0.ae3.1Zc-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10060 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > This is well understood territory---the penetration of new > ideas/inventions into a population has been shown to follow > a logistic growth law quite accurately in many disparate > examples. I.e., > > dA/dt = R A( 1 - A ) > A(0) = A0 > > wher 0 < A < 1 is the percentage of the population that "Accept" > the new thing. A0 is the initial acceptance, and R is the acceptance > rate. > > Thus, given a measurement of acceptance at two differnt times, A0 > and R can be determined in this model, and the acceptance at > any later time can be predicted. One could consider more > complicated models, or try to figure out how R depends on various > factors, but in any case this type of law is the natural starting > place for modeling acceptance. Lengthy articles with many real world > examples have been written. I can accept that this model fits "many real world examples" without accepting that it fits all real world examples -- therefore I can't accept its predictive power, since no qualification is offered as to when it will apply and when it won't. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 21:24:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:23:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Chuck Davis To: Jed Rothwell Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:21:06 -0700 Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: O-U effects on marketplace Resent-Message-ID: <"ZiUiB.0.Fq4.e4d-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10062 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 19-Aug-97, Jed Rothwell wrote: > In a free, democratic, capitalistic >society, consumers rule. Whatever they want, they get. No power on earth can >stop them. Nothing can co-opt them. Hey Jed, It's been a long time since that statement was true. Seems to me the stench of Marxist globalism is wreaking from the top down. Now, for your 25 kbyte treatise on why you think that's not true... -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 21:35:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:35:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: O-U effects on marketplace Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:39:26 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"m2mXQ.0.LH5.pFd-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10063 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Jed, > I disagree with Fred. Conventional safety laws and building codes will prevent > the use of home-made devices. You are not allowed to build your own furnace or > HVAC system in cities or most towns, and that's a good thing considering how > inept most people are. Any widely used energy system must be manufactured by > medium to large corporations after extensive testing by Underwriters > Laboratory and other insurance company testing labs, local and national > government safety inspectors, the National Bureau of Standards (whatever they > call it now) and a few dozen others. You're quite right, It All Depends. Suppose our hypothetical power system resembles solar cells more than kerosene heaters, that is solar cells that can be built by our hypothetical reasonably skilled individual. Within 5 miles of my house are two land trusts that are using solar systems and small turbines to supply their own power. Guess what, they are not being inspected by anybody. They have told me if someone on this list can tell them how to build something that works they will build it and they won't ask or tell anybody about it. As far as they are concerned the government does not have a Need To Know. I understand your point about society as a whole and I would agree with the genral tenor of your remarks but there are plenty of exceptions-- and we're not even considering the large parts of the Earh's surface that don't have safety inspections :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 23:10:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:14:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clarifications on reproducibility & acce Resent-Message-ID: <"WGe7t2.0.QR1.Dee-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10064 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 19 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell 're-wrote': >John Logajan explains: > > From a economic (cost) stand point, given the current culture, there is > a high cost to being wrong in promoting a new theory, but a low cost to > being wrong in opposing a new theory . . . > >Right. And that is because our economic system is set up along the same lines >as our other institutions. It is run by dominant members who keep others in >line with punishments and rewards. Of course it must also be functional. It >cannot enforce too much discipline, or junior members will revolt and >innovation will cease. I do not think this is a problem with "current >culture." It has always been with us, in every era and every nation I know of. >Actually, our era is one of the most innovative on record. > >- Jed > > hear hear !! -=se=- functional mammalian (i are!) history WILL/*IS* correct :) X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 12:48:20 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:41:53 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Frolov" Reply-To: frolov@mail.dux.ru Organization: Home Lab To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Large Coil" parametric circuit References: <199708200926.CAA28496 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"I6yKI1.0.4Y3.qeq-p"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/87 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com > > I will be interested in comments, especially critical ones. > > Fred > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Name: largecoil.gif > Part 1.2 Type: GIF Image (image/gif) > Encoding: base64 > Description: largecoil (GIF Image) Fred! Patent it immediately! Two cores would working normally since you can provide zero secondary current as sum of two anti-phase oscillations. Alexander V. Frolov X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 02:26:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 02:20:56 -0700 From: Mike Butcher To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Trade balance Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:58:14 +0100 Encoding: 32 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"xBILN.0.GD4.tRh-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10069 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >>ehammond pacbell.net askes: > What would OU do to the current world trade balance? Nothing, since trade always balances. Trade imbalance is a measurement artifact, despite the widespread media/populist misunderstanding to the contrary. Certainly lower cost energy would disrupt certain existing industries, but it would also create more news ones. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -<< Precisely. "Trade imbalance" is a manipulative term used by vested interests usually to seek protection from competitors from other countries. Politicians most often use it in a way of posing a threat from "enemies just across the border" so galvanising support for their own re-election/internal agenda/business interests. Freely entered-into trade always balances and both parties gain more than they would have done had they not traded, otherwise, why bother ? Energy that is more freely available will, as John says, say bye bye to some industries and create others in their place. If I spent less on energy then I would spend more on X, Y, Z. It is up to industry to transfer from energy production to supplying me with X, Y, Z. Mike Butcher X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 23:27:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:20:49 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vorte x" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Predictions re. CINCY Resent-Message-ID: <"UjoWp3.0.jk1._te-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10066 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris, I perfectly know that the strategy based on selling of CINCY kits with money-back guarantee is the optimum and it is a great achievment of Gene and his closest friends. And of the Group. However, there are some supplementary possibilities to accelerate the acceptance of this revolutionary and unexpected (in the frame of the present paradigm), process. In order to evaluate such possibilities I am asking: - How many (%) of those labs which have made tests--analogous with those of Robert Liversage have officially confirmed the positive results? - If Steven Jones--highly or deeply hostile to our kind of cold fusion- has really tested the CINCY process and what has he published? He wrote a message claiming that the somewhat similar process of CETI is not a real transmutation but a blunder--uraniu m is deposited on the cathode and the measured values of radioactivity are decreased due to the greater distance between the source and the measuring head. - Will our negative friends--Blue, Morrison, and other very vocal guys buy a kit or accept to participate at a testing? - Will those who really decide--representing DOE and other authoritative places, do this experiment? I hope the mass-media will help us this time; however "balanced" papers --one of our friends saying YES, one of our enemies saying NO--are of limited help. If we have some, partial answers to these questions, it wil be easier to make predictions and to work out a better strategy. One of the problems is that our detractors/enemies are using the good old Fabianic tactics and are highly efficient in ignoring data, facts and demonstrations (see Notoya's, CETI's etc). And I wouldn't cease to repeat that we need good, plausible theoretical explanations for cold fusion and low energy transmutations; it is absolutely hopeless to use classical nuclear science for this task. To elaborate such a new explanation we need many data and open minds. By the way, CETI has also sold kits (without money back guarantee) and some results are due to publication now--what information is available? Best wishes, 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 , pete rg oc1.itim-cj.ro X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 06:35:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 06:31:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:25:47 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Thorium Resent-Message-ID: <"W8JpX2.0.bD4.L6l-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10073 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Nature is wonderfully complex. Mitchondrial carried disease. Few doctors have even heard of it, yet the ~34 genes within the mitochondria, only given to the child from the mother, can result in disease. It is science, but not well known. Cold fusion in metals. The power density available has increased along with better understanding of how to turn it on, and what to avoid. It too is science, but not well known. Without peer review, bad science may to push out the "good", but in both of the above cases, scientists continued and pushed ahead with new science anyway. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) ================================================= At 01:15 AM 8/19/97 -0700, Barry wrote: > >Chris Tinsley wrote: > >I just wonder how long the science community would take to >accept something they know isn't possible. >--- > >Happens all the time---how long it takes is a function of many >factors, not the least of which is how well the experiment works. >Some things like Hi T superconductivity were accepted in a matter >of months, while other things like continental drift required >a long gestation period. > >Personally, I like to wonder how long it takes the fringe >community to reject a concept that does not work. It seems >to be infinite :-) > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 04:37:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 04:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:51:37 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: eprint: A Model of Magnetic Monopoles Resent-Message-ID: <"pIbPp1.0.K47.NPj-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10071 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This look like the same issue of the Múnera's paper that William Beaty anounced it yesterday. Available from "http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9708394" Regards, hamdi ucar High Energy Physics - Phenomenology, abstract hep-ph/9708394 A Model of Magnetic Monopoles Author: Rainer W. Kuhne Comments: 5 pages, no figures, Revtex We examine the interaction between magnetic monopoles and electric charges on the basis of the gauge group U(1) x U'(1). According to this model electric charges couple not only to the photon but also to a ``magnetic photon''. We predict that in the terre strial rest frame magnetic photons are 7 x 10^{5} times harder to create, to shield and to absorb than photons of the same energy. On this basis we propose an experiment for verifying the magnetic photon. Its discovery would confirm the existence of magne tic monopoles and symmetrized Maxwell equations that are invariant under U(1) x U'(1) gauge transformations. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 04:46:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 04:43:54 -0700 Date: 20 Aug 97 07:40:54 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Trade balance Resent-Message-ID: <"LgQOQ.0.E8.vXj-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10072 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John, > Nothing, since trade always balances. Trade imbalance is a > measurement artifact, despite the widespread media/populist > misunderstanding to the contrary. Last I heard, if you add up the published imports, exports and invisible trade of all nations, you get around a 30% net global importation. Who says there's no evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence? And they are obviously outperforming us in the galactic economy. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 09:30:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:21:11 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:17:11 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Triboluminescence Effects Resent-Message-ID: <"NbA8N2.0.fl7.rbn-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10077 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:00 PM 8/20/97 +0000, Frederick wrote: >To Vortex, > >Triboluminescence occurs when certain solids are fractured, >when an insulator is rubbed, or, for instance, when adhesive >tape is unrolled-stressed, and should occur in highly agitated >liquids at a liquid-gas, or liquid-solid interface, or in >microbubble collapse. > >The latter should explain sonoluminescence and microcavitation >heat effects. > >Rubbing an incandescent or fluorescent light bulb in a darkened >room or other "photo-friction" experiments will cause light effects >that can be seen. > >Piezoelectric crystals may show triboluminescence, also. > >Rochelle Salt KNaC4H4O6.4 H2O, ADP (NH4H2PO4), and KH2PO4 may show >triboluminescence under the right conditions. > >Any of these may show "over-unity" effects also. > >Regards, Frederick > > Posted this several years ago on spf, and there were long threads on this. Also, certain life savers (candy) demonstrate this in a darkened room, if the chewer can wait for his/her eyes to dark adapt. So no need to look beyond the "5-cent"- ;-)X store. And yes, some of the above have reportedly demonstrated o/u if loaded under some conditions. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 07:04:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 06:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mo t.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:55:20 -0500 References: <3.0.32.19970819015726.007b6100 inforamp.net> <33FA4F1C.21416C83 ihug.co.nz> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"OvsPC.0.Y65.PUl-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10074 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 19, 9:17pm, John Berry wrote: > The lines of force flow from the north to south pole, and NOT the other > way round. You do mean from North through the magnet to South? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -- Willie Wonka X-Zm-Content-Name: ppmfig5a.gif Content-Description: Gif Image Content-Type: image/gif ; name="ppmfig5a.gif" X-Zm-Decoding-Hint: mimencode -b -u Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\PPMFIG5A.GIF X-Zm-Content-Name: ppmfig7.gif Content-Description: Gif Image Content-Type: image/gif ; name="ppmfig7.gif" X-Zm-Decoding-Hint: mimencode -b -u Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\PPMFIG7.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 08:58:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:53:23 -0700 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 19:20:12 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question Resent-Message-ID: <"li6Eh2.0.Ci5.oBn-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10075 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi, After reading the first page of Leon Dragone paper (link announced by Greg) and combining the famous "mass of magnetic field" discussion and my experiments on bifilar coils, this question raised obviously: If two coil cancel each others magnetic field, and assuming the fields are carrying energy (or having mass) how will be the law of conservation of energy be satisfied? Question is for both static magnetic fields and both alternating fields and could be thought on the classical EM context. On the other hand, I observed that bifilar coils driven symmetrically (simply serially conected) intended to cancel their inductions, produce significant magnetic field instead, if the frequency applied is high enough. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 09:06:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:02:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Triboluminescence Effects Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:00:19 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"nxkM-3.0.cM2.-Jn-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10076 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Triboluminescence occurs when certain solids are fractured, when an insulator is rubbed, or, for instance, when adhesive tape is unrolled-stressed, and should occur in highly agitated liquids at a liquid-gas, or liquid-solid interface, or in microbubble c ollapse. The latter should explain sonoluminescence and microcavitation heat effects. Rubbing an incandescent or fluorescent light bulb in a darkened room or other "photo-friction" experiments will cause light effects that can be seen. Piezoelectric crystals may show triboluminescence, also. Rochelle Salt KNaC4H4O6.4 H2O, ADP (NH4H2PO4), and KH2PO4 may show triboluminescence under the right conditions. Any of these may show "over-unity" effects also. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 10:06:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:02:34 -0700 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:02:28 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: singularity Resent-Message-ID: <"jF9W7.0.id2.eCo-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10078 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >If one were to excite a series resonant circuit comprising a lossless >inductor and capacitor at the resonant frequency of the combination, >would a singularity be generated at the junction of the inductor and >capacitor? > >John Fields No. A bunch of smoke! No underdamped oscillation, mechanical or electrical, will amplify to infinity without burning up or blowing up. To induce a BH you need a very much more powerful and convergent effect for concentrating the energy density. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 10:58:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:54:41 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:54:02 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: To Ross, Re: 9.5 watts for 2 minutes Resent-Message-ID: <"Ag9RW3.0.rU6.Uzo-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10080 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross, Thanks for the info. I thought I had " all the good books " . I just got a little lazy on the joule thing anyway. Thanks, Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 12:34:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:24:13 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Chemical O-U Effects? Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 19:23:27 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"3t3RR3.0.zP4.RHq-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10081 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, In scanning through the chemicals for triboluminescence effects involving Hydrogen and Potassium, Rochelle Salt (KNaC4H406)made from reacting tartaric acid with the alkaline bases, and KH2PO4 made by reaction of Phosphoric acid with KOH, one sees some pos sibilities for the aromatic carboxylic acids such as HO-C6H4-COOH. Salicylic acid (o).HO-C6H4-COOH when acetylated becomes Acetylsalicylic Acid,(0).CH3-CO-C6H4-COOH which reacted with Calcium,forms Ca-[(0).CH3-CO-C6H4-COO-]2 commonly known as Aspirin. :-) In the digestive tract it is hydrolyzed back to Acetylsalicyclic acid and Calcium carbonate and is absorbed into the bloodstream, where it can pick up potassium and go to; 2 (o).HO-C6H4-COOK. (note,COOK is not to be taken literally?) :-) However, Get a few Hydrino reactions going and... Spontaneous Fire? Oh well, beats a migraine. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 19 19:20:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:57:49 +1200 From: John Berry To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets References: <3.0.32.19970819015726.007b6100 inforamp.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"G9NBb1.0.od.N9b-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10055 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Quinney wrote: > At 07:53 PM 8/18/97 -0700, Robert Stirniman wrote: > >John E. Steck" wrote: > > > >> 1) Does a magnetic field flow N->S or S->N. > > > >A north magnetic pole is usually defined completely > >arbitrarilly as the pole of a magnetic compass which > >points towards the Earth's north pole. Ironically, this > >means that the north pole of the earth is actually a > >south magnetic pole. > > > >Regards, > >Robert Stirniman > > > > I have to disagree. The earth was here before the compass was > invented, so > The North pole of the earth should get preferential recognition as > *the* > North Pole, ..but would that mean that all *compasses* are mislabeled? > > How did we ever get into such a state.? Wasn't electric current > direction > wrong for 150 years or so? > There's a group of magnet-healing doctors that just call poles > positive and > negative. That's neat. If magnetism flows from the south pole to the > north > pole, and the South Pole is positive, then the magnetic flow is from > positive to negative. > > Hope this helps. > > Colin Quinney. It was because it was called the north seeking pole so by definition it is NOT the north pole, because it seeks the north pole not because it is the north pole. The lines of force flow from the north to south pole, and NOT the other way round. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 14:56:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:46:43 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:46:07 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"S4VR51.0.l24.2Ns-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10082 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com But if the energy density is uniform in all directions, then there is > no net gravitational spacetime curvature induced, anywhere. This is > like air pressure, gage pressure, and absolute pressure. The force on > the front of your body right now is about 10,000 pounds of force, but > it is balanced on all sides so you probably don't know you are being > crushed together! > > Ross Tessien .............................................. Hamdi!! good comments Ross you got it wrong. The age of the universe is limited by its mass density. The currently accepeted age is 15 billion years + - a factor of 3. If all of this zero point energy existed the weight of this energy would result in a short lived universe. The argument as to if the universe is closed of open hings on the weight of the mass energy of the universe. The best minds (John Gribben "The Omega Point") tell us that the is expanding on the line between open and closed. .............................................................................. ............................ Hubble's constant not only tells of of the expansion of the univese but also gives a deceleration constant. If massive qunatities of ZPE exist the expansion of the universe would be decelerating rapidly. Again not the case. ........................................................................... In a closed zero energy universe the gravitational potential lost by an object falling into the universe equals it rest energy. Ref to my article in IE Dec 95. If more mass energy exists than one proton of ordinary matter and 10 protons of dark matter p er cubic meter this would not be the case. .............................................................................. ..................... Verna Ruba determined the energy density of Galaxies and found that ten times the mass of the galaxy is composed of dark matter....A 100,000 fold mass of ZPE was not found. .............................................................................. ................. Time slow in a gravitational field. Time would slow to a stop in the hugh gravitational field produced by ZPE. .............................................................................. .......... I could go on but the weight of the proposed enormus quantity of ZPE energy would have detectable gravitational effects. Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 15:19:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:04:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"nfeNE3.0.yD1.Gfs-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10083 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: Lots of good points about vacuum energy density [snip] > .............................................................................. > .......... > I could go on but the weight of the proposed enormus quantity of ZPE energy > would have detectable gravitational effects. > In addition the Standard Model of Particle Physics REQUIRES the existance of a Universal Higgs field. In this model it is the interaction of elementary particles (quarks and leptons) with this field that give particles their measured mass. The Higgs field has a non-zero expectation value in the vaccuum. If you calculate the mass of this over the volume of the Universe you come about with a mass about 10^50 times bigger than the mass of the Universe!!! This is the mainstream explanation of how particles ac quire mass. This is a big problem for Theoretical Physics. I asked a theorist how a problem this big could exist in an otherwise powerful predicitive theory. He answered that "we do not understand the vacuum". If the much maligned Superconducting Super Collider had been built we'd be looking for the Higgs particle next year or the year after. Instead we have to wait till 2005 for LHC to be built at CERN. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 16:15:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:08:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 23:06:42 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"Gf_KC.0.jN3.uZt-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10084 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:04 PM 8/20/97 +0000, Martin Sevior wrote: > >If the much maligned Superconducting Super Collider had been built we'd be >looking for the Higgs particle next year or the year after. Instead we have >to wait till 2005 for LHC to be built at CERN. Yes. And looking,and looking, and looking whilst the taxpayers were looking at a $12 Billion plus addition to the National Debt. Let the EC PAY for some Fringe Science for a change. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Martin Sevior > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 17:03:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:51:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"X2ff51.0.fB5.mCu-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10085 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > At 10:04 PM 8/20/97 +0000, Martin Sevior wrote: > > > >If the much maligned Superconducting Super Collider had been built we'd be > >looking for the Higgs particle next year or the year after. Instead we have > >to wait till 2005 for LHC to be built at CERN. > > Yes. And looking,and looking, and looking whilst the taxpayers were > looking at a $12 Billion plus addition to the National Debt. Let > the EC PAY for some Fringe Science for a change. :-) > Clearly this is the wrong forum to expound on the virtues of Basic Research. Finding or not finding the Higgs Particle will make a direct impact on a lot what's discussed here though. I agree that the Americans should have stuck with building the accelerator for the "advertised" price of 6 billion dollars. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 17:05:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:58:07 -0700 (PDT) From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:58:50 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemical O-U Effects? References: <19970820192325.AAA9005 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"tEAPL1.0.wM5.DIu-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10086 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I did an experiment where quinine was subjected to sudden cooling with liquid nitrogen. A giger counter nearby registered a sudden burst of clicks from the phase change of the material cooling. Could be sudden release of C-14. Or some form of nuclear chan ge as result of temperature change. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 17:38:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:24:00 -0700 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:23:45 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"bl20r3.0.aa4.Ugu-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10087 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > But if the energy density is uniform in all directions, then there is >> no net gravitational spacetime curvature induced, anywhere. This is >> like air pressure, gage pressure, and absolute pressure. The force on >> the front of your body right now is about 10,000 pounds of force, but >> it is balanced on all sides so you probably don't know you are being > >crushed together! >> >> Ross Tessien >.............................................. >Hamdi!! good comments >Ross you got it wrong. > >The age of the universe is limited by its mass density. The currently >accepeted age is 15 billion years + - a factor of 3. If all of this zero >point energy existed the weight of this energy would result in a short lived >universe. > >The argument as to if the universe is closed of open hings on the weight of >the mass energy of the universe. snip >I could go on but the weight of the proposed enormus quantity of ZPE energy > would have detectable gravitational effects. >Frank Znidarsic No Frank, you simply don't understand what I mean because the model of the universe I am working with is so upside down that virtually no one gets it to date. This could be because I am nuts, or because the notions are just not so simple, and of course, I am confident in the latter. :-) The following describes some of how my notions differ from what you anticipated, and so why my notions are not proven incorrect by the evidence you cited. This is not an affront in the least, it is intended simply to be an explanation of my ideas so that you might understand them better if you or others choose. But I needed to respond to your comment that I was wrong because there is a difference between w hat I said being incorrect based on current thinking (as it is I agree), and my statements having been in error based on the systems and structures of our universe as described in the models I am working on (which my comments are in agreement with and whi ch ideas better match what our universe actually does, than do QM and GR suppositions today. These notions fail to anticipate numerous things like solar coronal heating etc. My notions expect these and other behaviors we observe as I am trying to explai n in a book. Herbig Haro objects outside of T-tauri stars being I think, some of the most beautiful affirmations of my notions, and dark matter being one of the most well known behaviors my model anticipates.) But your comments, and those of the people you cited, all of whom I have read btw, are missing some immensely important points. they are based on some tacit beliefs I consider incorrect. By tacit, understand, I am referring to things we simply take for granted and never even bother to question as not being the only possible way the universe might really work on these issues. first of all, you consider it to be a given that gravitation is an attractive pull. This crazy notion, accepted by nearly everyone on the planet, presumes that each and every proton in my pinky finger is being pulled by each and every proton, neutron, an d electron in the earth, sun, MW, Andromeda, and the balance of the matter in our local cluster of galaxies. Can you imagine how many particles that is which must know about the whereabouts in existence of my pinky fingers proton? And then, you must int erconnect all of those particles with each and every one of them, ie, EXX gravitational connections per particle just within our local vicinity. There is no manner we can think of that can produce a non local "spacetime curvature" effect from matter to matter, so we invoke this crazy notion of "fields". Fields are a wonderful concept for an engineer, who doesn't care why things work the way they do. He only cares that he can calculate what will happen. So for this purpose, fields are great, and physicists are acting like engineers, not fundamental thinkers. What do we mean when we say there exists a field of any kind? Well, we mean that we observed that one object accelerated toward, or away from, some other object. So, we simply assume that the two objects (earth - pinky finger; proton - electron; prot on - proton/neutron; for gravitational, EM, and strong forces respectively) are surrounded by one of the above "fields". This assumption removes our responsibility to discover what mechanics are responsible for the observed accelerations of our systems of interacting particles. Instead, we simply say that a field exists, and any time we need, we invent a new field. ie, at first we only needed a gravitational field, then we needed an E and M fields, then we unified those, then we needed a strong field, and then a new weak field. So if some new behavior shows up in the future, we will just invent another new field to describe the actions of those new interacting fields, sort of like how the gluon interaction is just about another field type acting between quarks, though we haven 't expressely called it a unique field to date. Notice what is important and missing from the above assumptions. We did not consider the interaction of the balance of the universe, and the effect that structure might have on the interaction of the two particles. In other words, you do not have two pa rticles in a void. You have two particles in a universe. So if you consider the real situation, you now have more options to consider and rule out for how all of the above forces work. Consider gravitation as a really simple case. Two objects are accelerated toward one another, right? right. Now, did they pull on one another (ie earth and my body), or were they pushed together by some form of energy arriving from deep space and which the earth some how filtered out? The simple fact is that the manner in which we use fields, we never even bot hered to ask this simple question, so no theory existing today, ie GR, tells us anything about this question. Mathematically, the two possibilities are identical, so that tells us nothing either. There is one huge clue, though. We are well aware that if you have something, and it is resisting the flow of something else passing through it, then there will normally be some degree of resistance to that flow, and that will result in a thrust. So it makes perfect sense that wave energy from space could interfere with, and be filtered by, my body and by the earth such that energy passing through me from below is less energetic than is wave energy passing through me and arriving from above. Thus , it is sensible that the universe is pushing me downward, toward the earth. But no one can make any connective, action transference kind of sense out of the notion that the earths particles are all reaching up and pulling me downward. this nonsense leads to the absurdity of the universe being able to pull itself back inward. No tice that in your thinking of that notion, you, right along with Davies and your other thinkers, are all pondering an eventuality for which you never laid the ground work to even know that the action of gravitation is indeed a pull. Furthermore, you restricted your understanding of our universe to be "all that exists". ie, when I said that all you had was wave energy and the resulting pressure from all sides, you "pulled" that logic into your own thinking framework and realized that all of my ZPE energy was going to "pull" the universe back inward due to the gravitational effect. But, we don't know either that the universe is all there is, nor do we know that gravitation is intrinsically a pulling method of transference of action. Personally, I believe that gravitation is the interaction of the resonances of aether making up our bodies (aka atoms, or particles ) with wave energy interfering with their resonances and arriving from space (ie, out of frequency match wave energy to whi ch our particle resonances cannot couple and thus can only interfere with). This notion is so simple and obvious it is amazing that the concept of an attractive pull is so well accepted. But that is all because of our predisposition to consider the universe to be largely composed of "empty space", rather than being "an ocean of aether". The former, when you open mindedly think about it, is rather silly. How can a wave travel from a distant star to our eyes if there is nothing along the way to wave? We have come to think in terms of "particles" as explaining everything. This is again s illy. How do I throw a pea at the earths particles and have the earth recoil toward me due to their impacts? Why do I recoil toward the earth from the earth throwing gravitons at me? Why does a proton recoil toward an electron when the photons shot by the el ectron strike the proton? When was the last time you threw a ball at something and saw it jump toward you due to the impact? Never. so why should we be so all fired confident that our forces are intrinsically attractive? If we consider the fact that there is a universe of particles out there, and then that each of them is buzzing, then it should be painfully clear that the intensity of that buzzing here near earth should be enormous and that if we manage to filter any of it out, that we would be pushed away from the direction of origin, ie away from space and toward earth. But to think of this is mind wrenching. We are required to realize that a bar of steel is not pulling itself together either. The very same wave energy is pushing all of the atoms toward one another with some real intensity. But when you pull a bar of steel apart what happens? Well, it necks down as that wave energy from space collapses and pushes the atoms into one another, and as you shield the ends of the bar from the compression using your tensile tester machine. Well, I could go on too, but have other things to work on. the point is, I am not incorrect in what I said. I am only incorrect in light of your understanding of the universe. And I am incorrect in light of the majority of people on the planet's unders tanding of the universe (including virtually all physicists who would probably agree with your summation more so than mine). However, the universe is more in agreement with me. And evidence of this abounds in T-Tauri stars, the solar coronal heating, Herbig-Haro objects, CME's, BH's and their jets of emitted aether, solar pitch variances (GONG), mass conservation in E=mc^2, et c. etc. Cold fusion is one more example of what is going on. ie, that the nuclear force is not an attraction, but rather it is a compression of wave energy converging into the nucleus from the surrounding spacetime wave motions in the ocean of aether. Ergo, it is possible to use a large number of nuclei to disrupt the acoustic structure of spacetime, locally, and in so doing, to allow the particles in a nucleus to fly apart on their own. That is why you find the isotopic anamolies in the Pd foils, and that is why Champion is able to transmute Hg and Pb into Au and Pt etc. The difference in thinking is that of our current beliefs that forces and properties are intrinsic to particles and extend outward, as compared to my thinking which requires that particles are simply resonances coupled to and driven by the acoustic wave e nergy in the aether ocean we call a universe. One is a very myopic arogant belief in our importance and separation from the balance of the universe, and the other is a humbling realization that without the balance of the universe to force our particles to remain together, we would all fly apart into nothingness. And if you think the universe is not important, then simply take a pail of water suspended by a rope, spin it rapidly and watch the shape of the water change into a concave geometry and ask, how did that bucket know the balance of the universe existed to know that it was rotating? If you invoke spacetime as the reference the bucket sensed, then what is the geometry and structure of, spacetime, that the particles in the bucket knew what to do? No matter how you slice it, our ignoring the importance of the universe has led to our thinking that QM is a good theory to use as a fundamental notion. But notice carefully that QM does not predict a single force, and it does not predict a single particle, and it does not predict gravitation, and it does not predict anything from a first principle standpoint. All QM is is a book keeping system which allows us to make predictions based on past observations. But we did not begin with some principle, like Einstein did in GR, and derive what we ought to observe. Einstein said that no fundamental theory should make any mention of "particles". Instead, a fundamental theory ought to derive the existence of particles from a single field structure, and all other fields ought to be derived from that one. That one field is the interaction of aether with aether in a compressive behavior. There exist in nature, no attractive forces. Meaning that when we observe two objects accelerating toward one another, it is because they are interacting with the surroun ding wave structure of the universe and of the particles under consideration, and they are being accelerated as a net result of compression waves. So while two objects may accelerate toward one another, it is not because they are "pulling" on one another . Have a fun week, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 17:40:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:34:21 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:33:37 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"vVrYy2.0.l05.Aqu-p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10088 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:51 PM 8/20/97 +0000, Martin Sevior wrote: > > >On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >> At 10:04 PM 8/20/97 +0000, Martin Sevior wrote: >> > >> >If the much maligned Superconducting Super Collider had been built we'd be >> >looking for the Higgs particle next year or the year after. Instead we have >> >to wait till 2005 for LHC to be built at CERN. >> >> Yes. And looking,and looking, and looking whilst the taxpayers were >> looking at a $12 Billion plus addition to the National Debt. Let >> the EC PAY for some Fringe Science for a change. :-) >> > >Clearly this is the wrong forum to expound on the virtues of Basic Research. >Finding or not finding the Higgs Particle will make a direct impact on a lot >what's discussed here though. I agree that the Americans should have stuck >with building the accelerator for the "advertised" price of 6 billion >dollars. There is nothing "Virtuous" about spending PUBLIC DOLLARS for BASELESS RESEARCH when faced with a $5.5 TRILLION, National Debt. (about $20,000.00 for every man, woman,and child in the country). $12 Billion spread over 10 years would go a ways toward the $350 Billion/year INTEREST PAYMENT. A lot of good BASELESS RESEARCH is going to do in about 33 years when there are more people on this Planet than it can support. Having "friends over for dinner" or "passing a friend" on the way to A "SOYLENT GREEN" restaurant might take on a different meaning. The clock is ticking on this "Bomb". It IS NOT a topic of polite discussion. Regards, Frederick > >Martin Sevior > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 00:26:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:24:36 -0700 (PDT) References: Conversation <33FB0B2C.39012F75@verisoft.com.tr> with last message Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Fred Epps" Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 18:38:24 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"o2dk73.0.UM4.nq--p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10091 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi John, ---------- > > If two coil cancel each others magnetic field, and assuming the fields > > are carrying energy (or having mass) how will be the law of conservation > > of energy be satisfied? > > Two magnets of opposing field (cancelling) repel each other. Therefore > the energy of the field is not cancelled, it is there in the form of > potential energy. If the coils are free to move apart, the potential > energy gets transformed into kinetic energy. > > It seems like the implication of this is that the energy of the opposing magnetic fields doesn't GO anywhere ("scalar waves") but stays right in the magnets as opposing force vectors. When I hold a rock between my hands and squeeze along exactly the same line, the forces don't go anywhere-- my arms still get tired. On the other hand an oscillating field or a rotating disc clearly has something that goes somewhere, the A-B effect in it magnetic or inertial forms. I'm not stating that I agree or disagree with this view, I'm still looking for clarity. A humble seeker after truth am I, yeah right :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 20:21:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 20:09:46 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 22:08:20 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"q0lmD1.0.264.o5x-p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10089 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > If two coil cancel each others magnetic field, and assuming the fields > are carrying energy (or having mass) how will be the law of conservation > of energy be satisfied? Two magnets of opposing field (cancelling) repel each other. Therefore the energy of the field is not cancelled, it is there in the form of potential energy. If the coils are free to move apart, the potential energy gets transformed into kinetic energy. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 20 22:06:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 22:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:30:44 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: A very theoretical discusion References: <199708210023.RAA26680 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"On6DV.0.Z21.9ny-p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10090 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross Tessien wrote: > > > But if the energy density is uniform in all directions, then there > > is no net gravitational spacetime curvature induced, anywhere. > No Frank, you simply don't understand what I mean because the model of > the universe I am working with is so upside down that virtually no one > gets it to date. I replayed the above comment in the context of the GR as the discussion is the upper limit of the ZPE density on GR theory. Frank also criticized Ross comment on the GR context. But Ross skipped this restriction and did not see any difficulty on uniform density of ZPE or another distribution of energy according his theory. Maybe so. But I think that any gravitation theory should predict some observational differences if a significant of energy distribution is introduced into the universe. As the gravitation is matter of mass or energy on any possible gravitation theory, this extra m ass should not be transparent. > What do we mean when we say there exists a field of any kind? Well, > we mean that we observed that one object accelerated toward, or away > from, some other object. Superficially, fields can be replaced by action by distance as mass interact on mass, charges on charges and magnetic forces. But what is mass, what is charge and what is magnetism? No answer. But, now think that everything is a field, particles, photons and static fields of course. So a continuous single field is filing spacetime as a fabric, and what we observe other than vacuum is a condensed, deformed and topologically modified piece of thi s field. And the forces we experience as inertia, magnetic and the electrical are the dynamism of this field. There is nothing, but field. Every theory and explanations are based on models. Models are mathematics. Without modeling we cant be conciseness. Models are not unique. They are language of our physical understanding. As many language is coexisting, many physical theory could be exist and may describe the same physical reality in different languages. > Instead, we simply say that a field exists, and any time we need, we > invent a new field. ie, at first we only needed a gravitational > field, then we needed an E and M fields, then we unified those, then > we needed a strong field, and then a new weak field. So if some new > behavior shows up in the future, we will just invent another new field > to describe the actions of those new interacting fields, sort of like > how the gluon interaction is just about another field type acting > between quarks, though we haven't expressely called it a unique field > to date. The criticism idea on the advancement of the physics is now wrong but statements are. What will be the real unification? A unique mathematical equation set to describe all of forces of the nature. According my unified theoretical view, the basic constituent of the matter is the "electrical potential". Everything could be described by the relations of the geometrical dimensions, time and electrical potential which can be thought as five dimensions. As the Euclidean geometry is build and the geometrical objects are defined using the three dimensions, incorporating the time and the electrical potential allows to define or describe the real objects and all physical entities as magnetic and electrical f orces, particles, inertia, energy, electromagnetism and gravitation. A set of equations (as Maxwell equations) will suffice to describe every forces and basic rules and mechanism of the physics. These five dimensions have no separate physical meaning and existence for they own. The basic equations which reflect properties of the matter are principle. Dimensions are the variables and they are only defined on these equations. They (dimensions) hav e chosen so, as directly observable entities as geometrical dimensions and partially observable as time and indirectly observable as electrical potential with our senses for the purpose of physics looks simple. On the contrary, the direct observation of t he dimensions gave the impression of these entities have absolute meaning, and caused major difficulty to understand the nature of the matter. In reality there is no such a thing as absolute dimensions, absolute time, and the spacetime free of the matter (the vacuum concept) Physics and dimensions have only sense with the matter, otherwise they will be a part of the mathematics. It can be said the the first step is completed by the birth of the universe, and the second step is to understanding it. Notes: I tried to re-wrote the second half of the letter again due a blackout. Please apologize for the disorder of the thought flow. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 05:42:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 05:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:55:31 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex -l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Resent-Message-ID: <"GDMHb2.0.s53.-R3_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10093 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, A very good post shall keep and printout. I passionally believe in the old ideas about liberalism (true liberalism, not today's perversion of it) of freedom and lassiez-faire economics; it simply gives everyone a piece of the cake regardless of colour, cr eed or religion. If someone wants to form an elitist club, delude themselves with fraudulant theories, I don't care! Provided they do it at their own expense, not the taxpayers and also, that they don't get up to dirty tricks of denying competition by, for instance, preve ntion of publication or smears. I'm appalled by the routhneck (or is that redneck?) tactics of the rotten academic establishment. It's akin to unions or luddites protecting their job for life by stifling innovation. Despite all their erudition, education, culture and left-wing bleatings , it is truly the mentality of the dockyards. Remi. P.S. Vortex, I did promise you I wouldn't post until I have results - I don't want to be seen talking to much. I just get hot under the collar about something subjects. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 05:03:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 04:57:21 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:58:19 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question References: Resent-Message-ID: <"d2MgU1.0.e16.Wq2_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10092 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: > > > Two magnets of opposing field (cancelling) repel each other. Therefore > the energy of the field is not cancelled, it is there in the form of > potential energy. If the coils are free to move apart, the potential > energy gets transformed into kinetic energy. > John, I would tend to think of the two coils together as a specific "current field" having an inductance dependent on their specific geometry. The initial current sets up a magnetic field with energy equal to 1/2 (L_i)*I^2, where L_i is the initial induc tance. Don't worry about the internal forces in the system - any current field that does not everywhere satisfy J X B = 0 will have internal stresses (forces). When the coils are moved apart, the SYSTEM inductance will increase, and to hold I constant i n the two coils will require power from the driving source. When apart and stationary, the magnetic energy of the coils will be larger than when nested - with this extra energy coming from the driving source. During the separation process, the work done on the surroundings will also come from the driving source. When a magnetic field is "cancelled", that means the field is not there, which means that the energy is not "there" - not that it's hiding from us somewhere. If this is a wrong view, chalk it up to "kitchen burnout" Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 05:56:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 05:49:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:45:43 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com, John Schnurer cc: chronos@enter.net Subject: How do we know??? What is the test ???Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"MAAt52.0.0V.Mb3_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10094 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo., I may have missed a very good answer by not paying attention, so please forgive me if this has already been answered, but here goes: The direction of flow of electricity can be demonstrated, at least in long long plasma tubes. How do we know the direction of magnetism...? On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Steve Ekwall wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Love the question.... but how do we know the direction of > >magnetic 'flow" ??? > > > Arb: 'Polaris' (north star) hummm, is NORTH... hummmm, & UP! > at least on the maps too. Interesting that we live South of town and > the wife always wants to go 'downtown'. Maybe the women should have been > involved in this one around 5-8,000 BC :) > > -=se=- I know i don't stop & ask directions! :) > > If a man is in the forrest with no woman to hear him, IS HE STILL WRONG? > -------------- > If a woman is in the forrest with no man to hear her, IS SHE STILL > COMPLAINING?? > > hummmmmmmm :) > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 06:11:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 05:59:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:59:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Britz --> db Resent-Message-ID: <"XtiqX.0.Zu.1l3_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10095 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com It is possible that some of you on the vortex list are still interested in my bibliography, or want to email me some time. In that case, please note that I have changed email address (user-id from britz to db), as well as URL for my web pages. The old one s will still work for a while, being now a link to the new one, but it might be as well to change any bookmarks to the proper address. Both are given below. If you want to go directly into the cold fusion web page, add /fusion to the URL. Then you miss ou t on a photo of me trying to smile. -- Dieter Britz alias db kemi.aau.dk. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 07:54:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:50:24 -0700 X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:47:35 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: How do we know??? What is the test ???Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"UdHnT.0.31.lM5_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10098 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:45 AM 8/21/97 -0400, you wrote: > > > Dear Vo., > > > I may have missed a very good answer by not paying attention, so >please forgive me if this has already been answered, but here goes: > > > The direction of flow of electricity can be demonstrated, at >least in long long plasma tubes. > > How do we know the direction of magnetism...? > Hi John: We don't, of course. As we all know, the magnetism arises as concentric circles around all current carrying conductors, including atoms. Can anyone imagine an experiment to reveal 'direction' ?? I don't think so. Colin Quinney. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 08:10:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:07:34 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Redlight Power and Tokamaks Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:06:57 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"GBxTw3.0.6l.qc5_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10100 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, If one was to put a couple of moles of photons of 1-2 ev energy (about 20-40 Kw.)into a Tokamak running at about 1.0E16 "hydrogen" molecules/cm^3, there might be a good "R.O.I." energywise. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 08:28:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Aug 97 11:21:39 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Britz becoming db Resent-Message-ID: <"lCKyW3.0.8n1.ks5_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10101 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Dieter Britz announces that his new nom de network will be db. Afficionados of the network will know that "db" is how Dick Blue signs his messages. It would appear that Britz is merging his persona with Blue. Somehow this does not surprise me . . . - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 08:50:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.200.226 References: <970820174607_671434970 emout11.mail.aol.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:36:32 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"37VUO1.0.PL2.J36_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10102 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > >Lots of good points about vacuum energy density > >[snip] It is important to realize here that the mass of the zpe generates no gravitational field. If it did the universe would be closed over a distance of a few kilometers. Perhaps the best way of understanding this is through Hal Putoff's theory of gravity as a distortion of the zpe as in: Puthoff, H.E. (1989, 1993) "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 2333-2342; Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 3454-3455. Here it is only the distortion in the zpe, and not the mass, that causes gravity. An analogy is the old shading theory of gravity. Suppose we have a vacuum with random particles like photons moving around. Then place two spheres which would absorb thes e particles in this vacuum. One sphere would shade the other and there would be an attractive force generated from this shading. So the particles themselves do not cause the attraction. It doesn't matter how many particles there are, there will be no a ttraction unless there is some shading. It is disturbing that there is this massive sea of energy that has no gravitational or inertial mass. It may be that this zpe business is all imaginary. If it actually is real the only hope of making any sense of it that I see is Hal's theory of gravitation and inertia. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 07:38:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:33:30 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:44:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"WQC0D3.0.IC7.v65_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10097 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 19 Aug 97 at 12:26, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> wrote: > the history of science and technology show that reproducibility has no > connection with acceptance. Barry's statement is a myth. It is one of the many > unexamined, baseless ideas that scientists have about their own profession. ..... > 2. It should be discovered by a high ranking male, preferable white > Anglo-Saxon, at an east-coast U.S. or Northern European lab. Discoveries made > by minorities, women, and low ranking lab workers often face stiff resistance, Another example of this bias was the irrational opposition to biologist Lynn Margulis' theory of endosymbiosis -- the idea that cellular organelles (mitochondria, chloroplasts, ribosomes, etc.) evolved from external microorganisms which the primitive bact eria ingested. Her theory is now widely accepted. For brief bibliography of Margolis' work, see URL: http://www.temple.edu/cfs/margulis.htm Someone should compile all these myth-busting FACTS into a well-documented handbook.... Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================ Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates - Custom Software Development - - Quality Control Engineering - ============================================ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 09:11:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:07:31 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:02:48 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question References: <33FC2D5B.4C90@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"Oz-qI3.0.z54.1V6_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10103 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Francis J. Stenger wrote: > When a magnetic field is "cancelled", that means the field is not there, > which means that the energy is not "there" - not that it's hiding from > us somewhere. How can you explain the "Two Moving Magnets Experiment"? To wit -- A north pole moving to the left with generate an EMF in a loop of conductor. A south pole moving to the right would generate an EMF of the same polarity. The two magnetic poles, as they pass themselves, moving in opposite directions, will have a ZERO magnetic field, but will generate an EMF in a conductor loop which has twice the magnitude which either pole would have if it were moving separately. Some way, some how, energy is converted to current in the conducting, loop, by a magnetic field whi ch has a ZERO net value. Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 08:10:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:10:38 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu, rbrtbass pahrump.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, ine@padrak.com, design73@aol.com, jonesse asto.byu.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, JoeC@transmutation.com, drom vxcern.cern.ch, davidk@suba.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, perkins3 llnl.gov, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr Subject: Some CF abstracts from Dieter Britz's CF bibliography Resent-Message-ID: <"ksVM_.0.F-.HZ5_p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10099 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com These abstracts were lifted from Dieter Britz's cold fusion bibliography. There is a report by F. Will that casts doubt on the claim by Steven Jones that recombination accounts for most CF excess heat. [-- Dieter Britz alias db kemi.aau.dk. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db/fusion] # Arata Y, Zhang Y-C; J. High Temp. Soc. 23 (special volume) (1997) 1-56. "Solid-state plasma fusion ('cold fusion')". ** Experimental, theoretical, helium, heat, mass spec, lattice quake, res+ In this long paper, the authors extend their reports on ongoing research and, for the first time, present evidence of the formation of 3He, as well as (again) for 4He, both detected by close repeated cycling of a high resolution mass spectrometer around a very narrow mass range (for 4He: 3.95-4.05). They also give many details of their experiments, using the double cathode, i.e. a Pd cathode with a hollow space, into which they pack some Pd powder. As they electrolyse and deuterium gas forms outside the c athode, it diffuses through the thin wall and saturates the Pd black within. Loadings up to 1.0 are said to be achieved. When they are, the MS cyclings show peaks of 4He and 3He growing in time, as the sample is heated to temperatures where He is expected to be released from the metal. The authors are aware of and believe they have eliminated He contamination from pump oil and the like, and their all-steel apparatus should be impervious to ambient He. They theorise that tritium too should be found, if 3H e is, but they do not find any; with their technique, however, (MS cycling) this is difficult because of the large number of species the tritium would distribute into (TT, TD, TH, etc). They are helped in their detection also by varying the MS ionisation voltage, an interesting technique, allowing them to se parate interfering masses. Without this, they would probably not have found the 3He. They find that roughly 1 out of a few hundred deuterium nuclei fuse to 4He; their heat results are in order-of-magnitude agreement with this. They round up the results with an outline of their "lat tice quake" theory. Sep-96/Jan-97 #....................................................................... Jun-97 Arata Y, Zhang Y-C; J. High Temp. Soc. 23 (1997) 110 (in Japanese, Engl. abstr.). "Presence of helium (4/2He, 3/2He) confirmed in highly deuterated Pd-black by the new detecting methodology". ** Experimental, helium, mass spec, res+ This paper focusses in more detail on both the detection of 3He and 4He by the cycled mass spectroscopy technique of the authors, as well as their technique of varying the MS ionisation voltage to help separate the masses (their "Vi effect"). Here they present many results that they believe confirm the finding of both 3He and 4He from deuterated Pd black in their double structured cathode. Mar-97/Mar-97 #....................................................................... Jun-97 Arata Y, Zhang Y-C; Proc. Jap. Acad. 73 B (1997) 1-6. "Helium (4/2He, 3/2He) within deuterated Pd-black". ** Experimental, theoretical, helium, mass spec, lattice quake, res+, ** no FPH/Jones ref. A separate smaller paper, reporting the helium results only (see the large paper in J. High Temp. Soc 1997 for all details). Jan-97/Jan-97 #....................................................................... Jun-97 Cerron-Zeballos E, Crotty I, Hatzifotiadou D, Lamas Valverde J, Williams MCS, Zibichi A; Nuovo Cimento 109A (1996) 1645. ** Experimental, Ni, gas phase, hydrogen, calorimetry, res- This team tried to reproduce the results of Focardi et al (1994), who reported excess heat from a Ni/light water experiment. Focardi et al thought that they had observed a pd fusion reaction (con sidered by Schwinger as the most likely). A Ni rod, 6mm dia., 90 mm long, was surrounded by a Pt heater coil in a gas chamber, with thermocouples strategically placed. In a given run, 360 Torr of hydrogen was let into the cell, and the heater power ramped up and then down. Input power, pressure and temperature were recorded. A pressure decrease was taken to indicate loading of hydrogen into the Ni. Some cells could not be loaded, some could. Experiments were continued for over a year, with many cycles. In some runs where hydrogen was absorbed, there were heat events, but the authors put these down to changed thermal properties of hydrided Ni with respect to the Ni itself, rather than to an anomaly, as did Focardi et al. So no excess heat was deemed to have been found here. Jul-96/Dec-96 #....................................................................... Jun-97 Mizuno T, Inoda K, Akimoto T, Azumi K, Kitaichi M, Kurokawa K, Ohmori T, Enyo M; Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 22 (1997) 23. "Anomalous gamma peak evolution from SrCe solid state electrolyte charged in D2 gas". ** Experimental, gas phase, ceramic, gamma, solid state electrolysis, Pd-D, ** res+, no FPH/Jones ref. A mixture of metal oxides of Sr, Ce, Y and Nb was mixed, sintered, powdered, washed with ethanol, formed into tablets and sintered again. A Pt layer was deposited on both flats, thin and porous enough to let hydrogen through. The tablets were then put int o a chamber, evacuated, and charged with D2 gas. An ac voltage of 5-45 V and 0.0001 to 1 Hz was then applied (the "electrolysis") and gamma emission was measured by a Ge(Si) detector, before and after electrolysis. There were some gamma peaks observed wit h deuterium, but not without, or with hydrogen. These peaks indicated the formation of 197Pt, 153Sm and 155Sm, by cold fusion of Pt with deuterium. Apr-96/Jan-97 #....................................................................... Jul-97 Ohmori T, Mizuno T, Minagawa H, Enyo M; J. Hydrogen Energy 22 (1997) 459. "Low temperature nuclear transmutation forming iron on/in gold electrode during light water electrolysis". ** Experimental, transmutation, Au, light water, res+ This team used an Au cathode in light water with Na2SO4, K2SO4 and K2CO3 as electrolytes. Electrolysis was applied for 7 days at 1A (electrode area 2.5 and 5 cm^2), adding water as required, and then t he Au electrode was analysed for its component elements by several techniques such as AES and SIMS. The AES spectra showed mainly Fe as a new product, accumulating with time. The amount produced depended on mechanical pretreatment of the Au (glass scrapin g etc). Some excess heat was found, in the range 210-715 mW. SIMS analysis showed some anomalies in the isotopic distribution of the Fe, with 57Fe being at 6.6 times the natural value. Accumulation from the solution is ruled out by the authors. Many other elements were found, but their isotopic distributions showed that they were impurities. The authors are not clear about the origin of the Fe, e.g. whether it comes from fusion or fission. Jun-96/? #....................................................................... Jun-97 Will F; J. Electroanal. Chem. 426 (1997) 177. "Hydrogen + oxygen recombination and related heat generation in undivided electrolysis cells". ** Theory, recombination, res0 Will quantitatively examines the claim of Jones et al (backed by experiments) that observed excess heat in CNF electrolysis can be explained by recombination of hydrogen and oxygen in the cell. Jones et al used only currents up to 8 mA. Will shows by a m athematical analysis that recombination decreases with current density and at levels of, resp., 10%, 4% and 2% at 10, 100 and 1000 mA/cm^2. Thus excess heats at these higher current densities cannot be explained in these terms. Also, if there no bare met al in the cell head space, what is called recombination is not that of the dissolved gases, but rather the reduction of oxygen at the cathode, which process has the same effect. Jones et al were therefore incorrect in their postulates. Mar-96/Apr-97 #....................................................................... Jun-97 Morrison DRO; Physics Today June 1997, p 106 (Letters). "Schwinger credited with finding anomaly, exploring cold fusion". ** DROM reacts to a Letter by Chubb, Sep-97 in the same journal, pointing out that Chubb seems to have missed Schwinger's two major points on cold fusion: that it is the dp fusion reaction, not the commonly assumed dd reaction, that is the likely candidat e; and that the excess gamma energy is rapidly shared by many lattice atoms and thus scaled down to 0.1 eV or plain heat. DROM writes that the first of the two suggests an experiment in which the ratio of H2O/D2O is systematically varied (which has not be en done), and that Schwinger was wrong on the second count. -- Dieter Britz alias db kemi.aau.dk. Visit me at http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db/fusion X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 10:20:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:15:16 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:14:38 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: zpe Resent-Message-ID: <"-nP6z.0.Wt.ZU7_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10105 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com "It is important to realize here that the mass of the zpe generates no gravitational field. If it did the universe would be closed over a" Larry Wharton ........................................................... Then it does not exist. Not all matter and energy interact with other matter and energy. Neurtinos and dark matter are a case and point, however, all mass / energy has a gravitational field associated with it. That is unless you invent your own rules.. .If that is the case we could claim ZPE is alive and speaks to us could we not. Anything can happen in a universe with no rules...One rule that Einstein came up with was that the idea that the laws of physics are independent of position....I have heard that gravity is repulsive in other parts of the universe...I stand with Einstein g ravity is never repulsive...The Cosomological constant is not needed in a expanding universe. I also hear that ZPE energy is an energy minimum...there is NO energy minimum...there is, to be sure, a minimum of angular momentum. Until the question of the minimum of angular momentum is addressed no zero point theory is anywhere near being correct. That's what I tried to do and came up the idea that the Genesis of new energy is possible. All positive energy is balanced by the negative energy contained in its gravitational field. It simple and consistant with Maxwell's forumlations. Grav field = (dp/dt)/ccr Electric field = (di/dt)L Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 11:01:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:52:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"Mv2cK1.0.dF7.E38_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10107 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > There is nothing "Virtuous" about spending PUBLIC DOLLARS for > BASELESS RESEARCH when faced with a $5.5 TRILLION, National Debt. > (about $20,000.00 for every man, woman,and child in the country). > There has been well documented research that shows investment in Academic research yields in excess of 20% return per annum in increased economic activity averaged over the 50 years or more such research has been publicly funded. In that sense BASIC resea rch into the fundations of Science are about the best investment Governments can make. Last I heard, the US federal deficit will be eliminated in a of couple years anyway. > $12 Billion spread over 10 years would go a ways toward the > $350 Billion/year INTEREST PAYMENT. > A 5-15 cents a gallon tax on Gas in the States would be much more effective at both reducing the deficit, reducing CO2 emissions, encouraging research into fuel efficient cars etc. > A lot of good BASELESS RESEARCH is going to do in about 33 years > when there are more people on this Planet than it can support. > > Having "friends over for dinner" or "passing a friend" on the > way to A "SOYLENT GREEN" restaurant might take on a different > meaning. > The best way to achieve this state is to stop basic research. How do you know what will pan out and what won't work? The SSC research program was anything but baseless. It was extremely well founded in what was already known. If the Higgs particle is not found it may well be worth pouring tons of money into "Vacuum Engineering" as described by Hal Puthoff. As I've said before the Higgs field is the mainstream explanation of the existance of Mass. It may well not be right and a lot of Physicists (not just Higgs himself) would not be surprised if was not discovered. > The clock is ticking on this "Bomb". It IS NOT a topic of polite > discussion. > I'm sorry I'm polite by nature. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 11:01:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:56:56 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:57:10 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question References: <33FC2D5B.4C90@interlaced.net> <33FC66A8.56A2@skylink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"QmCB12.0.eA3.d58_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10108 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert Stirniman wrote: > > How can you explain the "Two Moving Magnets Experiment"? > > To wit -- A north pole moving to the left with generate an > EMF in a loop of conductor. A south pole moving to the right > would generate an EMF of the same polarity. The two magnetic > poles, as they pass themselves, moving in opposite directions, > will have a ZERO magnetic field, but will generate an EMF > in a conductor loop which has twice the magnitude which > either pole would have if it were moving separately. Some way, > some how, energy is converted to current in the conducting, > loop, by a magnetic field which has a ZERO net value. > Robert, the EMF generated in the loop is proportional to the RATE OF CHANGE of flux through the loop - not the magnitude of flux. Probably the change rate is higher with the counter-moving magnets. Your model is really a rather complex EM system and I h ave no direct feel for just what the flux values would be at any instant. However, if you plot the NET lines of flux from both magnets threading thru the loop as a function of time, then the EMF in the loop should be proportional to the slope of this cur ve - and the slope of the curve can be very real and finite even though it's value is going thru zero. Keep in mind that a sine wave has max. slope when the value is zero. But, maybe I'm missing something? Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 11:40:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:33:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Resent-Message-ID: <"goJUb2.0.lf1.Nf8_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10110 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > "It is important to realize here that the mass of the zpe generates no > gravitational field. If it did the universe would be closed over a" > > Larry Wharton > ........................................................... > Then it does not exist. Not all matter and energy interact with other matter > and energy. Neurtinos and dark matter are a case and point, however, all > mass / energy has a gravitational field associated with it. > Neutrinos interact via the Electroweak force. As predicted by the Standard Model the probability of a neutrino interaction increases with energy, this effect has been well measured many times. At sufficiently high energies neutrinos interact with matter m ore strongly than light. The ZPE would interact with neutrinos since it consists of Quantum Fluctuations of all forces - not just the electromagetic. As for "Dark Matter" no one knows what it is. It might just been an accumulation of many very small stars. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 10:43:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:40:31 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:43:51 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: How do we know??? What is the test ???Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"xhOaL.0.hK2.Ds7_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10106 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Schnurer asks: > > How do we know the direction of magnetism...? We know by the direction of the qv x B force acting on a moving charged particle in a magnetic field. We also know by the sign of induced EMF between two magnetically coupled circuits. Note that the sign of B by either of these measurements depends on the previous choice of a sign convention for electric charge. Of course, assignment of labels like north, south, positive and negative are purely arbitrary human conventions. We check the direction of B out every time we turn on a television, assuming it uses a cathode ray tube and the magnetic focus and deflection coils. Someone had to know the direction of B to get the image focused and right side up. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 12:13:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:03:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: How do we know??? What is the test ???Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"xX9Du2.0._M2.c_8_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10111 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Quinney wrote: > >We don't, of course. As we all know, the magnetism arises as concentric >circles around all current carrying conductors, including atoms. Can anyone >imagine an experiment to reveal 'direction' ?? I don't think so. >Colin Quinney. > > PPM > CCC? hummm, I can maybe *think* of one or two using a passive dusting over a rod, [flux on outside / magnetizism (direction) on the inside] *BUT* we better hurry and do it BEFORE y2012 when the (aztec-predicted) end of time / actually ANOTHER POLE REVERSAL OCC URS.. Then we/compass directions, would be 'Backwards' again -ya? :) cool, a 15 year 'standard!' ;) -=se=- X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 12:16:25 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:15:57 -0700 From: bpaddock csonline.net (Bob Paddock) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Induction coils of wire other than copper ? Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:09:46 -0400 Organization: is mostly via piles Reply-To: bpaddock csonline.net References: <970821150255_1218390420 emout20.mail.aol.com> Lines: 17 Resent-Message-ID: <"rE7nW3.0.6M7.hF9_p" mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/124 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com >Also does a fiber optic cable have a magnetic field around it, however weak? Fiber Optic cable can be made of either glass or plastic. So the answer is No. Contrary to popular belief Fiber Optic cable can be effected by external influences. Things like the Kerr Effect, Pockles Effect, Faraday Effect, Brag Effect et. al.... Usually not a issue in the way they are typically applied. -- For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at: http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine, Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited, Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experi ment. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 11:35:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:21:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:23:09 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question Resent-Message-ID: <"s_p0e.0.NE1.DS8_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10109 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: >On the other hand, I observed that bifilar coils driven symmetrically >(simply serially conected) intended to cancel their inductions, produce >significant magnetic field instead, if the frequency applied is high >enough. I offer at least one conventional explanation for the significant magnetic field. If you are driving the bifilar coil from an unbalanced source rather than a balanced source, then the shorted end of the coils is at a finite electric potential with respect to ground, about 1/2 of the driving voltage. At 26 MHz and the coil dimensions you give, a significant capacitive current (displacement current) flows from the end of the coils to all grounded objects in the neighborhood. This capacitive current is suppl ied by a NET current along the bifilar pair; in other words, the currents in the two bifilar windings are NOT equal and opposite. The net current generates a magnetic field that is not canceled in the winding. This is the likely source of your "significant magnetic field". Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 12:58:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Baseless Science and Voodoo Economics? Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 19:44:42 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"9HqUS2.0.Hy3.Mi9_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10113 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin Sevior said: "They are going to wipe out the Debt in a couple of years anyhow." No Martin, they want to balance spending and income in 3 to 5 years, about a $1.5 Trillion/year outlay and income, as opposed to a deficit of about $350 Billion/year. Out of this about $350 Billion/year will be used to pay the INTEREST on the $5.5 Trillion NATIONAL DEBT. That is about $20,000.00 DEBT for every person in the U.S.(including newborns). I think thatis why the borders are open, If enough aliens come in we can cut the individual burden proportionally. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 12:56:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Aug 97 15:49:31 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Deficit will not be eliminated Resent-Message-ID: <"Yh9742.0.S84.0o9_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10114 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: Last I heard, the US federal deficit will be eliminated in a of couple years anyway. This is a misunderstanding. The *growth* in the deficit is likely to eliminated in a few years, but the deficit itself will remain, and the interest payments on it will still be the largest item in the budget. (Larger than Department of Defense, for examp le.) As far as I know, there are no plans to reduce or retire the debt. This would require that government take in more in taxes than it pays out, which most experts believe would be bad for the economy. Martin comments: There has been well documented research that shows investment in Academic research yields in excess of 20% return per annum in increased economic activity averaged over the 50 years or more such research has been publicly funded. In that sense BASIC research into the foundations of Science are about the best investment Governments can make. I support academic research, but I have strong doubts about such conclusions. The economy is one of the most complex systems ever studied. Causality is nearly impossible to establish, except in tiny subsets, like a single household or one corporation. There is no way you could prove that academic research does or does not add to ec onomic activity, except by citing limited, specific case histories of products that benefitted from Academic research, or graduates who got higher salaries. For all anyone knows, the money might have been better spent elsewhere. If it had been left in the pockets of the taxpayers, the economy might have grown 30%. Such speculation can never be proven. Research is valuable in its own right, like poetry, clean air, and babies. It should not have to be justified in economic terms. If you attempt to justify research strictly in terms of dollars, someone will do a study showing that it does not create growt h, and they will argue that it should be cut back. People argue that clean air, primary education and health care are "not worth it." This is materialism carried to absurd extremes. We cannot afford to pay a million dollars per child per year for primary education, but we must be willing to pay thousands and make substantial sacrifices -- or what the purpose of having an economy and a civilization in the first place? - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 13:22:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:09:53 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: How do we know??? What is the test ???Re: Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"j7se6.0.pk4.16A_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10115 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:43 AM 8/21/97 -0800, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >John Schnurer asks: >> >> How do we know the direction of magnetism...? > >We know by the direction of the qv x B force acting on a moving charged >particle in a magnetic field. We also know by the sign of induced EMF >between two magnetically coupled circuits. Note that the sign of B by >either of these measurements depends on the previous choice of a sign >convention for electric charge. Of course, assignment of labels like north, >south, positive and negative are purely arbitrary human conventions. > >We check the direction of B out every time we turn on a television, >assuming it uses a cathode ray tube and the magnetic focus and deflection >coils. Someone had to know the direction of B to get the image focused and >right side up. > Hi Michael: The labels of N, S, are arbitrary then. "Direction" in the context of this thread however, implied "from" and "to" This is commonly used in text books, but this can imply a time duration. I do not believe there are any experiments to indicate any time dur ations in getting "from" south "to" north or visa versa..Perhaps this was not apparent to all but, to me, *that* was the implication. :-) Colin Quinney X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 13:18:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:14:59 -0700 From: Chuck Davis To: "Frederick J. Sparber" Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:13:42 -0700 Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Baseless Science and Voodoo Economics? Resent-Message-ID: <"f-xdU1.0.B12.27A_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10116 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 21-Aug-97, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >Out of this about $350 Billion/year will be used to pay the INTEREST >on the $5.5 Trillion NATIONAL DEBT. Sorry Fredrick, but with all the *BLACK* projects that have been happening for the last 30 years, it's more like $36 Trillion :( Face that! -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 14:21:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:15:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Deficit will not be eliminated Resent-Message-ID: <"SmsRe3.0.xi6.i0B_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10117 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 21 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Martin Sevior writes: > > Last I heard, the US federal deficit will be eliminated in a of couple > years anyway. > > This is a misunderstanding. The *growth* in the deficit is likely to > eliminated in a few years, but the deficit itself will remain, and the > interest payments on it will still be the largest item in the budget. > Yes, that's what I meant. The total deficit is strange thing anyway. A lot of the money is owed by the Government to their own citizens. So what a lot of the Government takes in taxes is paid back to its citizens in terms of interest payments. Who loses? The lower middle classes and the young who pay taxes but hold no securities. In a way the $350 billion interest payments is a transfer of wealth from ordinary Joes to the rich - who in turn should now be looking to reinvest in other productive enterprises now that the Government no longer wants new securities. This is true "Trickl e Down Economics". I wonder if is what Reagan had in mind when he ran up the deficit in the 1980's? > > I support academic research, but I have strong doubts about such conclusions. > The economy is one of the most complex systems ever studied. Causality is > nearly impossible to establish, except in tiny subsets, like a single > household or one corporation. There is no way you could prove that academic > research does or does not add to economic activity, except by citing limited, > specific case histories of products that benefitted from Academic research, or > graduates who got higher salaries. For all anyone knows, the money might have > been better spent elsewhere. If it had been left in the pockets of the > taxpayers, the economy might have grown 30%. Such speculation can never be > proven. > I think the study counts industries like the Electronics, Biotech, Chemical, Nuclear Power, Communications which did not exist or were very small in 1930's and whose growth can be traced to originally obscure and esoteric academic research. eg. Who knew t hat the study of Fermi levels in solid state materials would lead to the development of the MOSFET transistor - the basis of the modern electronics industry worth about $1 trillion dollars to the American economy? I very much doubt that these industries w ould have materialized without the Governments investment in originally obscure research. > Research is valuable in its own right, like poetry, clean air, and babies. It > should not have to be justified in economic terms. If you attempt to justify > research strictly in terms of dollars, someone will do a study showing that it > does not create growth, and they will argue that it should be cut back. People > argue that clean air, primary education and health care are "not worth it." > This is materialism carried to absurd extremes. We cannot afford to pay a > million dollars per child per year for primary education, but we must be > willing to pay thousands and make substantial sacrifices -- or what the > purpose of having an economy and a civilization in the first place? > I agree totally with this Jed. I think it is also worth pointing out what I said above! Even if the small-souled people claim it is not worth pushing back the boundaries of knowledge for it's own sake, such endeavours can be easily shown to have been hans omely rewarded materially. I feel just as strongly about Universal Basic Education. Apart from the good that naturally befalls educating people, subsized education for people who can't afford it is obviously good for the economy and society as a whole. Taking the purely materialistic stance, education means trained workers with higher salaries who buy more goods. No education in an advanced economy means unemployment, wasted lives and high crime. It's all so obvious, one wonders why it is ever questione d! Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 15:03:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:54:55 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Good data ...Re: Is this a EM anomaly? Resent-Message-ID: <"64L7D.0.as.KfB_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10118 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Michael and VO, Good show! Always grand to hear a lucid discussion of testing ..... you don't get this unless the author has been there! J On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > >[snip] > >- A source of magnetic/electromagnetic radiation. Frequency is 26MHz, > >second harmonic is present( a sawtooth is formed when phase is suitable) --------------- > This appears very much like a typical case of mixed magnetic and electric > response. Your coil is not shielded against electrostatic pickup, hence its > metallic mass picks up electric field by acting as a capacitor plate, not > just by magnetic induction ------------------------------ > > Michael J. Schaffer > General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA > Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 15:16:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:08:07 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: But which way??Re: How do we know??? Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"sGBOy2.0.nI1.mrB_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10119 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Michael, Bless you! BUT: Which way does the magnetic field "propagate" ? Does the "it" .... "travel" or propagate .... from Nort to south or vise versa? And it that vein: Does a line of flux have size or dimension, ie., is it like a thread? Thanks, J On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > John Schnurer asks: > > > > How do we know the direction of magnetism...? > > We know by the direction of the qv x B force acting on a moving charged > particle in a magnetic field. We also know by the sign of induced EMF > between two magnetically coupled circuits. Note that the sign of B by > either of these measurements depends on the previous choice of a sign > convention for electric charge. Of course, assignment of labels like north, > south, positive and negative are purely arbitrary human conventions. > > We check the direction of B out every time we turn on a television, > assuming it uses a cathode ray tube and the magnetic focus and deflection > coils. Someone had to know the direction of B to get the image focused and > right side up. > > > Michael J. Schaffer > General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA > Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 16:37:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:32:13 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 19:34:33 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com References: <970809192816_496261442 emout08.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"zZ8bd2.0.wk2.y_C_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10120 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:40 AM 8/10/97 -0500, John Logajan wrote: >In the unconnected end case, the elecrons have nowhere left to go, so >they pile up and thus generate an rising voltage "reflection" that >finds its way back to the source, which finally "informs" the source >that it can't pump anymore current down the line. Notice that a transmission line and a 12-volt battery can generate kilovolts at the "end of the line." This can create an arc that will close the loop. In fact, if you aren't very careful, you will create a return path where you didn't expect it. (An d if you are really foolish it will be through you!) For best results--if you do want a high-voltage high rise-time pulse a small capacitance at the end of the line can smooth behavior. For example, I used a 0.05 microfarad capacitor at 40KV when the (s witched) current source was a 100 microfarad bank at 4KV. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 17:08:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 03:35:59 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question References: Resent-Message-ID: <"JLdi-.0.HW4._SD_p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10121 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael Schaffer wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > >On the other hand, I observed that bifilar coils driven symmetrically > >(simply serially conected) intended to cancel their inductions, > > produce significant magnetic field instead, if the frequency applied > > is high enough. > > I offer at least one conventional explanation for the significant > magnetic field. If you are driving the bifilar coil from an unbalanced > source rather than a balanced source, then the shorted end of the > coils is at a finite electric potential with respect to ground, about > 1/2 of the driving voltage. At 26 MHz and the coil dimensions you > give, a significant capacitive current (displacement current) flows > > from the end of the coils to all grounded objects in the neighborhood. > This capacitive current is supplied by a NET current along the bifilar > pair; in other words, the currents in the two bifilar windings are NOT > equal and opposite. The net current generates a magnetic field that is > not canceled in the winding. > This is the likely source of your "significant magnetic field". > Thank you very much, I did just missed the specific meaning of the "symmetrical" word when I wrote it on the letter and while conducting the experiment. There is no excuse for it (for an EE). Now will try to build a new setup for driving the coils symmet rically respect to the ground, repeat the experiment. I have some other observation which imply that the story will not end here. But I should validate all these observations first, by driving them "fully symmetrically" as you stated. Maybe a suitable xformer can be used for converting a unsymmetrical source to a symmetrical one. If anybody has such a xformer design on his mind will be appreciated if describe it to me briefly. (Will be used on 25-50MHz range 15-30 Volts will be present on primary and the secondary) Please note that I am not on "breaking the law" mood and always seeking conventional explanations. I believe this the only method for catching the real anomalous phenomenon. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 17:32:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:16:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: <970809192816_496261442@emout08.mail.aol.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:18:56 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"gET1w1.0.gw4.lfD_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10122 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert I. Eachus wrote: >At 11:40 AM 8/10/97 -0500, John Logajan wrote: >>In the unconnected end case, the elecrons have nowhere left to go, so >>they pile up and thus generate an rising voltage "reflection" that >>finds its way back to the source, which finally "informs" the source >>that it can't pump anymore current down the line. > > Notice that a transmission line and a 12-volt battery can generate >kilovolts at the "end of the line." This can create an arc that will close >the loop. [snip] No. Reflection at the end of a transmission line can no more than double the voltage of a single pulse traveling along it. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 19:05:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 19:03:09 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re:ZPE and new question on dc circuit Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 02:02:29 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"lGiux1.0.zd.RDF_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10123 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:34 PM 8/21/97 +0000, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > >Notice that a transmission line and a 12-volt battery can generate >kilovolts at the "end of the line. > Along those same lines. :-) Space is considered to be a "line" of LC constants where L is 4(pi)E-7 henry/meter and C is 8.85E-12 farads/meter extending in all directions from a point. So, you fire a radar pulse at the Planet Venus and about 10 minutes later you get a return pulse Doppler shifted enough to tell you that Venus is rotating retrograde at about one revolution/year. Then you ask,is this pulse riding on top of all that Tevajoule/cm^3 ZPE with no interaction what-so-ever? Or after pondering a bit, you wonder if a power transmission line stretching for hundreds of miles would show any energy tapping from the ZPE field? Do the power companies know something about "Wheeling" on the grid that we don't? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 20:14:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:11:36 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:11:26 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"G6goY2.0.Ip4.cDG_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10124 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Notice that a transmission line and a 12-volt battery can generate > >kilovolts at the "end of the line." This can create an arc that will close > >the loop. [snip] > > No. Reflection at the end of a transmission line can no more than double > the voltage of a single pulse traveling along it. Interesting disagreement. One would think that inductance might vary and so too the "end of the line" voltage step. I know all the text books say the reflection step doubles -- but now I wonder why only doubling? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 20:20:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:18:20 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:16:59 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"8tSRA2.0.jL4.vJG_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10125 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin Sevior writes: > There has been well documented research that shows investment in Academic > research yields in excess of 20% return per annum in increased economic > activity averaged over the 50 years or more such research has been publicly > funded. One wonders how they eliminate the possiblity of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy in such a study. And one wonders how they account for the opportunity costs. These are all very difficult if not intractable issues to resolve. And I won't even get into my Libertarian rant on the immorality of taxation ... :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 20:25:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:20:18 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Britz becoming db To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:20:13 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"_7J2n3.0.gC5.nLG_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10126 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Dieter Britz announces that his new nom de network will be db. Afficionados of > the network will know that "db" is how Dick Blue signs his messages. It would > appear that Britz is merging his persona with Blue. Somehow this does not > surprise me . . . An alternative explanation is that no one has a monopoly on db if that corresponds with the initials of their name. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 20:56:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:49:49 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question Resent-Message-ID: <"HT6NZ1.0.OH5.zoG_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10127 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:02 AM 8/21/97 -0700, Robert Stirniman wrote: >To wit -- A north pole moving to the left with generate an >EMF in a loop of conductor. A south pole moving to the right >would generate an EMF of the same polarity. The two magnetic >poles, as they pass themselves, moving in opposite directions, >will have a ZERO magnetic field, but will generate an EMF >in a conductor loop which has twice the magnitude which >either pole would have if it were moving separately. Some way, >some how, energy is converted to current in the conducting, >loop, by a magnetic field which has a ZERO net value. Robert, the geometry of your example is not clear but, since you say that the two poles passing each other and the coil at the same time generates a double EMF, I must assume that you have the N pole on one side of the loop and the S pole on the other. I n this case the mag fields don't cancel...they add!....which explains the double EMF. Only if you had two N poles crossing each other would the fields cancel and produce a zero EMF. Scott Little EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little eden.com http://www.eden.com/~little X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 23:06:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:50:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:50:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"uh54u2.0.TR3.kYI_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, John Logajan wrote: > Martin Sevior writes: > > There has been well documented research that shows investment in Academic > > research yields in excess of 20% return per annum in increased economic > > activity averaged over the 50 years or more such research has been publicly > > funded. > > One wonders how they eliminate the possiblity of the "post hoc ergo propter > hoc" fallacy in such a study. And one wonders how they account for the > opportunity costs. > Sorry, no Latin here. I'm just a dumb Aussie. I think you could do it yourself. Integrate the NSF and DOE budgets since 1900. Integrate the output of industries that have resulted from a few obvious hits - the electronics, optical communications, Bio tech nologies, software and Nuclear Power then take the ratio. All stuff that would never come about if people hadn't been allowed to do originally esoteric research into obscure topics. That would be a gross under-estimate since it doesn't account for the out put of the myarid Ph.D.'s more mature industries have hired to make incremental improvements to their products. Thos Ph.D. were almost all trained doing basic research. > These are all very difficult if not intractable issues to resolve. And I > won't even get into my Libertarian rant on the immorality of taxation ... :-) > See my rant about education. Taxes are good for you. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 01:34:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:31:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:30:16 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: A paper on water memory Resent-Message-ID: <"L3SAr.0.pc7.WvK_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10132 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi, ehammond pacbell.net requested to me to present this paper (to vortex) It is 22KB long ASCII file consisting the experiment (method), results and the discussion sections. I don't know it is available on the NET and I can post it separately to whom interes ted. Regards, hamdi ucar ANOMALOUS INFORMATION STORACE IN WATER: SPECTROSCOPIC EVIDENCE FOR NON=QUANTUM INFOR~TIONAL ~NSER G. Rein+, Ph.D.and William A. Tiller*, Ph.D. +Quantum Biology Research Lab, P.O. Box 157, Northport, N.Y. 11768 FStanford University, Dept Materials Sci & Eng., Stanford, CA. 94305 INTRODUCTION The physicochemical properties of water are unique amongst liquids and have been characterized as anomalous (Franks,1972). Two properties form the scientific basis for the idea of water memory: the ability of each water molecule to form hydrogen bonding w ith four neighbor molecules thereby forming three dimensional (3D) structures and the particular large heat capacity of water which allows it to store considerable quantities of thermal energy (Frankss1972). Weakening the hydrogen bonds allows water molec ules to cluster more closely resulting in a more structured 3D geometry. Since water can form nine different types of structuring/clustering due to different types of hydrogen bonding, several models for the structure of liquid water have been proposed wh ich describe stable hexagonal, pentahydrate and hexahydrate crystalling lattice structures (Franks,1972). Water's large heat capacity allows it to store large amounts of thermal energy. Water can also store other forms of energy in various internal modes. Thermal energy is stored in vibrational and rostional modes, ~as ultraviolet energy is stored in excited electronic states. These properties may explain what is likely to be water's most unique property- it's memory. The addition of small solute molecules (additives) to water results in their hydration, ie. they become surrounded by water molecules. The ability of additiva (li ke sugar and polyols) to structure water is dependent on the previous state of the water and the degree to which that state was structured (Trincher,1981). This hydration memory of water was more recently confirmed (Lareta-Garde,1988) by studying the ability of various additives to alter the enzyme kinetics for a solution of Iysozyme. Enzyme activity was not related to the chemical structure of the additives , but to the ability of the additives to structure water. Furthermore, the enzyme remembers the susnzring of the water even after extensive dilutions. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 00:32:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 00:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:33:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Plasma Rivers in Sun Resent-Message-ID: <"uGvzd2.0.Ii4.k-J_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10130 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com -------- FYI (forwarded) -------- >From NASANews hq.nasa.gov Fri Aug 22 01:30:53 1997 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:53:08 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov Subject: Aug. 28 Space Science Update Provides First Look at Swiftly Running Plasma Rivers Inside the Sun Donald Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC August 21, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1547) Bill Steigerwald Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD (Phone: 301/286-8955) NOTE TO EDITORS: N97-60 AUG. 28 SPACE SCIENCE UPDATE PROVIDES FIRST LOOK AT SWIFTLY RUNNING PLASMA RIVERS INSIDE THE SUN The discovery of enormous "rivers" of hot, electrically charged gas called plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun will be the subject of the next Space Science Update at NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, at 1 p.m. EDT, Thursday, August 28. This new finding is based on observations made by the Solar Oscillations Investigation team at Stanford University, CA, using the European Space Agency/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) satellite. The panelists also will discuss other recent discoveries using SOHO that will help in understanding the sunspot cycle and associated increases in solar activity that can affect the Earth. Panelists will be: * Dr. Craig DeForest, Stanford University, CA * Dr. Jesper Schou, Stanford University, CA * Prof. Douglas Gough, Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, U.K. * Dr. George Withbroe, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, panel moderator The update will originate from the NASA Headquarters Auditorium, 300 E St., S.W., Washington, DC, and will be carried live on NASA TV with two-way question-and-answer capability for reporters covering the event from participating NASA centers. NASA Television is broadcast on GE-2, transponder 9C, C-Band, located at 85 degrees West longitude. The frequency is 3880.0 Mhz. Polarization is vertical and audio is monaural at 6.8 MHz. Audio of the broadcast will be available on voice circuit at the Kennedy Space Center on 407/867-1220. -end- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 01:50:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:12:56 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Works of V. C. de Andrade and J. G. Pereira Resent-Message-ID: <"t_3S61.0.4_5.o2L_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10134 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com These people published these interesting papers and I would note them to vortex. Available from http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9708051, .../gr-qc/9706070, .../gr-qc/9703059. Regards, hamdi ucar 1. gr-qc/9708051 [abs, src, ps, other] : Title: Torsion and the Electromagnetic Field Author(s): V. C. de Andrade (IFT-Unesp), J. G. Pereira (IFT-Unesp) Comments: RevTex, 12 pages, no figures 2. gr-qc/9706070 [abs, src, ps, other] : Title: Riemannian and Teleparallel Descriptions of the Scalar Field Gravitational Interaction Author(s): V. C. de Andrade (IFT-Unesp), J. G. Pereira (IFT-Unesp) Comments: RevTex, 9 pages, no figures 3. gr-qc/9703059 [abs, src, ps, other] : Title: Gravitational Lorentz Force and the Description of the Gravitational Interaction Author(s): V. C. de Andrade, J. G. Pereira Comments: Equations (44)-(47) corrected X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 21 07:31:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:25:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 02:08:41 +1200 From: John Berry To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnets References: <3.0.32.19970819015726.007b6100 inforamp.net> <33FA4F1C.21416C83 ihug.co.nz> <9708200855.ZM18995@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZbUyJ2.0.3X6.d_4_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10096 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com NO! John E. Steck wrote: > On Aug 19, 9:17pm, John Berry wrote: > > > The lines of force flow from the north to south pole, and NOT the other > > way round. > > You do mean from North through the magnet to South? > > -- > John E. Steck > Prototype Tooling > Motorola Inc. > > "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" > -- Willie Wonka > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [Image] [Image] X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 01:38:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 01:35:22 -0700 From: Mike Butcher To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:22:33 +0100 Encoding: 19 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"f5Hs_3.0.Di7.9zK_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10133 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >See my rant about education. Taxes are good for you. Martin Sevior< Well said. I am very grateful for all the voters, tax collectors and more importantly, those who receive and spend around 40% of my money. Without them I could not possibly know what was good for me. I must admit that left to my own devices I do gravitate towards personal responsibility, stewardship and charity so I rely on people like Martin to keep me on the straight and narrow - let someone else deal with all that. It is such a privilege to live in a civilisation surrounded with so many concerned about my personal welfare and my standard of living. I say you can't have too much of a good thing. Please, please, take the lot ! Mike Butcher X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 03:05:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 03:00:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Bottom Line? Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:59:10 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"LJf0S1.0.L_6.ODM_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10135 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, School days are here again, and the excitement shown by my 5 year-old grandson Josef, getting to ride home from kindergarten on the bus, makes me wax nostalgic about my school days. My father used to walk to school with me every day, we were in the same g rade. Anyhow,if one considers photon-producing effects in the ou phenomena; electroluminescence, chemiluminescence, triboluminescence and thermoluminescence, and speculate that some of the photons in the range of a fraction of an ev to a few ev produce "Light L epton" particle pairs, about all of the "CF", Cavitation, Plasma, and Transmutation effects, including Mills' "hydrino" can be explained. TGIF. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 04:08:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 04:04:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 06:04:11 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Britz - -> db To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: db kemi.aau.dk Resent-Message-ID: <"eWRl12.0.gD3.E9N_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10136 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 22, 1997 Dieter Britz wrote: >It is possible that some of you on the vortex list are still >interested in my bibliography, or want to email me some time. In that >case, please note that I have changed email address (user-id from >britz to db), as well as URL for my web pages. The old ones will still >work for a while, being now a link to the new one, but it might be as >well to change any bookmarks to the proper address. >-- Dieter Britz alias db kemi.aau.dk. Visit me at >http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~db I find the use of db by Dieter Britz to entirely appropriate. He has been undertaking a (seemingly thankless job) yeoman's job of bibliographing the cold fusion scene. There are so much material to compile (good and bad) that I think Eugene Mallove has accused him of compiling a "Babbliography" in his effort. I also note a certain sense of humour in Dieter (I think intended). Db is also the abbreviation for decibels --- units of sound power usually used in studies of acoustics --- a sort of measure of "noise" power. And in a sense, Dieter is a bibliographer of the "noise" level of the cold fusion effort. I understand Dieter has his own opinions about cold fusion. Also, he tries to be even handed about handling the material coming to him --- contrary opinions notwithstanding. To the extent he is even handed, I thank him for the active bibbliographic effort and resource. It's been a long time! -AK- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 05:48:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 05:42:49 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chemical O-U Effects? Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:41:10 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970820192325.AAA9005 LOCALNAME> <33FB84BA.1200@pacbell.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"D5UAV3.0.Ug2.4bO_p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10137 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:58:50 -0700, ehammond pacbell.net wrote: >I did an experiment where quinine was subjected to sudden cooling with >liquid nitrogen. A giger counter nearby registered a sudden burst of >clicks from the phase change of the material cooling. Could be sudden >release of C-14. Or some form of nuclear change as result of >temperature change. > Didn't I read somewhere about a connection between quinine and superconductivity? Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 05:50:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 05:43:02 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: How do we know??? What is the test ???Re: Magnets Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:41:13 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"OMiYY.0.Ah2.DbO_p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10138 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:43:51 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: [snip] >coils. Someone had to know the direction of B to get the image focused and >right side up. [snip] Nah..they just swap the connections if it's wrong :> Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 06:19:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 06:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Aug 97 09:14:07 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRE Resent-Message-ID: <"94dFo2.0.0f3.75P_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10139 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin, > "post hoc ergo propter hoc" > Sorry, no Latin here. I'm just a dumb Aussie. It just means what Johnson said was the great fallacy of doctors - confusing subsequence with consequence. By the way, they had the real Australian Cultural Attache being interviewed here. I think she found Dr Sir Leslie Colin Patterson a pretty hard act to follow. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 08:28:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: naps: Host server.campus.uwindsor.ca claimed to be server.uwindsor.ca Date : Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:03:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Soltis James Dr." To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Mysterious Tunnels Resent-Message-ID: <"AOfId3.0.6r6.ziQ_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10140 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I found the following - yet another mind-boggler from the world of quantum mechanics(excerpted from Toronto Globe&Mail newspaper,2Aug97). "Dr.Chiao's group at Berkeley,Dr.Aephraim Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunnelling. 'A barrier placed in the path of a tunnelling particle does not slow it down' says Dr.Chaio.'In fact we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance wi thout a barrier- in other words, the tunnelling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light.Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunnelling speed increases, as high as you please'." Jim Soltis X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 08:51:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:36:53 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: mmans aeneas.net (Mark Mansfield) Subject: Re: Mysterious Tunnels Resent-Message-ID: <"f9HQD.0.sV.rDR_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10141 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the >particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier- in other words, >the tunnelling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light.Moreover, >if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunnelling speed >increases, as high as you please'." I would guess they should be getting a ticket from the Relativity Police, exceeding the speed limit is a no-no. Mark X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 09:11:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Chuck Davis To: Mark Mansfield Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1 997 08:59:16 -0700 Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: Mysterious Tunnels Resent-Message-ID: <"Scesh.0.jD1.eVR_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10144 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 22-Aug-97, Mark Mansfield wrote: >>barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the >>particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier- in other words, >>the tunnelling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light.Moreover, >>if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunnelling speed >>increases, as high as you please'." >I would guess they should be getting a ticket from the Relativity Police, >exceeding the speed limit is a no-no. >Mark There are, also, neuroscientists studying the idea that the microtubuals (sp?) within the brain, carry superconducting fluids. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 09:28:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:20:17 -0700 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:20:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Mysterious Tunnels Resent-Message-ID: <"X6IYO2.0.ih7._mR_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10145 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mark Mansfield wrote: >I would guess they should be getting a ticket from the Relativity Police, >exceeding the speed limit is a no-no. Actually there are several possibilities here, IMHO: One, the particle traveled the distance across the barrier at a rate greater than 'the speed of light'. Second possibility is that it did *not* traverse that distance. It took a shorter route or no route at all! Third, it could have just taken its time ;-) Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 09:11:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: protech@mail.frii.com Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:52:53 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: protech frii.com (R. Wormus) Subject: Re: A paper on water memory Resent-Message-ID: <"gUx5g3.0.K21.vSR_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10142 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi, Please Email me the referenced paper. Thanks. ____Ron >ANOMALOUS INFORMATION STORACE IN WATER: SPECTROSCOPIC EVIDENCE FOR >NON=QUANTUM INFOR~TIONAL ~NSER > >G. Rein+, Ph.D.and William A. Tiller*, Ph.D. >+Quantum Biology Research Lab, P.O. Box 157, Northport, N.Y. 11768 >FStanford University, Dept Materials Sci & Eng., Stanford, CA. 94305 > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 09:02:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:59:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: from "Schaffer@gav.gat.com" at Aug 21, 97 05:18:56 pm Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:01:53 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"PnZcf3.0.v31.hTR_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10143 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: >Interesting disagreement. One would think that inductance might vary >and so too the "end of the line" voltage step. Yes, there is a SMALL end effect in real transmission lines, but it is so small that it is dificult to measure. For all practical purposes it can be ignored. Of course, one can make the voltage peak up by adding a suitable peaking circuit to the end of the line, but that is cheating---it's no longer a transmission line effect. > >I know all the text books say the reflection step doubles -- but now >I wonder why only doubling? Because 1 + 1 = 2. One incident wave amplitude plus one reflected wave amplitude equals two times the amplitude. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 11:58:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:53:00 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:52:19 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"ktz6Y1.0.s02.B0U_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10149 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael, If the pulse is a continious flow of current, (DC), can inductive time constant be calculated for a straight wire of a given length? That is, if it is a large loop, a closed circuit. The pulse in the opposite side of the circuit racing to meet the puls e from the power source whould have to be consitered, right? Thanks, Butch (you know Micheal, I was told once by a physics professor of 30 years that a straight wire didn't have inductance. I didn't want to argue with him, he was quick to temper) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 11:37:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:29:55 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: But which way??Re: How do we know??? Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"E-QB11.0.zJ6.SeT_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10148 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Schnurer wrote; > > BUT: Which way does the magnetic field "propagate" ? > > Does the "it" .... "travel" or propagate .... from Nort to south >or vise versa? And it that vein: > > Does a line of flux have size or dimension, ie., is it like a thread? Let's try the last question first. Flux is always in a tube, but the tube can be shrunk Classically, a magnetic line is like a geometric line: it has no thickness. It is the limit of a tube of magnetic flux that has been shrunken to a line, or perhaps more rigorously, it is the line enclosed by a given tube of flux as it is shrunken. In quantum electrodynamics (QED) flux is quantized, so there is a limit to the smallest flux. I know almost nothing of QED, so I won't say much. However, I suspect tha t QED would say something about the _probability_ of measuring magnetic flux at a particular time and place, not about the width of a flux tube. I apologize for having missed the time element of the question posed in this thread. I don't understand the question. If it means, "Does magnetric flux start out one pole or the other first when the source is suddenly changed," then I think the question is ill posed, because it ignores the magnetic flux that exists "below the surface" of the "poles". We talk about magnetic "poles" as a useful concept, but they are only where flux emerges into our easy-to-measure region from a difficult-to-measure internal region. The flux lines of an elementary dipole are LOOPS; there are no magnetic charges on which lines start and end. I see no way to talk about a line "growing" out of one pole first. In fact, if it did grow out of one first, that would mean that there was a leading end of the line, and an end of a magnetic line means that there has to be a magne tic charge there. However, despite periodic searches for evidence of such, no one has yet found a magnetic charge (magnetic monopole). Also, one cannot talk of the propagation of a magnetic field alone; by the very fact of propagation, the magnetic field is changing, therefore there must be an accompanying electric field. Besides, what is electric and what is electric field depends on o ne's reference frame. One can only treat the propagation of the ELECTROMAGNETIC field. The whole field propagates. On a related topic, because magnetic lines have no ends, many people are under the misconception that magnetic lines always form CLOSED LOOPS. While the do form closed loops in certain highly symmetrical situations, in general a line loops around forever (in space, not time) approaching arbitrarily close to itself an infinite number of times, but never quite joining up with itself. (This is pos sible because the line has zero diameter.) Thus, a macroscopic region of space might contain only one line circling around an infinite number of times and completely filling that space. This is the common state of affairs in nature. This old effect is closely related to the contemporary mathematical concept of "chaos". Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 13:36:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mo t.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:24:15 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: But which way??Re: How do we know??? Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"x3U9h2.0.GF3.oTV_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10151 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 22, 1:29pm, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > I apologize for having missed the time element of the question posed in > this thread. I don't understand the question. If it means, "Does > magnetic flux start out one pole or the other first when the source is > suddenly changed," then I think the question is ill posed, because it > ignores the magnetic flux that exists "below the surface" of the "poles". > We talk about magnetic "poles" as a useful concept, but they are only where > flux emerges into our easy-to-measure region from a difficult-to-measure > internal region. The flux lines of an elementary dipole are LOOPS; there > are no magnetic charges on which lines start and end. I see no way to talk > about a line "growing" out of one pole first. In fact, if it did grow out > of one first, that would mean that there was a leading end of the line, and > an end of a magnetic line means that there has to be a magnetic charge > there. However, despite periodic searches for evidence of such, no one has > yet found a magnetic charge (magnetic monopole). Unfortunately I started this mess by asking the field flow direction of a magnet; N~>S or S~>N. This asked, working from the (unstated) hypothetical premise that magnets may be one way aether/zpe/resonance energy/field pumps. The designation N or S being arbitrary but called out to identify "in" and "out" (again, arbitrary like the north pole being "up" on a map). The resulting field propagation, or "field lines", to be in/out vectors, leaks, and/or wake turbulence of the af fected aether/zpe/resonance energy/field immediately around it. The idea was originally postulated to hydrodynamically quantify magnetic attraction forces as a "push" mechanism similar to the Casimir Effect (or a localized or amplified version of the Cas imir Effect). This postulate created only to assist in the design, evaluation, and theoretical functionality of possible linear and rotary permanent magnet motor configurations. IMO, everything we presently "understand" of magnets is based primarily on observed inter actions and reactions, not an actual understanding of the working mechanisms. I am not looking to rewrite anything or sway opinions, just attempting to look at the same problem from a new perspective outside the square. No great insights or discoveries yet, but to me, just as valid a starting point as any other. My apologies to the list for my vague, unexplained, and inflammatory question. 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 14:29:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:23:30 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:26:00 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Is this a EM anomaly? (new results) References: <33FCD0DF.C1457D6A@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"PB4Bm3.0.A71.GDW_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10152 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com History: I originally made an experiment by driving an bifilar coil at 26 MHz driving the two coils serially and observed significant fields around and a single turn of wire connected to a bright LED lit very brightly (passing at least 30 mA effectively). As the b ifilar coil theoretically should not have such a field and induction capability I reported this anomalous result to vortex. Schaffer discovered that I did not really driven the coils symmetrically respect to the ground, and due the parasitic capacitance of the coils to the ground the currents passing trough the coils will not be equal and destroy the symmetry. Description of experiment setup: I then modified the setup and able to drive the coils symmetrically as possible from circuit schematized as below. Gnd------+ | S1 |=====---+-----LLLLLLL-+ |=====---+-----LLLLLLL-+ +-=====-+ S2 | P | | | +--(~)--+ O And Xformer primary is driven from and oscillator circuit in asymmetrically. The oscillator do not specific oscillation frequency and the resulted freq. is auto determined in a range of 10-35MHz affected by the characteristics of the Xformer, and the bifi lar coil connected to the secondary (S1+S2). Even a load magnetically coupled to bifilar coil affect the mode of the oscillations (frequency, amplitudes and harmonic contents) The xformer build to properly drive the secondary circuit fully symmetrically. Xformer specs are follow: Primary (P): 25 mm diameter, 13 turns separated by 2 mm, length=24 mm Secondary (S1+S2): 28.5 mm diameter 12 turns, two layers, 6 turns on each layers total length=9 mm. Center point of the secondary is also grounded allow to force secondary leads S1 and S2 signal are symmetrical to the ground. This was not necessary because the already the bifilar coil has symmetric properly as it have to adjust its symmetry automaticall y when it allowed to floated. Although the experiment conducted both the center point is grounded and open circuit modes. Coil lead lengths are kept at short as possible as 8 Cm and loosely twisted paired. And other RF precautions are made. Oscillator circuit tuned and the xformer coupling is adjusted to light the LED attached to a single loop of wire of 4 cm. The LED loop is placed inside off 2 cm of the bifilar coil at the dead end side. As the experiment was continuing with another bifilar coil for two days, this coil favorite working frequency is observed as 34 MHz previously. Its specs are 17 mm diameter, 210 mm length (quite long a cylinder) and wounded tightly with 0.40mm enameled wire. Experiment: Led lights on medium and high intensity according to tuning, continuously while the experiment is conducted. Measured frequency was 33 MHz. As the LED asymmetrically loads the circuit, battlements of two cycles are also observed. (16.5 MHz). As long the LED loop is advanced along the coil, It intensity vary according it positio n. The coil get sensitive to my hand at proximity on some tuning modes. The circuit is driven by 15V regulated power supply and draw 50 to 200 mA according the tuning (typically 120 ma). While the Led loop was not inserted, the coil also radiate fields which effective seen by a sense coil attached to Scope probe. An other observation made using the one layer secondary on xformer as the circuit oscillate at 20 MHz and the LED light brightly as described above the the fields of the bifilar coil was 62MHz which is the third harmonics. The main harmonics was hardly no ticable on the field of the bifilar coil. It is obvious that the large interwinding capacitance of the coil played another role than simply reduce the currrents on the coil. Results: - Symmetically driven a bifilar coil show large inductive character and transfer power to magnetically coupled loads. - Coils can oscilate or resonnate on frequencies on order of magnitudes higher than it optimally work.(as inductance) - Large interwinding capacitors play different roles on high frequency, probably the coil behave as a transmission lines. Notes: I could give the full setup informations for replicating the experiment. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 20:19:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:17:38 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Britz --> db To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:16:08 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"-KKfO.0.Yl6.GPb_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10153 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Akira wrote: > I understand Dieter has his own > opinions about cold fusion. Also, he tries to be even handed about > handling the material coming to him --- contrary opinions > notwithstanding. > > To the extent he is even handed, I thank him for the active > bibbliographic effort and resource. It's been a long time! Me too. This is certainly one area where I disagree strongly with Jed and Gene's assessment. Thanks Dieter. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 22 20:35:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:34:26 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:32:29 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"i6gBw3.0.y97.zeb_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin Sevior writes: > > One wonders how they eliminate the possiblity of the "post hoc ergo propter > > hoc" fallacy in such a study. And one wonders how they account for the > > opportunity costs. > > > Sorry, no Latin here. I'm just a dumb Aussie. I think it roughly translates to something like "that which follows is therefore caused by that which preceded." -- a fallacy. An alternate saying, in English, is that correlation does not prove causation. There can be a statistically significant correlation between my alarm clock going off in the morning and the sun rising soon thereafter, but my alarm clock going off does not really cause the sun to rise. Mere correlation is insufficient to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship. > Integrate the NSF and DOE budgets since 1900. Integrate the output > of industries that have resulted from a few obvious hits - the electronics, > optical communications, Bio technologies, software and Nuclear Power > then take the ratio. All stuff that would never come about if people hadn't > been allowed to do originally esoteric research into obscure topics. That > would be a gross under-estimate since it doesn't account for the output of > the myarid Ph.D.'s more mature industries have hired to make incremental > improvements to their products. Thos Ph.D. were almost all trained doing > basic research. Time dependent analyses like these are dubious because of the so called "opportunity cost", or put in different terms, speculating on outcomes of paths not taken. You can't really compare different eras because of the huge variations in other factors -- such as the population growth, the level of scientific advancement being iterative, growing wealth, and hence, resources to allocate (voluntarily or involuntarily.) Yet there is no "control group" to contemporaneously compare against. So we get the worst of both worlds in these sorts of analyses, "good era", "bad era" equivalencing and rampant speculation about the outcome of paths not taken. Nostradamus, move over. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 00:19:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:16:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:11:03 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question References: <33FC2D5B.4C90@interlaced.net> <33FC66A8.56A2@skylink.net> <33FC8176.5C69@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"u6tf13.0.mG5.tue_p"@mx2> Resent-From : vortex-l eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10155 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Regarding the two moving magnets experiment. Francis J. Stenger writes: > Robert, the EMF generated in the loop is proportional to the RATE OF > CHANGE of flux through the loop - not the magnitude of flux. Probably > the change rate is higher with the counter-moving magnets. > ... the slope of the curve can be very real and finite even though > it's value is going thru zero. Keep in mind that a sine wave has > max slope when the value is zero. And, Scott Little writes: > Robert, the geometry of your example is not clear but, since you > say that the two poles passing each other and the coil at the same > time generates a double EMF, I must assume that you have the N pole > on one side of the loop and the S pole on the other. In this case > the mag fields don't cancel...they add!....which explains the double > EMF. Only if you had two N poles crossing each other would the fields > cancel and produce a zero EMF. A description and graphic of the "Two Moving Magnets Experiment" can be found at Nils' website. See section three of the article. http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/contents.html It is an electric field generated due to flux cutting (motion), rather than flux changing (transformer). The source magnetic fields are of equal and opposite value. A motional electric field can be generated in a region of space where the net magnetic field is ZERO. Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 00:36:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:32:51 -0700 (PDT) From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:33:11 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bottom Line? References: <19970822095908.AAA14151 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"5REYE.0.5T5.X8f_p"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10156 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Read the article on Muon induced fusion in latest'New Scientist' You don't need a light lepton to induce fusion. You need a muon which has 200 times the mass of the electron. Muonic atoms are thousands of time smaller than normal. The problem is that the muon is unstable and has a lifetime of only a few microseconds. It therefore has time to only induce a limited amount of fusions. If there was a unknown heavy lepton with mass 400 times me and this was stable, you would have a good explaination for some p henomena X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 00:43:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:36:48 -0700 From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:38:48 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Is this a EM anomaly? (new results) References: <33FCD0DF.C1457D6A@verisoft.com.tr> <33FDF5D8.D6687926@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"QYTTc2.0.Qm4.FCf_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10157 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Look for strange physical sensations,hearing strange noises,the setup running at cooler then room temperature. Put the apparatus on a scale and see if it looses weight. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 02:30:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 02:26:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Bottom Line? Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 09:24:16 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"wDQf2.0.0k6.iog_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10158 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:33 AM 8/23/97 +0000, ehammond packbell wrote: >Read the article on Muon induced fusion in latest'New Scientist' Aw, come on. Muon induced fusion has been around for decades. It takes several Gigavolts of energy to produce a 100 Mev muon to get a half-dozen 2-18 Mev fusion reactions. Not a very good investment. >You don't need a light lepton to induce fusion. You need a muon which >has 200 times the mass of the electron. 200 times the mass of the electron is about 100 Mev, or a "temperature" of about a trillion degrees K. Not exactly Cold Fusion to get there. :-) >Muonic atoms are thousands of time smaller than normal. Sounds right, but a radius around a few Fermi is good enough. A proton or deuteron can "grab" a negative "Light Lepton" and and impart energy to it and "shrink" it. It's relativistic mass; MR = Mo[qV/(Mo*c^2) + 1] is appreciable even at a few volts; V = k*q/2r (volts). The "balanced orbit" F cent = MR*c^2/r = Fes = k*q^2/r^2 says that you are going to end up with a neutral particle (call it a Hydrino if you want) about the size of an electron (2.81E-15 meters radius) or about 3 Fermi, and get about 256 Kev energy off th e "absorbtion" and fusion reactions-transmutations to boot. The "radius" of a "particle" is; k*q^2/Energy, so a muon has a "radius" about 200 times smaller than the "radius" of the electron. >The problem is that the muon is unstable and >has a lifetime of only a few microseconds. It therefore has time to >only induce a limited amount of fusions. Yes, about six fusions on average. > If there was a unknown heavy >lepton with mass 400 times me and this was stable, you would have a >good explaination for some phenomena > Sure, a Supernova. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 05:06:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Aug 97 07:59:12 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Thorium again Resent-Message-ID: <"GE6t_1.0.Dw.j4j_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10159 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts all, Just received my copy of IE (combined issue 13 and 14). It's pretty damned impressive, and I would draw the attention of all to the work of the Cincinnati Group - I would comment that I invented this name for them, here, back in the early part of last ye ar. Whilst I realise that the lengthy data on the thorium remediation should be subject to stringent study, I would point out that with cells being offered for sale with a money-back guarantee then it might be best if some caution accompanies any quick assump tions as to errors in the analyses. Very probably some of the early investigations as published in the magazine will be in error or incomplete, but one may reasonably assume that at least some of the purchasers of kits will cover any of these problems. None of which is to say that we can accept fully the results to date, but - when seen in association with so many apparently related similar findings - I think that these claims have to be taken seriously. The policy of selling kits (especially with a gu arantee, and without any legal restrictions) must and will mean that the question of their ability to perform low-energy nuclear transmutations will be settled in the near future. My spies (who, of course, are everywhere) tell me that the kits will not b e subject to much delay before shipping, and that they are quite reasonably priced. My congratulations to Gene Mallove for the magazine, and to the CG for having embarked on so enlightened a policy. And I think we can all (to a degree) relax and await multiple confirmations (or otherwise) of CG's claims. All this makes a wonderful change from so much that we see in the whole area of "anomaly science". Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 05:18:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Aug 97 08:12:16 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Bottom Line? Resent-Message-ID: <"9iCKz2.0.t01.sGj_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10160 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick, > Aw, come on. Muon induced fusion has been around for decades. It > takes several Gigavolts of energy to produce a 100 Mev muon to get > a half-dozen 2-18 Mev fusion reactions. Not a very good > investment. Irritating as the New Scientist article was, with its silly remarks about CF, you really ought to read it before knocking the work it describes. I'll email you the whole thing, and would appreciate it if you would post you comments on it here. (I'm sending it as an RTF format file. If it gets wrecked in passage through the net, or you can't read it, I'll resend it as ASCII. It's got some Greek letters and suchlike in it) Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 06:51:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 06:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:16:06 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Is this a EM anomaly? (new results) Resent-Message-ID: <"kjGcW2.0.4E2.Zbk_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10162 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > > Look for strange physical sensations,hearing strange noises,the setup > running at cooler then room temperature. Put the apparatus on a scale > and see if it looses weight. In this step I am trying to show simply that bifilar coils are not obeying the standard model. It needs more experiment to measure correctly the current, voltage and the applied, current at the dead end (connection point of two coils, field pattern, and r epeat these measurements for similar coils. Then after we could obtain enough data to figure out the mechanism of these coils. As a common sensation while working these coils energized more than 100mW is it hurts my hands if I touch them or keep my hand on intense field cause a ache like rheumatism (I have not rheumatism diseases) on my hand starting smoothly and continue for 10 minutes to hour. As the high frequency electrical signal does not sensed by the nerves, only thermal effect of the current passing though the skin capacitively are noticed when conductors are touched. But this ache is a different kind of pain. I did not expect other anomalies claimed commonly on OU research from this setup. Maybe a high resolution power measurements can be made to learn the ratio of the energy transferred to coil and the energy extracted by the magnetically coupled load. And al so the effects of non-linear loads as LED and diodes can be examined further. My current findings are follow: I slightly modified the oscillator section and replaced the last bifilar coil(17mm dia.) with an other 30mm mm diameter and increased the power transferred from the bifilar to single wound load(LED) coil. As the LED become overdriven i inserted a 22 Ohm 1 /4W to parallel to LED. As the LED still light brightly, also the parallel resistor getting hot.(below 100 degree). Approximately the load draw 250 to 400 mW. (Note that the whole circuit is consuming 1000-1500 mW.) Another observation made by disconnecting coil from each other allowing only current close the circuit capacitively on the secondary: Gnd------+ | S1 |=====---+-----LLLLLLL- (leads left open, unconnected.) |=====---+-----LLLLLLL- +-=====-+ S2 Dead end | P | | | +--(~)--+ O On this condition: coil still lit the LED which is shorted by the 22Ohm resistor. LED light on full length of the coil except the last 1 cm at the dead end. _________ / \ / \___ ___ | | _|_ | (1 T) 22 Ohm R /_\ // Bright LED | ___|___| \ / \_________/ Figure: Load coupled to coils Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 06:29:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 06:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 07:17:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Cc: Vortex Subject: CF Kits -toy or useful? Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"snQL51.0.qg1.UGk_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10161 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris, Scott, Gene, Fred et al: Further to all the previous messages re: the above, could someone kindly mention their purpose? 1) are they table-top demonstration toys or real world practical devices? 2) will they light up a LED or power a self-sufficient house? 3) are they co-generators (both electricity and heat)? 4) are they cold fusion, new hydrogen or o/u ? 5) if there is such a positive consensus on this technology, why hasn't anyone on the listserve reported back to us on their kit's performance? 6) are they environmentally safe and sound both for the indoor and outdoor environment? 7) are they based on non-renewable fossil fuels (ie. like most fuel cells)? A brief description or enlightenment is welcomed. The web page would be useful if the above is addressed. Then we can see if they have a cost-effective application in the real world with real clients (ie.return/investment = o/u). __________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978), 3 demonstration projects in Canada built 1979, 1981, 1994 , +80,000 visitors - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm _____________________________________________________________ On 23 Aug 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote:3) > be subject to stringent study, I would point out that with cells being > offered for sale with a money-back guarantee then it might be best if > in the magazine will be in error or incomplete, but one may reasonably > assume that at least some of the purchasers of kits will cover any > of these problems. > The policy of selling kits (especially with a guarantee, and without any > legal restrictions) must and will mean that the question of their > ability to perform low-energy nuclear transmutations will be settled > in the near future. My spies (who, of course, are everywhere) tell me > that the kits will not be subject to much delay before shipping, and > that they are quite reasonably priced. > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 08:04:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 07:56:30 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 10:57:17 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question References: <33FC2D5B.4C90@interlaced.net> <33FC66A8.56A2@skylink.net> <33FC8176.5C69@interlaced.net> <33FE8D07.1609@skylink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"U2f2u2.0 .of4.Tel_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert Stirniman wrote: > > A description and graphic of the "Two Moving Magnets > Experiment" can be found at Nils' website. > See section three of the article. > > http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/contents.html > > It is an electric field generated due to flux cutting > (motion), rather than flux changing (transformer). > The source magnetic fields are of equal and opposite value. > A motional electric field can be generated in a region of > space where the net magnetic field is ZERO. > Robert, Fig. 5 in Nils' paper seems right to me. From what I know (Not nearly enough!) moving magnets give rise to associated electric fields proportional to -v X B, where v and B are vectors. Using this in Fig. 5 gives the result shown. What I was try ing to say in the previous post was that - if you can define a closed loop for EMF measurement, I think you will get the same result with a rate-of-change-of-flux analysis. (v above is the velocity vector of the magnet!) I do have trouble with Nils' opening "long solenoid" statement that "It is easy to agree that a long solenoid carrying an electric current has a B-field inside - but none outside." I disagree! All the flux threading through the bore of a long solenoid c loses by looping through the outside regions around the solenoid - just as with a long, slender bar magnet. It is true that the exterior flux can be THOUSANDS of times weaker (I mean flux density, B, here) than in the coil bore. This is just a geometric al reality caused by the huge difference in areas between the bore of the solenoid and the very large exterior area used by the return flux looping around from pole to pole. The electrical polarization of a moving magnet is used by my old EM text to explain the operation of homopolar generators and, as I mention above, seems to agree with Nils' Fig. 5. I THINK I'm saying that I can't see anything anomalous in Nils' paper - j ust the wrong statement about long solenoids. If you really want ZERO B-field outside of an electric coil, then you should use toroidal current sheets with minimum current components around the large ring of the toroid. Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 08:34:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 08:26:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Bottom Line? Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 15:24:23 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"gXHfG.0.xt4.J4m_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10164 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:12 PM 8/23/97 +0000, Chris wrote: >Frederick, > > > Aw, come on. Muon induced fusion has been around for decades. It > > takes several Gigavolts of energy to produce a 100 Mev muon to get > > a half-dozen 2-18 Mev fusion reactions. Not a very good > > investment. > >Irritating as the New Scientist article was, with its silly remarks >about CF, you really ought to read it before knocking the work it >describes. I'll email you the whole thing, and would appreciate it if >you would post you comments on it here. > Interesting article, Chris. It looks like Kanetada Nagamine has reached a major (and impressive) milestone in muon *Hot Fusion*, even if the DT target is at almost absolute zero. Probably cooled with liquid helium. "Shooting" 800 Mev Protons at a Carbon target to get the the protons or the carbon nuclei, to "spall" into muons takes a bit of hardware and lots of radiation shielding. The efficiency of this step is only alluded to in the "sticking efficiency" requireme nt. Getting the target density that Nagamine needs at temperatures that would run a Carnot Heat Engine, puts it back in the Hot Fusion-Inertial Confinement realm. :-) However, as we all know, it is easy to criticize. :-) Almost pregnant doesn't count, does it? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 09:09:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 09:01:51 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 19:32:51 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Some ideas on bifilar mechanism References: <970823062909_-933421400 emout10.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"sIN-n.0.Jl6.jbm_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10166 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com (Parts extracted from private mail I wrote, and notes added) ... Still this research need much investigation to find how the currents arrange inside the coil to find a way to oscillate and trying to dissipate the energy offered to them. This is likely a mechanical vibration case where nobody could not ensure that a rigid material will not resonate on any mechanical vibration source is applied to it, even the material is engineered to not oscillate. Bifilar coils resonates, and it will be worth to find how they accomplish this. I think there is something quite inte resting occurring there as current flows arrange them self instantaneously inside the coil locally (in couples of turns) in additive wise the magnetic fields they generates. It is possible an other very interesting phenomenon that the displacement currents occurring between consecutive wires( due to inter-winding capacitances may have also a parallel components to the wires. And this third current passing between wires not pe rpendicular but parallel to them causing the induction. 2 ============================ | | (*) | | 1 ============================ coil 1 wire | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ displacement current | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | 2 ============================ coil 2 wire | coil axis direction | ----> V anomalous normal component component Fig.1 zoomin to windings of a biflar coil. Note that the coil is oriented vertically. ... Note the displacement current is supposed and shown as inclined rather than normal to windings. (*) Consecutive wire's displacement current inclination and direction has been not releaved. Altrough this can not be difficult, as the wires do spirals. This is of course the key point for the how the displacement currents components add-up or cancel eac h others. I this step I only sugessted may the total of dispacement currents are not zero and show a net effect.) I think this is possible by the large potential gradients may be generated on the bifilar wires. Even more complex fields, currents (dispacement) and potentials may occur secondarily and open a gate for the OU phenomenon. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 08:38:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 08:33:38 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:33:02 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: db kemi.aau.dk Subject: Piantelli; Cerron-Zeballos Resent-Message-ID: <"LfXzj3.0.o16.HBm_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10165 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dieter, Thanks for posting your change of address on Vortex-L. Rich Murray posted some abstracts here from your bibliography. The abstract of Cerron-Zeballos, et al. (1996) said "This team tried to reproduce the results of Focardi et al (1994), who reported excess heat from a Ni/light water experiment." Focardi, Habel & Piantelli, in Nuovo Cimento, 107A (1994), No. 1, pp. 163-167, is one of the articles I have actually read. The authors didn't say anything about using nickel with light water. They didn't credit Mills, or cite him, or even mention him. Focardi, Habel & Piantelli did a nonelectrolytic gas-phase experimen t, using a nickel rod in a hydrogen atmosphere. They used ordinary hydrogen, but they guessed that the heat was produced in the nickel by the naturally occurring deuterium via the p + d nuclear reaction. Judging by other reports of their work, the surface of the nickel rod was prepared in a certain way, but the paper made no mention of this. As far as I know, Piantelli still hasn't told anyone how he prepared the rod. The paper did say that Piantelli was led to the gas-phase experiments by an irregular heat balance that he observed in late 1989 while doing an experiment with a deuterated organic sample on a nickel support in a hydrogen atmosphere. The paper didn't say what the organic sample was. (By the way, I continue to be impressed by the high quality of your abstracts. They have been consistently helpful. I could not have done as well with so many papers covering so many different fields of expertise.) Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 17:48:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 16:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 21:26:09 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Bifilar coil as antenna Resent-Message-ID: <"Dm-II.0.jQ1.Y1t_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10167 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com A recent observation show the Schaffer argument is playing a great role on the phenomena observed on bifilar coils. Observation made accidentally when the sense LED coupled to bifilar coil is light when *only one lead of the coil is connected* to the secondary circuit. This proved the bifilar act as antenna in this configuration as closing the loop on the air. This observation show that the operation of an RF circuit could be very complicated when components which are not suitable for RF are used (As bad practice for RF engineering). But as the research aim is unconventional, these difficulties should be considered as a part of the game. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 18:29:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 18:22:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subjec t: Another confirmation Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 18:21:26 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"Cyy1r.0.Sh5.xou_p" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10168 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id SAA28379 I was informed this morning that a transmutation experiment accomplished by a third party laboratory at the request of a professor from the University of Texas was successful. At this time I am not privy to the professor, but our own Gene Mallove is hot on the trail and will have a second conversation with the laboratory who performed the experiment sometime tomorrow. The experimental protocol can be viewed at: http://207.204.154.98/pb_au.htm This experiment has been published on the Web for about a year. Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 21:03:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 21:00:23 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic energy of canceling fields question Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 04:00:02 GMT Organization: Improving References: <33FC2D5B.4C90@interlaced.net> <33FC66A8.56A2@skylink.net> <33FC8176.5C69@interlaced.net> <33FE8D07.1609@skylink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"-PMgO2.0.8B7.L7x_p"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10169 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:11:03 -0700, Robert Stirniman wrote: >Regarding the two moving magnets experiment. [snip] >A description and graphic of the "Two Moving Magnets >Experiment" can be found at Nils' website. >See section three of the article. > >http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/contents.html > >It is an electric field generated due to flux cutting >(motion), rather than flux changing (transformer). >The source magnetic fields are of equal and opposite value. >A motional electric field can be generated in a region of >space where the net magnetic field is ZERO. Now this description made me think of Greg Watson's SMOT. Along the centre line, the mag. field is nominally zero, yet one might expect some increasing scalar value due to the gradient in the rest of the field. It might be interesting to place a wire on t he centre line, and see if a voltage could be measured. [snip] Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 21:53:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 21:50:26 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 23:50:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskim o.com From: Scott Little Subject: 2 Moving Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"TX_BC1.0.1x.Hsx_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10170 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I have studied Rognerud's explanation of the 2 Moving Magnet Experiment at http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/sec_3.htm and I believe that he has presented yet another case which exposes the shortcomings of the "flux cutting" approach to determining induc ed emf's in conductors moving w.r.t magnetic fields. To see the real story, we must have a real loop of conductor to analyze. Go to his Figure 5 and extend the conductor vertically both up and down until it goes just outside the magnetic field regions. Now make both ends of this longer conductor turn to th e right and travel horizontally until they are again clear of the magnetic fields. Now turn them both towards each other and join them, making a loop of conductor that has one leg in the double magnetic field and the other 3 legs outside of this field. Now, to find out what really happens to the electrons in this loop and why, let's consider the rate of change of flux thru this loop. By the way, this is precisely the same thing as considering the rate of change of the vector potential around the loop s ince integral A.dl around the loop = integral B.dA over the area of the loop. The B1 field is pointed into the page (negative). B1's motion is taking it out of the loop so the resulting dB/dt thru the loop is positive. B2 is pointed out of the page (positive) and it is moving into the loop so it too creates a positive dB/dt thru t he loop. These two dB/dt's are both positive so they add together to produce the double voltage that Rognerud gets in eqn 4.2. It's true that the fields cancel each other right at the leg of the coil that Rognerud drew in Figure 5 but so what?...the total dB/dt t hru the loop is still there to generate the voltage. If this bothers you, please consider an ordinary xfmr. The peak output voltage on the secondary occurs when B=0 in the iron core of the xfmr. That's because the output voltage is proportional to dB/dt in the core and, since the B varies sinusoidally, the max dB/dt occurs at the zero-crossings of B. I see no reason to postulate a "motional electric field". In fact I think it's misleading because it's not an electric field at all...there's no charge associated with it. I have designed quite a few motor/generator systems in which conductors and magne tic fields move w.r.t each other in varied ways and it has always been perfectly sufficient to use the standard q*vxB formulation where v is simply the relative motion of the conductor and the magnetic field. trying not to invent new theories for stuff we already understand - Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 23 22:03:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 22:00:15 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 23:10:07 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: SYNTHETIC PRODUCTION OF PRECIOUS METALS FROM LEAD Resent-Message-ID: <"pVCvi2.0.R91.U_x_p" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10171 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://207.204.154.98/pb_au.htm Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="pb_au.htm" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="pb_au.htm" Content-Base: "http://207.204.154.98/pb_au.htm" SYNTHETIC PRODUCTION OF PRECIOUS METALS FROM LEAD


 

SYNTHETIC PRODUCTION OF PRECIOUS METALS FROM LEAD

©Joe Champion January 20, 1996

Several mechanisms can be employed in producing precious metals from lead. Since I have explained the theory, I will be direct in process procedures.

The fastest methodology is to place lead and either sodium, or potassium metals in direct contact in a crucible.

    This can be accomplished as follows:

  • 1. Melt ~10.0 pounds of lead in a “reduction environment”. Allow the furnace temperature to stabilize at ~1600oF.

  • 2. Using sodium metal, drop in 150 grams in ~25 gram pieces. When you do so, you will see an aggrava ting flash similar to that of a strobe light.

  • 3. Stir the mixture and allow to stabilize after the addition of the sodium metal for 15 minutes. Pour the metal into a bar.

At this time the precious metals of Au, Pt, Os and Ir have been produced

.

To reclaim the metals, electrodigest the bar (I would suggest using a 4.0 liter beaker) in 10-20% nitric acid solution. You may have to continue to add acid during this process. Make sure that the solution remains at pH less than 2.0. You can apply upwards to 30 amps of current during this process.

What you will observe is the excess lead will go into solution (PbNO3) and the solution will slowly take on a color and texture of “hot chocolate.” This will occur within a hour after you start to digest. At this time you are witness to the collodialization of the atoms as I discussed earlier.

When you have dissolved enough of the bar to be satisfied that you have enough material to analyze, filter and use “any” technique to determine the quantitative state of you new metals.

FOR THE RECORD, this process will produce a larger quantity of Os, than Au and Pt.

For questions, comments or additional information:

Click here to return to Joe Champion's Home Page.

X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 09:38:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@p ostoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Light From The Abyss Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:13:54 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"y4Ebf.0.SZ6.a860q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10177 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Scientists have discovered a strange light in the ocean thousands of feet below the surface where sunlight cannot reach. Details at: http://ny.frontiercomm.net/~bjenkin/lights.htm Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 02:46:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 02:43:13 -0700 X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 02:41:49 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: I am working on jpeg problem Resent-Message-ID: <"KfCYk.0.qq6.m800q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10172 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:04 PM 8/20/97 -0400, you wrote: >down loaded conversion software for every format. Also when I do a print >screen and paste I get the tool bar along with the window. Any way I can get >just window ? >Thanks, >Butch > > Area capture using PaintShop Pro, available at: http://www.jasc.com/psp.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 04:17:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 04:11:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 03:06:06 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"t_qeO1.0.Al.gR10q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10173 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi all, > > Notice that a transmission line and a 12-volt battery can generate > >kilovolts at the "end of the line." This can create an arc that will close > >the loop. [snip] > > No. Reflection at the end of a transmission line can no more than double > the voltage of a single pulse traveling along it. > I have seen an illustration of a high voltage arc generator that consisted of an open ended transmission line. Sorry, can't remember the source... Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 04:27:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 04:20:02 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 14:11:15 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets References: <199708240450.XAA05365 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"H5TPA2.0.2U.WZ10q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10175 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > I have studied Rognerud's explanation of the 2 Moving Magnet > Experiment at > http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/sec_3.htm and I believe that he has > presented yet another case which exposes the shortcomings of the "flux > cutting" approach to determining induced emf's in conductors moving > w.r.t > magnetic fields. At early, in May we discussed the the effect of movements of magnet having continuous homogen fields on conductors. I concluded, and confirmed by Horace that such fields could not induce any EMF on a fixed loop. ONLY WAY to produce EMF on fields having d B/dT=0 is to move conductors exposed to fields relatively to each other. EMF does not depend on how the source of the magnetic field is moving. this is the diagram and the text posted on :RE: Homopolar Question",Sun, 04 May 1997: >> .-(V)-. . . __ . . |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | ====|NS|============= common axis of rotations |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | |NS| | | M D1 D2 (Vm) (V1) (V2) magnet rotating at speed Vm Conductor Disk1 rotating at speed V1 Conductor Disk1 rotating at speed V2 Distance between D1 and D2 assumed too small and all flux passing from D1 and D2 are equal. So total of the flux passing from the measuring circuit (shown by dots) is assumed zero. No EMF inducted on measuring circuits. Say Ed = EMF difference inducted between on the edges of the D1 an D2 Ed is measured by the voltmeter V ************************** * * * Ed = k.(V1-V2) * * * ************************** k is the induction constant is proportional of the number of the flux lines crossing radial current path along the disks. Ed does NOT DEPEND on the speed of the ROTATING MAGNET! Its only depend to differential speed of conductors crossing an magnetic field. ROTATING OR MOVING FLUX CONCEPT DOES NOT EXIST ON CLASSICAL ELECTROMAGNETISM! Unfortunately textbooks prefers basically explains EMF by the movement of conductors on magnetic fields, not by the movement differences of parts of conductors on an magnetic fields. << As a result Rognerud's experiment and both Little's extention should produce zero EMF on one magnet(B<>0) and two opposing magnets(B=0) versions. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 04:15:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 04:12:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Re:ZPE and new question on dc circuit Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 03:32:23 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"88QRT3.0.2m.uR10q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10174 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Frederick, Robert and all, > Or after pondering a bit, you wonder if a power transmission line > stretching for hundreds of miles would show any energy tapping > from the ZPE field? > > Do the power companies know something about "Wheeling" on the grid > that we don't? There was a discussion a while back about the Prentice device, a half mile-long wire stretched above the ground and charged with HV. A smaller antenna nearby taps energy from the field. sorta sounds like what you're talking about...here is a GIF to illu strate. Fred > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Prent5.gif" Content-Description: Prent5 (GIF Image) Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prent5.gif" Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\PRENT5.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 06:17:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 06:08:36 -0700 Date: 24 Aug 97 09:06:26 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"_ZtFw1.0.7A2.I930q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10176 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi, I think Scott gets it right, flux-cutting is a poor model. Personally I like the idea of ignoring magnetic fields as such and, since a "magnetic field" is always a function of moving charge, concentrating on the interaction (delayed by c) of charges moving relative to one another. >From a logic viewpoint, a "magnetic field" has no real need to exist. As far as I know, there is *no* way of detecting its existence unless matter is present. An EM wave, viewed in those terms, is of course an interesting phenomenon since the original moving charge may not even exist by the time you detect the wave... Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 09:39:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 14:25:20 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"f0jU5.0.zd6.P960q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10178 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:06 PM 8/24/97 +0000, Chris wrote: > >I think Scott gets it right, flux-cutting is a poor model. > >Personally I like the idea of ignoring magnetic fields as such and, >since a "magnetic field" is always a function of moving charge, >concentrating on the interaction (delayed by c) of charges moving >relative to one another. Aah, ha. Modern physics texts teach that; Electricity + Relativity = Magnetism. In other words, Magnetism is ficticious. Only electrostatic charge and it's manifestations, ie., motion and force is what we tend to interpret as "Magnetism". > >From a logic viewpoint, a "magnetic field" has no real need to exist. >As far as I know, there is *no* way of detecting its existence unless >matter is present. No matter, No Relativity, No Charge. :-) >An EM wave, viewed in those terms, is of course an >interesting phenomenon since the original moving charge may not even >exist by the time you detect the wave... I agree with Ross Tessian, that Fundamental Charge is only the force (conjugate) due to the phase difference of "stationary" EM waves in space, ie., particles (matter). It can be shown that; Charge (q) = CV/4*(pi)^2 = 1.6E-19 Coulombs ie., the product of C*V is constant. What I see in this is that space (the vacuum) need only have "Capacitance" C and Potential V. Then, energy (w) = 1/2 C*V^2. and since we accept that vacuum has capacitance, 8.85E-12 farad/meter (and definitely potential) energy and force is a natural outc ome. All From Nothing. :-) Out of this "caldron" of vacuum energy fluctuations comes a Universe. Regards, Frederick >Chris > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 10:04:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 10:00:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 19:08:59 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets References: <970824130625_100433.1541_BHG66-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1Hp4a.0.261.jY60q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10180 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Hamdi, > > I think Scott gets it right, flux-cutting is a poor model. Hi Chris, I am not against the Scott's opposition to Rognerud's arguments, but against to the experiment it self, proposed by Rognerud's. I think that this experiment never induce EMF in loop as Scott suggested. Rognerud has not specified how the EMF should be meas ured, so it open the subject to speculation. Scott completed the setup, but did not noticed the error. > > Personally I like the idea of ignoring magnetic fields as such and, > since a "magnetic field" is always a function of moving charge, > concentrating on the interaction (delayed by c) of charges moving > relative to one another. "Moving magnets" is a very confusing issue, as naturally expected the field belong to magnet have to move, as the magnet move respect to a conductors, but it is not. This is true specially the magnetic gradient is zero on the movement axis. > > >From a logic viewpoint, a "magnetic field" has no real need to exist. As both "charge carrying currents" and "displacement currents" are source of the magnetic field, EM is not unique phenomenon to prove charges are not necessary for the magnetic field. Although the "field" is mathematical concept for explaining the EM phen omena, it not preclude other methods and concepts as "magnetic potential" to describe the physical reality. > As far as I know, there is *no* way of detecting its existence unless > matter is present. I think there will be some exceptions for this as Evans B(3) theory reference them as "inverse Faraday effect" or effects dues the EM field interact with strong static fields. (I am not quiet sure on this, please refer to people having deeper knowledge on this subject) An EM wave, viewed in those terms, is of course an > interesting phenomenon since the original moving charge may not even > exist by the time you detect the wave... > > Chris Do you know when Horace will signon again to vortex? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 09:56:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 09:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 19:43:42 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets References: <970824130625_100433.1541_BHG66-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"g6HSe2.0.Zk.KP60q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10179 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Hamdi, > > I think Scott gets it right, flux-cutting is a poor model. Hi Chris, I am not against the Scott's opposition to Rognerud's arguments, but against to the experiment it self, proposed by Rognerud's. I think that this experiment never induce EMF in loop as Scott suggested. Rognerud has not specified how the EMF should be meas ured, so it open the subject to speculation. Scott completed the setup, but did not noticed the error. > > Personally I like the idea of ignoring magnetic fields as such and, > since a "magnetic field" is always a function of moving charge, > concentrating on the interaction (delayed by c) of charges moving > relative to one another. "Moving magnets" is a very confusing issue, as naturally expected the field belong to magnet have to move, as the magnet move respect to a conductors, but it is not. This is true specially the magnetic gradient is zero on the movement axis. > > >From a logic viewpoint, a "magnetic field" has no real need to exist. As both "charge carrying currents" and "displacement currents" are source of the magnetic field, EM is not unique phenomenon to prove charges are not necessary for the magnetic field. Although the "field" is mathematical concept for explaining the EM phen omena, it not preclude other methods and concepts as "magnetic potential" to describe the physical reality. > As far as I know, there is *no* way of detecting its existence unless > matter is present. I think there will be some exceptions for this as Evans B(3) theory reference them as "inverse Faraday effect" or effects dues the EM field interact with strong static fields. (I am not quiet sure on this, please refer to people having deeper knowledge on this subject) An EM wave, viewed in those terms, is of course an > interesting phenomenon since the original moving charge may not even > exist by the time you detect the wave... > > Chris Do you know when Horace will signon again to vortex? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 11:18:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:11:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 13:11:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"pWcam3.0.lY3.Wb70q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10182 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 19:08 8/24/97 +0400, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >I am not against the Scott's opposition to Rognerud's arguments, but >against to the experiment it self, proposed by Rognerud's. I think that >this experiment never induce EMF in loop as Scott suggested. Rognerud >has not specified how the EMF should be measured, so it open the subject >to speculation. Scott completed the setup, but did not noticed the >error. What error, Hamdi? Please note that I closed the loop OUTSIDE the area where the 2 magnetic fields were entering and exiting the loop. You could place a voltmeter in the circuit out there and measure the emf created by the two moving fields directly. If the loop is entirely immersed in a uniform magnetic field then motion of the loop w.r.t the field has no effect because such motion does not produce a dB/dt thru the loop. Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 10:58:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 10:47:28 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:51:27 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"VDRav2.0.2l2.kE70q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10181 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Hamdi, > >I think Scott gets it right, flux-cutting is a poor model. > >Personally I like the idea of ignoring magnetic fields as such and, >since a "magnetic field" is always a function of moving charge, >concentrating on the interaction (delayed by c) of charges moving >relative to one another. > snip- >Chris "interaction (delayed by c) of charges moving relative to one another." Good comment! 'Throw in' a "gyroscopic spin" and things can get interesting..... Best, Evan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 13:24:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 23:13:12 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets - Answer to Scott References: <199708241811.NAA23684 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"5CxEI3.0.uo5.6V90q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10186 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > At 19:08 8/24/97 +0400, Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > >I am not against the Scott's opposition to Rognerud's arguments, but > >against to the experiment it self, proposed by Rognerud's. I think > >that this experiment never induce EMF in loop as Scott suggested. > > What error, Hamdi? Please note that I closed the loop OUTSIDE the > area where the 2 magnetic fields were entering and exiting the loop. > You could place a voltmeter in the circuit out there and measure the > emf created by the two moving fields directly. > > If the loop is entirely immersed in a uniform magnetic field then > motion of the loop w.r.t the field has no effect because such motion > does not produce a dB/dt thru the loop. > > Scott Hi Scott, We disagree because as I stated on Re:2 Moving Magnets 14:11 posting, Moving magnetic field does not sense on classical physics. Only parts of a circuit move relatively to remaining part exposed to a magnetic field perpendicular to motion induce EMF. You can not create a special condition to invoke an EMF in a circuit without moving parts if the magnetic field applied does vary in time. The only way to produce an motional EMF is varying the surface enclosed by a conducting loop. As the Flux is the magnetic field passing trough an area, changing the surface of the area cause the flux change and induce EMF This is example how to create a motional EMF: <------x------> . . . . . .||. . . . .+--------------||---------- - - - - - - .| . . . . .||. . . . | .| . . . . .||. . . . | (V). . A . .||---> . .B(in) separation(l) .| . . . . .||.v . . . | .| . . . . .||. . . . | .+--------------||---------- - - - - - - - . . . . . .||. . . . Sliding bar As the area(A) increase by the movement of the sliding bar, the flux(F) increase an EMF induce as: E= dF/dt = Blv V= dx/dt is the speed of the bar. Of course, for the flux increase or decrease, circuit conductor must cross the magnetic field. So this is point misunderstood as the a conductor crossing magnetic field produce EMF. It is not! So, how matter the fields are arranged, and how the source of magnetic fields move it does not the result. Rognerud experiment is nonsense, maybe a "Null Experiment". Otherwise, if the Rognerud experiment induce EMF, this is a new phenomenon, and should be investigated. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 11:46:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:36:14 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:39:35 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets Resent-Message-ID: <"ZvodC1.0.WK4.Ty70q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10183 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I read Rognerud's posted paper. It is a good exmple of someone struggling (unsuccessfully) to try to understand the electromagnetic field in moving fromes. It can get tricky, but there is no mystery (other than that we do not know what underlies the uni verse). I agree with Scott Little's observations. More generally, Rognerud does not specify BOUNDARY CONDITIONS (needed to solve ANY differential equation) for either his measurement scheme nor for his source magnetic fields. Without boundary conditions, one cannot discuss the systems shown in his figures, because they are incompletely specified. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 13:01:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:56:04 -0700 Date: 24 Aug 97 15:52:55 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Our quarrel with Britz Resent-Message-ID: <"y3DZQ.0.O-6.H790q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10184 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex John Logajan sticks up for Dieter Britz, saying "I disagree strongly with Jed and Gene's assessment. Thanks Dieter." Here is a message posted by Britz May 26, 1997 on s.p.f. It illustrates why we disagree with him. As much as I share Dick [Blue]'s skepticism, I have to say he overstates his case here. There have been what I call "quality positives", which are hard to dismiss. The early work of Huggins, for example, a single experiment, but clearly showing a slight excess heat, without correcting for recombination. And Arata and Zhang showed 4He peaks growing recently, by a nifty MS cycling method. What one needs to do is to show what might be causing such effects, other than "cold fusion"; this is not always easy. I believe that there is a (fairly small) set of papers, for which we cannot convincingly come up with orthodox explanations - without ourselves getting into the realm of the ludicrous (attempts such as the infamous cigarette lighter effect, or the perennial peroxide formation scenario, etc). So, that being so, why don't we admit it, and agree that "cold fusion " is real? This is because we need much stronger effects, and we need them reproducibly. Huggins was a one-off and, like it or not, fades with time. The implications of "cold fusion" being real are too enormous for us to accept it lightly, so we wait for evidence much stronger than we might demand for less controversial effects. Still, we ought to give credit where it is due, and admit to these quality positives. I believe Britz tries to give a false impression of CF, by distortion and omission. He tries to make the reader believe: That Huggins has not been replicated in hundreds of labs. That a 10% excess is extraordinary, as if other had not seen far better percentages. That other results can be dismissed as "recombination." There are, in fact, only a handful that could be suspected of recombination. That "quality positives" are difficult to find, and are limited to 1989 work with only 10% excess. That CF is not reproducible by people skilled in the art. Storms and the French AEC prove he is wrong. That reproducibility equals believability in physics. If that were so, nobody would believe in hot fusion or top quarks. Britz will never mention results from people like McKubre, Kunimatsu or Bockris, because they show that his statements about rare "quality positives" are bunk. He claims oh-so-great respect for Bockris, but he will not discuss the man's work. The evaluati ons of papers on Britz's database are equally distorted. They are full of technical errors and infuriating omissions. He is like Hoffman: a fanatical extremist who pretends to be neutral, and pretends to present the facts. Actually, he hides the important facts, he distorts, and he evades the truth. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 15:35:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 15:31:41 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 15:27:35 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2 Moving Magnets References: <970824130625_100433.1541_BHG66-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"8N6pO2.0.ze3.9PB0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10187 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley writes: >I think Scott gets it right, flux-cutting is a poor model. The electric field due to flux cutting (motional electric field) is some ways fundamentally different than the electric field which results with transformer action. The sources of these two types of electric field are different, and so are some of the pro perties. Most notably, it is not possible to shield the motional electric field. Also it is possible to generate a motional electric field in a region of space in which there is a no net magnetic field, as in the 2 moving magnet experiment, or the Hooper/ Edwards effect. The three types of electric fields and their sources are: Static/Coulomb Field Electric Charge Motional/Flux Cutting Field Relative Velocity of Charge Electrokinetic/Transformer Field Acceleration of Charge References: Oleg Jefimenko, "Causality Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation", Electret Scientific Company, 1992 Parry Moon and Domina Spencer, "On Electromagnetic Induction", Journal of the Franklin Institute, Sep 1955 George Irving Cohn, "Paradoxes of Electromagnetic Induction". Thesis Paper, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1947 Kyle Klicker and John Stover Phd, "Motional Electric Field Theory of Force Between Relative Moving Charges", Montana State University, International Tesla Society, 1986 W.F. Edwards, D.K. Lemon, and C.S. Kenyon, "Electric Potentials Associated with Steady Conduction Currents in Superconducting Coils", Physics Letters A, Vol 162, 1992 John Stover Phd, "Motional Fields and the Edwards Effect", Montana State University, International Symposium on New Energy, 1993 William Hooper, "New Horizons in Electric, Magnetic, and Gravitational Field Theory", Electrodynamic Gravity Inc, 1974 Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 16:53:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 16:34:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, stwall@juno.com, tatham@bur ke.com, leon8 juno.com, 70277.2502 Compuserve.com, Karl-h@prodigy.net, rleinweb@lcc.net From: Ed Wall Subject: Re: The institution is the problem Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 23:32:51 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"UC_rb1.0.Ut2.QKC0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10188 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >Chris Tinsley discusses the problem of senior scientists being ostracized for >heresy. As he says, scientists tend to react more violently when senior people >"break ranks." When a young researcher expresses belief in some oddball >phenomenon, people will ignore him or patronize him. Chris quotes Tolstoy >describing the reason: because scientists fall in love with their own ideas. >Tongue in cheek (I assume!), Chris concludes: > > I think we need to understand rather than condemn these people, and try > to help them with their emotional problems. > >Well . . . I'll go on condemning them for unprofessional behavior. But I think >the root cause of the problem is not the people and not their psychology. I >think it is the structure of modern day scientific institutions: universities, >journals, government research labs and so on. > >Scientists ostracize people, publish scurrilous nonsense on Internet, threaten >children, and generally act like teenage hoodlums because they can get away >with it. Institutional safeguards have broken down. >Scientists today evade responsibility for upholding the ethical standards of >their profession. They point the finger at Congress or managers, the way >Merriman does. . And whose fault is it? I say the >scientists have brought this crisis upon themselves, through their own >arrogance, misbehavior, and ethical blindness. > >- Jed > I strongly agree that we suffer from institutional corruption, and I propose that scientific institutions are manifesting severe corruption originating from sources higher in the social order. I was reading a copy of The Times on my way back from London yesterday and came across an article about five Arkansas troopers, former Clinton bodyguards, who have made and continue to make allegations of corruptions in the Clinton cabal that exceed anything in my (American) political memory by far, yet even though that paper and the Telegraph have printed such stories for years, I have yet to see any such articles in American press. The result of the Slickmeister's political success is admiration from the majority, a belief that he is a good politician because he can lie faster and better than anyone else and can somehow always get away with it. That, and if he looks good and sounds good, he must be good, in spite of what his detractors keep trying to pin on him (after all, he is a front-man, and that is his job ). If such individuals represent our standard of excellence (because we support him), then how an we expect academic and state institutions that produce "science" to maintain any sort of integrity? Legislation can only offer a partial solution because people who always see themselves above the law will continue as they always have, albeit possibly with some greater difficulty. One great hope of new energy is that of decentralization. We will alway s have pockets of horrendous corruption and the biggest problems are occur when they rise to the top. The consequences of Lord Acton's undoubted truism about absolute power corrupting absolutely can only be side stepped by avoiding the political instinct to centralize in order to keep the top from getting too far above the bottom. In the past, governments were like a multitude of little pyramids. If we are going to have only one big pyramid in the future, it must be very broad and short, with political power distributed as widely as possible. As much as we may despise politics, we are all political animals. Jed has pointed out that those aspects of one's personality that one chooses to ignore will wind up controlling one's life, an observation (he was referring to sex) that I find true. How much do we wish to ignore politics? Motivation for the political elites remains mythical and out of public view since the dominant media abstains from active investigation of groups involved in top-level international cultural, political and economic alignment. The media's knee-jerk respon se to any politically incorrect question or criticism of such groups is an accusation of paranoia, right-wing extremism, insinuation of Nazi sympathy and religious fundamentalism. The world's politically powerful may be guilty of many things, but stupidity is not one of them. I have no reason to think that altruism that might create a liberal attitude toward new energy research would proliferate in such a social Darwinian pressure cooker. How could they possibly see the loss of stringent economic control in the form of fuel monopolies in a favorable light? Government in general has carte blanche with regard to issues of legislation. Scientists are very much a priesthood in that their pronouncements are not subject to criticism from the ranks of the unitiated, but their authority is controlled by such gover nment institutions as the National Science Foundation. Jed often considers the economic issues of CF, but little is written of the political issues. Political order rests on economic order and the credibility of the official priesthood (those who tell us what is and is not to be believed, i.e. whether your statements will be sanctioned if you espouse such things). If and when the talking heads make the announcement that "Scientists have discovered that CF actually works...," the talking heads will have the dubious task of preserving the credibility of the priesthood in view of the priesthood's tremendous stupidity and falsehood and then trying to credit them with the discoveries. Any authorized attention focused on the travesty of ignorance we are witnessing will be spun so as to implicate the innocent wh istleblowers and defend the powerful. I repeat that complicity is the honor among politicians. Jed points out that competition is what makes businessmen honest and efficient and limits vendettas since they will not contribute toward survival. What few people see is that competition between national governments has a similar role. Governments have striven toward maintaining at least the appearance of virtuous behavior and emphasized the lack thereof in competing governments as a means of imbuing loyalty and inspiring good behavior in the citizens. As national identies are dissolved, the old compe titions do as well. The logical extreme is a world in which the only government is actually free from competitive stress, since no competing structure exploits their weaknesses. Past examples of governments relatively free from competitive stress includ e communist and other dictatorships and are generally thought of as undesirable, tending to produce despair and so do not inspire the citizenry toward fruitful lives. If new energy receives official recognition, I would expect that much would be made of the extreme difficulty to be found in trying to understand it and possibly even a disinformation campaign to create a perception of imperceptible hazards requiring much government regulation and expensive design leading to an attempt to form some kind of government monopoly through corporate welfare (massive contracts to the usual contractors). Perhaps it looks like a black market might overcome such attempts, but as the survey about the need to regulate dangerous dihydrogen oxide would indicate, we humans are a suggestible lot. Believing horrible truths does not rest well with most people, particularly when a painless lie is offered from an official source. I admire chronicle producers like Gene and Jed so very much. The lives of professional liars should be difficult and dangerous. I am not a revolutionary and am not recommending violence, particularly when awareness is the best weapon. I believe that pu rsuing truth is worth enduring the consequences, so I welcome any honest criticism. Ed When I wake up and think about government, I wonder if it's worth chewing through the leather restraints. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 21:37:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 21:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Our quarrel with Britz To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 23:33:35 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"oTqed.0.cC3.vjG0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10189 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed wrote: > Here is a message posted by Britz.... It illustrates why we disagree with > him. I don't know if disagreement is everywhere and always healthy, but it is certainly inevitable. The question is how we handle the interaction. I've certainly disagreed with Dieter in years past, often by e-mail exchanges on sundry topics mostly unrelated to CF. I don't recall Dieter ever replying in a nasty tone or with insulting or demeaning comments (and I don't recall doing anything of the sort in return, though my memory could be a bit selective in this regard. ;-) So I am certainly not calling for an end to disagreements or the prohibition of asserting a position and pointing out the weaknesses in another. But there are, in my opinion, more civilized ways to do so, and less civilized ways to do so. And, in my not so humble opinion, joking that Dieter is attempting to merge into the persona of Dick Blue by selecting the same initials is a comment that is not on as high a grounding as that which I'd prefer to see in this or any other forum. We all have points of view, and the promise of civility is working out ways in which conflicting points of view can co-exist without resorting to warfare. Certainly a penultimate feature of such civility is to be able to disagree vehemently with another individual on one topic, yet be a collaborater on a different topic. There are many viewpoints exisiting in the vortex and spf groups, and I am actually thankful for the wide variation of those that are interested in discussing the pros and cons on the merits. But I am very disappointed in those that use the forum as a ve hicle for transmitting insults -- I don't rightly care which side they represent. End sermon. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 24 22:26:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 22:17:31 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 23:23:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Test Resent-Message-ID: <"IR2Pk2.0.Ja.fLH0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10190 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 HLafonte aol.com wrote: >>Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 15:58:13 -0400 (EDT) >>From: HLafonte aol.com >>Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com >>To: vortex-l eskimo.com >>Subject: Test >>Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:58:51 -0700 >>Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com >> >>Test >> >> test *works* x 3 times now (is >kb trble?) you're 5x5! :) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 05:06:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 04:57:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:54:07 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Munip ONIZ Subject: Re: Tesla Patent 512,340 References: <34011BA9.A2309A09 microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"_7Rno.0.T81.UCN0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10194 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thank you Greg, also to Fred Epps, for offering to access to this documentation. >From the patent, page 1, from line 39: "I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than of ohmic resistance, or, In other words, as though it possessed no sef-induction. This is due to mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the lat(t)er quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self induction for th at frequency. It is well known that the higher the frequency or potential difference of the current the smaller capacity required to counteract the self induction; hence, in any coi, however small the capacity, it may be sufficient for the purpose stated if the proper conditions in other respects be answered." Is it sound familiar? same principle of transmission lines. Of course, this is the aim of the TL's, but why Tesla wanted design a coil without self inductance for increasing the magnetic field of the coil on high frequency without limiting the current by the self inductance. I also attempted to design a coil having magnetic field but no self-inductance. (posting 23 Apr 1997, "Re: Real Space Drive (1/4 Impluse Mr. Crusher......Engage)" "Two weeks ago I tried to design a kind of coil having no or neglectable impedance (theoretical) but producing some magnetic fields.(influenced by recent bifilar discussions): ..." I never build the coil that I proposed but find this effect on biPEG and bifilar coils showing the interesting results that I reported. The common characteristics of these coils (including the Tesla patent subject) is the large inter winding capacitances. I am sure that Tesla also had observed same anomalies that I experience, but unfortunately he had not the opportunity to work with frequencies above MHz's and had not even A LED (also scope) to enjoy the phenomenon. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 06:16:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 06:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: 25 Aug 97 09:09:02 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Our quarrel with Britz Resent-Message-ID: <"xZF2s1.0.yt1.NIO0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10196 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex John Logajan writes: I've certainly disagreed with Dieter in years past, often by e-mail exchanges on sundry topics mostly unrelated to CF. I don't recall Dieter ever replying in a nasty tone or with insulting or demeaning comments . . . Interesting. He has publicly and privately accused me of perpetrating fraud. So have many others of course. As for his tone, it is sweet as honey, just like Hoffman's, especially when he praises people like Bockris. But the content of his messages insults Bockris and dismisses his work. So I am certainly not calling for an end to disagreements or the prohibition of asserting a position and pointing out the weaknesses in another. But there are, in my opinion, more civilized ways to do so, and less civilized ways to do so. In this case (in the message beginning this thread), I quoted his words exactly and showed where they are technically inaccurate. Quoting a person at length is the fairest way to argue with him. And, in my not so humble opinion, joking that Dieter is attempting to merge into the persona of Dick Blue by selecting the same initials is a comment that is not on as high a grounding as that which I'd prefer to see in this or any other forum. I consider that a very mild joke. "Merging a persona" is a meaningless concept outside of an Ingmar Bergman movie. What did anyone think I was suggesting? That they are getting married? . . . I am very disappointed in those that use the forum as a vehicle for transmitting insults -- I don't rightly care which side they represent. I find it impossible not to insult people in this business. I pointed out that Fleischmann, Mizuno and Bockris find many technical shortcomings in the work at the NHE lab. I published a paper listing some of the errors they described to me, with reference s to the literature. I quoted the concerns of the NHE project leaders who told me -- in no uncertain terms -- that their funding is threatened because they ran 50 experiments without positive results. Kennel and others at the NHE took this as an insult. K ennel accused me of working hand-in-glove with Huizenga and Morrison to undermine the field and shut them down. I pointed out that Russ George has never published a paper, even though he has often promised he would after speaking at conferences. He got up set and left this forum in a huff. But the fact remains he has not published. If it is an insult to point this out, what isn't an insult? Miles and I have managed to "insult" scientists by pointing out that they ran experiments without calibrating. I insu lted CETI by reporting that they have repeatedly invited me and others to meetings and then canceled at the last minute without offering to refund our air tickets. If it is an insult to report irresponsible & inept behavior on both sides of the CF wars, I plead guilty. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 09:17:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:57:47 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: eprint: The Problem of Vacuum Energy and Cosmology Resent-Message-ID: <"Xv7nb.0.am.VoQ0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10199 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This a paper that I forget 2 weeks to read and announce to vortex. Note that how it is exactly pointing to our recent discussion on ZPE upper limit problem: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference zpe Hamdi's comments zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! available from xxx.lanl.gov Regards, hamdi ucar Astrophysics, abstract astro-ph/9708045 From: "A Dolgov" Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:37:19 -0600 The Problem of Vacuum Energy and Cosmology (A lecture presented at the 4th Colloque Cosmologie, Paris, June, 1997; to be published in the Proceedings) Author: A. D. Dolgov Comments: 15 pages, latex twice Quantum field theory predicts that vacuum energy (or what is the same, cosmological constant) should be 50-100 orders of magnitude larger than the existing astronomical limit. A very brief review of possible solutions of this problem is presented. A mecha nism of adjustment of vacuum energy down to (almost) zero by the back-reaction of massless vector or second rank tensor fields is discussed. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 08:25:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Ureka or Kidney Stones?? Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:19:29 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"vFvAK3.0.ir5.oBQ0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10197 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, "Phosphorus was discovered by the German alchemist Brand while searching for the Philosopher's Stone (a substance that was supposed to transmute baser metals into gold). He heated a mixture of evaporated urine (which contains combined phosphorus), sand, a nd charcoal in a retort and distilled out a substance that had the property of glowing in the dark." :-) A lot to be said for "The Good Old Days". What goes around comes around. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 09:04:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:45:39 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:45:27 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Unanswered questions Resent-Message-ID: <"SjlGf2.0.yY3.XYQ0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10198 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Here's something from New Scientist magazine's "unanswered questions" page. Think it has any similarity to carbon-arc transmutation? http://www.last-word.com/lastword/unanswered.html Why wood it?: I used a magnet to find nails in the ash from timber burnt in our wood-fired heater. The magnet attracted copious amounts of black ash as well as nails, the ash adhering to the magnet in the way that the iron filings clung to a magnet in the primary school experiment. But how can wood ash be magnetic? (5 July 97) Maybe not. The one below is even more interesting. Check out the actual website, the collection of "unanswered questions" is fairly large! Odd things: The black ants living in my greenhouse have been behaving oddly towards an electrical cable. They appear to cluster around it on both sides, at right angles to the cable, and occasionally twitch as though head-butting the PVC (inside which runs only the current to supply the thermostat). They cluster in numbers of slightly more than a dozen, along the 15 centimetres or so where the cable touches the patio slab floor of the greenhouse. Occasionally further ants come along and touch feelers with the ants doing the twitching, before joining them. Does anyone know why they do this? It may be useful to know that this occurs underneath the edge of a treated wooden bench, supported by aluminium legs and next to a couple of 2-litre bottles of old, stagnant tap water. Cutting all the power to the heater causes no apparent change in the ants' curious behaviour. (29 Jun 96) .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 11:32:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:20:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:18:30 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: eprint: The Problem of Vacuum Energy and Cosmology Resent-Message-ID: <"n1uDE.0.RK6.9qS0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10202 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi, This a paper that I forget 2 weeks to read and announce to vortex. Note that how it is exactly pointing to our recent discussion on ZPE upper limit problem: Re: NASA posts the results of propulsion conference zpe Hamdi's comments zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! available from xxx.lanl.gov (note: I already posted this letter few hours ago and it is still not appeared on list and I am reposting it. If it will going to appear twice, apologize) Regards, hamdi ucar Astrophysics, abstract astro-ph/9708045 From: "A Dolgov" Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:37:19 -0600 The Problem of Vacuum Energy and Cosmology (A lecture presented at the 4th Colloque Cosmologie, Paris, June, 1997; to be published in the Proceedings) Author: A. D. Dolgov Comments: 15 pages, latex twice Quantum field theory predicts that vacuum energy (or what is the same, cosmological constant) should be 50-100 orders of magnitude larger than the existing astronomical limit. A very brief review of possible solutions of this problem is presented. A mecha nism of adjustment of vacuum energy down to (almost) zero by the back-reaction of massless vector or second rank tensor fields is discussed. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 10:57:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:36:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:36:40 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Bismuth Resent-Message-ID: <"mvEFY2.0.yl4.kAS0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10200 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >From an old conversation about Levitating Frogs: On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Nick Dolezal wrote: > > I've also heard a rumor: > > It's a well known fact that, in the presence of a magnetic field, bismuth's > electrical resistance increases. Now here's the rumor: in the presence of > an electrical current, bismuth's diamagnetivity increases. > > Just thought I'd pass this on to you... but FWIW, I fail to see why the > diamagnetivity could increase that way. .....................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 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 10:50:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:40:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Gotta love academic research. Resent-Message-ID: <"53kSi3.0.9i5.bFS0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10201 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, John Logajan wrote: > > So we get the worst of both worlds in these sorts of analyses, "good > era", "bad era" equivalencing and rampant speculation about the outcome > of paths not taken. > I take the practical approach rather than attempt a rigerous logical conclusion. I find it very hard to believe that the investigation of esoteric questions like the wave-like nature of electrons and its consequences would have ever been investigated by a nyone in the absence of pure academic interest. There were probably only 20-30 people worldwide capable of assessing Schroedinger and Heisenberg's seminal work in 1926. (We still don't have a satisfying philosophical description of the wavefunction but we can exploit it like hell.) Let alone Fermi's (what a brilliant man!) work on the conduction of electrons and nuclear physics in the 1930's. The cost of supporting such original research from the 1900 - 1997 is so trivial compared to the output of industries that exploit Quantum Mechanical effects that I believe the case is overwhelming. It's not like trying to sift out a few extra cancers from the population living clos e to powerlines! That's just Physics, the Science I know best. The whole modern Bio-tech industry rests on original pure academic research that discovered DNA. What company would have supported that research? What individual would have had the resources and capability to do it themselves? John, you work for a company that makes money exploiting the Quantum Mechanical effects of the Laser. The Laser would have taken centuries to develop by Edison-like tinkering without QM. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 13:19:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:11:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Friction and other Electrokinetic Phenomena in Liquids. Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:32:12 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"qbpvx1.0.-i2.qRU0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10208 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Triboluminescent phenomena of the liquid-solid interface physics tends to center around the Streaming Potential, V = P*D*z/4(pi)n*k where P is pressure, D is the dielectric constant, n is the viscosity, k is the conductivity, and z is the zeta potential;4 (pi)n*L*I/P*D*A L is the capillary length and I is the "current", A is the area of contact, for circulating "electrolytes". Triboluminescence could be in the infrared or ultraviolet and, Does Not have to be in the visible spectrum. Any thoughts along this approach, especially for the Griggs Pump or possibly occurring along with cavitation luminescence in the Yusmar? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 12:25:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:17:20 -0700 Date: 25 Aug 97 15:14:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Ureka or Kidney Stones?? Resent-Message-ID: <"awWrO2.0.lz._eT0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10203 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick, > "Phosphorus was discovered by the German alchemist Brand while > searching for the Philosopher's Stone (a substance that was > supposed to transmute baser metals into gold). He heated a mixture > of evaporated urine (which contains combined phosphor us), sand, > and charcoal in a retort and distilled out a substance that had > the property of glowing in the dark." :-) > > A lot to be said for "The Good Old Days". What goes around comes > around. There are Rumpelstiltskins lurking this list........ Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 12:29:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:17:29 -0700 Date: 25 Aug 97 15:14:23 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Gotta love academic research. Resent-Message-ID: <"7B-ou2.0.sz._eT0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10204 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin, > The whole modern Bio-tech industry rests on original pure academic > research that discovered DNA. What company would have supported > that research? But the whole point is that *nobody* supported Crick and Watson. No company did, and neither did Cambridge University - who were supporting them to do their proper work. > What individual would have had the resources and capability to do > it themselves? Well, Crick and Watson did. There was of course the lady (whose name to my shame I admit forgetting. I think her work was supported in the usual way. Or, more on topic, Fleischmann and Pons funded the early CF work (to the tune of $100,000). Then we could look at industry. I was with ICL for many years, and many of their best products (the 2903 soft-microded machine and the DAP - Distributed Array Processor) were designed essentially without funding by enthusiastic engineers who were suppose d to be doing something else. Even I wrote the only really good test and diagnostic software for one early mainframe - in my spare time at home. It's really all down to enthusiasm and personal commitment. And it's still going on - Jed has spent more on CF than F&P did on that research, and Gene resigned from a very good post with MIT to do something he saw as more important. Even I could probabl y be doing rather better raking in my share of the 31 billion pounds UK industry is apparently spending on the Millennium Bug. > The Laser would have taken centuries to develop by Edison-like > tinkering without QM. I think that the laser is the best example to support your case. But I'm sure you will recall that Maiman's paper describing the first laser was turned down for publication, and he had to take the press-conference route. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 12:28:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:19:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:15:59 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OU Patent List Now Online References: <34017AAA.79254432 microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"T4WLd3.0.dJ1.ShT0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10205 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > Funny most of the magnetic motor patents images will not load. > Anyone else having this problem? > Some patent I have loaded before, will not now load!!!!! Yes, there seems to be some kind of problem with the IBM patent server. Henry Wallace's antigravity patents also will no longer load. Must be some kind of software glitch. Still, its so convenient to use this server. What's a few bugs here and there? Plus , you gotta love the all-seeing-eye logo thing. It costs a small fortune to put this server up and maintain it. Do you expect it is a courtesy? Readily available electronic information is a great convenience. A blessing and a curse. There is no need anymore for anyone to waste gas travelling, and waste time digging out microfiche copies at patent depository libraries. Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 12:40:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT) From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:35:40 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bottom Line? References: <19970823152421.AAA853 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"xv-AP2.0.nO1.SvT0q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10206 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Please explain how you think a lepton that would be lighter then the electron could induce fusion. What is the mass of this hypothetical particle? Is its charge = to electron charge. Or is it a fractional charge? If this particle has a charge of qe a mass different from the electron, why has it not been discovered by now? Any tv tube should be able to show this particle by the mass difference if it was common. X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 13:01:48 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:43:19 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: N Machine? References: <199708250217.MAA07050 nornet.nor.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"UbfNZ1.0.mQ2.sIU0q"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/229 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Peter Nielsen wrote: > > >> resulting scalar potential would converge upon the axis, thereby stimulating > >> emission of electrons, particularly if made of piezo ceramic. > > > >? Perhaps, it is interesting, but normal unipolar (homopolar) generator > >was known from Faraday's disk produce radial separation of electrical > >charges. Sorry, but your reply is out of the topic. > > > > OK, I know a Faraday disk is an N machine without magnets. Now who stole my > magnets? > > Peter Nielsen Peter The Faraday disk have a fixed horseshoe magnet, and the disk pass through it. Vicente -- Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga E-mail: vramos ctv.es Home Page: http://www.ctv.es/USERS/vramos/home.htm Burriana (Castellon) SPAIN X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 16:14:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:04:03 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Ureka or Kidney Stones?? Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:43:39 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"sMBMg.0.Rl5.WzW0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10212 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:14 PM 8/25/97 +0000, Chris wrote: >Frederick, > > > "Phosphorus was discovered by the German alchemist Brand while > > searching for the Philosopher's Stone (a substance that was > > supposed to transmute baser metals into gold). He heated a mixture > > of evaporated urine (which contains combined phosphorus), sand, > > and charcoal in a retort and distilled out a substance that had > > the property of glowing in the dark." :-) > > > > A lot to be said for "The Good Old Days". What goes around comes > > around. > >There are Rumpelstiltskins lurking this list........ I was more concerned about the Pee-H-Dees. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Chris > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 17:02:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:54:39 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Bottom Line? Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 20:46:54 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"y6rC61.0.ZG1.-iX0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10215 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:35 PM 8/25/97 +0000, ehammond pacbell wrote: >Please explain how you think a lepton that would be lighter then the >electron could induce fusion. 1, A negative lepton could form a "hydrino-deutrino" if it can "see" a bare proton or deuteron. 2, The positive lepton could could be "absorbed" by an electron, forming something like a small "positronium atom". Either of these Might induce a few fusion reactions. >What is the mass of this hypothetical particle? If E = mc^2 then, Mass = E/c^2. for a light lepton pair made from say a 1.0 ev photon the mass would be 0.5 ev each, thus Mass = 0.5*1.6E-19/c^2 = 8.9E-37 kg or roughly one-millionth of the mass of a regular electron (9.1E-31kg). >Is its charge = to electron charge. Of Course. NO ONE has SEEN a fractional charge for any particle "created" in High Energy Physics research. Charge is just a 180 degree phase difference for conjugate particles. Nature Loves Symmetry. :-) >Or is it a fractional charge? If this particle has a charge of qe a >mass different from the electron, why has it not been discovered by now? Can you name a few things that haven't been discovered by now? :-) Since it's relativistic mass MR = Mo[qV/(Mo*c^2)+1], at 0.5 Volts it's mass is now doubled to 1/500,000 that of the electron and it is moving at about 87% of the speed of light (c). Yet at 510,000 volts it has the same mass as the electron, and, In a magn etic field the radius r = MR*c/q*B, so it would either be swept out of a "tv tube" before it ever got past the first stage of the electron gun or magnetic sweep coils and/or the ion trap. It can however, be looked for with a mass spectrometer type separator using a few kilovolts and a magnetic field of 3 gauss or so. That is magnetic field only about 6 times the Earth's magnetic field strength. >Any tv tube should be able to show this particle by the mass difference >if it was common. Not so. The electrostatic deflection D of a cathode ray tube is: D = qE/(m*v(sub)ox^2)*L*ld where ox is the initial velocity in the x direction, ld is the length of the deflection plates, and L is the distance from the half-way point in the deflection plates to the tube phosphor. E is the field intensity between the de flection plates (volts/meter). At normal CRT voltages the light leptons would be hitting the sides of the CRT (if they ever got that far). Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 13:14:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:59:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:03:46 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: kirk.shanahan srs.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, rdeagleton@csupomna.edu, JoeC@transmutation.com Subject: Cincy report in IE References: <199708251415.AA14148 gateway1.srs.gov> Resent-Message-ID: <"trqqC1.0.z43.dGU0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10207 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 25, 1997 Hello Kirk Shanahan, I'll mail you all the relevant Cincy pages from IE today. I'm very pleased with and impressed by your willingness to labor as an objective critic in the CF field. Thanks! It's not masochism, I think, because if these amazing claim s are somehow just confusion, then we're going learn a lot about how the process of how such confusion arises. And if the rather unbelievable claims prove to be valid, then we will be part of the essential testing process of a historic discovery. The Cincy Group experiments are extremely simple: by 9 minutes, up to 8.25 amps AC, 60 Hz, at 44 V at that current level, then at a cell temp 204.2 degrees F, are fed from a zirconium disk to an outer zirconium cylinder wall, with about .125 inch disk to wall separation, during a 30 minute run, attaining peak pressures of about 4 atm and peak temperatures of 277.4 degrees F at 30 minutes, at which point the current is 1.49 A and voltage 176 V. At time 0 minutes, the current, voltage, and temp are 1.94, 4 7, and 71.4, and at 1 minute 1.31 49, and 75.4. The sealed cell is about 1.5" diameter and about as long, with .125 inch wall thickness, and heavy stainless steel end caps, held by four long outer bolts, electrically insulated from the cell by gaskets, co mposition not mentioned. The cell contains 25 ml of 100 ml solution, made by adding 1 drop of HCl and 1 gm Thorium Nitrate to distilled water. The cell "must be operated horizontally." The temperature is measured by a thermocouple on the exterior of the cell: no calibration is mentioned. I'll summarize the time, current, voltage, and temp data every 5 minutes: 0 1.94 47 71.4 5 1.27 49 93.4 10 7.50 46 235.8 15 1.83/1.97 86/110 245.2 20 1.29 168 240.2 25 1.30 176 257.9 30 1.49 176 277.4 The voltage is almost constant at 177 to 176 after 168/177 at 21 minutes. No explanation is given for the voltage changes. No estimates are given about input and output power. No dummy cell control runs are mentioned. No data are given about cell resistance during a run. No careful measurements are given for weight changes before and after a run: this would allow a check for otherwise undetected venting. If a cell was run under oil, then any escaping gases or fluids could be detected and collected, and output power could be monitored by the oil temperature. It would be prudent to run such a cell to the point of explosion, to find out just what its strength actually is. What happens if the cell contains different gases than air? Were any close-up video tapes made of a run? The data are for Test #2, June 27, 1997. It is not clear where or who did this run. Liversage's report is date June 5, 1997, while Data Chem's TEM analysis, along with EDXA spectra, of the famous Cu flake was done on April 13-14, 1997, by Kenan Cetin, Analyst, and also signed by Anna Marie Ristich, Section Manager: Data Chem Laboratories 4388 Glendale-Milford Road Cincinatti, OH 45242-3706 513-733-5336 Fax: 5347 Good luck! Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 14:13:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:08:18 -0700 Date: 25 Aug 97 17:06:19 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: OU Patent List Now Online Resent-Message-ID: <"8ZKXY3.0.B67.1HV0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10209 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert, > Readily available electronic information is a great convenience. A > blessing and a curse. There is no need anymore for anyone to waste > gas travelling, and waste time digging out microfiche copies at > patent depository libraries. Ah, but I do wish those ancient, mouldering copies of Nature and The Philosophical Magazine were available on-line - and, of course, all the old Astounding/Analogs... There's some great stuff in those turn-of-the-century science journals, from before physics became fizzix. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 15:39:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:30:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: OU Patent List Now Online Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:35:15 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"gaC6q3.0.sb.tTW0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10210 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Chris, > Ah, but I do wish those ancient, mouldering copies of Nature and The > Philosophical Magazine were available on-line - and, of course, all the > old Astounding/Analogs... > > There's some great stuff in those turn-of-the-century science journals, > from before physics became fizzix. Yes, I love reading those old journals. This is how I'm educating myself. I am currently working my way through Proceedings of the Royal Society of London1890-1900. Aside from the sheer pleasure of reading understandable scientific prose, and math that I can (almost) understand, there are many avenues that have not been explore d. For instance I've seen two papers that describe interactions of gravity and heat. There are plenty of odd electrostatic and plasma effects too. As a bookstore owner and library junkie I am very aware of the drawbacks of Net information. Depth is sacrificed for breadth, and substance is replaced with yet another reference to yet another web page with insubstantial information. I always end up bac k "mining the library" in the end. My intention is to eventually put some of this old, interesting material on line. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 18:25:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:10:05 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tesla Patent 512,340 References: <34011BA9.A2309A09 microtronics.com.au> <3401644F.7AA1CA76@verisoft.com.tr> <340217e3.3951638@mail.eisa.net.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"NmHt7.0.6e6.muY0q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10220 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > You might get interesting results if you put the coil in a water bath > (keep voltage fairly low). The dielectric constant of the water can > multiply the inter-winding capacity of the coil considerably, thus > lowering the frequency to a range that is more easily managed. > > Robin van Spaandonk Thanks for your suggestion. This will be interesting, maybe some cold fusion also occurs as a side effect. :-) Just before retrieving the letters, I obtained 100MHz resonance from a small coil that I designed to operate at 10-20MHz range. Coil is also well operating at 15MHz in same configuration (by changing the feedback method) but at the 100MHz mode coil create strong magnetic fields oriented radially from the coil, which are absent on 15 MHz normal operating mode. I am suspecting that displacement currents between windings is responsible for these radial magnetic fields. You are right, above 10 MHz things go unmanageble, current dos not follows conductors anymore. I figured Tesla also discovered the power of the displacement currents, which are conducted without losses. Interestingly, for get advantage of interwindig capacitance on the coils , one need more windings in order of magnitude (and thicker wires for compensate the ohmic resistance), so more copper is needed, This justify Newman's statement as the OU is propor tional to weight of the copper used. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 17:24:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:17:06 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: OU Patent List Now Online Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:20:24 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"siupS1.0.pX2.02Y0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10216 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Evan, > A noble goal! One of my favorite early scientific works is Henry > Pemberton's "A View of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy." [Edition of 1728.] > It is fascinating to read in the original -- which demonstrates a quality > of production as well as of thinking. [Since the pages were often > originally prepared from rags, the 17th and 18th century stock is generally > in better condition than many of the 19th century book papers containing > acids -- which I'm sure you realize as a bookstore owner] Pemberton's > explantion of Newton's revolutionary work is so crisp and clear, as well as > inbued with the intensity of his mode of expression --- clearly one can > enjoy Pemberton's obvious excitement with the revolutionary implications of > the "new" Newtonian philosophy. Reading the original papers on something like the discovery of X-rays in the original magazine, with the arguments for and against their existence, teaches much about science, as well as pointing out possible alternative explanations of phenomena we take for granted. You see Nature with innocent eyes again. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 17:33:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:26:05 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tesla Patent 512,340 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:25:45 GMT Organization: Improving References: <34011BA9.A2309A09 microtronics.com.au> <3401644F.7AA1CA76@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"oA4Of2.0.ix2.RAY0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10217 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:54:07 +0400, Hamdi Ucar wrote: [snip] >I never build the coil that I proposed but find this effect on biPEG and >bifilar coils showing the interesting results that I reported. The >common characteristics of these coils (including the Tesla patent >subject) is the large inter winding capacitances. I am sure that Tesla >also had observed same anomalies that I experience, but unfortunately he >had not the opportunity to work with frequencies above MHz's and had not >even A LED (also scope) to enjoy the phenomenon. [snip] You might get interesting results if you put the coil in a water bath (keep voltage fairly low). The dielectric constant of the water can multiply the inter-winding capacity of the coil considerably, thus lowering the frequency to a range that is more eas ily managed. Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 17:41:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:35:19 -0700 Date: 25 Aug 97 20:32:44 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: NHE program terminated Resent-Message-ID: <"2INXd3.0.CJ3.5JY0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10218 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex In a short front page article, the Nikkei Shimbun reported that the Japanese cold fusion research program, The New Hydrogen Energy research project, has been canceled as of the end of this fiscal year (April 1998). A MITI spokesman said the program will b e terminated because there have been positive results although "we do not deny the effect exists." Sources at Japanese National Universities told me that funding for university level research in cold fusion will also be terminated. Details to follow tomorrow, after I get a more readable fax of the newspaper article. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 16:42:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:33:57 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:43:52 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Zenon shortfall on Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"a-4N8.0.EI7.ZPX0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10214 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I snipped this from newscientist.com-- some old electric spark experiments hint that zenon is transmutted. Could this have reduced the zenon abundance on Earth? Rich Murray: enigmatic element | The Earth's core doesn't hold the answer to the intriguing "missing xenon" problem, say scientists at the University of California at Berkeley. Geologists have long wondered why the Earth has less xenon than meteorites. Rocky meteorites and planets normally have similar proportions of heavy inert gases. Scientists speculated that xenon, which becomes metallic at high pressures, might be hiding in the Earth's core, bound to the iron there. However, new research reported in Science (vol 277, p 930) shows that xenon cannot form alloys with iron, even at huge pressures and temperatures. "We'll have to come up with other scenarios that would explain this," says Raymond Jeanloz, one of the research team. From New Scientist, 23 August 1997 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 17:57:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:52:16 -0700 X-Sender: claytor_t_n@esa.lanl.gov Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:46:21 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: NHE program terminated Resent-Message-ID: <"UJS0I3.0.eH4._YY0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10219 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id RAA16751 ww2.nando.net Japan to stop research on cold nuclear fusion Copyright © 1997 Nando.net Copyright © 1997 Reuter Information Service TOKYO (August 25, 1997 11:52 a.m. EDT) - Japan will abandon state-funded research on cold nuclear fusion by next March, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry said Monday. "We decided to drop the research after failing to make it (cold nuclear fusion) happen in our five-year experiment," an official for the ministry's Agency of Natural Resources and Energy said. Nuclear fusion is widely believed to take place only under certain conditions, such as at extremely high temperatures or pressures. MITI in 1993 started research aimed at triggering nuclear fusion at relatively low temperatures, ranging roughly from room temperature to 100 degrees Celsius, aiming to harness the massive heat expected from fusion reactions for electric power production. In theory, cold fusion would be possible with relatively simple and inexpensive facilities, compared with large-scale and costly units for thermonuclear fusion.  At 08:32 PM 8/25/97 EDT, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >In a short front page article, the Nikkei Shimbun reported that the Japanese >cold fusion research program, The New Hydrogen Energy research project, has >been canceled as of the end of this fiscal year (April 1998). A MITI spokesman >said the program will be terminated because there have been positive results >although "we do not deny the effect exists." > >Sources at Japanese National Universities told me that funding for university >level research in cold fusion will also be terminated. > >Details to follow tomorrow, after I get a more readable fax of the newspaper >article. > >- Jed > > http://www.nde.lanl.gov/staff/claytor/claytor.htm Thomas N. Claytor Claytor_t_n lanl.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 19:14:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:11:11 -0700 Date: 25 Aug 97 22:09:25 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: NHE announcement corrected Resent-Message-ID: <"84USW1.0.FB.ziZ0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10222 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I mean to say: A MITI spokesman said the program will be terminated because there have been no positive results . . . ^^ I believe there is something on Reuters about this too. More later. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 01:01:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:40:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 03:34:53 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Our quarrel with Britz Resent-Message-ID: <"rGUcn2.0.si3.yXe0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10226 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:09 AM 8/25/97 EDT, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex >I pointed out that Russ George has never published a paper, even though >he has often promised he would after speaking at conferences. He got upset and >left this forum in a huff. But the fact remains he has not published. >- Jed > Russ George published in the COLD FUSION TIMES,(ISSN#1072-2874) issue volume 4, number 4, p. 1, "Heat and Nuclear Products by Cavitation Induced Fusion." COLD FUSION TIMES is the OLDEST cold fusion journal still actively publishing without a change in title, etc. "The experiments show reproducible large excess power (tens to hundreds of thermal watts) is generated in the device based on calorimetric measurement of total energy input and heat output. The figure shows a summary plot of data from the experiments conducted at SRI during the course of this project. The diagonal line is drawn through points determined via the use of a Joule heater and show measurement of heat in equal to heat out. Many of the experimental points which include some experiments with inactive ingredients fall on or near the Joule heater calibration confirming the case for no excess heat. However many points fall far to the left of the calibration line and demonstrate excess energy. The one point which is attached to a vertical line is used to illustrate the substantial excess power which in this case is about 160% of the input of just under 200 watts." [Russ George "Heat and Nuclear Products by Cavitation Induced Fusion" Cold Fusion Times issue volume 4, number 4, p. 1] Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 00:55:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:47:15 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 03:42:59 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Our quarrel with Britz Resent-Message-ID: <"KMS352.0.f24.2ee0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10227 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:52 PM 8/24/97 EDT, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >John Logajan sticks up for Dieter Britz, saying "I disagree strongly with Jed >and Gene's assessment. Thanks Dieter." Here is a message posted by Britz May >26, 1997 on s.p.f. It illustrates why we disagree with him. > [zip] I believe Britz tries to give a false impression of CF, by distortion and >omission. He tries to make the reader believe: > [zip] > >Britz will never mention results from people like McKubre, Kunimatsu or >Bockris, because they show that his statements about rare "quality positives" >are bunk. He claims oh-so-great respect for Bockris, but he will not discuss >the man's work. The evaluations of papers on Britz's database are equally >distorted. They are full of technical errors and infuriating omissions. He is >like Hoffman: a fanatical extremist who pretends to be neutral, and pretends >to present the facts. Actually, he hides the important facts, he distorts, >and he evades the truth. > >- Jed > > Dieter Britz deserves the thanks of many for keeping his bibliography going, even the face of reasonable skepticism. BTW, it is HIS biblio, and he can filter, and edit it, as he pleases. IMHO he has been very reasonable, and has contributed to the electrochemistry, and more, of this field. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 21:16:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:02:12 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l Subject: NASA 's gravity-shielding publication... Resent-Message-ID: <"ImALL1.0.dl4.eMb0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10223 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hello Vortexians, For those of you who would like a copy of NASA's Physica C preprint [Static Test for A Gravitational Force Coupled to Type II YBCO Superconductors] Please see my WebPage at http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Physica-C.htm Dr. Noever has given me permission to post it. My apologies for the lack of graphs or images, as well as the poor formatting; I had to center the text to keep it within the background margins. If anyone would like a copy, either cut and paste to any word processor, or send me e-mail ( preavis ro.com ) and I'll forward the original copy that he sent me. Pleasant day to all... -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G PS. If it is appropriate to do so, I'll simply post it to Vortex-l. Just let me know. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 21:14:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:10:28 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Gotta love academic research. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:10:18 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"X14tV.0.oQ5.pSb0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10224 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin Sevior wrote: > I find it very hard to believe that the investigation of esoteric > questions like the wave-like nature of electrons and its consequences > would have ever been investigated by anyone in the absence of pure > academic interest. There has been a subtle shift in your argument, which first mentioned "public funding", "fifty years" worth, and now only mentions "academic interest." I believe these are not identical concepts. One alternate universe not accounted for is what technology would be like today if "academic interest" was financed for the last 50 years by voluntary sources rather than involuntary sources. In all other fields of human activity, public funding has not been as efficient as private funding -- one would wonder why pure research would be any different. Unfortunately the analysis problem cuts both ways -- since we can't know what the alternate path would have yielded, we can't claim with any certainty that it would have been better. I didn't intend to get into the tax/morality question, but when you wish to confiscate the labors of someone, you better have a robust proof that this form of enslavement is so much better for them than the alternative that their free wills were rightly v iolated. (A very tough sell in any case.) I think the case for public funding of "academic interests" falls far short of such a robust moral proof. Therefore I think you are left to raise funds either commercially, or through charitable requests. (p.s. I visited Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Az on my honeymoon. It receives no government funding.) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 01:33:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 01:22:06 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:17:50 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Cold Fusion Times -- Now at Issue Volume 5, Number 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"LCDoz.0.pL5.j8f0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10228 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 26, 1997 Dear colleagues: COLD FUSION TIMES -- THE LARGEST ISSUE TO DATE -- vol 5 number 3 (Fall 97) will be shortly on its way to the printer, and should be in subscribers hands by the end of next week. As always, the COLD FUSION TIMES (ISSN#1072-2874) -> world wide web location: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html presents focused hard-core science, nuclear, and engineering issues, with detailed material science and nuclear physics, including analysis of developments in the cold fusion field. A brief survey of this issue (Vol 5, Number 3) includes the following: - Metachronous Release of "Frozen State" Ash in Pd Systems Post-Loading - High Resolution Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopic Examinations of Cold Fusion Products - More Isotopic Anomalies - Historical Evidence for a possible Japanese Cold Fusion Plane in 1944 - Cold Fusion - Its Potential Impact upon US Electrical Demand - Muon Fusion - Japanese MITI update - Atom Clusters including 55- and 135 Atom Pd Clusters - Palladium Black and its Role - Engineering and Research Updates - ESD, EMI Issues - The best of the worlds literature in hand - Positive Results in Gas Loading Pd Samples - Economics of the Group VIII Metals - Linked Heat and Helium Measurements, and - Nickel, Palladium, and other metal systems - Gas Loading, Solid State, Electrolysis Systems - Reports from Japan, Russia, China, Korea, Sri Lanka, US National Laboratories, US Navy, Germany, ... - More journals you may have missed - Updates on Equipment, Supplies, Consulting Available - Practical Information and Reference Vectors - "What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering" and more The cover page, as always, will be available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site, located at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html after the subscribers have the issue in their hand. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 04:43:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:35:34 -0700 X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 01:41:05 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: jeff fink Subject: Re: Bifilar coil as antenna Resent-Message-ID: <"pb3pS.0.pI2.4-h0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10229 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:26 PM 8/23/97 +0400, you wrote: >A recent observation show the Schaffer argument is playing a great role >on the phenomena observed on bifilar coils. > >Observation made accidentally when the sense LED coupled to bifilar >coil is light when *only one lead of the coil is connected* to the >secondary circuit. This proved the bifilar act as antenna in this >configuration as closing the loop on the air. This observation show >that the operation of an RF circuit could be very complicated when >components which are not suitable for RF are used (As bad practice for >RF engineering). But as the research aim is unconventional, these >difficulties should be considered as a part of the game. > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > > >Suppose the conductors in the bifilar coil are coaxial rather than parallel. What differences would you expect to see? Jeff Fink X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Aug 25 23:08:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:54:57 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Physica-C Pre-Print Resent-Message-ID: <"xK_Pb2.0.Ks.zsc0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10225 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Physica-C.htm Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="Physica-C.htm" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Physica-C.htm" Content-Base: "http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Physica -C.htm" Physica-C Pre-Print
Space Link
Delta-G
Physica C preprint
 
 
 
 
        Static Test for A Gravitational Force Coupled to Type II YBCO
Superconductors
Ning Li*, David Noever, Tony Robertson, Ron Koczor, and Whitt Brantley
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 and *The University
of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, 35804
        As a Bose condensate, superconductors provide novel conditions for
revisiting previously proposed couplings between electromagnetism and
gravity.  Strong variations in Cooper pair density, large conductivity and
low magnetic permeability define superconductive and degenerate condensates
without the traditional density limits imposed by the Fermi energy (~10-6 g
cm3).  Recent experiments have reported anomalous weight loss for a test
mass suspended above a rotating Type II, YBCO superconductor, with the
percentage change (0.05-2.1%) independent of the test mass' chemical
composition and diamagnetic properties.  A variation of 5 parts per 104 was
reported above a stationary (non-rotating) superconductor.  In experiments
using a sensitive gravimeter, bulk YBCO superconductors were stably
levitated in a DC magnetic field.  Changes in acceleration were measured to
be less than 2 parts in 108 of the normal gravitational acceleration. This
result puts new limits on the strength and range of the proposed coupling
between static superconductors and gravity.
 
         Extending the early experiments on gravity and electromagnetic
effects by Faraday [1] and  Blackett [2],  Forward  [3] first proposed
unique gravitational tests for superconductors in an electromagnetic field:
"Since the magnetic moment and the inertial moment are combined in an atom,
it may be possible to use this property to convert time-varying
electromagnetic fields into time-varying gravitational fields." For
comparison, Forward's  electromagnetic analogy shares many  features at the
atomic scale (e.g. ion precession) with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
devices and at the laboratory scale with superconducting bearings or flywheels.
         Recent experiments [4-5]  have reported that for a variety of
different test masses,  a Type-II, high temperature (YBCO) superconductor
induces anomalous weight effects (0.05-2% loss).  A single-phase, dense
bulk superconducting ceramic of  YBa2Cu3O7-d was held at temperatures below
60 K, levitated over a  toroidal solenoid, and induced into rotation using
coils with  rotating magnetic fields.  Without superconductor rotation, a
weight loss of 0.05% was reported, a relatively large value which has been
attributed to  buoyancy corrections [6] or air currents [7] until further
details of the experiment elaborated upon measurements in closed glass
tubes encased in a stainless steel box.  A subsequent simplified apparatus
without rotation has reported transients of up to 5% weight loss [5] with
lower strength magnetic fields. Three theoretical explanations have been
put forward to account for a possible gravitational cause: shielding [4],
absorption via coupling to a Bose condensate [5, 8] and a gravito-magnetic
force [9-11].  The symmetry requirements of each explanation are different,
as are the need for magnetic fields or superconductor rotation; most
notably an absorption mechanism (based on an instability in the quadratic
part of the Euclidean gravitational action in the presence of a Bose
condensate [5,8]) may not  require an external EM field (except to generate
density fluctuation in the Cooper pairs), while gravitomagnetic effects in
the ion lattice [9-11] depend on a time-varying gravito-magnetic potential,
?Ag/?t.  Careful experiments must identify and isolate the relative
importance of thermal, magnetic, and any gravitational components.
Superconducting Disk
        To achieve large area superconductors, two configurations were
employed. A bulk, melt-textured YBCO disk (10 cm diameter, 1.25 cm height)
was used with mostly square-like multidomains [12] with sizes up to 5 mm2.
The disk levitated 2-6 cm above a cylindrically symmetric, permanent magnet
(<B>=0.52 T) with one central south pole and four peripheral north poles.
Both the vertical and horizontal inhomogeneity of the magnetic field pins
magnetic flux lines in the superconductor, damps oscillations and levitates
rigidly within a continuous range of possible stable positions and
orientations.  A second set of 4 parallel pole AC magnets (B=600 Gauss;
characteristic oscillation time of 0.75 s) did not levitate (but induced AC
resistive losses in) the superconductor. Thus gravitational results were
reported for both DC and low field strength AC effects on bulk YBCO superconductors.
        Melt-texturing [see e.g. 13] was based on solidification of the
Y-123 phase through the peritectic temperature (1020 C in air) following the reaction
                Y2BaCuO5 + liquid phase-->YBa2Cu3Ox.
        The second configuration introduced a compatible base dimension (15
cm x 20 cm) comparable to the actual footprint of the gravity measurement.
An array of 48 single-domain YBCO hexagons (2.03 cm  x 0.63 cm thick) was
machined with a central hole and fabricated into a network.  The surface of
the hexagonal samples were examined using SEM (Fig. 1). To maximize the
levitation force, the single domain hexagons showed high critical current
densities (104 A/cm2 at 77K in a 1 T field) and when field cooled, a
maximum trapped field of over 0.4 T in the presence of a 2 T applied field
[13]. The hexagons were melt-processed using a top-seeded technique and
nucleated at the surface of a flat Nd1+xBa2-xCu3Oy single crystal and
epitaxially grown with a favorable temperature gradient.  Diminishing gains
in levitation force are observed for thicknesses >0.5 cm. Microcracks [14]
from over 70 thermal cyclings introduce <3% variation in the levitation
force F, where above the first critical field, Hc1, the force F otherwise
depends on processing technique, a geometric factor, A,  the critical
current density, J, and the size of the shielding current loop, r, as: F=†  A J r grad H dV (1).
Further increases in the repulsive force, F, depend on increasing J or r.
Instrumentation
        Magnetic flux density was measured to 2 T with a Hall effect device
unidirectionally over a sensing area of 0.093 cm2.  Gravity was
computer-monitored using a modified LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter [15]. The
instrument reports very small changes in the gravitational force acting on
a mechanical spring-mass. Gravitational changes are expressed as the
electrical force (measured as voltage) required to maintain the spring-mass
system at a predetermined position (the null point). The dimensions of the
gravimeter's base were 38 cm x 26 cm, with instrumental resolution in the
variation of gravity of one part per 10 billion (resolution,  10-7 cm s-2;
repeatability, 10-6 cm s-2; average operating conditions, >5x10-6 cm s-2).
The observed gravity value includes tidal corrections varying with time and
location (measured on 8-satellite GPS [15], where an error of one mile [one
minute of latitude or longitude] or equivalently one minute in time will
cause an error of 1 mGal (10-6 cm s-2) in the tidal correction).
Approximately 1 mGal of error results from a 9 arc second leveling error,
which is automatically calculated and off-level corrections are included in
the final value.  The instrument's range is 5 x10-3 cm s-2  without
resetting the counter, which would correspond in the present experiments to
full scale readings for less than one part per million variation in gravity
[16].  Instantaneous gravity was recorded at 1 s intervals and displayed
with a variable averaging time interval of 1-15 s.  Calibration was done
using the USAF Gravity Reference Disk for a local absolute measurement,
then relative tests were conducted: 1) height variation (1 m) of the
gravimeter altitude (~300 microGal/m); 2) uncorrected and corrected tidal
measurements over 12 hours; 3) thermal constancy for internal instruments
(+<0.3 C) during a 20 C external temperature variation. The results of
these three calibration steps are shown in Fig. 2.
Vibration, buoyancy and thermal isolation
        The mass-spring system is insensitive to longitudinal and
transverse vibration and the instrument was placed on large concrete blocks
to isolate the vertical direction from background disturbances. The
instrument box is sealed from outside air to avoid any small apparent
change in the buoyancy of the mass and beam with  air pressure; in the
event of leakage, a buoyancy compensator is added as counterweight to the
balance arm and its mass/volume ratio removes 98% of any change in
atmospheric pressure should the sensor enclosure leak. The gravimeter is
temperature compensated with a thermistor heating circuit at 53.7 C; the
box itself is thermostated externally and internally.  When placed 5 inches
above a 1 liter straight-walled dewar of boiling liquid nitrogen (77K),
thermal variations were monitored at <0.05 C for internal temperature and
<0.70 C for external temperature in the course of 0.8 hours.
Magnetic isolation
        To maintain relative magnetic isolation, few ferrous metal parts
are used. The meter is demagnetized, then installed in a double m metal
shield (magnetic saturation >0.75 T). In some measurements, a 1.3 cm thick
iron plate (1 m x 1 m) was used as a base plate separating the gravimeter
from the magnet and superconductor; iron's high magnetic permeability
diverts or shunts the magnetic flux.  Measured flux reductions at the
instrument were approximately 1/10 the unshielded value for 0.5 T permanent
magnets. Without magnetic leakage, the nearly quadratic decay of a DC
magnetic field was also accounted for using spatial isolation.
 Geometric Constraints
        Magnetic levitation forces depend on the magnet and superconductor
geometry, as does the apparent lack of a height dependence for observations
of changes in the gravitational force above a superconductor [4-5].  Above
the permanent (0.4-0.5 T) magnets, the flux intensity decays quadratically
to a value of 50-120 Gauss at the gravimeter when leveled 23 cm above the
magnet and 18 cm above the YBCO disk or array.  The superconductor was
either field cooled (FC to 77 K using liquid N2) in contact with the
magnets (flux-trapping) or zero field cooled (ZFC or flux excluding) and
then stably levitated in a foam walled cryostat to an average height of 2-6 cm.
        For both FC and ZFC superconductors, a deductive protocol [17] can
separate the thermal, magnetic, and superconductive contributions, while
the gravimeter remains stationary and a wheeled platform is moved beneath
it. This protocol has the additional feature of excluding eddy currents
from influencing the gravity measurement, since the magnetic field is not
AC over the relevant time scale. The magnitudes of the various
contributions to an apparent gravity change are summarized succintly  below.
          As indicated in Figure 3, vibration is measured with an empty
platform moved underneath the gravimeter (<1-3x10-6 cm s-2); cryogenic
contributions to instrument drift are measured with an open cryostat of
boiling liquid nitrogen moved underneath the gravimeter (15 cm below the
baseplate, <2x10-6 cm s-2); magnetic contributions are measured with the
magnets alone moved underneath the gravimeter (<6x10-6 cm s-2); cryogenic
YBCO superconductor contributions are measured with a zero field cooled
disk moved underneath the gravimeter in the absence of any magnetic effects
(<2x10-6 cm s-2); and  finally the static (non-rotating) but magnetically
pinned superconductor contributions are measured with both the zero field
cooled and field cooled disk or array moved underneath the gravimeter
(<2-5x10-6 cm s-2).  When measured multiple times, the effects of each
contribution are seen as a series of step functions with a repeatable
offset which constrains its relative importance.  Using a similar protocol,
measured AC effects using the parallel pole magnets showed a
similar but smaller influence (Fig. 4).
Discussion
        Any apparent gravitational contribution of the superconductor can
be derived by subtracting the contribution of the magnet and superconductor
together from the magnet alone; however, since the relative gravimeter
responds (weakly, <2-5x10-6 cm s-2) to the magnetic field, the uniquely
superconductive contribution must combine any gravitational effect with the
diamagnetic shielding of the magnets by the  YBCO superconductor itself
(~20-90% shielding of the field depending on hysteresis during cooling and
magnetization). In any case, the maximum contribution to a change in
gravity of a static superconductor in a constant magnetic field  was
measured as less than 2 parts in 108 of the normal gravitational acceleration.
        This measurement extends an approximately 4-5 order of  magnitude
improvement over that previously obtained with the use of an
opto-electronic balance [4-5] instrumented without either thermal or
magnetic compensation. Relative to a gravito-magnetic force [9-11; 18]
which depends on an AC magnetic drive or source term, ?Ag/?t, the static
case more strongly constrains interpretations based on either simple
material shielding [4-5] or absorption of gravity [8]; regardless of the
relative orders of magnitude, a coupling term (quadratic) to Euclidean
gravity based on the Bose condensate and radial absorption does not
necessarily require either rotation or a magnetic field to induce density
fluctuations in the Cooper pairs, particularly in the limit of infinite
conductivity.   The  rotating verion of this experiment will be reported in
subsequent work.  In addition to superconductors, other Bose condensates
such as superfluid helium have been investigated for gravitomagnetic field
exclusion [19], but the low thermal conductivity of helium limits
measurable power transfer from an AC magnetic field by several orders of
magnitude below a YBCO superconductor.
 
Acknowledgements
: JR Gaines and Superconductive Components, Inc. (Columbus,
OH) kindly provided assistance with the superconducting levitators. Edcon,
Inc. (Denver, CO) provided their substantially modified LaCoste-Romberg
gravimeter.  Rick Roberson from Tomorrow Tools, Inc. (Huntsville, AL)
provided engineering assistance.
Figure captions
Temporarily unavailable
Fig. 1. Scanning electron microscopy of hexagonal, single-domain YBCO
superconductor at increasing magnificantion. Surface machining  textures the domain.
Fig. 2. Calibration and proof-testing gravimeter: 1) altitude variation of
1 m and resulting gravity change (3.08x10-7 cm/s2 per m altitude); 2)
thermal constancy of gravimeter interior during 20 C external temperature
change; 3) solar and lunar tide during long duration reading (12 hr).
Fig. 3. Experimental results for measured DC-magnetic field and gravimeter
fluctuations (baseline plus magnetic, thermal and superconductive
contributions).  If not otherwise indicated the vertical axis is apparent
gravity in units of milli-Gals or 10-3 cm s-2.  See text for protocol details.
Fig. 4. Experimental results for measured AC-magnetic field and gravimeter
fluctuations (baseline plus magnetic, thermal and superconductive
contributions).  If not otherwise indicated the vertical axis is apparent
gravity in units of milli-Gals or 10-3 cm s-2.  See text for protocol details.
 
References
[1] M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity (1965) Dover, NY,
vol 3 p. 161 (originally published, 1850).
[2] P.M.S. Blackett, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A. 245 (1952) 309;
J.F. Woodward, Gen. Relat. Gravit. 12,  (1980) 1055-1069
[3] R.L. Forward, Amer. J. Phys. (1963) 166-170.
[4] Podkletnov E. and Nieminen R., Physica C 203 (1992) 441; Podkletnov E.,
1995, report MSU-chem 95, Tampere Univ. Finland; improved version
(cond-mat/9701074)
[5]  Modanese G. and Schnurer J., "Possible quantum gravity effects in a
charged Bose condensate under variable e.m. field", report UTF-391/96,
November 1996, Los Alamos database nr. gr-qc/9612022; ASCII version
available from authors.
[6] Bull M., De Podesta M., Physica C 253 (1995) 199.
[7] Unnikrishnan, C.S., Physica C 266 (1996) 133.
[8]  Modanese G., Europhys. Lett. 35 (1996) 413; Modanese G., Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 5002.
[9] N. Li, D.G. Torr, Phys. Rev. B, 46 (1992) 5489.
[10] N. Li, D.G. Torr, Phys. Rev. D, 43 (1990) 457.
[11] D.G. Torr and N. Li, Found. Phys. Lett. 6 (1993) 371.
[12] Disk kindly provided by Superconductive Components, Inc. Columbus, OH.
[13] F. Frangi, L. Jansak, M. Majoros, S. Zannella, Physica C 224, (1994)
20-30 and references therein.
[14] S. Sengupta, J. Corpus, J.R. Gaines, V.R. Todt, X Zhang, D.J. Miller,
July, 1996 Proceedings 3rd Intl Symp. on Magnetic Suspension Technology,
Tallahassee, FL, ed. N.J. Groom and C.P. Britcher, NASA Conf. Public. 3336, Pt. 2, p.679
[15] The modified LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter (Edcon, Inc. Denver, CO)
measures relative gravity until calibrated against a reference. The
instrument is routinely calibrated along the 10-station Rocky Mountain
Calibration range established by NOAA, Edcon and the Colorado School of
Mines over known gravity values extending across 220 milli-Gals (0.22 cm
s-2) in  50, 20, and 5 milli-Gal increments, with 3-7 micro-Gal standard
deviations. To validate instrument operation, an absolute gravity
measurement was additionally calibrated from USAF gravity disk reference
values (airport Huntsville, AL)  and an 8-satellite global positioning
reading for the test site as latitude 34.654244 and longitude -86.663638 at
an altitude of 116 m. above sea level.
[16]. For comparison, 10-3 cm s-2 is the relative gravitational influence
of a 5-storey office block (perturbing mass) at a distance of 1 m.
Equivalently a 2% variation in the gravitational force would require 2x104
copies of such a perturbing mass. Using the radial dependence of the
gravitational inverse square law, 1 m displacement in height corresponds to
approximately a change in measured gravitational acceleration of 3x10-4 cm
s-2, such that for example, a 2% variation in the gravitational force would
correspond to a vertical displacement of the test mass equal to approximately 102 km.
[17] This method is the inverse technique employed in traditional gravity
surveys where the gravimeter is moved to different stations; instead an
apparent gravity perturbation is introduced to a stationary meter  by
moving the components of the superconductor, magnets and cryostat
individually to the measuring apparatus.  In all cases, internal
temperature stability was maintained +0.05 C. The effect of the increased
mass beneath the gravimeter can be calculated as much less than the
instrument resolution (<10-8 cm s-2) and confirmed using room-temperature,
non-magnetic test mass.
[18]. Later work has generalized the Meissner effect in a gravitational
field as a superconductive analog of a Zeeman shift.  Schiff and Barnhill
(Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 11, (1966), 96) and DeWitt (Phys. Rev. Lett. 16,
(1966), 1092) showed that it is not the electrical and magnetic fields
which vanish inside a superconductor, but the linear combination of the
internal fields plus a gravitational component.  This additional term lends
itself to "free-floating" electrons which have effects on the background of
lattice ions.  Li and Torr [refn. 8-11]  proposed that a superconductor's
London moment and the absence of charge separation lends to  high angular
momenta for rotating  ions such that calculated gravito-magnetic effects
can arise as the electron velocity v is replaced by the velocity of the
lattice. Using the London moment, large values for conductivity (which
define the superconducting state) coupled to the resulting low magnetic
permeability observed in the Meissner effect lend to a coupling between a
dense contribution of high angular momenta ions and gravitomagnetism. In
the superconductive limit, the calculation depends sensitively on the
vanishing magnetic, but finite gravitomagnetic  permeabilities and the
ion's much larger gyromagnetic ratio (m/e) compared to the electronic Cooper pairs.
[19] J.P. Brown, Ph.D. Thesis, The Post Newtonian Approximation for
Self-Consistent Perfect Fluids with Spin Density, Univ. Ala. Huntsville,
1989.; H. Peng, Ph.D. thesis, Experimentally Verifiable Yang-Mills Spin-2
Gauge Theory of Gravity with Group U(1)xSU(2), Univ. Ala. Huntsville, 1987.
 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 05:02:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:53:31 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: NASA 's gravity-shielding publication.. Resent-Message-ID: <"i41w42.0.Yt.ZIi0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10230 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Still unanswered questions... Why we don't try to conduct the experiment ourselves in order to answer these radical unanswered questions. I think it will be more easier to build a Newman motor, and I am sure it will not be a "null experiment". What we knows and we don't knows: - Meissner effect is required. But unfortunately as the meissner effect is also used to levitate the SC material to able to rotate it freely, disk should be positioned horizontally and rotated on a vertical axis. So as the rotational axis is the gravitational axis and the direction of cumulative forces applied by magnetic field to the SC material, these three axis are same and we don't know which axis is determining the direction for the counter forces causing the weight loss(or should these three axis be same for the effect occurs): - No anomaly observed below the SC. - How is extending the effect vertically and what is the dependence of height on weight loss. Podkletnov reported that did not noticed the height dependence, but this was a rough observation and the measured the effect up to 3 meters. - How is propagate the effect? (believe c, at c, or above) - What is the energy criteria ? how is the energy balance is maintained when samples subjected to effect are moved in vertical direction? - What is the forces on boundary conditions? A barrier, a strong repulsive force was observed on Podkletnov experiment to resist samples enter to the vertical column of the SC disk. what is the nature of this forces and how it depends on various factors, also the height? - No counter action to the material responsible for the effect is observed (magnets, SC disk, etc.) But no precision measurements are made to confirm these results. Many people asked these unanswered question despite a near a year passed after public announcement of the effect and too may years after the effect is predicted and observed by scientists. For further idea and suggestions I am including a part of letter that i wrote in January to Podkletnov. A last note, The Gravity Society is already here and we can support and activate it for free us from the gravity. Regards, hamdi ucar Part of the letter written to E.E. Podkletnov at Jan 30,1997: I want to propose a slightly modified setup to observe independently effects of the Meissner effect, the effect of the e.m fields used to rotate the disk and the effect of the rotation itself. By this way, I think, it will easier to improve the effect b y tuning each parameter independently. 1) I understand that the Meissner effect is required primarily for mechanical purpose, and it can not be avoided in this setup. Therefore it is unknown if it is required or affecting the shielding effect. Is it possible to conduct the experiment pivoting the disk mechanically around an axis and not to use the Meissner effect. By this way it is possible to change freely the energies of this supporting coils. This setup also gives freedom to change the disk angle from horizontal to any inclined angle and d ifferentiates the axis of the disk from gravitational axis and gives opportunity to test the effects in both directions. By this way it is possible to uncover/eliminate possible forces which interact also on samples, but superimposed on the vertical dire ction in the original setup. 2) By the proposed new setup above, it is also possible to rotate or fix the disk by coupling to an external rotating source independently from the energies of induction coils and dedicate these coils to creating the electromagnetic environment required for the effect. (When the motor function is separated and the experiment still keep on going, it is possible to make (totally) different arrangements of coils in position and shape for exiting the disk) 3) If this new setup works without the Meissner effect and integrated rotating feature, maybe it is possible to build less sophisticated SC disks enough for the shielding effect. Also I noticed from the paper of the experiment , the occurred disk vibration at 3000-3300 rpm was caused apparently from the unbalanced disk structure. Interestingly this vibration occurs very close to the speed of maximum shielding effect. It will be si gnificant to test this vibration condition whether it is a side effect of shielding or purely mechanical. Also I would like to investigate these issues: 1) Verify the gravitational shielding by drop experiments (which gives exactly the reduced g value). 2) If the effect is really independent of height the air flow above the building will be very effective and observable as it goes by. 3) Is there any supplementary forces experienced by the coils or by the whole cryostat? 4) It is clear that there is a continuous energy transfer to the medium. (This energy is responsible the circulate the air or any fluid on a tank above the cryostat or create mechanical work on vertically moving system. (Imagine a large heavy disk mounted vertically and one of its half is on the vertical projection of the disk. It will start to accelerate continuously). Is this energy origin ate from the cryostats? If so, excess of energy requirement by the moving samples will degrade the shielding effect and could be tested easily. If not, there will be a near infinite energy source (probably the earth) for supplying this gained energy. If so, it will be dramatic i f one conducts this experiment in a dived submarine. 5) Will be any further anomalies generated on cryostat if one attempts to move at constant speed or accelerates the experiment setup in vertical and horizontal directions? 6) Is the effect cumulative? Will multiple SC disks stacked vertically increase the gravitational attenuation ? * * * X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 09:02:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:49:12 -0700 Date: 26 Aug 97 09:58:23 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: VORTEX , VORTEX Subject: Re: Our quarrel with Britz Resent-Message-ID: <"Qp7C32.0._L.phl0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10234 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitch writes, > IMHO he has been very reasonable, and has contributed to the >electrochemistry, and more, of this field. Among other "minor failings," Britz is on record that Taubes has the definitive account of the cold fusion story. Such a "reasonable" man... The newbies to Vortex should know that the Taubes book is "Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion." They are all reasonable men, such reasonable men..I hope Mitch does not get to the stage where he thinks Douglas Morrison is reasonable ! Gene Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief Infinite Energy Magazine Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302 Phone: 603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 76570.2270 compuserve.com or editor infinite-energy.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 08:58:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:47:51 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:10:14 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"__Rl13.0.lA.cgl0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10232 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I tend to agree; forces are pushes from space rather than pulls from particles, due to filter effects as you describe. In my case I tke the ZPE to be the space energy. The connection to your ether theory can probably be seen in the fact that ZPE soluti ons are solutions of Maxwell's eqns, and Ed Kelly and others have shown in early A. Jour. Phys. papers that Maxwells' eqns can be seen as the eqns of a fluid with microvortex turbulence. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 08:58:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:47:59 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:14:47 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"uJ-Mn3.0.ZB.jgl0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10233 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/21/97 1:56:08 AM, you wrote: <> I think the vacuum ZPE can do it without the Higgs. At least my ZPE colleagues Haisch, Rueda and I think we have provided a good model for gravitational and inertial mass as arising from interaction with the ZPE. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 09:47:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:40:42 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:39:59 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light From The Abyss Resent-Message-ID: <"rupRE.0.nN6.7Sm0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10235 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/24/97 4:37:34 PM, Frederick wrote: <> Sonoluminescence? Energy from the vacuum by collapsing Casimir bubbles? :-) Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 14:53:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:42:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:55:21 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Scott Little , vortex-L@eskimo.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, g-miley uiuc.edu, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, jaeger eneco-usa.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@cernvx.cern.ch, halfox slkc.uswest.net, design73@aol.com, JoeC@transmutation.com Subject: IE Cincy report References: <199708261212.HAA18776 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Vzgtu1.0.UK.nsq0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10243 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 26, 1997 Scott Little, thank you for the feedback. It is very easy for me to mail a web document as html-- I just press the File button, in Netscape Navigator 3.0 for "Mail Document", and it's off in 30 seconds. Anyone with the same level browser will receive th e mail as a full, automatically translated replica of the same web document. I know, otherwise, it's a mess. Do you recommend I not do this? There's a trade-off between the convenience of those who will get the document cleanly, vs those those have to take a moment to do a "Delete". In general, Netscape is trying this year to lure everyone into sending all email as html documents, complete with images and sound and various bells and whistles, via their new Navigator 4.0, and the Communicator suite. E euuuuu! Progress? I've been doing my best as an amateur objective critic of the IE report on the Cincy group, and have dribbled a few quibbles and "they should have"s and "why didn't they"s, but in fact I am not qualified to judge the 7 or so pages of detailed ICP/MS and T EM/EDXA data. This data, from amu 4 to 245, is much easier to read if the page is zeroxed 135 % onto 11X17 paper. It is very impressive that Vial 3, the processed thorium nitrate solution, is compared to THREE control solutions: Vial 1, the Reagent Blank, nitric and hydrochloric acid in water, used for 100X dilutions in the other 3 Vials, and used for blank subtraction of the mass spectra from the other 3 vials; Vial 2, Processed Cell Blank, 2 drops hydrochloric acid in 600 ml water, and then 25 ml run in the cell; Vial 4, Unprocessed Thorium Test Sample, two drops hydrochloric acid and 6 grams thorium nitrate crystals in 600 ml water, and then 25 ml run in the cell. Each vial contains 20.0 ml solution, and Vials 2, 3, and 4 are 100X dilutions of the various solutions. A major result is that Vial 3 shows striking anomalies of excess Ti-49 and Cu-65 isotopes, and 80 % thorium reduction. For a copy of this quantitative analysis, contact Robert Liversage, P.O. Box 1262, Covington, KY 41012-1262 . If Miley would release his own detailed data to Vortex-L, then some interesting comparisons and, in all likelihood, mutual confirmation would ensue. Even better if Mizune, Dash, etc. did the same. I hope the well-informed experts on these kind of measur ements will elucidate for the rest of us just how these instruments work and any possible pitfalls in coming to conclusions with them. It seems that a number of tiny Cu flakes still exist: can they be parceled out to more labs? Some critics will try to maintain that the isotopic anomalies are somehow fraudulent-- are there patterns within the data that show that fraud is impossible? I hope some runs are being done to detect any product gases. I wonder if a microcell could be set up, such as a transparent 10- micron diameter SiO2 tube with zirconium end electrodes and various solutions of throium nitrate, etc. Then, the reaction could be observed under light, ultraviolet, and infrared microsc opes, and any low-energy radiations generated would be more likely to escape the tiny cell to be detected. Acoustic signals should also be monitored. A large cell can be run inside a massive neutrino detector, to monitor the possibility that neutrinos are carrying off large amounts of momentum and energy. With increasing excitement, Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 11:14:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gotta love academic research. Resent-Message-ID: <"Q30hg2.0.zu5.2kn0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10236 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, John Logajan wrote: > > (p.s. I visited Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Az on my honeymoon. It > receives no government funding.) > Hey, I've been there too. Flagstaff is an interesting place. That wasn't what I was given to understand about the funding of the Lowell. The Astronomers there shake every government funding agency they can. In fact they spend a lot of time chasing research grants coz they don't get paid if they don't get one. If you feel that "taxation == enslavement" then your world view is so much different from mine that further debate will be fruitless. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 12:19:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Light From The Abyss Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:23:44 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"5fahB1.0.Ni1.jho0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10238 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:39 PM 8/26/97 +0000, Hal wrote: > >In a message dated 8/24/97 4:37:34 PM, Frederick wrote: > ><of feet below the surface where sunlight cannot reach.>> > >Sonoluminescence? Energy from the vacuum by collapsing Casimir bubbles? :-) How you jest. :-) The most pressure you can get out of a 0.5 micron radius water bubble; P - Po = 4*75/5.0E-5 = 6.0E6 dyne/cm^2 or about 6 atmospheres (based on that equation). Not enough to account for the high pressure-stellar temperatures seen in sonol uminescent effects or pitting of the strongest alloy boat propeller by microcavitation effects. This suggests that many properties attributed to "surface-surface tension" physics must have a Zero Point Interaction involved also. Is the 465 dyne/cm surface tension of Mercury and it's tendency to form into a tight sphere, all due to intermolecular forces, or, is the adhesion of a film of water to glass, etc.,due (in part) to the Casimir Effect? If I remember correctly, Feynman was very intrigued with soap films on wire frames. :-) Regards, Frederick > >Hal Puthoff > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 11:44:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:32:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"Hc7oI1.0.T17.D6o0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10237 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 Puthoff aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/21/97 1:56:08 AM, you wrote: > > < of a Universal Higgs field. In this model it is the interaction of > elementary particles (quarks and leptons) with this field that give > particles their measured mass. The Higgs field has a non-zero expectation > value in the vaccuum.>> > > I think the vacuum ZPE can do it without the Higgs. At least my ZPE > colleagues Haisch, Rueda and I think we have provided a good model for > gravitational and inertial mass as arising from interaction with the ZPE. > That's one of the reasons I find this so interesting. The Higgs field allows the Electroweak fields to be spontanously broken to give massive W's and Z's. At the same time it provides the mass of the quarks and leptons. It also solves the problem of the d ivergence of the WW and WZ scattering at very high energy. Without the Higgs the cross section of these process processes diverge similar to the ultra-violet catastrophy in Black Body radiation that led to Plank's Quantum hypothesis at the turn of the ce ntury. If there's no Higgs how does the Electroweak force work? If there is a Higgs what is the status of your investigations? Would that mean you would abandon your idea of mass arising from ZPE interactions? Even if there is a Higgs why does a muon have the mass it has? Why does it weigh more than electron but in every other way behave exactly like an electron? There's lots of interesting questions in Particle Physics! Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 13:50:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:38:32 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: Robin van Spaandonk Cc: vortex Subject: Re: Tesla Patent 512,340 Resent-Message-ID: <"sAIYJ.0.aE5.tzp0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10241 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com (This is a re transmit, first attempt did not appears on the list, I dont know it is a xmiting or a rcving problem) Hi Robin, I hope that my humour (about CF) was not on wrong place at the wrong time. As I know water can not be thought as a simple dielectric because its ionic nature and polarization of H2O molecules. Also due to resonant characteristics of the coils, unexpected potentials build along the windings (less then 100V) and be shorted by the water. Also adjacent windings potential difference is possibly in 2-5V range and applied in 0.2 mm separation and water may not be suitable for conducting such strong electric fields. Anyway I will do an pre-test by moisturizing the coils and see does the y still work or not. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 12:59:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:52:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subjec t: Opinion of Cincy Report Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 12:51:34 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"7KWMn3.0.EK3.9Gp0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10239 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id MAA00650 After a quick review of the Cincy report in my opinion there are numerous flaws in their determination of transmutation. I do not have the desire to retype all of the report data so I will summarize in general. Three basic analyses were accomplished (four if you consider the blank ICP/MS system calibration). They were: 1) sample from a cell operation without thorium nitrate [H2O + HCl] 2) sample from a cell operation with thorium nitrate [H2O + HCl + Th(NO3)4] + new transmuted products 3) sample of thorium nitrate solution without treatment [H2O + HCl + Th(NO3)4] Unless specific pains are taken to quantitatively calibrate for each element, the ICP/MS provides general analysis based on a computer generated Standardless Fundamental Parameter. Since the ICP/MS was not calibrated specifically for Th and there is a gr eat difference between sample 3 and 2, the quantitative numbers have no meaning. To explain, sample 3 is of relative purity. Primary reported elements are S and Th. Note -- counts for mass 35 and 37 were 0. Hence no detection of Cl even though it was reported as an additive by Cincy. Also, there was report of S being added, unless it was a contaminate of the thorium nitrate. Sample 2 has a similar problem of not reporting mass 35 and 37 for Cl. Sample 2 and 3 has macro quantities of interference from Cr, Fe, and Mo. This was due to the contamination of the stainless electrode. Sample 1 analysis primary peak was Cl. A fundamental judgement could be made that since 3 was a sample before treatment with Cl added that the Cincy group either forgot to add the HCl as reported, or that the ICP/MS report is flawed. Furthermore, as Scott Little pointed out in a telephone conversation there is a significant level of Th in the x-ray of the "copper particle." If anomalies exist -- it would be easy to detect the isotopic ratios of the Cu particle using SIMS. The bottom line is ICP/MS is a qualitative instrument which reports accurate mass information unless proper calibration is achieved for quantitative analysis. To make my point -- a forth sample was analyzed. It includes 18 megohm water with 2mg/ltr of B e, Ge and U. Intensity reports from the Perkin Elmer were Be = 0.2338 Ge = 0.21170 and U = 0.78360. It was not stated as to the reference, but with my familiarity with Perkin Elmer reports I would suspect they represent ppb. Nothing was stated by Cincy regarding dilution factors. In closing, I am not trying to undermine the integrity of the Cincy Group. However, having eight years of experience in micro and macro transmutation with years of experience operating Perkin Elmer equipment, I do not feel that they presented an solid c ase. The anomalous reports in the Ti and Cu could easily be an artifacts of resolution problems associated with the stainless steel saturation of the electrolyte. These artifacts are visible to a much lesser degree on the scan from operating the cell wi thout thorium. Furthermore, the absence of Cl either means that the machine was not working properly (hence one should throw out all of the data and start over) or the Cincy group changed the formula without reporting. Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 13:38:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:30:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Bifilar coil as antenna Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:33:04 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"3jn1L3.0.Kv4.Rpp0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10240 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Jeff and all, I have just suggested to Jean-louis that a bifilar coil may act as an antenna of proposed FTL Maxwellian (vector) waves, if the capacitance is reduced sufficiently. This may or may not relate to what you are suggesting here, just thought I'd throw it in... Fred But as the research aim is unconventional, these > >difficulties should be considered as a part of the game. > > > >Regards, > > > >hamdi ucar > > > > > >Suppose the conductors in the bifilar coil are coaxial rather than > parallel. What differences would you expect to see? > > Jeff Fink X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 14:14:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:08:39 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Oh Learned Physicists Resent-Message-ID: <"3RWj53.0.5c6.lNq0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10242 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Oh learned physicists - and, maybe, Frederick (Encarta) Sparber: Why does the speed of light decrease in matter? When a photon enters one side of a sheet of glass, is it the same photon that exits the other side? Or is it another photon with much of the same "information" as the original? Is it correct that "stiff" substances like diamond have the highest indices of refraction? My primitive picture of condensed matter shows matter to be mostly "empty" space - with an atomic nucleus here, an electron over there - all in a huge void of space. The particles are locked in place (in solids) by the tensile and compressive forces of t he complex electric dipoles, quadrapoles, etc. of the particle charges. I guess this means that the inter-particle space in the matter is full of a rather high electrostatic energy density, compared to "empty" space. Diamond has a high electrostatic energy density (EED) so it is a stiff material. A high EED means a high rest oring pressure when you try to push a particle out of its place. So, is it this high EED that causes light to travel slower in high EED materials? If so, is this a relativistic effect, a QED effect, both, neither?? I have seen mentioned in learned articles that the speed of light is "nonlinear" and that a VERY intense laser beam can change the value of c along its transmission path. Correct? If so, is this because the electromagnetic energy density is so high - li ke the EED in matter? Could this mean that the EED near the geometrical center of an electron is so high that an electromagnetic "black hole" is formed so that the center of the electron is a type of singularity? If you fell through this singularity would you "come out the ot her side" leaving a positron? An electric line of force, as a curious matter of course, into an electron has gone, to emerge from a positron. Why did my teachers never talk about this subject? Was it because "we" were too dumb to understand the answer? (Fits for me!) Or, did they just not know the answers? Can a layman - as opposed to a Feynman - ever understand these things? My printer stands ready to hard copy worthy responses. Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 15:06:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:04:19 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Gotta love academic research. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:02:49 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"Jg-mN1.0.h51.TBr0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10244 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin Sevior wrote: > If you feel that "taxation == enslavement" then your world view is so much > different from mine that further debate will be fruitless. Probably -- and this isn't the right forum. Besides, I don't know if I could stand to hear all the special pleading required to differentiate taxation from slavery. ;-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 17:12:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:09:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 03:08:11 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists References: Resent-Message-ID: <"EDBju2.0.Tn7.x0t0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10250 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John R. Tooker wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > > > Is it correct that "stiff" substances like diamond have the highest > > indices of refraction? > Well, diamond has exactly the same refractive index as water. Just > drop a diamond into a glass of water to check this out. > Hope this helps, at least a little. :) > Regards > John Is this letter completly a joke? Water index = 1.333 Diamond index = 2.417 Measured at lamda=589nm (yellow sodium light) This expain why diamond is so fascinating. Note that refraction indexes are varying with wavelenghth, non-linearly and each material have different curve shape. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 16:15:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:09:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:09:29 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: IE Cincy report Resent-Message-ID: <"Df3471.0.gZ4.l8s0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10246 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:55 8/26/97 -0700, Rich Murray wrote: >Scott Little, thank you for the feedback. It is very easy for me to >mail a web document as html-- I just press the File button, in Netscape >Navigator 3.0 for "Mail Document", and it's off in 30 seconds. Anyone >with the same level browser will receive the mail as a full, >automatically translated replica of the same web document. I know, >otherwise, it's a mess. Do you recommend I not do this? Don't post web articles to Vortex. Just post the web address and a brief description. That's a much more responsible use of Internet bandwidth. Meanwhile, the CG data is at least voluminous! I'm looking at it now. 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) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 16:28:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:17:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:12:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: Rich Murr ay Cc: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Zenon shortfall on Earth Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"7liad3.0.Ax4.BGs0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10247 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich: Further to the above heading and attached (snipped) message, is xenon really in short supply? We were about to make an R-20 prototype window using xenon as the environmentally-inert insulating gas, to upgrade our R-17 krypton-filled existing window prototype. If it really is in short supply, perhaps we should use an equivalent-performance gas? Can someone please tell me from what material xenon is manufactured? Thank you. ____________________________________________________________________________ On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Rich Murray wrote: > > I snipped this from newscientist.com-- some old electric spark > experiments hint that zenon is transmutted. Could this have reduced the > zenon abundance on Earth? Rich Murray: X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 16:32:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:26:06 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:17:47 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: vo rtex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"cKN-w.0.xM5.COs0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10248 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Is it correct that "stiff" substances like diamond have the highest > indices of refraction? Well, diamond has exactly the same refractive index as water. Just drop a diamond into a glass of water to check this out. Hope this helps, at least a little. :) Regards John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 17:01:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:51:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:50:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physics Resent-Message-ID: <"Bqjm6.0.pf6.Cms0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10249 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Everyone, given the Cincy claim about Thorium transmutation, I thought it would be a good idea to look up the Thorium decay chain and explain how the presence of Thorium can be determined from it's gamma ray signature. Thorium comes in one isotope, 232, with a half life of 1.4*10^10 years. I'll write out its decay sequence to 208Pb (lead) by numbering each step and point out the gamma emissions accompaning each step. 1. 232Th decays by alpha emission to 228Ra (Radium). 22.1 % of the time it emits a 63.82 KeV gamma 0.059% of the time it emits a 204.68 KeV gamma. 2. 228Ra has a half life of 5.75 years, it beta decays to 228Ac. No gammas above 10 KeV are emitted 3. 228Ac has a half life of 6.15 hours, it beta decays to 228Th. 31% of the time a 911 KeV gamma is emitted. 11.6% of the time a 338 KeV gamma is emitted. 4. 228Th has a half life of 1.9 years, it alpha decays to 224Ra. 28% of the time it emits a 84.4 KeV gamma is emitted. 5. 224Ra has a half life of 3.66 days, it alpha decays to 220Rn 5.06% of the time a 240 KeV gamma is emitted. 6. 220Rn (Radon) has a half life of 55.6 seconds, it alpha decays to 216Po No gammas above 10 KeV are emitted. 7. 216Po has a half life of 0.145 seconds, it alpha decays to 212pb No gammas above 10 KeV are emitted. 8. 212Pb (lead) has a half life of 10.64 hours, it beta decays to 212Bi 45% of the time a 239 KeV gamma is emitted. 9. 212Bi(Bismuth) has a half life of ,it beta decays to 212Po 30% of the time a 583 KeV gamma is emitted 10. 212Po has a half life of 0.3 microseconds. It alpha decays to 208Pb 36% of the a a 2615 gamma is emitted. 11. 208Pb is stable. The alphas and betas will be absorbed within the container. However a large number of the gammas will get out. To summerize every 232Th will produce 0.221 64 KeV gammas 0.28 84 KeV gammas 0.45 239 KeV gammas 0.12 338 KeV gammas 0.30 583 KeV gammas 0.31 911 KeV gammas 0.36 2615 KeV gammas I confess I don't subscribe to IE, taking my numbers from Rich Murrays quick review of the article, (6 grams in 600 ml, 25 ml in the cell) gives 4*10-4 grams of thorium in the cell. this corresponds to 4*10^-4/232 * 6*10^23 = 1*10^18 atoms. There are about 3*10^7 seconds per year, so the Thorium collection described results in 1*10^18/(3*10^7 * 1*10^10) = 4 decays per second. That is a pretty low rate! High resolution gamma decays could perhaps intercept 1% of the gamma from the cell. On average there are 2 gammas per Th decay (into all the energies), even so we would only expect 0.08 gamas per second. Counting for an hour would give about 50 counts in one of the peaks. OK that's not too bad. Here is a proposed experiment. 1. Set up a high resolution gamma detector (resolutions of 1-3 KeV are common) near the Cincy cell with no solution. 2. Count for 4 hours to get a background reading. Record it. 3. Add the Thorium solution. 4. Count for 4 hours and record the spectrum - make sure you can see the Thorium lines well above background! 5. Turn off the detector (it's very sensitive). 6. Run the 60 Hz AC for the specified period. 7. Collected data for 4 hours. Record the after spectrum. The presenence of Thorium is shown by whether the unique series of gammas of listed above shows up in the gamma spectrum. The most interesting would be the 64 KeV gamma since it comes froms the primary thorium decay. It could be argued that since the 2614 line comes after the Radon decay that just its absence would simply indicate the Radon has been driven out of the cell. A reproducable factor of 10 decrease in gamma intensity in the 64 KeV line would make heads turn throughout the Nuclear Physics community. I could this pretty easily if I was back at the Univ. of Melbourne. Since I'm away I don't have access to the gamma detectors needed. I believe that EarthTech have the equipment to look for the 64 and 84 KeV gammas. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 17:30:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:27:09 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Opinion of Cincy Report Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:26:18 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"gmUMn3.0.IU.SHt0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10251 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com After more review I see another potential flaw in the Cincy Process. They determined the actual reduction on radioactivity by evaporating a before and after sample of the electrolyte. The "after process sample" has a large amount of contamination from the degradation of the stainless steel electrode inclusive of Fe, Cr, Ti, Ni and Cu which would be present after the evaporation. Taking this one step further, if the intensity (Quantita tive Numbers) are anywhere close to correct there would be 6 times the mass of contamination verses the thorium present in the sample. If the detector (RM-60) is an alpha counter -- the level of contamination produced from the cell's electrodes would easily mask the radiation. That is to say, if the cell did not transmute the thorium, the detector would imply that transmutation occurre d due to the contamination masking the alpha particles. Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ Content-Type: application/ms-tnef xŸ>"X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 17:54:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:43:48 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l Subject: reformatted Physica-C... Resent-Message-ID: <"Rnvz63.0.m56.dYt0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10252 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greetings all, I've cleaned up my webPage as requested by several Vortexians. Please have another look. :) http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Delta-G.htm -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 18:23:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:19:45 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 01:19:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZrTZK2.0.cQ3.m2u0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10253 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:17 PM 8/26/97 +0000, John R. Tooker wrote: > > > >On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >> >> Is it correct that "stiff" substances like diamond have the highest >> indices of refraction? >Well, diamond has exactly the same refractive index as water. Just drop a >diamond into a glass of water to check this out. >Hope this helps, at least a little. :) >Regards >John > Beg to differ John. Speed of light in a material is the reciprocal of the index of refraction times c. These values are given in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. In copper or in a particle or in an atom the index of refraction might be as high as 137, making the velocity of light .00729729*c or the same as the "velocity" of the ground state Bohr Atom electron. :-) Material Index of Refraction % of c Density grams/cm^3 Water 1.33 75 1.00 Diamond 2.4173 41 3.51 Titanium Dioxide 2.58-2.90 34-37? 4.15 - 4.26 Hope this helps too. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 18:37:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:34:54 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists References: Resent-Message-ID: <"vKFp22.0.Jr.EHu0q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10254 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John R. Tooker wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > > > Is it correct that "stiff" substances like diamond have the highest > > indices of refraction? > Well, diamond has exactly the same refractive index as water. Just drop a > diamond into a glass of water to check this out. > Hope this helps, at least a little. :) I don't know, John, my old handbook gives: Substance Index of Ref. Hardness (?) water 1.33 -- diamond 2.42 10 but, then! Anatase (TiO2) 2.55 5.5-6.0 Cuprite (Cu2O) 2.705 3.5-4.0 Cinnabar (HgS) 2.85, 3.20 2.0-2.5 Galena (PbS) 3.912 2.5 My theory blows up!! It's always something! (Roseanne Roseannadana) Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 18:44:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:41:01 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:41:59 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists References: <340361DB.FBDF710B@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"E602r.0.c34.iMu0q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10256 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > This expain why diamond is so fascinating. > > Note that refraction indexes are varying with wavelenghth, non-linearly > and each material have different curve shape. > Thanks, Hamdi, it's much more complex than I thought - sigh, most things are! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 18:53:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:44:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex cc: John Schnurer Subject: Oscillators .... Resent-Message-ID: <"c98VO.0.pG1.yUu0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10258 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vo.... and, of course Jack deMule Amplifiers oscillate Oscillators amplify What many overlook is the leads to coils will often oscillate .... this is how some in other days saw 20 to 120 m cps oscillation in a coil with a resonant frequency of 100 kcps .... Nearly ANYTHING can contribute to oscillation from a number of effects. ... Jack will tell us that no high frequency switching power supply ever oscillated .... nor did any linear regulator .... nor did leads or moving of leads make a different type of oscillation. I seen to remember 4 LC modes from Jen. Good circuit layout is important! J X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 18:58:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:52:21 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists References: <19970827011903.AAA13375 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"2exim.0.xN1.ZXu0q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10259 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > In copper or in a particle or in > an atom the index of refraction might be as high as 137, making the > velocity of light .00729729*c or the same as the "velocity" of the > ground state Bohr Atom electron. :-) > Thanks, Frederick, but what is causing this increase in the index /decrease in c - is it some function of EM energy density (field strength)? You would expect the field strength to be quite large near a particle. Still in a fog, Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 18:49:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:46:06 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-l eskimo.com, JoeC@transmutation.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch Subject: Missing Cl peaks in Cincy data? References: <01BCB21E.C9C00960 champion.goodnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"IZGZD.0.Hy.ZJu0q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10255 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi all, Joe Champion raised a concern about missing peaks for chlorine, amu 35 and 37, in the Cincy ICP/MS data. However, Vial 1, the Reagent Blank, did have Cl peaks, which were subtracted from the other three vials: page 22, "5.) To verify thorium reduction: Compare (Blank subtracted Vial 4 results) against (Blank subtracted Vial 3 results)" So, that seems to explain the missing Cl peaks in those three vials. Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 18:49:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:55:18 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Jorg Ostrowski , vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Zenon shortfall on Earth References: Resent-Message-ID: <"Ft3rD1.0.QB1.rRu0q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10257 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jorg, I meant that there was a conceptual shortage of zenon, not a commercial shortage, as, given willingness to spend the energy cost, zenon can be liquified out of air. The scientific question is: why less zenon in Earth's rocks than in meteors, etc., in other parts of the solar system, when zenon is chemically inert, and thus not subject to chemical fractionation? There are some optical spectra made with electric sparks in zenon in experiments about 1920 that hint that zenon is thereby transmuted int o other elements. My conclusions, not the original author's! Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 22:25:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Aug 97 23:24:33 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: VORTEX , VORTEX Subject: Re: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physics Resent-Message-ID: <"Tqhxa3.0.e61.hcx0q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10265 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin writes, >A reproducable factor of 10 decrease in gamma intensity in the 64 KeV line >would make heads turn throughout the Nuclear Physics community. Sorry, Martin, I do not think any significant number of heads would turn. They simply would not believe it. They don't believe Arata's paper, do they? Nor any number of tritium measurements in heavy water systems without accompanying 14-MeV neutronsie I think physicists will beleive cold fusion and transmutation when gold plated cold fusion cars motor down the road -- not before then! Gene Mallove X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 21:11:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:10:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" , "vortex" , Subject: Re: Zenon shortfall on Earth Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 20:59:02 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"uRLvj1.0.E66.MYw0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10262 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rich, all, There are some optical spectra made with > electric sparks in zenon in experiments about 1920 that hint that zenon > is thereby transmuted into other elements. My conclusions, not the > original author's! I have a paper from 1914 on transmutation of elements by electric sparks. Not being too familiar with the CF literature, I don't know if this study is well-known or not, or whether it is of anything more than historical interest. The Production Of Neon And Helium By The Electrical Discharge J. Norman Collie, et al. Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 91, p. 30-45, (1914) I have a list of refs for other similar articles employing a variety of approaches and producing several elements. If any of the CF people want these I can provide them. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 21:06:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:01:02 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Date: Tue, 2 6 Aug 1997 20:59:33 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"ACiFE1.0.sP2.yPw0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10260 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id VAA04017 Rich said, Joe Champion raised a concern about missing peaks for chlorine, amu 35 and 37, in the Cincy ICP/MS data. However, Vial 1, the Reagent Blank, did have Cl peaks, which were subtracted from the other three vials: page 22, "5.) To verify thorium reduction: Compare (Blank subtracted Vial 4 results) against (Blank subtracted Vial 3 results)" So, that seems to explain the missing Cl peaks in those three vials. Sorry Rich but I still have a problem: Vials 1 & 2 have Cl peaks -- vials 3 & 4 do not. The Perkin Elmer reports state's background correction on all samples including vial 2! BUT......... something is wrong. Also, the Scan #2 Cell Blank Run has no Th in it, yet the ICP reports 439 ppb (after dilution correction). The blank showed 2.52 ppb Th. Two orders less than the Blank Run. Are we to assume that the Blank Run produced Th? Look, I am not trying to say that transmutation does not occur, for under the proper conditions it does. I am simply stating that they went to a lot of work to gather data which is full of errors. Furthermore, they report that the cell was clear of all radiation. If this is the case how do you explain the large Th peaks associated with the Cu flake? My personal opinion (this is coming from one who has made similar mistakes trying to analyze transmutation processes for eight years) is the Cincy boys jumped out of the box to quick. I feel that they may possibly be observing anomalies, but not in the o rders of magnitude that they think. If you want anomalous peaks in the mass range from 20 => 90 let me know. For I have worked with the Perkin Elmer Research team in San Jose on their Elan 7000 ICP/MS and have anomalies on 20+ tests in this ROI. At first I was ecstatic, but after hours of careful research and cross checks, it was determined an anomaly in their system. The carrier gas for these system is Ar so forget mass 40 and 80 (Ar2). You can rule out O16, N15 and Ne10 and 20 (Ne2) and you can start making additives of X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 21:12:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:07:41 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: FW: Missing Cl peaks in Cincy data? Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:06:12 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"yNFqQ3.0.-l2.CWw0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10261 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id VAA04783 Rich said, Joe Champion raised a concern about missing peaks for chlorine, amu 35 and 37, in the Cincy ICP/MS data. However, Vial 1, the Reagent Blank, did have Cl peaks, which were subtracted from the other three vials: page 22, "5.) To verify thorium reduction: Compare (Blank subtracted Vial 4 results) against (Blank subtracted Vial 3 results)" So, that seems to explain the missing Cl peaks in those three vials. Sorry Rich but I still have a problem: Vials 1 & 2 have Cl peaks -- vials 3 & 4 do not. The Perkin Elmer reports state's background correction on all samples including vial 2! BUT......... something is wrong. Also, the Scan #2 Cell Blank Run has no Th in it, yet the ICP reports 439 ppb (after dilution correction). The blank showed 2.52 ppb Th. Two orders less than the Blank Run. Are we to assume that the Blank Run produced Th? Look, I am not trying to say that transmutation does not occur, for under the proper conditions it does. I am simply stating that they went to a lot of work to gather data which is full of errors. Furthermore, they report that the cell was clear of all radiation. If this is the case how do you explain the large Th peaks associated with the Cu flake? My personal opinion (this is coming from one who has made similar mistakes trying to analyze transmutation processes for eight years) is the Cincy boys jumped out of the box to quick. I feel that they may possibly be observing anomalies, but not in the o rders of magnitude that they think. If you want anomalous peaks in the mass range from 20 => 90 let me know. For I have worked with the Perkin Elmer Research team in San Jose on their Elan 7000 ICP/MS and have anomalies on 20+ tests in this ROI. At first I was ecstatic, but after hours of careful research and cross checks, it was determined an anomaly in their system. The carrier gas for these system is Ar so forget mass 40 and 80 (Ar2). You can rule out O16, N15 and Ne10 and 20 (Ne2) and you can start making additives of these low mas s numbers as hydrides, carbides, chlorides, nitrides, etc......... Other problems arise in the computerized system, for the computer makes calculations for the events of the chlorides, nitrides, etc.... In the case of the Thorium Test Sample there is a logical explanation as to the cause of reported anomalies. When th e computer subtracted out the Cl it left a void in on of the algorithms. It no longer saw the presence of Cl or N so it had to start to make since of the combinations. The numbers were real to the detector, but there was nothing to balance out the hetero-atomic molecules in the computer's calculations. A simple problem of having a machine think for mankind! X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 21:20:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:18:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 04:16:50 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"TLQgS1.0.RX6.ggw0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10263 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:52 AM 8/27/97 +0000, Frank Stenger wrote: >Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >> > In copper or in a particle or in >> an atom the index of refraction might be as high as 137, making the >> velocity of light .00729729*c or the same as the "velocity" of the >> ground state Bohr Atom electron. :-) >> > >Thanks, Frederick, but what is causing this increase in the index >/decrease in c - is it some function of EM energy density (field >strength)? You would expect the field strength to be quite large near >a particle. According to my Oracle, and J.A. Stratton (Electromagnetic Theory McGraw-Hill, 1941)as the conductivity and the dielectric constant of a material increases the propagation velocity in it decreases. Also there is a frequency above which the propagation velocity becomes constant. This should be as clear as the water in Lake Erie. :-) Winging it, I think that there has to be a physical reason for a particle ie., "stationary wave" in space to exist, and the energy density of that "volume" raises the index of refraction to a point above the index of refraction of the vacuum to a point wh ere Snell's Law of total internal reflection for the "wave"; sin theta critical = (eo/e1)^1/2 = 0.4181 degrees, the angle that creates a particle. Note that (eo/e1) = 1/(137.037)^2 where 137.037 is the reciprocal of that crazy "Fine Structure Constant", alpha. In a nutshell (where I belong?) energy, or the energy density of a "particle" in effect, creates it's own boundary in space. >From this, there should be, as your intuition is telling you, a higher index of refraction near concentrated matter the same as the "Gravitational Red Shift" near any concentration of mass, be it the Earth, The Sun, or a Black Hole. This shift has been m easured for light coming from the Sun, and a vertical beam of light on the Earth using the Mossbaur Effect. > >Still in a fog, Frank Stenger That's Ashtabula for you. Trade you the horns of the 50 to 90 trains a day running the Santa Fe Mainline in these prosperous times for a fog horn on the lake. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 21:48:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:42:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: Ric h Murray Cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"62dI8.0.qI7.l5x0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10264 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com MANY THANKS TO: Rich Murray, Martin Sevior, Scott Little, and John Schnurer for taking the time out of their busy schedules to response to my inquiry about the element Xe. One of the above gave me the following idea. If you had a "carte blanche" to design the most insulative window in the world, what would you do (within reality)? Over unity in this case is defined as: more energy in than out (heat gain in must be greater than heat loss out). Perhaps we can bring some leading-edge concept back from the edge of space and time, to funnel them down-to-earth through the warmth and cold of a vortex tube. We obviously have some of the most talented thinkers on this list. I would like to see some r eally creative even radical concepts to reduce radiant heat loss through the "center of glass" area of the window. I hope my invitation with this down-to-earth challenge is not too boring.If we had a consensus on the best solution, and it represented a feasible, simple and practical solution, I will try very hard to get it built by the same manufacturer who has built our previous R-17 window. ____________________________________________________________________________ On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Rich Murray wrote: > > Jorg, I meant that there was a conceptual shortage of zenon, not a > commercial shortage, as, given willingness to spend the energy cost, > zenon can be liquified out of air. The scientific question is: why less > zenon in Earth's rocks than in meteors, etc., in other parts of the > solar system, when zenon is chemically inert, and thus not subject to > chemical fractionation? There are some optical spectra made with > electric sparks in zenon in experiments about 1920 that hint that zenon > is thereby transmuted into other elements. My conclusions, not the > original author's! > > Rich Murray > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 22:49:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:45:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: VORTE X Subject: Re: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physics Resent-Message-ID: <"TeF7p.0.S32.dzx0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10266 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 26 Aug 1997, Gene wrote: > Martin writes, > > > >A reproducable factor of 10 decrease in gamma intensity in the 64 KeV line > >would make heads turn throughout the Nuclear Physics community. > > Sorry, Martin, I do not think any significant number of heads would turn. > They simply would not believe it. They don't believe Arata's paper, do > they? Nor any number of tritium measurements in heavy water systems > without accompanying 14-MeV neutronsie > Actually Gene provided all the other lines also decreased I think they would. One would simply show before before and after raw gamma-ray spectra. To nuclear Physicists it would be like Jed's description of the steam turbine demonstration. They couldn't ignore it and I believe more would try to reproduce the results. The trouble with tritium radioactivity is that the signature is not unique. The Thorium signature is. > I think physicists will beleive cold fusion and transmutation when gold > plated cold fusion cars motor down the road -- not before then! > Yes. I agree with this. But there is a difference between turning heads and believing in CF. More will come to the party if the above test is successful. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Aug 26 23:22:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:13:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:07:02 +0200 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: jlagarde cyberaccess.fr (Jean_de_Lagarde) Subject: Is the SMOT dead ? Resent-Message-ID: <"UL0Dh2.0.oY.nLy0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10267 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com As far as I know, after several posts from Greg Watson in the beginning of August concerning the SMOT Mk3 which was supposed to be shipped to many vortexians (posts reproduced in IE #13/14) and two posts on August 12th and 15th on a new Mk2 beta4 offered to Bill Beaty, Scott Little, Barry Merriman and Chris Tinsley at Greg's cost for testing,there has been no news at all for at least two weeks, except for announcement of documents on Greg'site. What is the situation ? is the SMOT dead ? What version is to be shipped ? Has there been any shipping ? has somebody experienced any rollaway ? Jean DeLagarde X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 00:00:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:28:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subjec t: RE: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physics Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:14:42 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"18kz01.0.f23.WZy0q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10268 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin writes: >Actually Gene provided all the other lines also decreased I think they >would. One would simply show before before and after raw gamma-ray spectra. >To nuclear Physicists it would be like Jed's description of the steam >turbine demonstration. They couldn't ignore it and I believe more would try >to reproduce the results. Martin I am in full agreement with you. The Cincy's apparatus is small and it should not be difficult to develop a "live gamma-ray spectrum" during the event. Due to the AC electrolysis the proximity of the Th should remain uniform in the cell except fo r deposition from ion exchange [Fe + Th(NO3)4 ==> Th + Fe(NO3)3 + NO3] which would cause Th precipitate as a metal and fall to the lowest point. This way you could see if intermediate isotopes are formed, or if nothing changes. After studying the information that Gene was kind enough to print, I surmise that they (the Cincy boys) are dealing with fundamental experimental error. They would say that I am challenging, but the reality is it would be nice if they were successful, f or it would assist everyone working in this area. If you could demonstrate real time reproducible gamma-ray reduction then everyone would listen. I feel that they did the best job with the equipment and personnel available. Having said such, it doesn't guarantee that their reported results are anywhere close to being correct. Respectfully, Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ Content-Type: application/ms-tnef xŸ>"+X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 02:40:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 02:36:00 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 03:32:34 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"-kG6P1.0.7u5._J_0q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10269 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >Well, diamond has exactly the same refractive index as water. Just drop a > >diamond into a glass of water to check this out. > Beg to differ John. Speed of light in a material is the reciprocal > of the index of refraction times c. These values are given in the CRC > Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. In copper or in a particle or in > an atom the index of refraction might be as high as 137, making the > velocity of light .00729729*c or the same as the "velocity" of the > ground state Bohr Atom electron. :-) > > Material Index of Refraction % of c Density grams/cm^3 > > Water 1.33 75 1.00 > > Diamond 2.4173 41 3.51 > > Titanium Dioxide 2.58-2.90 34-37? 4.15 - 4.26 > > Hope this helps too. :-) I sit corrected, and I apologise for misquoting the facts. Regards, John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 04:16:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 04:12:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:12:38 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l@esk imo.com Subject: Bureaucratic overhead (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"X7LX82.0.2j.vk01q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10270 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:06:02 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Bureaucratic overhead Vortex, Yes, yes, support blue skies research. Everybody knows that the mathematicians (er, the good ones) and philosophers are really the clever ones - although they might not see the physical implications, invariably they've developed the tools long before the physics and engineers need them. Why can't universities and schools be like private businesses, attracting pupils, students, research, industrial contacts. The heads and deputies are in charge of the budget and there is competition to attract funds? Why as a taxpayer, or business man do we need the middleperson? (non-bigot/sexist take note, because that's progress, 'piece of the pie' means piece of the power cake :) Why do we need the pious to dispense charity on our behalf? Look around you at administrandumb, law, politics etc. (even the criminal underworld): best offices, salaries, perks. The saddest thing is when you start believing that you need these people (our new aristocrats) and that you actually respect their edicts. At most it's trivial, time consuming and maybe funny: you have to fill in such and such a form to do such and such an activity before it is passed on and approved. Start to question them and they are like cornered rats. Litigation or bizzare mind games - the power to really mess up your life and in the logical extreme Hitler/Stalin like purges. Then you will see human evil in all its diabolical splendour. It doesn' t matter what area of endeavour you are pursuing: science or trying to run your own private postal service (Buchanon case late seventies, US) against some closed shop or maybe trying not to be culturally revolutionised. Surely anybody with some insight can see the case for laissez-faire and a constitution protecting liberty? Well written constitutions is *the* political issue of the next century, we shouldn't be condemmed to make the same mistakes of this, the most blood y century, from excessive state power. Also, your two magnet problem is a relativistic one - magnetic, electrical fields vary in different amounts in different reference frames and the retarded potential. If you can handle Maxwell's Eqns. in 4-vector form, it'll be a good exercise (me too!). Remi. Sorry for the typos in the last email, I was being pestered by some fairly high caste Indian over here on a gov. grant who was grovelling for my help after being rude. Told him to naff off, we don't do things like that over here! And thanks Ed Wall for the suggestion of F.A. Hayek, still reading it. The Milton Friedman, 'Free to Choose' was good too. The cause of 1929 and WWII was laid bare. Right I'll be a good boy and not pester you with politics and philosophy. The trouble I'm having is trying to do the opposite with microencapsulation that most people are doing - endless paper, patent, company literature search. I have academic backing, in spirit, in that a former editor of a (sorry) mainstream journal is willi ng to put a covering letter to my practical paper. Still early days. All the best. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 06:56:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:51:47 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Fred Epps , vortex-L@eskimo.com, storms@ix.netcom.com Subject: Old electric spark transmutation studies References: <199708270408.VAA15635@mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"z1krg.0.tI5.ex21q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo. com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10271 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Fred Epps, I too have done a lot of searching of 1920 era research on optical spectra from spark and arc experiments, comparing their optical spectra data with modern Chemical Rubber Co. Handbook data, and I think I see plenty of evidence for transmutation reactions . Can you post the references you have found, and even the original articles, if you have a scanner? These experiments are very easy to do. For instance, in Journal of New Energy last year, Reiter and Faile described sparking a krypton filled flashligh t bulb without breaking it. It would be simple to get optical spectra from such a bulb to search for transmutations. What city are you in? I'm in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Thank you, Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 07:04:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:59:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:09:03 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, fepps@halcyon.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, jaeger eneco-usa.com Subject: Spark transmutation experiments Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"vrKmj.0.fG7.iA31q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10272 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Message-ID: <328ACBEB.918 rt66.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:36:11 -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: wireless rmii.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, CldFusion@aol.com, design73 aol.com, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, cc840 freenet.carleton.ca, miley@uiuc.edu, ceti@onramp.net, claytor_t_n lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, 72240.1256 compuserve.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, 76570.2270 compuserve.com, dacha@shentel.net, jechampion aol.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris chemvx.tamu.edu, hheffner@anc.ak.net, mca@world.std.com, dennis wazoo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, 10043.1541 compuserve.com, ine@padrak.com, 100276.261 compuserve.com, little@eden.com, peter itim.org.soroscj.ro Subject: Spark health hazards Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Toby Grotz, I was on the East Coast, Oct. 29 to Nov. 10, and my email got lost. Can you resend your messages to me? How'd you get invited to Japan? That's neat! I'd forgotten you'd be getting that fancy mass spectograph. Sam Faile called me for an hour yesterday, having heard about my interest in exploding wires from Hal Fox. He uses 106 MF at 3,400 volts-- gets Army surplus 33 MF 4500 volt capacitors for $ 30 plus $ 4.25 s&h from: Fair Radio Sales, Lima, Ohio 419-223-2196 Sam P. Faile 4002 Sharon Park Lane Apt. 13 Cincinatti, OH 45241 513-563-4953 His 90 mAmp power supply takes 1-2 hours to charge up the 106 MF capacitor bank. He's moved from 1 foot to 5 foot distance from the spark, because the brighter fireballs, made him deaf for hours in his left ear, and often he's noticed nausea 15 minutes later and an anomalous tonic uplifted feeling, indicating mild radiation effects-- he does 4-5 sparks weekly. Now he's got earshields. He got a 17 cm diameter fireball in air from # 44 copper wire, .005" diameter, 2 " long. He's doing sparks also on heavy duty Reynolds wrap aluminum foil, 2" long by 6 mm wide, coated with a sputtered layer of 1000 A tellerium. In the past he got a hug e brilliant spark from aluminum foil, 2 " long by 12 mm wide, with talcum powder on it-- that spark made him feel nauseous 15 minutes later and also the tonic effect. His research partner is Nick Reiter: 541 W. Stone Street Gibsonberg, OH 43431 419-637-2659 Nick has used a geiger counter to monitor radiation from sparks. His system makes sparks at a rate of 1/sec with 2-3 cm fireballs in air. They sparked a 1 mil Ni wire with 200 A palladium layer sputtered on it, and used EDS analysis to locate some interesting peaks. Tungsten or nickel electrodes give 2-4 X more radiation than background. Sam said Papp, who did electric discharges in noble gases, found neutron radiation, and died a few years ago of intestinal cancer. Sam heard about Papp from Don Kelly, who was editor of Space Energy Journal, 813-442-3923. Sam also told me about a spark experiment by Charles Morton, in March 4, 1996 Electric Spacecraft Journal, on aluminum dust mixed with talcum powder, Pinauld "Clubman" brand, and experiments on heating aluminum powder in a microwave oven: P.O. Box 281 De ath Valley, CA 92328. Sam will mail me the reports by him and Nick, and wants me to put their stuff on the Internet. I'd greatly appreciate anyone who reads this sending me information about spark experiments and current and past practitioners. There are radiation safety issues that need to be publicly and widely discussed. I am recently studying a variety of spark reports from circa 1920 that unwittingly produced nuclear transmutations with dozens of published spectral lines. Rich Murray Room For All HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 rmforall rt66.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 08:34:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:30:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:28:12 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Resent-Message-ID: <"bVNjz2.0.gD1.uV41q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10273 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/27/97 7:22:28 AM, Frank Stenger asked: <> The standard physics answer is that the entering photon is temporarily absorbed and then re-emitted by the dipole moments in the matter, and it is a delay associated with this process that accounts for the overall lower velocity of light. Therefore, in a nswer to another of your questions, it is not the same photon exiting that entered. Another way of looking at it (they are equivalent) is that the original wave does just propagate through at the velocity of light, but atoms that get excited along the way also emit, and it is the interference between the original light wave and the emitt ed light waves that results in an overall delayed wave. Specifically, it is *not* anything to do with the interstitial energy density. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 08:43:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Aug 97 11:28:12 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: VORTEX Subject: Re: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physics Resent-Message-ID: <"ChT1o.0.TI1.jY41q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10274 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Yes. I agree with this. But there is a difference between turning heads and >believing in CF. More will come to the party if the above test is >successful. > >Martin Sevior OK, I hope you are right, I have not seen as many coming to the party as we would like, even though formal invitations have long been out and the cuisine is delicious! Gene Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief Infinite Energy Magazine Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302 Phone: 603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 76570.2270 compuserve.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 08:37:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:33:00 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:32:25 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Light From The Abyss Resent-Message-ID: <"hgCho3.0.tL3.iY41q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10275 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/27/97 5:07:09 AM, Fred Sparber asked: <> Intermolecular forces, adhesion, van der Waals and Casimir forces are all different sides of a 4-sided coin. :-) Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 08:58:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:50:28 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Particles as "Stationary Waves" Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:49:49 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"TSt4Z2.0.3G4.3p41q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10277 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com For Frank Stenger's anxiety closet renovation, Try this for cogitation, Frank. Particle "radius" r = wavelength/2(pi) = hbar * c *alpha/w = k*q^2/w w = particle rest energy (joules) e1 = internal permittivity = 1.66E-7 farads/meter = eo/alpha^2 eo = 8.85E-12 farads/meter v = internal "velocity" = 2.1876E6 meters/second = alpha*c c = 2.997925E8 meters/second C = r*e1 (farads) L = r*uo (henry) V = (w/C)^1/2 (electrostatic potential, volts) I = (w/L)^1/2 (displacement current, amperes) Z = (L/C)^1/2 = 2.75 ohms = alpha*377 (the intrinsic impedance of space) q = CV/4(pi)^2 = +/- 1.602E-19 coulombs. the sign +/- is the phase. f = "resonant" frequency of the "particle" = 1/[2(pi)*(LC)^1/2] i = "loop current" = q*f amperes (gravitational effects?) alpha = sin theta critical = (eo/e1)^1/2 the "boundary condition" Kitchen renovations are more work. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 08:46:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:42:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:44:30 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Resent-Message-ID: <"uebvE2.0.Dd1.Rh41q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10276 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank Stenger wrote: >Why does the speed of light decrease in matter? The electric field of the passing light wave drives the electrons of the matter to oscillate, too, and they in turn add their radiation to the passing EM field. In solid, liquid and gas (but not plasma) the e- are not free, but bound. The ions are much he avier and move much less, so we can ignore them. It turns out that most of the bound e- have natural oscillation frequencies higher than the freq of visible light. Therefore, the e- move as oscillators driven below their natural frequency, that is, in pha se with the driving electric force. Therefore, the polarazation generaged by moving e- is IN PHASE with the electric field, which means that the wave sees a dielectric constant greater than in free space, where there are no charged particles. jStated diff erently, the oscillating electrons contribute to an increased apparent displacement current. This slows the wave (Maxwell) by changing the ratio between E and B. (Analogy: sound wave in stiff solid vs compliant solid). The frequency dependence of the speed of light or index of refraction follows from the oscillator nature of the bound e-. As the EM wave freguency increases, it gets closer to the natural frequency (usually in the UV) of a group of the e-, and so they osc illate with greater amplitudes. Therefore, the polarization and index of r increase with frequency in the vislble. >I have seen mentioned in learned articles that the speed of light is >"nonlinear" and that a VERY intense laser beam can change the value of >c along its transmission path. Correct? If so, is this because the >electromagnetic energy density is so high - like the EED in matter? This is because the e- are not bound by a purely linear restoring force. As their displacement about their equilibrium position (actually about their equilibrium probability functions) increases, the restoring force increases more slowly than linearly. Th is is related to the fact that eventually an e- can be removed from its atom (ionization). The nonlinear restoring also yields a nonlinear polarization or dielectric "constant"---the extra displacement at large E corrresponds to an increasing instantaneou s polarization. Nothing strange here. > >My primitive picture of condensed matter shows matter to be mostly >"empty" space - with an atomic nucleus here, an electron over there - >all in a huge void of space. The particles are locked in place (in >solids) by the tensile and compressive forces of the complex electric >dipoles, quadrapoles, etc. of the particle charges. Yes, to a point, but there is no magical "compressive force". There is repulsion between like charges, which keeps them from coming too close together. The other big contributor to repulsion between two atoms is inertia. Like the molecules of gas in a box colliding against the sides and creating pressure ("repulsion"), so too the e- in their orbitals keep the atoms from collapsing, even when pushed upon. Quantum mechanics comes in and ensures that the e- can never lose all their energy, which would otherw ise be possible in a classical system. >Why did my teachers never talk about this subject? How many years did you study physics? Actually, Feynman presents the reduction of the speed of light in matter in his first year, though not in a through way. Normally, this is touched upon in second year introductory physics. Solid state and condensed m atter are usually postponed til later. Of course, it is always possible to just provide the student with a long list of known phenomena. This is Chris Tinsley's image of how physics works, but it is not how most physicists practice or teach. Physics is about understanding, and that takes a lot of time. One has to understand simple systems first, then more complicated or abstract ones, and then one has to go throuch one or two more times, again, each time more deeply. As one learns more, one is also able to learn that the myriad of "effects" an d "laws" are really just manifestations of a couple of basic laws---not a long list of unrelated effects to memorize. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 09:57:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:52:25 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:51:49 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Resent-Message-ID: <"yai-N3.0.ue6.8j51q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10278 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 8/27/97 7:41:38 AM, Martin Sevior asked: <> In the ultra-ZPE model, all particles would be seen as coherent patterns in the ZPE. Therefore, "finding" the Higgs would not necessarily displace a ZPE interpretation. The more sophisticated Electroweak force in this interpretation would speak to subtl eties in the patterns and their group structure, not to the idea of "separate" forces. Analogy: Had the Casimir force been discovered in the 1800's, no doubt we would have invented a new Casimir force, not realizing that is was a pattern in a random EM background that could be understood in terms of Maxwell's eqns. Interesting that in your post you indicated that without the Higgs one would have an ultraviolet-like catastrophe, as in the earlier blackbody radiation problem. It has been shown in a number of Phys Rev papers by Boyer at CCNY that the balckbody problem could have been solved by the application of the ZPE concept without Planck's introduction of the quantum, had anyone thought of there being a random, cubic-frequency spectrum of classical EM radiation. Perhaps the same approach could be applied here. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 10:19:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Aug 97 13:10:08 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Test message Resent-Message-ID: <"G88Wv1.0.ee4.l061q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10279 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Testing 1, 2, 3 . . . I've sent a bunch of stuff to Vortex the last few days about this NHE shutdown, but none of it has come back. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 10:41:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:32:38 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:28:38 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: NASA Gravity Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"S_2MF3.0.jV.qI61q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10280 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Re: http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/msfcuah1.html In NASA's gravitational shielding experiment (reported at above URL, a LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter is used to measure the gravitational field. The instrument is based on a mechanical spring-mass transducer, and is highly sensitive. It is good to use a better and more sensitive instrument. But, it if you are going to repeat an original experiment, it is also good to repeat it as exactly as possible. Both Podkletnov and Schnurer used a simple balance beam weighing mechanism to sense t he gravitational field. With a balance beam sensor, the counter balance is outside of the supposed gravitationally shielded area. With the spring-mass gravimeter, the entire instrument is within the shielded area. It might make no difference, but why not also do the experiment, in its original format? Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:08:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , Subject: Re: Old electric spark transmutation studies Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:02:06 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"OXjIS.0.bT.aY71q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10286 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rich, all, > I too have done a lot of searching of 1920 era research on optical > spectra from spark and arc experiments, comparing their optical spectra > data with modern Chemical Rubber Co. Handbook data, and I think I see > plenty of evidence for transmutation reactions. Can you post the > references you have found, and even the original articles, if you have a > scanner? I have only three articles in my possession at this time, but give me a couple of weeks and I should have more, it's just a trip to the library stacks (where I live :-) My interest was "sparked" by an article called "Copernicus II" by Paul Rowe in the Journal of Borderland Research Mar-Apr 1992. The authors own experiments reinforce the results given in other papers. Here are the references he cites: Experimental Attempts To Decompose Tungsten At High Temperatures Journal of the American Chemical Society, 44, pp.1887-94 (1922) Gerald Wendt and Clarence Irion The Production Of Neon and Helium By the Electrical Discharge Pro. Roy. Soc. A, 91, pp. 30-45 (1914) J. Norman Collie I have these two as well as the Copernicus article. Also listed in his article: The Evolution Of Hydrogen From The Cathode And Its Absorption By The Anode In Gases Clarence Skinner Phys. Rev.. 21, p. 1-15, (1905) Physc. Rev., 3, n.4, pp. 287-94 (1914) George Winchester Nature, 90, pp. 920-46 (1920) Sir J.J. Thomson The paper by Wendt above refers to "The voluminous and inconclusive controversy on the evolution of helium in various types of low pressure electric discharge tubes, extending from 1905 to 1915", but unfortunately does not give references. Papers referenced in the Collie paper above are: Chem. Soc. Trans., 103, p. 419 (1913) J. Norman Collie Chem. Soc. Proc., 29, p.271 (1913) J. Norman Collie Chem. Soc. Proc., p. 233 (1913) [sic] R.J. Strutt Chem. Soc. Proc., 29, p. 217 (1913) (or is this a misprint?) J. Norman Collie The following three are given as describing the disappearance of hydrogen in discharge tubes Phys. Soc. Lon. Proc., p. 35, (Dec 1912) S.E. Hill Phil. Mag., Apr. 1901 Willows [sic] Roy. Soc. Proc. A, 79 (1907) Campbell Swinton > What city are you in? I'm in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I'm in Mt. Vernon, Wa. a small town about 60 Mi. N. of Seattle, where I do my library research and run a bookstore. I can scan the articles I have next weekend and send them to you, Rich, and you can distribute them to others who are interested. At this point that would be Joe Champion and Dieter Bauer. How does that sound? Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 11:18:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:14:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:15:19 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Reproducibility doesn't help acceptance Cc: Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"AqgAP1.0.yD6.Bw61q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10281 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > Happens all the time---how long it takes is a function of many factors, > not the least of which is how well the experiment works. Some things > like Hi T superconductivity were accepted in a matter of months, while > other things like continental drift required a long gestation period. The inital papers about high-Tc ceramics were widely ignored. It was a follow on paper with new higher Tc temperatures that finally got noticed over a year later. Even so, ceramic superconductors set a record by YEARS of the distance from discovery t o Nobel Prize. There are occaisionaly cases where the actual research recognized was not the only factor in the Nobel award, and a fairly recent discovery resulted in a Nobel being awarded for much older work. However, in general, if you earn a Nobel Pr ize, you have to wait almost twenty years to collect. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 11:21:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:16:12 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists References: <19970827041648.AAA25969 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"53VIm1.0.QJ6.3y61q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10282 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > According to my Oracle, and J.A. Stratton (Electromagnetic Theory > McGraw-Hill, 1941)as the conductivity and the dielectric constant of > a material increases the propagation velocity in it decreases. > > Also there is a frequency above which the propagation velocity > becomes constant. This should be as clear as the water in Lake Erie. :-) > > Winging it, I think that there has to be a physical reason for a > particle ie., "stationary wave" in space to exist, and the energy density > of that "volume" raises the index of refraction to a point above the > index of refraction of the vacuum to a point where Snell's Law of > total internal reflection for the "wave"; > sin theta critical = (eo/e1)^1/2 = 0.4181 degrees, the angle that > creates a particle. Note that (eo/e1) = 1/(137.037)^2 where 137.037 > is the reciprocal of that crazy "Fine Structure Constant", alpha. > > In a nutshell (where I belong?) energy, or the energy density of a > "particle" in effect, creates it's own boundary in space. > > >From this, there should be, as your intuition is telling you, a > higher index of refraction near concentrated matter the same as > the "Gravitational Red Shift" near any concentration of mass, be it > the Earth, The Sun, or a Black Hole. This shift has been measured > for light coming from the Sun, and a vertical beam of light on > the Earth using the Mossbaur Effect. > Thanks, Frederick! I like your speculations. So, if an energetic gamma passes close to a particle, sometimes we get a wave dance, two sites of high EM concentration form, and out pop two EM bubbles - plus and minus - trapped inside their little spheres of internal reflection! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 11:34:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:29:36 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists References: Resent-Message-ID: <"4FKgL2.0.Dh6.X871q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10283 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: > > Frank Stenger wrote: > > >Why does the speed of light decrease in matter? > (snip an excellent discussion of my above question) Thanks for the graduate course, Michael! Added to my physics text. So, I guess you're saying that even a SUPER INTENSE laser beam in a hard vacuum will travel at the normal vacuum value of c - right? Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 11:44:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:41:00 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:40:21 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Test message Resent-Message-ID: <"WgU2x.0.Gv3.xI71q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10284 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, I've had same problems on vortex, newman, freenrg. Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:02:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:50:15 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Drawing of switching in spin balance system Resent-Message-ID: <"NANYx2.0.KF.VT71q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10285 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Anyone wanting drawings of the switching system in the balance section of the spin balance system generator, and discription of operation, send request to me at hlafonte aol.com Drawing will be attached in gif file to email. Thanks, Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:12:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:08:32 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:10:58 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Trade balance Cc: Resent-Message-ID: <"3gzie1.0.v85.ki71q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10288 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:40 AM 8/20/97 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: >Last I heard, if you add up the published imports, exports and invisible >trade of all nations, you get around a 30% net global importation. Not as mysterious as it sounds. Exports are measured FOB (free on board--all export duties paid) at port of embarkation. Imports are measured on the same basis--but after import duties, etc. in the port of delivery. On some goods the primary differ ence is the taxes and insurance, in others such as crude oil, it is the cost of transportation. A supertanker can burn 25% of its cargo during a trip, but usually the number is nearer 6-7%. The margin of profit or loss on a voyage can be determined by h ow well the course is planned --and the plan will change every few hours. Just to complete the confusion--look at the crude oil burned above. It is exported from the POE but never arives anywhere. Also, the income from shipping is supposed to be collected into the GDP of the ship's country of registry. But if it was, Lib eria would have the largest economy in North Africa. (Criminal? No. The "flags of convenience" countries draw shippers by allowing them to exclude many types of income from what they report in country. So an oil company might report as "in country" inco me sufficient income to cover operation and maintenance of the ship, but depreciation--and appreciation in the value of the cargo--may get reported elsewhere.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:10:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:11:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: Vortex Subject: Re: Test message Resent-Message-ID: <"K0HeJ1.0.bp.5h71q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10287 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 27 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >>To: Vortex >> >>Testing 1, 2, 3 . . . >> >>I've sent a bunch of stuff to Vortex the last few days about this NHE >>shutdown, but none of it has come back. >> >>- Jed >> >> I just had an ffSMOT gif NOT GO THROUGH, but it was *too large* >40k could that have been the trouble (with .jpg's/.gif's?)? I've only seen your one (1) NHE announcement too. -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 13:34:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:29:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:15:47 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"OOA8_.0._j3.4v81q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10294 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 06:16 PM 8/27/97 +0000, Frank Stenger wrote: >Thanks, Frederick! > I like your speculations. So, if an energetic >gamma passes close to a particle, sometimes we get a wave dance, two >sites of high EM concentration form, and out pop two EM bubbles - plus >and minus - trapped inside their little spheres of internal reflection! > >Frank Stenger > I like speculating, and number crunching. It's amazing how plugging some numbers into an equation will make it seem real. :-) I also liked Mike Schaffer's explanation of light-speed in matter. If you take the mass of the electron Me and an integer N and 1/alpha (1/0.00729729) and apply it; N*Me/alpha you get a good fit for many of the particles seen in atom smashers. For example; 2*Me/alpha (274 Me)is the rest mass of the pion. Figuring two pairs of kaons produced from two gammas of about a Gev each, forming a proton with two Kaons (plus)and one (minus) with the odd-man-out negative pion decaying down to a muon-muon neutrino then to an electron-electron neutrino, you can put the "Big Bang" temperature somewhere around 1.0E13 deg K. A different line-up would have been an antimatter universe. Apparently nature preferred the one we have. :-) Might not square with the "Standard Model" but it keeps me occupied (in my "Nutshell") and out of the way of the cement contractor getting $2.00/ft^2 for our carport-landscaping-garden project. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:28:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:24:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:25:56 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: zpe Hamdi's comments..Hamdi is CORRECT! Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com References: <19970820230641.AAA23080 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"sAX013.0.KM1.5y71q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10289 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:51 PM 8/20/97 -0700, Martin Sevior wrote: >Clearly this is the wrong forum to expound on the virtues of Basic Research. >Finding or not finding the Higgs Particle will make a direct impact on a lot >what's discussed here though. I agree that the Americans should have stuck >with building the accelerator for the "advertised" price of 6 billion >dollars. And I will state unequivocally that the only mistake on the SSC funding issue was not cutting it sooner. The "Mohole", Isabelle, and the SSC all reached a critical mass of Administrivium. If they had continued to be fed, they would have expanded to a bsorb all possible funding, with no output whatsoever. ITER is looking to repeat these mistakes, and if it does it should be cut on the spot by the governments involved. Once scientific decisions are made by administrators for political reasons, the possibility of accomplishing anything worthwile is gon e. PPPL on the other hand did good science for a couple years, then it took almost a palace coup to get the next series of tests--which would leave the machine radioactive and useless to the administrators. Of course those tests were run, what, ten year s late? Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:36:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:32:43 -0700 Date: 27 Aug 97 15:29:56 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physi Resent-Message-ID: <"-GH6M2.0.jY6.P381q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10290 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Martin Sevior describes a high energy physics approach to testing the Cincinnati Group claims. He suggests that if the Th really is going away, with a sample of 4*10-4 grams, you should see 64 KeV counts fall from about 50 per two hours to 5. This would b e a dramatic effect that even the high energy boys would buy into. Okay, maybe, yes, but, here are a few caveats: 1. I hope that if anyone does this they also perform standard chemical tests to determine how much Th is left. The gamma test should be *in addition to* the other tests, so that we can be sure we are looking at the same phenomenon. Martin probably has this in mind, but I thought someone should say so explicitly. 2. Maybe you should scale up, double the dose, and get 100 counts in two hours? Wouldn't that be easier to detect? I know little about this, but I have assisted Japanese scientists write papers on gamma detection, and I think 50 per hour isn't much. Of co urse you would have to make sure the scaled-up version works in other respects, measured by other means, which gets back to point #1. 3. As Gene says, I don't think they will -- pay attention, that is. They pay no attention to Claytor's tritium at Los Alamos. On the other hand, Claytor's experiment is terribly difficult to replicate, and this one is supposedly easy. That could make all the difference in the world, because the high energy boys want to see it happen in their own lab, in front of their own detectors, reasonably enough. They don't want to go to the trouble of asking Claytor questions and learning how to do that experiment, which is not so reasonable. 4. As I said, I know practically nothing about high energy particle detection, but from what I have seen, when three experts in the field discuss an issue, they come to six different mutually exclusive conclusions. They will think up a million reasons why the fall-off in gamma counts is an instrument artifact. And it might be, too, for all I know. Especially if, as Martin says, the thing only collects ~1% of the gammas in the first place. I should think if you move the material up or down relative to the face of the detection instrument, you would collect a dif ferent number. It sounds like a can of worms, but perhaps the errors would not approach a factor of ten, no matter what. Perhaps Martin could tell us briefly what else might go wrong besides Rn escaping. How else can thorium hide from a detector? 5. Hal and Scott: *do* y'all have neutron detector? Is it wound up? Do the batteries need changing? - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:37:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Aug 97 15:30:15 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: MITI Cancels Cold Fusion Program Resent-Message-ID: <"8bno5.0.9i1.j481q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10291 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Sorry if this is a repeat message from yesterday. This is our statement on the NHE fiasco, which I posted on my home page yesterday. I may change this somewhat as details come in. I heard from Mike McKubre and Ed Storms on this issue. They feel the situat ion is not so bad. McKubre says the program was originally supposed to end last year anyway, and it may be extended, or the institute might be bought up by one of the corporate participants. I have spoken with others in Japan who have a more pessimistic v iew. I gather the NHE is now scrambling to get good advice from Storms and other experts in the field. That's what I recommended to them year after year. It is a shame they waited until 10 months before closing. I am afraid they may be a day late and a dollar short. When you start with 20 million dollars and you end up a dollar short, that's a hell of a note. Storms says the NHE has done useful work verifying other people's experiments. By putting a calorimeter inside another calorimeter (a good technique), they demonstrated instrument artifacts that caused false excess heat. This calls into question the work of Kunimatsu and Celani. I'll have to discuss the matter with Kunimatsu and Cel ani before commenting in detail, but if K and C agree the NHE tests are valid, and they retract, I would say the NHE has performed a very useful service for the field. It is a shame the NHE has not made their work more accessible to others in the field by posting results like that on a home page. It is a shame the CF scientists never get around to discussing concrete details like this in conferences, or in their papers, or on e-mail, or any other time as far as I know. As I told Chris, I would like to get the NHE people who did this test, plus Celani, plus Storms together in one place. Ideally, I would lock them in a room together and maybe bang their heads together until they come up with a consensus and a solution. That is how J.P. Morgan stopped the 19 07 panic on Wall Street. He locked the leading New York bankers in his library until five in the morning, until they finally agreed on a plan. - Jed MITI Cancels Cold Fusion Program August 26, 1997 The New York Times, the Nikkei and Reuters have reported that MITI is closing down the New Hydrogen Energy cold fusion research program. The Times report was published on August 26, 1997, in an article titled "Japan, Long a Holdout, Ending Cold Fusion Que st," by Andrew Pollack. It begins: The idea that cheap, bountiful energy can be produced by so-called cold fusion suffered another blow today when the Government of Japan said it would terminate its research, which has failed to confirm that the phenomenon exists. Japan had pursued the quest for cold fusion, room-temperature nuclear fusion, long after most governments and scientists in the United States and Europe had dismissed the concept as an illusion. Now Japan is also throwing in the towel. The article quotes Hideo Ikegami: "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion. We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future." I should point out that Ikegami himself obtained positive results in his lab, which he transmitted to me. But he never published them, for reasons that remain unclear. Unless he is being misquoted by the New York Times, I do not understand why he is ignoring the many positive experimental results in Japan. The article says that the NHE lab in Sapporo "is expected to be shut." Akito Takahashi says that funding for university level academic research is also likely to be terminated. A MITI spokesman pointed out that the $20 million spent on cold fusion was "wa s a pittance" compared with what is spent on other energy programs, like nuclear fast breeder reactors. The Nikkei reported this story on August 24, 1997. It quotes a MITI spokesman, "regrettably, we have not seen the effect in our experiments," but "we do not deny that the cold fusion effect exists." The article quotes Akito Arima, a leading physicist and hard-core opponent of cold fusion. He says, "this shows how important it is to seek the opinions of qualified experts before spending government money on a physics project." The Nikkei comments that the failure of this program will discourage research int o controversial, unproven areas of science. Infinite Energy reported on the astonishing weaknesses of the NHE program in Vol. 2, No. 10. We pointed out several technical problems with the research in our ICCF6 review and in An Open Letter to Japan's NHE Lab Directorate, written in Japanese and Engl ish, on page 28. The letter includes 17 references to the literature, and it lists concrete problems with the protocols and materials used at the NHE lab, including low cell temperatures, improper cell and cathode materials, inadequate preparation and pre -testing of cathodes, and so on. These technical criticisms did not originate with us. They were suggested by Pons, Fleischmann, Bockris, Storms, Mizuno, Ikegami and the others cited in the footnotes. We pointed out that the French Atomic Energy Commissio n has successfully replicated the Pons-Fleischmann IMRA boil off experiments (originally reported in Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129), because they were more careful about replicating every detail of the experiment, without making any changes. The N HE does not employ any PhD electrochemists. We urged the NHE researchers to pay more attention to the literature; to hire some electrochemists for the research; and to try the techniques suggested by these leading workers, but as far as I know they have n ot done so. We did not receive any official response to the Open Letter, nor did we expect any. Unofficially, NHE researchers denied that there is anything wrong with their techniques, and they refused to address any of the technical points in the Open Letter. They accused us of plotting to bring down the lab in league with arch-enemies of cold fusi on like John Huizenga and Frank Close. In the final analysis I agree with Arima: more attention to the opinions of qualified experts might have helped this program. He meant that the program should never have begun, because MITI should have listened to the plasma physicists who say that cold f usion is impossible. I believe MITI should have paid more attention to the expert electrochemists and others who have successfully replicated the effect. - Jed Rothwell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:48:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:44:59 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:47:05 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com References: <3.0.1.32.19970821193433.00a1d250 spectre.mitre.org> <970809192816_496261442 emout08.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"U0Ye71.0.x37.vE81q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10292 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:18 PM 8/21/97 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: >No. Reflection at the end of a transmission line can no more than double >the voltage of a single pulse traveling along it. "Knowledge" like that can be lethal. We were not discussing the effects of reflection. If you build a "tapered" transmission line and do it right, the power of the pulse you put in will be constant--or nearly so--but the voltage at the other end will be as the ratio of the line capacitan ce at the end points (assuming constant impedence along the length). Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 12:49:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:46:11 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:49:34 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Resent-Message-ID: <"YphQw2.0.X77.1G81q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10293 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank Stengerwrote: >So, I guess you're saying that even a SUPER INTENSE laser beam in a hard >vacuum will travel at the normal vacuum value of c - right? As far as I know, yes. But I don't know very much. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 14:04:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:00:09 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , "Free Energy" Subject: Old Transmutation papers Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:05:54 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"Gr36_.0.Mb2.ML91q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10295 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rich, Dieter, Byrun, and all, I am posting the old papers on transmutation of elements in spark discharges to Joe Champion and he will kindly put them on his web site. There are three now and probably will be more after another trip to the library. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 14:23:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:18:47 -0700 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.200.226 References: <970827171008_72240.1256_EHB115-1 CompuServe.COM> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:18:31 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Test message Resent-Message-ID: <"ZmjCN.0.FO3.sc91q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10296 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On 27 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >>I've sent a bunch of stuff to Vortex the last few days about this NHE > >>shutdown, but none of it has come back. > >> > >>- Jed I received Jed's message. I interpreted the low response level as simply an acceptance here that cold fusion does not work, that its funding cut off is inevitable and a resolve to go on to investigate other more promising technologies. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 Email - wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 14:26:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:21:09 -0700 Date: 27 Aug 97 17:19:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physi Resent-Message-ID: <"LCo3J1.0.rU3.4f91q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10298 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, > 1. I hope that if anyone does this they also perform standard > chemical tests to determine how much Th is left. The gamma test > should be *in addition to* the other tests, so that we can be sure > we are looking at the same phenomenon. Martin prob ably has this in > mind, but I thought someone should say so explicitly. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. If we are into the realm of hundreds of milligrams of transmutation, then chemistry becomes the bottom-line test of efficacy. I feel it is vital for high-energy physicists who wish to enter this new domain that they shoul d consult with their analytical chemist - ah - "friends". > 3. As Gene says, I don't think they will -- pay attention, that > is. They pay no attention to Claytor's tritium at Los Alamos. On > the other hand, Claytor's experiment is terribly difficult to > replicate, and this one is supposedly easy. The latter point, together with full disclosure, low cost and sale of kits should do the trick. However, the point remains that acceptance by the physics community is not really the issue. Acceptance by people who would use the process publicly is far m ore important. I think Martin and Gene were less far apart in their postings than it may have seemed. Gene was harking back to the community's response to claims, replications and the like - while Martin was stressing "if it is easy and cheap to replicate". We should also point out that what we dislike in the wider science community is at least as commonplace within the CF community. As to Joe's comments, I thought they were really quite helpful. But I would comment that the cell design makes the quantitation of Th before and after rather straightforward (as in Jed's first point). Also, the general availability and low cost of the C G work should surely make remote analyses - a la CETI/Miley cell - of the process superfluous as general confirmation or otherwise comes in. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 15:10:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:54:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:54:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@es kimo.com Subject: Re: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physi Resent-Message-ID: <"08k6h3.0.Ex4.l8A1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10299 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 27 Aug 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Martin Sevior describes a high energy physics approach to testing the > Cincinnati Group claims. Actually a low energy Nuclear Physics technique. Most High Energy Physicists know nothing about high resolution Germainium detectors. > > 1. I hope that if anyone does this they also perform standard chemical tests > to determine how much Th is left. The gamma test should be *in addition to* > the other tests, so that we can be sure we are looking at the same phenomenon. > Martin probably has this in mind, but I thought someone should say so > explicitly. > Only if the first 10 samples all show a drop in count rate. It's much easier to stick a Ge detector next to a collection of vials than it is play with nasty, smelly chemicals. Yuck! Why do you think I'm a Physicist? :-) Seriously, I don't know how to do the Chemical analysis and it is hard to convince other people to do work for you unless you can show them they're likely to find very interesting results. > 2. Maybe you should scale up, double the dose, and get 100 counts in two > hours? Wouldn't that be easier to detect? Absolutely but maybe doubling the Thorium concentration kills the effect. No one has a clue how this works anyway. > > 3. As Gene says, I don't think they will -- pay attention, that is. They pay > no attention to Claytor's tritium at Los Alamos. On the other hand, Claytor's > experiment is terribly difficult to replicate, and this one is supposedly > easy. That could make all the difference in the world, because the high energy > boys want to see it happen in their own lab, in front of their own detectors, > reasonably enough. They don't want to go to the trouble of asking Claytor > questions and learning how to do that experiment, which is not so reasonable. > Not that so much as the loss of time from "real" work. Everyone has made commitments to fellow scientists, Graduate Studnets, Funding agencies etc to finish the work they're already doing. If you start doing something else then your real job loses out. Pe ople will only give up their family time if they perceive there is a reasonable chance of success. > 4. As I said, I know practically nothing about high energy particle detection, > but from what I have seen, when three experts in the field discuss an issue, > they come to six different mutually exclusive conclusions. They will think up > a million reasons why the fall-off in gamma counts is an instrument artifact. > And it might be, too, for all I know. Especially if, as Martin says, the thing > only collects ~1% of the gammas in the first place. I should think if you move > the material up or down relative to the face of the detection instrument, you > would collect a different number. It sounds like a can of worms, but perhaps > the errors would not approach a factor of ten, no matter what. Perhaps Martin > could tell us briefly what else might go wrong besides Rn escaping. How else > can thorium hide from a detector? The major problem will be background from Thorium in the rest of the lab, particularly if there are concrete walls. The detector should be well shielded, preferablly in a nice lead container. The beauty of the test is that nothing need to change in the ge ometrical arrangement. Position the detector right up next to reaction vessel. Fill the vessel with the Thorium solution, count away for 4 hours, record the spectrum, run the AC current, record the spectrum again. There may be a migration of Th into parts of vessel that provide better overall shielding. In that case the 64 KeV line would be more strongly attentuated than the higher energy lines. If the higher energy lines also decrease in intensity at the same rate , this owuld put paid to that argument. Further wrinkles would be to run at least 10 25 millilitre vials through the system, one per day. If the exactly the same behaviour was observed in all 10 runs, with no increase in background counting rate during the "before" runs then it would be very di fficult to argue the Thorium was somehow being stored in the vessel walls. Gamma radiation is very penetrating. In addition one could have a second gamma counter to record the spectrum from the processed solution. Once again before and after gamma signatures would be an interesting signature. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 14:27:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: <3.0.1.32.19970821193433.00a1d250@spectre.mitre.org> <970809192816_496261442 emout08.mail.aol.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:22:10 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"BkIu13.0.ge5.0e91q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10297 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert Eachus wrote: >At 05:18 PM 8/21/97 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: >>No. Reflection at the end of a transmission line can no more than double >>the voltage of a single pulse traveling along it. [snip]> We were not discussing the effects of reflection. If you build a >"tapered" transmission line and do it right, Ah! You didn't say that or (at least I didn't read it). >the power of the pulse you put >in will be constant--or nearly so--but the voltage at the other end will be >as the ratio of the line capacitance at the end points (assuming constant >impedence along the length). Not quite. The impedance varies along the taper, and it is the impedance variation that transforms the voltage and current. The taper must be gradual and the pulse length must be shorter than the taper if this technique is to be effective. The voltage var ies as the square root of the impedance as the pulse propagates along the taper. In practice, you can transform a factor of a few by tapered lines. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 16:09:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:00:19 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physi Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:54:55 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"FsGSz1.0.Va7.26B1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10300 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Said: As to Joe's comments, I thought they were really quite helpful. But I would comment that the cell design makes the quantitation of Th before and after rather straightforward (as in Jed's first point). I also totally agree with Jed (this is probably a first)! There are two inherent problems with the radiation measurement performed by CG. 1) The first is -- the radiation detector employed is designed for alpha and beta radiation, not gamma. 2) The second problem is in comparing the blank with the "after run" the volume of material increased six times due to electrode degradation. Even employing the same detector and conditions after the process you have diluted the Th. Jed is correct, one must quantitize by chemical means the Th before and after. A caveat to this would be if the after treatment product was totally free of any ionizing particles then one could claim victory. Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ Content-Type: application/ms-tnef xŸ>"9X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 17:09:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:06:14 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:02:29 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex cc: John Schnurer Subject: Battery ...Bark .... Radio Resent-Message-ID: <"3iCaA2.0.y73.r3C1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10302 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo., I seem to remember someone mentioning a Barkhausen Battery or battery charger. I also remember a post of one of these running a tiny radio 27 MHz for a period of time. Is it possible to get close-to-exact plans and schematics? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 17:46:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:39:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:38:55 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"gqpsq2.0.-n4.aYC1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10303 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >[snip]> We were not discussing the effects of reflection. If you build a >>"tapered" transmission line and do it right, > >Ah! You didn't say that or (at least I didn't read it). > >>the power of the pulse you put >>in will be constant--or nearly so--but the voltage at the other end will be >>as the ratio of the line capacitance at the end points (assuming constant >>impedence along the length). > >Not quite. The impedance varies along the taper, If you taper in width and separation distance simultaneously, you could build a constant impedance cable with a taper. However, the voltage won't be changing because you have a constant impedance! If you allow the Z to change, then you may change voltages, but you will also induce reflections, so the changes are not so easy to predict. And you are changing both voltage and power available in the input waveform. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 16:51:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:45:29 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, rbrbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms ix.netcom.com Subject: [Fwd: Transmutations, 1923, spark] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"_lJOZ3.0.d02.2fB1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10301 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Message-ID: <3273B4CA.476B rt66.com> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:15:22 -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: wireless rmii.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, rgeorge@hooked.net, bhorst loc100.tandem.com, dag@lsd.tandem.com, xgld@aol.com, ghlin greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, barry@math.ucla.edu, cc840 freenet.carleton.ca, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@onramp.net, reeber aro.ncren.net, edonrott@nkn.net, danyork@iadfw.net, 72240.1256 compuserve.com, 74750.1231@compuserve.com, ggmurray uriacc.uri.edu, jmyeo@juno.com, dcyeo@juno.com, key rt66.com, "72507@3443"@compuserve.com, rollo@artvark.com, letters scicop.org, editors@sciam.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, sarfatti well.com, cmurray@uh.edu, lucille@telis.org, 76570.2270 compuserve.com, rmcarrell@aol.com, mica world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, mrandall@earthlink.com, uban world.std.com, puthoff@aol.com, conte@teseo.it, mhugo eprinet.epri.com, 100433.1541@compuserve.com, steckly.gary ic.gc.ca, ine@padrak.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, 100276.261 compuserve.com, little@eden.com, peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, edstrojny@worldnet.att.net, schaffer gav.gat.com, joeflynn@delphi.com, griggs mindspring.com, eachus@spectre.mitre.org, zumm@flash.net, rvanspaa netspace.net.au, ross@pacificnet.net, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, mwm@aa.net, dacha@shentel.net, msevior liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au, russia@a.net, revtec postoffice.ptd.net, discpub@netzone.com, robert skylink.net, hawk@eskimo.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris chemvx.tamu.edu, hjscudde@pacbell.net, hheffner anc.ak.net, aki@ix.netcom.com, tessien@oro.net, wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com, kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp, b:rerich@itim.org.soroscj.ro, chubb cfel.nrl.navy.mil, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, asami nhelab.iae.or.jp, mac@iae.or.jp, mokamoto@nr.titech.ac.jp, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su, filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by, VIV rpd.univ.kiev.ua, info@znergy.com, herman@college.antioch.edu Subject: Transmutations, 1923, spark Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Toby Grotz, I mailed you Friday your electric discharge book (sorry about it getting rained on in car!) and some zeroxes of Wendt's and of Anderson's exploding wire work. R.A. Sawyer and A.L.Becker (1923), Astrophysical Journal, 51, p.37-113, "The Explosion Spectra of the Alkaline Earth Elements", University of Michigan, put a spark from a 40,000 volt, 0.3 MF capacitor on a fine asbestos fiber in air: "...50 calories or so ,...The temperature of the explosion is probably about 15,000 degrees C. and the pressure 10 to 20 atmospheres." The fiber had been dipped in water solutions of MgCl2, CaCl2, SrCl2, or BaCl2, giving about 1-2 mg sample of solids per spark. The fiber was reused dozens of times. From six to twenty sparks were needed for each spectrum: "...because of the high pressure and gaseous velocities in the explosion, the lines were rather broad. The problem, however, was principally one of identific ation and the accuracy attained was sufficient for that." They discarded a lot of spectra data from "impurities", for instance, from air and from brass clamps: Al,Pb,C,N,Cu,Zn: "A striking fact is that in the spectrum obtained from a salt of any one of the four metals used there always appear many of the strong lines of the other three and of cadmium which is also a member of this group of metals. Although no great effort was m ade to secure purity of the salts used, the other metals of the group could have been present in the solutions only in very minute quantities. This source seems to be effective in producing spectra of substances which are present in the solution only in extremely low concentrations. It is of interest to note that no lines of the acid radical employed, chlorine, not any lines of hydrogen or oxygen have been identified. If any radiations of these elements were produced, their intensities were too low to register with the exposures used." Wow! Plenty of hints of copious nuclear transmutations, of Al, Pb, C, N, Cd, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Cd, Cl, H, and O. They just totally didn't see it. Apparently, most of each 1-2 mg sample was transmutted with each spark, since the Cl, H, and O barely registered. They made no mentions of any products from these open air sparks. Their report seems to me rather confused, which makes me suspicious of lo w level radiation sickness. They listed about 36 lines, including 10 frank unidentifieds, and at least two of their identifications are false, according to Chemical Rubber Company Handbook data. I found, besides the expected Mg, Ca, Ba, and and Sr lines, one possible Cl line, many close matches for Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Ar, Be, Co, Ge, Cu, Ni, Pb, Al, and K, plus about the same number of possible matches for other elements. Their data was usually accurate +- 0.1 A, with a range from -0.2 to +0.3 A. 12Mg-24 + 2 17Cl-35 -> 26 Fe54 + 20 Ca-40 12Mg-24 + 17Cl-35 + 2 e- -> 27 Co-59 17Cl-35 + 17Cl-37 -> 2 18Ar-36 + 2 e- 20Ca-40 + 2 17Cl-35 + 2 e- -> 26Fe-54 + 26Fe-56 20Ca-40 + 2 17Cl-35 + 2 e- -> 2 12Mg-24 + 28Ni-62 38Sr-88 -> 20Ca-40 + 2 12Mg-24 + 6 e- 56Ba-138 -> 3 20Ca-46 + 4 e- These are some of the plausible reactions I see so far. Some take electrons and some give electrons, and likewise for energy . There should be lots of neutrinos. It looks like that at that voltage, a spark in air will give dozens of transformations with just about anything. A good experiment should take a spectrum from UV to IR, monitor for gammas, betas, alphas, and neutrons, monitor mass changes and energy balance, and collect all the products without loss for mass spectrometry and SIMS. If many sparks could be done in th e same sealed glass bulb without breaking it, then that bulb could be sensitively studied for changes in the spectrum with each spark, and with NMR for element and isotopic changes. It should be weighed to better than microgram accuracy, in case enough m ass is lost to neutrino and other radiations to be measured. Can the bulb be kept on a microbalance for continuous weight monitoring? Then, of course, the bulb can be sent to any interested, competent lab to be opened up for mass spectrometry and SIMS o n any deposits and gases, at their cost. It may suffice to explode the W filament with a single spark for each bulb, generating enough spectral data, radiation, products, and mass loss. This report basically supports the intepretation that Wendt's experiment really did completely transmute his W wires into gases (nobel gases, I think) with a simgle spark. How much mass is in a typical W filament? So, we can set up a preliminary experiment to establish that some transmutations must be occuring, to arouse interest in others, and attract major funding for a competent survey. Even a very simple optical spectrograph might well find spectral lines from transmutations of 1-2 mg of electrode per spark, and that spectrum could be videotaped for each spark. A hundred sparks might accululate 0.1 gm of products. That could be done in a day, or an hour! So, let's set up a simple, controlled, exactly repeatable spark on a standard bulb, to establish a preliminary base of data. Useful bulbs include neon lamps, light bulbs, SiO2 Hg lamps, automobile headlamps, and flashlight bulbs, most of which contain Ar, and some have Kr. If the W filament is first burned out, we can spark between the interior leads. Can we spark from the fi lament through the glass without breaking it? The bulb can be submerged in water, compressed air, or Hg to prevent breaking from the spark shock wave. Could a Tesla coil circuit deliver a single pulse of ~ 50 KV? Could a shock wave be provided on the outside of the bulb from an underwater spark to cancel out the shock wave of the inside spark? Will it work to simply connect a neon sign transformer to spark a bulb with continuous high-voltage AC? Let's find an experiment that generates deposits and o bvious spectra, and do it! This is a sure-fire and simple experiment for generating important results quickly, along with cooperation and major funding. Would your friend in Boulder want to collaborate? Who would like to fund us about $ 3,000/month apiece to get started, salary and materials? We could do a lot in a month or two! What are your ideas? Rich Murray HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 rmforall rt66.com Theodore Lyman, "The extension of the spectrum beyond the Shumann region," Astrophysical Journal, (1916), 89-102, The Jefferson Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass. Robert A. Millikan, "The extension of the ultra-violet spectrum," Astrophysical Journal, 52 (1920), 47-64, Ryerson Physical Laboratory, University of Chicago. Theodore Lyman, "The spectrum of helium in the extreme ultra-violet," Astrophysical Journal, 60 (1924), 1-14, Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass. Gerald L. Wendt and Clarence E. Irion, "Experimental attempts to decompose tungsten at high temperatures," American Chemical Society Journal, 44 (1922),1877-94, Kent Chemical Laboratory, University of Chigago. John A. Anderson, "The spectrum of electrically exploded wires," Astrophysical Journal, 51 (1920), 37-48, Mount Wilson Observatory. Sinclair Smith, "Note on electrically exploded wires in high vacuum," National Academy of Sciences Proceedings, 10 (1924), 4-5, Mount Wilson Observatory, Carnegie Institution of Washington. John A. Anderson, "The vacuum spark spectrum of calcium," Astrophysical Journal, 59 (1924), 76-96, Mount Wilson Observatory. Sinclair Smith, "A study of electrically exploded wires," Astrophysical Journal, 61 (1925), 186-203, Mount Wilson Observatory. John A. Anderson and Sinclair Smith, "General characteristics of electrically exploded wires," Astrophysical Journal, 64 (1926), 295-314, Mount Wilson Observatory. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 19:11:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Discussion of CG results Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:12:30 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"d4w6C.0.kE7.yjD1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10304 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear All, Just an appreciative note that the discussion of the CG report in IE has taken a path of constructive discussion about how the tests could be improved and possible sources of errors, which corrected, could improve the quality of the data. This is marked c ontrast to some previous commentary where every possible error was used to invalidate the whole report and cast doubt on the competency and/or veracity of the investigator. I am also pleased that Joe Champion has joined the discussion, showing a position of strength and technical knowledge well beyond fortuitous recipes, supporting the CG result while indicating areas of improvement. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 19:14:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:12:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:11:10 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Resent-Message-ID: <"NlVY01.0.wN.UwD1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10305 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed wrote: >>This is our statement on the NHE fiasco...I heard from Mike McKubre and Ed Storms on this issue. They feel the situation is not so bad. McKubre says the program wasoriginally supposed to end last year anyway, and it may be extended, or the institute might be bought up by one of the corporate participants. I have spoken with others in Japan who have a more pessimistic view.<< Thank you for your post. As I have reported before, the NHE program was originally scheduled to terminate in April 97, and was extended to April 98. It was never intended to be a permanent program, as there are no permanent employees. There are about 12 PhD-level employees, mostly electrochemists and materials scientists, all of whom are employed by other companies such as Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Hitachi, Nippon Steel, etc. There are about 3 guys with nuclear backgrounds, not including Lipson (fro m Russia) and yours truly (from the US). Certainly if the corporations backing the enterprise feel that cold fusion is a good investment they will continue their own programs without backing from the federal government. As far as negative results are concerned, I appreciate your even tone in reporting this, as in the past we have taken a lot of heat (pardon the pun) for achieving negative results (conversely, when we report positive results the establishment is u nhappy. So if you want a job where no matter what you do somebody is outraged at you, either be a pro football player or a cold fusion scientist). But I don't feel that they are necessarily conclusive. I still feel that we are in a marathon rather than a 100 yard dash. So we would prefer to continue to work with Celani and others to make sure we're all on board before jumping to a conclusion one way or the other. But you may want to check on the paper by Kunimatsu in ICCF-6, which shows that the same people doing the same experiment at the same loading observe no excess heat, whereas previously they achieved an impressive excess heat profile (ICCF-3 p. 44) which l ooks very similar to McKubre's famous plot of excess heat versus D/Pd(ICCF-3 p 16). The only known difference is the type of calorimeter used (water mass flow now vs isoperibolic previously). Also, we have done some testing with a calorimeter in a calorimeter (i.e., an isoperibolic type inside a mass flow type, both of which are sensitive to 0.2 W or less). Thus two calorimetric methods are used to observe the SAME cell. During elect rolysis, when the loading approaches 0.85 or so, the isoperibolic calorimeter registers excess heat, but the mass flow calorimeter reads no excess heat. Thus, it seems that the isoperibolic (also referred to as a heat loss, temperature gradient or isothe rmal calorimeter) can be deceived by electrolytic cells. This is probably because the isoperibolic calorimeter is sensitive to the spatial distribution of heat generation, which changes as the open circuit voltage changes. It is harder to get mass flow c alorimeters to lie, but not impossible. So there are definitely ways to generate false positives for excess heat at high loading, and I'm convinced that many results will eventually have to be retracted, but in my view that does NOT necessarily mean that ALL the data is wrong. It does mean that great care is needed to make an accurate measurement. These experiments are not easy and are not for the faint-hearted. Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 19:33:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:18:37 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Something New on Campus? Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 02:17:47 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"Wq22A.0.yv.y_D1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10306 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hey Martin, What are Graduate Studnets? :-) Internet related, perchance? Regards Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 19:33:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:26:51 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:30:09 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: new question on dc circuit Resent-Message-ID: <"xiyJl1.0.SQ1.g7E1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10307 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross Tessien wrote re tapered transmission lines: > >If you taper in width and separation distance simultaneously, you could >build a constant impedance cable with a taper. However, the voltage won't >be changing because you have a constant impedance Z! > >If you allow the Z to change, then you may change voltages, but you will >also induce reflections, so the changes are not so easy to predict. And you >are changing both voltage and power available in the input waveform. If the length of the pulse is VERY SHORT compared with the length of the taper, then reflections are small. In the limit of an infinitely long taper the reflections disappear. Then the power transmitted remains equal to the power launched. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 21:12:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:11:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:06:05 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Something New on Campus? Resent-Message-ID: <"1BUyz.0.dL3.GfF1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10308 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:17 AM 8/28/97 +0000, you wrote: >Hey Martin, > >What are Graduate Studnets? :-) > >Internet related, perchance? > >Regards Frederick > > Sounds like an internet dating service..What's it doing on vortex? Colin ;-) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Aug 27 21:59:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:55:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subjec t: FW: Discussion of CG results Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:48:07 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"_p4EV2.0.Dd4.MJG1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10309 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id VAA30858 Scott Little was kind enough to find the information regarding the RM-60 detector utilized by the CG on the Internet. Following is where the information is located: http://www.aw-el.com is the home page and http://www.aw-el.com/specs.htm gives specs on the RM-60. I am still suspect of the findings for in the after test there was a 6:1 dilution of the sample due to electrode degradation. This could easily explain the reduction in radiation recorded without transmutation occurring for they only recorded a 3:1 in ra diation reduction. Take a look at the detector's "window size" and develop your own opinion. Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 03:57:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 03:50:25 -0700 Date: 28 Aug 97 06:49:01 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Thorium measurements using Nuclear P Resent-Message-ID: <"OYcCr2.0.Ph6.mVL1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10311 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin, > It's much easier to stick a Ge detector next to a collection of > vials than it is play with nasty, smelly chemicals. Yuck! Why do > you think I'm a Physicist? :-) Wash out your mouth with concentrated nitric acid. ALL chemicals smell nice, and are vastly to be preferred to physics. "If it wriggles, it's biology; if it smells, it's chemistry; if it doesn't work, it's physics." > Seriously, I don't know how to do the Chemical analysis and it is > hard to convince other people to do work for you unless you can > show them they're likely to find very interesting results. Seriously, a quantitative assay for something like thorium is no big deal for any chemist. I think you could get it done for the small price of being nice to a chemist... > The major problem will be background from Thorium in the rest of > the lab, particularly if there are concrete walls. The detector > should be well shielded, preferablly in a nice lead container. Well, I can see that. It's another reason for doing the chemistry. Just before posting this I note that Joe Champion, Jed Rothwell and I are all singing the same song! Quantitative chemical analysis is vital here. Chemical techniques can be used to winkle out any Th which might be hiding in the cell; and their accuracy is quite astonishing, at any dilution. Non-chemists would do well to think about all the various ways in which ordinary life and every product we use depends on precision chemical analysis and separation techniques. I would also like to re-sress your point that changing any of the parameters of the cell to make measurement easier would be a serious error. I gather that a lot of time and effort has been made to optimise these cells. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 06:17:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 06:09:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Numbers Game? Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:08:06 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"xB9IF.0.PY4.YYN1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10312 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Suppose that in CF or HF, production of "Light Lepton" pairs (from say, 1.0 to 2 ev photons in a very narrow range) "Hydrinos-Deutrinos" were being formed and were responsible for "Quantum Mechanical Tunnelling" and/or heat, how much return could one expe ct from a "photon energy investment" with any of the of the CF or HF phenomena when say one in N thousand photons in the 1 to 2 ev range produced a pair and this pair produced the heat or a few fusion reactions? Same question for "fractional orbits" in hydrogen producing the "Hydrinos-Deutrinos" and the "catalyzed" effects. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 07:50:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:32:53 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window References: Resent-Message-ID: <"m8veq1.0.f47.7oO1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10313 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jorg Ostrowski wrote: > If you had a "carte blanche" to design the most insulative window in > the > world, what would you do (within reality)? Over unity in this case is > defined > as: more energy in than out (heat gain in must be greater than heat > loss out). Jorg,Recent experiments with aerogels aboard the Space Shuttle show great promise in this regard. A recent article I read (if I remember correctly) stated that an inch of aerogel is equivalent to 5 inches of glass as far as thermal insulation is concerned . Dr David Noever of Marshall Space Flight Center is investigating methods to decrease pore size in the aerogel in order to render it transparent, [currently, the material is translucent]. I'll ask Dr. Noever for some info on the current status,and post it to Vortex-l. > I hope my invitation with this down-to-earth challenge is not > too boring.If we had a consensus on the best solution, and it > represented > a feasible, simple and practical solution, I will try very hard to get > it > built by the same manufacturer who has built our previous R-17 window. > > __________________________________________________ -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 09:31:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:23:24 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:22:55 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: DS1 - Solar electric propulsion ?? Resent-Message-ID: <"me6Le.0.UV2.wNQ1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10314 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ladies and gents- Anyone familiar with this? Can't say I'm up to speed on all the new and proposed space drive technologies, but sounds interesting. HH, you lurking? Sounds like your bag-o-worms to me. 8^) -- PASADENA, Calif. (Reuter) - With the Mars Rover in its second month of digging into the Red Planet's surface, the focus of American space officials switched Wednesday to the pioneering Deep Space 1 mission. DS1 - the first mission of the so-called New Millennium program - is set to blast off next July from Cape Canaveral and make flybys of an asteroid, a comet and the planet Mars. During its initial two-year mission, DS1 will test 12 new technologies for future missions as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration moves into the 21st Century. The most significant test will be of a revolutionary ion propulsion system, or solar electric propulsion, which will enable future missions to probe much deeper into space. ``It's a fast, flexible access to the solar system,'' DS1's Chief Mission Engineer Marc Rayman said of the ion propulsion system that, if it works, will enable spacecraft to travel ten times faster than conventional chemical power systems. Rayman explained the concept of ion propulsion -- in which thrust is generated by electronically charging particles to change the magnetic field around the craft -- has been discussed for years but no one had tried it before. ``There have been a number of tests but this is the first in which it relies on the system,'' Rayman told Reuters. ``Ultimately it will allow a spacecraft to go more quickly but it has a slow buildup. It will not effect going to the moon, but if the goal is farther then ion propulsion will be more efficient.'' But he stressed the aim of DS1 was to test the system, which uses xenon gas to charge the particles. ``If it doesn't work, that's OK, too, because we are here to test the technologies.'' -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 11:07:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:00:36 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:51:02 -0500 References: <9708281122.ZM28524 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: DS1 - Solar electric propulsion ?? Resent-Message-ID: <"ilPIy1.0.B7.3pR1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10315 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Did some searching and turned up a few details: ================================== Millennium Program: http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ -- DS1 Schematic: http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/Spacecraft/ -- Engine Details: http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/Spacecraft/sep.html http://www.hughespace.com/xips.html http://www.permanent.com/t_el_iov.htm Xenon Electrostatic Thrusters Specific Impulse 3300 sec Specific Power 54 kg/kW Efficiency 63% Lifetime 8000 hr -- Other similar systems and work in progress: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oss/osstech/tech_db/122.htm -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 12:40:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:34:24 -0700 Date: 28 Aug 97 15:30:19 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: VORTEX Subject: IE Press Release on NHE Decision Resent-Message-ID: <"2kpy_2.0.uj4._AT1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10316 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Infinite Energy Magazine Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. PO Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975 editor infinite-energy.com ooooPRESS RELEASEoooo Official Japanese New Hydrogen Energy (Cold Fusion) Program to End-- Missed Opportunities and Botched Management Commercial Development and Research Continues in the US, Japan, and Elsewhere Concord, NH: Infinite Energy Magazine has learned that the official Japanese cold fusion program (the New Hydrogen Energy Program), sponsored by Japan's MITI since 1993 will not receive continued funding beyond the spring of 1998. The New York Times, the Nikkei and Reuters have also reported this week that MITI intends to close down the New Hydrogen Energy cold fusion research program. Infinite Energy reported on the astonishing weaknesses of the NHE program in Vol. 2, No. 10, published after the Sixth International Conference on Cold fusion (ICCF6), which was held in October 1996 in Hokkaido, Japan. Contributing Editor Jed Rothwell pointed out several major technical problems with the research in his ICCF6 review and in An Open Letter to Japan's NHE Lab Directorate, written in Japanese and English, on page 28 of Issue #10. The letter includes 17 refe rences to the literature, and it lists concrete problems with the protocols and materials used at the NHE lab, including low cell temperatures, improper cell and cathode materials, inadequate preparation and pre-testing of cathodes, and so on. These technical criticisms did not originate with Infinite Energy. They were suggested by Drs. Stanley Pons, Martin Fleischmann, John Bockris, Edmund Storms, T. Mizuno, Hideo Ikegami and the others cited in the footnotes. We pointed out that the French A tomic Energy Commission has successfully replicated the Pons-Fleischmann IMRA boil-off experiments (originally reported in Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129), because they were more careful about replicating every detail of the experiment, without mak ing any changes. The NHE is staffed mostly by scientists and engineers new to the cold fusion field. They are on 6 to 12 month assignments to the NHE lab. We urged the NHE researchers to pay more attention to the literature; to hire some electrochemists for the research ; and to try the techniques suggested by these leading workers, but as far as we know they have not done so. We did not receive any official response to the Open Letter, nor did we expect any. Unofficially, NHE researchers denied that there is anything w rong with their techniques, and they refused to address any of the technical points in the Open Letter. They accused us of plotting to bring down the lab in league with arch-enemies of cold fusion such as John Huizenga and Frank Close. A MITI spokesman, quoted in news reports, pointed out that the $20 million spent on cold fusion was "was a pittance" compared with what is spent on other energy programs, like nuclear fast breeder reactors. Unfortunately, Japan's official NHE program could have had a major impact on the world's future in sustainable energy-- eliminating not only the need for fossil fuels but dangerous and problem-plagued p rograms such as breeder reactors. Instead the news about the NHE program, certain to be abused by critics of cold fusion, will simply muddy the waters. Let there be no misunderstanding: The prospective NHE closing has nothing to do with determining whether excess energy and low energy reactions are real or not. The evidence for excess heat and nuclear reactions at low energy is overwhelmingly established by numerous published peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed papers and reports. Excellent experimental continuing work that totally confirms the original cold fusion claims, and more, has been done in Japan. We cite, in particular the work of Drs. Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang, which was recently the topic of a 56-page special issue of the High Temperature Society of Japan., "Solid State Plasma Fusion ('Cold Fusion')" Vol. 23, January 1997. This work has also been published in several papers in the Proceedings of the Japanese Academy of Sciences. Dr. Arata is an esteemed physi cist who had been instrumental in Japan's hot fusion program. Among other continuing activity in Japan, Infinite Energy has profiled the work of Dr. Mizuno on excess energy from solid state (solid proton conductor) cold fusion devices and established transmutation in metals of more conventional cold fusion devices. Drs. Ohmori and Enyo have obtained excellent excess heat results in light water systems. They have also observed and published evidence of metal transmutation phenomena. These scientists have been ignored in the official NHE program. In general, the NHE p rogram has not given serious, appropriate attention to the excess energy phenomenon in light-water cold fusion cells, which is the preferred embodiment in many US-based efforts. In the United States, commercial activity in cold fusion energy has accelerated beyond the Japanese work. Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. of Sarasota Florida (CETI), BlackLight Power, Inc. of Malvern, Pennsylvania, and ENECO of Salt Lake City-- to name th e more well-known efforts-- are developing commercial heating and electricity generating devices. Several major utility companies have established investment positions within some of these companies. The Cincinnati Group in Ohio has recently announced fo r sale a commercial demonstration device that transmutes radioactive thorium into benign nuclides in less than an hour. CETI, whose cold fusion heating devices have been profiled several times on Good Morning America and Nightline, also has a radioactiv ity reducing processes for which a United States Patent has been allowed. A cold fusion New Energy Technhologies investment fund, directed from Greenwich Venture Partners of Greenwich, Connecticut has just been launched (see Infinite Energy, Vol.3, Issue #13/14.) The New York Times, which influences all other science reporting in the United States, has regrettably not been covering progress in cold fusion research. Its last comprehensive report on cold fusion was on November 17, 1992, by Andrew Pollack, who is b ased in Japan. Mr. Pollack has not attended cold fusion conferences in Japan or anywhere else, but he was quick this week to report MITI's decision on the NHE program. The Times report was published on August 26, 1997, in an article titled "Japan, Long a Holdout, Ending Cold Fusion Quest." He states that the research "has failed to confirm that the phenomenon exists." This is a gross misunderstanding of the situation. We also point out that New York Times science reporter, William Broad, recently shown th e work of Drs. Arata and Zhang by a representative of Dr. Arata, refused to report on it. Broad has previously (1991) written on accusations by cold fusion critics of alleged (and disproved) ethical violations by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann. While giving major attention to announcements of US hot fusion program achievements, Mr. Broad and his US -based colleagues have not covered cold fusion in the United States or Japan since his article in 1991. The recent Times article by Pollack quotes Hideo Ikegami: "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion. We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future." Jed Rothwell of Infinite Energy points o ut that hot fusion scientist Ikegami himself obtained positive results in his lab, which he transmitted to Rothwell. But Ikegami never published them, for reasons that remain unclear. Unless he is being misquoted by the New York Times, we do not understa nd why he is ignoring the many positive experimental results in Japan. The Nikkei reported the NHE story on August 24, 1997. It quotes a MITI spokesman, "regrettably, we have not seen the effect in our experiments," but "we do not deny that the cold fusion effect exists." Infinite Energy Magazine will have a comprehensive report on cold fusion research in Japan in its next issue, Issue #15, to be published in October 1997. #END# X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 14:06:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:00:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:02:25 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Resent-Message-ID: <"WojsN3.0.Ls3.YRU1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10317 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Elliot Kennel wrote: [snip] > Also, we have done some testing with a calorimeter in a calorimeter >(i.e., an isoperibolic type inside a mass flow type, both of which are >sensitive to 0.2 W or less). Thus two calorimetric methods are used to >observe the SAME cell. During electrolysis, when the loading approaches >0.85 or so, the isoperibolic calorimeter registers excess heat, but the mass >flow calorimeter reads no excess heat. Thus, it seems that the isoperibolic >(also referred to as a heat loss, temperature gradient or isothermal >calorimeter) can be deceived by electrolytic cells. This is probably >because the isoperibolic calorimeter is sensitive to the spatial >distribution of heat generation, which changes as the open circuit voltage >changes. It is harder to get mass flow calorimeters to lie, but not >impossible. [snip] I hadn't heard this result, but the possibility has been nagging in my mind for a long time, especially with respect to Pons and Fleischmann's excess power reports. However, I had no experimental data to support my hunch, and I don't usually clutter the d iscussion with unsubstantiated speculation. P&F use isoperibolic calorimetry. They also report significant excess power only when the temperature is high. In P&F cells the temperature goes high only after their cell's heating rate increases greatly, because something acts to raise their cell voltag e drop SEVERALfold. I have heard that the likely explanation of the increased cell electrical resistance is dissolution of a bit of the cell borosilicate glass wall and subsequent deposition of silicates on the anode. If so, then the resistance shifts and appears mainly at the anode surface. Now, I agree that Pons and associates build good calorimeters. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that their calorimeters still operate as presumed once the heat deposition geometry has shifted this much. I woul d welcome any substantiated information that their calorimeters indeed do work as presumed under the changed conditions. There are ways to test for such. But the best test would be to put a P&F cell or faithful copy thereof into a flow calorimeter. OK Jed and Gene, give me a sec to duck and cover before you shoot (:^) Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 15:45:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:35:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: DS1 - Solar electric propulsion ?? Resent-Message-ID: <"HcIsH1.0.rj6.5sV1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10318 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, John E. Steck wrote: > Did some searching and turned up a few details: > ================================== > > Millennium Program: > http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ > -- > DS1 Schematic: > http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/Spacecraft/ > -- > Engine Details: > http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/Spacecraft/sep.html > http://www.hughespace.com/xips.html > http://www.permanent.com/t_el_iov.htm > > Xenon Electrostatic Thrusters > Specific Impulse 3300 sec > Specific Power 54 kg/kW > Efficiency 63% > Lifetime 8000 hr > -- > Other similar systems and work in progress: > http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oss/osstech/tech_db/122.htm > This is all great stuff I'd never heard about! I love the antiproton catylized U - DT drive. Wonderful combinations of the most advanced technology available. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 15:55:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:50:17 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:48:39 GMT Organization: Improving References: <3403843E.50FB@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"Zbqgp.0.957.b2W1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10319 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:34:54 -0400, Francis J. Stenger wrote: [snip] >I don't know, John, my old handbook gives: > > Substance Index of Ref. Hardness (?) > > water 1.33 -- > diamond 2.42 10 >but, then! > Anatase (TiO2) 2.55 5.5-6.0 > Cuprite (Cu2O) 2.705 3.5-4.0 > Cinnabar (HgS) 2.85, 3.20 2.0-2.5 > Galena (PbS) 3.912 2.5 [snip] Note that IoR increases with molecular mass (i.e. nr. of electrons)? Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 16:22:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 16:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: 28 Aug 97 19:16:09 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Boiling cell in flow calorimeter Resent-Message-ID: <"dVWqA2.0.yY.mTW1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10320 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Michael J. Schaffer writes: P&F use isoperibolic calorimetry. They also report significant excess power only when the temperature is high. That is incorrect. The excess at low temperatures is very significant, in the statistical sense. Furthermore, excess heat must be present at low temperature, or raising the cathode temperature will do no good. It will only cause the cathode to rapidly del oad. Ed Storms pointed that out recently. Pons and Fleischmann also say this in their papers, but the point is obscure. I have heard that the likely explanation of the increased cell electrical resistance is dissolution of a bit of the cell borosilicate glass wall and subsequent deposition of silicates on the anode. If so, then the resistance shifts and appears mainly at the anode surface. Now, I agree that Pons and associates build good calorimeters. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that their calorimeters still operate as presumed once the heat deposition geometry has shifted this much. The deposits do not produce any measurable effect. The deposits are thousands of times too thin to have any measurable effect. This has been shown theoretically. More important, it is demonstrated with blank boil off tests using Pt and non-working Pd samp les. I would welcome any substantiated information that their calorimeters indeed do work as presumed under the changed conditions. Isoperibolic ones work extremely well under these violently changed conditions (warm water to boiling water). I do not think any other kind would be as satisfactory. Extensive testing with blanks at IMRA and the French AEC have shown no significant errors due to the violent changes, silicon deposits, bubbles caused by surfactants, and other effects suggested by skeptics looking for errors in these experiments. The skeptics I refer to are the people doing the experiments, not Internet "skeptics" or "debunk ers." The people doing the experiments have thought through these problems, tested for, and eliminated far more weaknesses and errors than the debunkers ever dreamed up. There are ways to test for such. But the best test would be to put a P&F cell or faithful copy thereof into a flow calorimeter. I discussed this possibility with Pons, Storms, Oriani, McKubre and others. The consensus of opinion is that this would not work well. It would be extremely difficult to run a boil-off experiment inside a flow calorimeter chamber. You would have to do something like changing the flow rate, or you would lose most of high heat. You would lose most of it no matter what, in vapor, unless you could catch and condense the vapor. If you leave the flow on high the whole time, the cell will not heat up in the feedback effect and you will never get a CF boiloff. (Of course you can always f orce a joule heating boil off.) It would be a can of worms. A better approach would be to put a boil off cell and condenser into a thermoelectric Seebeck calorimeter. The ideal thing would be a continuously boiling cell in a Seebeck calorimeter. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 11:25:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:19:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:16:05 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"f15pS1.0.ds6.6Bn1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10343 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Terry Blanton wrote: >Well, last night ABC explained where the outrageous idea of CF originated last >night. It was merely a case of P&F seeking fame and popularity. There was >never anything to it. They even hoaxed Toyota into building them a >multimillion >dollar research facility in France. > >Amazing. This is the same network which reported the "remarkable" work by >CETI >on CF and radiation remediation. An obvious case of multiple personality >disorder for the network. > >And they wonder why people are fleeing to cable TV. I'm not a religious man myself, but some of my more zealous acquaintances seem to be of the opinion that Satan has been in control of the main TV networks for some time. Now of course some of these people believe that anything that *isn't* all about their particular religious beliefs is simply the work of Satan. But from what I've seen lately on TV, I'm beginning to see their point. Remember what Mick sang: "...and confusing you's the nature of my game." - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 21:14:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:11:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:05:30 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: COLD FUSION TIMES vol 5 number 3 (Fall 97) Resent-Message-ID: <"ZsvwW1.0.Gw.Ula1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10323 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 26, 1997 Dear colleagues: COLD FUSION TIMES -- THE LARGEST ISSUE TO DATE -- vol 5 number 3 (Fall 97) is at the printer, and will be in subscribers hands by the end of next week. The web site is now updated. As always, the COLD FUSION TIMES (ISSN#1072-2874) -> world wide web location: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html presents focused hard-core science, nuclear, and engineering issues, with detailed material science and nuclear physics, including analysis of developments in the cold fusion field. A brief survey of this issue (Vol 5, Number 3) includes the following: - Metachronous Release of "Frozen State" Ash in Pd Systems Post-Loading - High Resolution Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopic Examinations of Cold Fusion Products - More Isotopic Anomalies - Historical Evidence for a possible Japanese Cold Fusion Plane in 1944 - Cold Fusion - Its Potential Impact upon US Electrical Demand - Muon Fusion - Japanese MITI update - Atom Clusters including 55- and 135 Atom Pd Clusters - Palladium Black and its Role - Engineering and Research Updates - ESD, EMI Issues - The best of the worlds literature in hand - Positive Results in Gas Loading Pd Samples - Economics of the Group VIII Metals - Linked Heat and Helium Measurements, and - Nickel, Palladium, and other metal systems - Gas Loading, Solid State, Electrolysis Systems - Reports from Japan, Russia, China, Korea, Sri Lanka, US National Laboratories, US Navy, Germany, ... - More journals you may have missed - Updates on Equipment, Supplies, Consulting Available - Practical Information and Reference Vectors - "What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering" and more Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 11:34:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:22:08 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: <199708281220.WAA30934@main.murray.net.au> Da te: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:19:44 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Battery ...Bark .... Radio Resent-Message-ID: <"ikLF_1.0.uT4.FDn1q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10344 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Steve - >Did the .gif make it OK?? Didn't look good. File was valid and displayed, but it looked like an out of tune tv picture - all dark with ziggy static lines. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 12:05:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:00:31 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: <970827171008_72240.1256_EHB115-1 CompuServe.COM> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:58:10 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Test message Resent-Message-ID: <"JhRWB2.0.N96.Enn1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10346 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: > I received Jed's message. I interpreted the low response level as simply >an acceptance here that cold fusion does not work, that its funding cut off >is inevitable and a resolve to go on to investigate other more promising >technologies. Me too. I guess it's finally time to cancel my subscription to IE, sign off this silly pseudoscience list, and get back to reality. See you on s.p.f.! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 19:02:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 18:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:01:56 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Battery ...Bark .... Radio Resent-Message-ID: <"9L5ea1.0.sw4.snY1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10321 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Geoff Egel wrote: "Simple Crystal Radio" not 27 MHz though >>At 08:02 PM 8/27/97 -0400, you wrote: >>> Dear Vo., >>> I seem to remember someone mentioning a Barkhausen Battery >>> or battery charger. I also remember a post of one of these >>>running a tiny radio 27 MHz for a period of time. >>> Is it possible to get close-to-exact plans and schematics? >>> >>>....Could I also see a circuit diagram too please >>.....Geoff >>> Hi guys, (humm, was it me??) we compared the Bark..detc'r to a crystal radio of old and got JUMP'D on by many vortexian's (This is *NOT* in a Faraday Shield) .. Simple circuit (attached) $8.95 kit recommended for your kids from Boy Scouts of America Stor es or [Mini Labs Science Kits] Educational Design, Inc. 345 Hudson Street New York, NY 10014 (I thought since the 'signal was there' "forever FREE" (AM) it could be used to power a small battery (silly me :) ) best regards (I've sent this to 5 others on the list so far, so I thought I'd just add it to the archives here).. -=se=- Did the .gif make it OK?? Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF; name="crystalr.gif" Content-ID: Content-Description: Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\CRYSTALR.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 19:44:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:41:45 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oh Learned Physicists References: <3403843E.50FB@interlaced.net> <340702d4.6478011@mail.eisa.net.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"eG79_3.0.Fs5.1SZ1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10322 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > (snip my table of index of refraction for various minerals) > Note that IoR increases with molecular mass (i.e. nr. of electrons)? > Good point, Robin - seems in line with explanations of Hal P. and Mike S. Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 17:39:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 17:36:10 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:33:45 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"RzORR1.0.xE3.vhs1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10358 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Zack - > I wouldn't call it "Satan" but it does seem > to be a part of the thrust of certain groups > into society. Dana Carvey might say: Mmm hmm. And who might their ringleaders be answering to, hmm? Now who could that be, I wonder? Hmm. Maybe... ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 03:20:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 03:15:52 -0700 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:20:00 +1000 X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: Battery ...Bark .... Radio Resent-Message-ID: <"SLldD1.0.l-5.M_K1q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10310 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:02 PM 8/27/97 -0400, you wrote: > > Dear Vo., > > > I seem to remember someone mentioning a Barkhausen Battery > or battery charger. I also remember a post of one of these >running a tiny radio 27 MHz for a period of time. > > Is it possible to get close-to-exact plans and schematics? > >Could I also see a circuit diagram too please Geoff > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 23:45:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 23:41:20 -0700 X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 23:40:00 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: RE: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physi Resent-Message-ID: <"tq1zq.0.yt4.Gyc1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10324 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:54 PM 8/27/97 -0700, you wrote: >Jed is correct, one must quantitize by chemical means the Th before and after. A caveat to this would be if the after treatment product was totally free of any ionizing particles then one could claim victory. > > >Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com >http://www.transmutation.com >To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, >Dial: 207.204.154.98 >My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in >the office you will see an empty chair............ > > >Attachment Converted: D:\DOWNLOAD\RE Thorium measurements using 1 > Joe, What are these attachments you are sending? Might want to give them a filename extension to identify the type for those of us on PC's, so the puter knows what program to use to open them. Could be gif's, jpg's, exe's for that matter, or just text. But without the file extension, it takes guesswork to take a look at them. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA ---------------------------------------------------------- -------- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Aug 28 23:50:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 23:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:53:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientists Discover Massive Jet Streams Flowing Inside the Sun Resent-Message-ID: <"WliSP.0.VA5.j2d1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10325 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 NASANews hq.nasa.gov wrote: (FYI(only).. millennium bubbles(?) >>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:54:58 -0400 (EDT) >>From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov >>Subject: Scientists Discover Massive Jet Streams Flowing Inside the Sun >>Donald Savage >>Headquarters, Washington, DC August 28, 1997 >>(Phone: 202/358-1547) EMBARGOED UNTIL 1 PM EDT >> >>Bill Steigerwald >>Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD >>(Phone: 301/286-8955) >> >>RELEASE: 97-184 >> >>SCIENTISTS DISCOVER MASSIVE JET STREAMS FLOWING INSIDE THE SUN >> >> Scientists using the joint European Space Agency (ESA)/NASA >>Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft have >>discovered "jet streams" or "rivers" of hot, electrically charged >>gas called plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun. They >>also found features similar to trade winds that transport gas >>beneath the Sun's fiery surface. >> >> These new findings will help them understand the famous >>sunspot cycle and associated increases in solar activity that can >>affect the Earth with power and communications disruptions. The >>observations are the latest made by the Solar Oscillations >>Investigation (SOI) group at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, >>and they build on discoveries by the SOHO science team over the >>past year. >> >> "We have detected motion similar to the weather patterns in >>the Earth's atmosphere," said Dr. Jesper Schou of Stanford. >>"Moreover, in what is a completely new discovery, we have found a >>jet-like flow near the poles. This flow is totally inside the >>Sun. It is completely unexpected, and cannot be seen at the surface." >> >> "These polar streams are on a small scale, compared to the >>whole Sun, but they are still immense compared to atmospheric jet >>streams on the Earth," added Dr. Philip Scherrer, the SOI >>principal investigator at Stanford. "Ringing the Sun at about 75 >>degrees latitude, they consist of flattened oval regions about >>17,000 miles across where material moves about 10 percent (about >>80 mph) faster than its surroundings. Although these are the >>smallest structures yet observed inside the Sun, each is still >>large enough to engulf two Earths." >> >> Additionally, there are features similar to the Earth's >>trade winds on the surface of the Sun. The Sun rotates much >>faster at the equator than at the poles. However, Stanford >>researchers Schou and Dr. Alexander G. Kosovichev have found that >>there are belts in the northern and southern hemispheres where >>currents flow at different speeds relative to each other. Six of >>these gaseous bands move slightly faster than the material >>surrounding them. The solar belts are more than 40 thousand miles >>across and they contain "winds" that move about ten miles per hour >>relative to their surroundings. >> >> The first evidence of these belts was found more than a decade >>ago by Dr. Robert Howard of the Mount Wilson Observatory. The Stanford >>researchers have now shown that, rather than being superficial >>surface motion, the belts extend down to a depth of at least >>12,000 miles below the Sun's surface. >> >> "In one way, the Sun's zonal belts behave more like the >>colorful banding found on Jupiter than the region of tradewinds on >>the Earth," said Stanford's Dr. Craig DeForest. "Somewhat like >>stripes on a barber pole, they start in the mid-latitudes and >>gradually move toward the equator during the eleven-year solar >>cycle. They also appear to have a relationship to sunspot >>formation as sunspots tend to form at the edges of these zones. >> >> "We speculate that the differences in speed of the plasma >>at the edge of these bands may be connected with the generation of >>the solar magnetic cycle which, in turn, generates periodic >>increases in solar activity, but we'll need more observations to >>see if this is correct," said DeForest. >> >> Finally, the solar physicists have determined that the >>entire outer layer of the Sun, to a depth of at least 15,000 >>miles, is slowly but steadily flowing from the equator to the >>poles. The polar flow rate is relatively slow, about 50 miles per >>hour, compared to its rotation speed, about 4,000 miles per hour; >>however, this is fast enough to transport an object from the >>equator to the pole in a bit more than a year. >> >> "Oddly enough, the polar flow moves in the opposite >>direction from that of the sunspots and the zonal belts, which are >>moving from higher to lower latitudes," said DeForest. >> >> Evidence for polar flow previously had been observed at the >>Sun's surface, but scientists did not know how deep the motion >>extended. With a volume equal to about 4 percent of the total >>Sun, this feature probably has an important impact on the Sun's >>activity, argue Stanford researchers Scherrer, with Dr. Thomas L. >>Duvall Jr., Dr. Richard S. Bogart, and graduate student Peter M. Giles. >> >> For the last year, the SOHO spacecraft has been aiming its >>battery of 12 scientific instruments at the Sun from a position >>930,000 miles sunward from the Earth. The Stanford research team >>has been viewing the Sun's surface with one of these instruments >>called a Michelson Doppler Imager that can measure the vertical >>motion of the Sun's surface at one million different points once >>per minute. The measurements show the effects of sound waves that >>permeate the interior. The researchers then apply techniques >>similar to Earth-based seismology and computer-aided tomography to >>infer and map the flow patterns and temperature beneath the Sun's >>roiling surface. >> >> "These techniques allow us to peer inside the Sun using >>sound waves, much like a doctor can look inside a pregnant woman >>with a sonogram," said Dr. Schou. >> >> Currently, the Stanford scientists have both identified new >>structures in the interior of the Sun and clarified the form of >>previously discovered ones. Understanding their relationship to >>solar activity will require more observations and time for analysis. >> >> "At this point, we do not know whether the plasma streams >>snake around like the jet stream on Earth, or whether it is a less >>dynamic feature," said Dr. Douglas Gough, of Cambridge University, >>UK. "It is intriguing to speculate that these streams may affect >>solar weather like the terrestrial jetstream impacts weather >>patterns on Earth, but this is completely unclear right now. The >>same speculation may apply to the other flows we've observed, or >>they may act in concert. It will be especially helpful to make >>observations as the Sun enters its next active cycle, expected to >>peak around the year 2001." >> >> - end - >> >>Images to support this story can be found at the following >>Internet address: >> >>http://pao.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/newsroom/flash/flash.htm >> >> X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 12:25:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:14:45 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:28:09 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Boiling cell in flow calorimeter - electrode deposits Resent-Message-ID: <"5trBA.0.uY6.a-n1q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10347 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:16 PM 8/28/97 EDT, Jed wrote: > I have heard that the likely explanation of the increased cell > electrical resistance is dissolution of a bit of the cell borosilicate > glass wall and subsequent deposition of silicates on the anode. If so, > then the resistance shifts and appears mainly at the anode surface. Now, > I agree that Pons and associates build good calorimeters. However, it is > not a foregone conclusion that their calorimeters still operate as > presumed once the heat deposition geometry has shifted this much. > >The deposits do not produce any measurable effect. The deposits are thousands >of times too thin to have any measurable effect. This has been shown >theoretically. More important, it is demonstrated with blank boil off tests >using Pt and non-working Pd samples. The effect is measureable. It does NOT, however, produce excess heat. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 05:12:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 05:04:50 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:58:49 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Cc: Munip ONIZ Subject: Magnetic monopoles at high frequecies ? Resent-Message-ID: <"68uLI3.0.si3.Xhh1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10329 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi All, While I continuing resonating AF coils at hi-freq, I thought this possibility: If there were high frequency magnetic monopole is generated inside a coil as a result of disturbing phases of dipoles, a time job, or generated whatever by any mechanism, how to detect a oscillating magnetic sources inside an area (volume). If they were at low frequency, it will be simple to detect them by a mesh of wiring closing the the surface around the possible source. It could be a cube shaped arrangment where the winding(s) passing trough vortices, close each surface of the cube in t he same direction(CW or CWW). Total induced voltages should be zero if no monopole present inside the cube. But at HF and at VHF, this will be a difficult task, by the increasing capacitive effects. Originally, Horace proposed such a cubic selonid for cre ating (to try to )magnetic anomalies.(Even some signal can be detected without monopoles, it is difficult to neutralize HF fields. What will be a convenient detector design for magnetic monopoles at high frequency? (taking account that any kind of magnetic and electrical dipoles may also present inside and around the coil, the later may have be induced by the conductors of different dielectric medium excited by the fields radiated by the coil.) May a solution is first placing the coil inside a faraday cage and then put this cage inside the dtector cube. In this case, the question is: If there is a oscillating magnetic monopole inside a faraday cage, could it produce EMF on outside of the cage? I dont know how efficiently a Faraday cage shield AC magnetic fields in a give frerquency. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 05:30:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 05:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 06:21:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Jorg Ostrowski To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"IxxMU3.0.aS2.k0i1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10330 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Patrick: Thank you for your response. If you or anyone has a copy of this or relevant article, I would be grateful. Thank you the visit from the real world. My fax number is listed below. ____________________________________________________________ Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978), - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainabl e home and office A.S.H. - Autonomous & Sustainable Housing Inc., Phone: (403) 239-1882, Fax: (403) 547-2671 Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm ________________________________________________________________________ _ On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Patrick V. Reavis wrote: > > Jorg Ostrowski wrote: > > > If you had a "carte blanche" to design the most insulative window in > > the > > world, what would you do (within reality)? Over unity in this case is > > defined > > as: more energy in than out (heat gain in must be greater than heat > > loss out). > > Jorg,Recent experiments with aerogels aboard the Space Shuttle show > great promise in this regard. A recent article I read (if I remember > correctly) stated that an inch of aerogel is equivalent to 5 inches of > glass as far as thermal insulation is concerned. > Dr David Noever of Marshall Space Flight Center is investigating methods > to decrease pore size in the aerogel in order to render it transparent, > [currently, the material is translucent]. I'll ask Dr. Noever for some > info on the current status,and post it to Vortex-l. > > > I hope my invitation with this down-to-earth challenge is not > > too boring.If we had a consensus on the best solution, and it > > represented > > a feasible, simple and practical solution, I will try very hard to get > > it > > built by the same manufacturer who has built our previous R-17 window. > > > > __________________________________________________ > > -- > Patrick V. Reavis > Student at Large > /\ > / \ > / G \ > ~~~~~~~~ > DELTA-G > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 05:48:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 05:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Aug 97 08:41:35 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Boiling cell in flow calorimeter Resent-Message-ID: <"zsT0C.0.Ep2.kGi1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10331 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I wrote that borosilicate deposits "are thousands of times too thin to have any measurable effect." Before anyone catches me on this, I meant they have no effect on calorimetry. Obviously they affect the electrochemical performance of the cathode. I belie ve they form a barrier, inhibiting both absorption and out gassing. The fact that they have no measurable effect on the calorimetry has been shown experimentally and theoretically. In other words, Mike Schaffer was right when he wrote: I have heard that the likely explanation of the increased cell electrical resistance is dissolution of a bit of the cell borosilicate glass wall and subsequent deposition of silicates on the anode. But when he went to speculate that this might effect calorimeter performance, I think tests have shown he was wrong. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 07:36:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:22:14 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:22:04 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Ragland Triode update Resent-Message-ID: <"Nsnf52.0.DO.Lij1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10332 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts, We have just completed a fairly exhaustive testing of the modified water-flow calorimeter being used for our triode work. The latest round of modifications involved constructing a completely-surrounding constant temperature chamber for the original syste m. This chamber is equipped with fans, heaters and temperature sensor and it autonomously controlled by an OMEGA CN76000 at the same nominal temperature as the cooling water. Thus the delta-T across the walls of the Dewar that forms the inner chamber is nominally zero. Without fudging anything (i.e. using only the face values of delta-T, mass flow rate, input voltage and input current), the system now reads 0.975 +/- 0.01 on calibration resistor runs ranging from 2 watts to 9 watts and it reads zero +/ - 0.03 watts when the input power is removed. We have also qualified the system to operate as high as 60C. With this "ambient" temperature the triode cell gets up to about 70C during operation. Hopefully this will promote the effects we are searching for. ...now back to the actual experimentation. 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) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 08:49:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:45:40 -0700 Date: 29 Aug 97 11:44:01 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Ragland Triode update Resent-Message-ID: <"meltq1.0.nJ4.Zwk1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10334 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Scott Little writes: We have just completed a fairly exhaustive testing of the modified water-flow calorimeter being used for our triode work. The latest round of modifications involved constructing a completely-surrounding constant temperature chamber for the original system. . . . Without fudging anything (i.e. using only the face values of delta-T, mass flow rate, input voltage and input current), the system now reads 0.975 +/- 0.01 on calibration resistor runs ranging from 2 watts to 9 watts and it reads zero +/- 0.03 watts when the input power is removed. I believe this is far too much precision. I do not see what scientific purpose it serves. It is a distraction, taking up time that would better be spent improving the cell itself. I do not see any advantage to capturing 97% of the heat versus 95% or 90%. The only thing that matters to capture a consistent, predictable level. Too much precision makes the instruments unnecessary complicated, finicky and difficult to operate. It does not raise my confidence in the results. That's what many people say about t he SRI calorimeters, and I generally agree. I am reminded of some Japanese medical researchers I knew back in 1974 when digital thermometers had just come on the market. They went to a great deal of trouble to record mouse body temperatures to four decima l places. That's absurd. The last three digits were meaningless. A body temperature will fluctuate constantly, and it will not be the same in two locations. We have also qualified the system to operate as high as 60C. With this "ambient" temperature the triode cell gets up to about 70C during operation. Hopefully this will promote the effects we are searching for. That's good! The ability to operate at high temperatures is important. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 08:08:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:02:23 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:01:18 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, jaeger eneco-usa.com, Design73@aol.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, blue pilot.msu.edu Subject: [Fwd: Re NYTimes on Japan's CF Fiasco] Resent-Message-ID: <"fI-ld1.0.jH2.yHk1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10333 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 09:18:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:11:29 -0700 Date: 29 Aug 97 12:08:38 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l Subject: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"G5VN4.0.YL5.nIl1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10335 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Well, last night ABC explained where the outrageous idea of CF originated last night. It was merely a case of P&F seeking fame and popularity. There was never anything to it. They even hoaxed Toyota into building them a multimillion dollar research fac ility in France. Amazing. This is the same network which reported the "remarkable" work by CETI on CF and radiation remediation. An obvious case of multiple personality disorder for the network. And they wonder why people are fleeing to cable TV. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 09:36:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:30:58 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:30:42 -0500 References: <970829160838_76016.2701_JHC105-1 CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"iHhuF2.0.KQ6.1bl1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10336 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 29, 11:12am, Terry Blanton wrote: > And they wonder why people are fleeing to cable TV. How about fleeing TV all together? I've noticed as my free time gets more and more scarce, the less I want to waste it watching the "stupid" box. Rarely is there anything worthwhile or "all the facts" anymore. Can't say the papers are much better. I f ind much better/more complete/detailed info out here in the electronic wasteland. Ranting again, sorry! -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 10:24:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:12:19 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:08:11 -0700 From: Robert Stirniman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic monopoles at high frequecies ? References: <3406B979.A6FE4568 verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"-ipQI.0.3c.oBm1q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10340 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > If there is a oscillating magnetic monopole inside a faraday cage, could > it produce EMF on outside of the cage? > I dont know how efficiently a Faraday cage shield AC magnetic fields in > a give frerquency. If you have a magnetic current, the line integral of E.dl around any loop is equal to magnetic current through loop. If you have a symmetrical geometry, E is constant around the loop. You can not shield it. Regards, Robert Stirniman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 10:46:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:41:17 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:41:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Vortex From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Ragland Triode update Resent-Message-ID: <"_UkWH1.0.nZ2.ycm1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10341 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:44 8/29/97 EDT, Jed Rothwell wrote in response to my 0.975 +/- 0.01 calorimeter performance. >I believe this is far too much precision. I do not see what scientific purpose >it serves. Our first run with the Tanaka Pd (before we made the latest calorimeter improvements) went through periods in which the Pout/Pin ratio ranged up around 1.10 and, at rather low current densities, once went as high as 1.14. What would you have done at this point, Jed? Ignore the possible positive result and go on to the next experiment? Call a press conference to announce successful replication of the Ragland's excess heat effect? We decided to removed the Tanaka cell and put in our calibration cell and it, too, showed ~1.10 under certain combinations of ambient conditions. Disappointed with our calorimeter we then elected to make the modifications described in the last post. After the modifications were made we then put the Tanaka Pd cell back into the calorimeter and ran it "all over the place" and its Pout/Pin ratio never varied outside our 0.975 +/- 0.01 "unity" reading zone. We are now moving on to the next experiment which will use a Pd-Ag alloy cathode. 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) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 09:57:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:55:25 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, storms ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, design73 aol.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu Subject: [Fwd: Re NYTimes on Japan's CF Fiasco] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"luOQ22.0.tY2.Kql1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10337 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pahrump.com (root pahrump.com [205.226.146.4]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA18566 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rbrtbass.pahrump.com (user07.pahrump.com [205.226.146.107]) by pahrump.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA31044; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:41:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199708270441.VAA31044 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Joe Champion" , "Scott Chubb" , "Nicholas Palmer" <70374.3025 compuserve.com>, "John Bockris" , "Gordon Brightsen" , "Bill Ward" , "Charles McNeill" , "Douglas Morrison" , "David A. Scott" , "Ed Wall" , "Grant Hudlow" , "Gary Steckly" , "Horace Heffner" , "Joseph N. Ignat" , "James Bowery" , "James A. Carr" , "James Powell" , "C. D. Johnson" , "Steven E. Jones" , "Elliott Kennel" , "Kerry S. Lane" , "Kirk Shanahan" , "Scott Little" , "Larry Vardiman" , "Tom Van Flandern" , "Mike McKubre" , "Martin Kendig" , "Dave Nagel" , "James T. Lo" , "Peter Glueck" , "Paul Koloc" , "Hal Puthoff" , "Mike Windell" , "Robert D. Eagleton" , "Robert Huggins" , "Rich Murray" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Robert M. Wood" , "Steve Okerlund" , "Tim Mitchell" Cc: "George F. Bass" , "Michael Lyons" <101670.2301 compuserve.com>, "Robert W. Bass" Subject: Re NYTimes on Japan's CF Fiasco Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:40:45 -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 Why Has Japan Given Up on Cold Fusion? The New York Times has reported that Japan is giving up on Cold Fusion (CF). I agreed with Jed Rothwell's criticisms of the MITI program (not a single Ph.D. electrochemist employed; while many Japanese electrochemists have been achieving excellent result s, which were just ignored by the Japanese-government-sponsored MITI program). Before scanning my comments on this ominous development, the reader who has not seen Jed Rothwell's excerpts & comment should skip down & read it, before coming back here to see what Bob Bass thinks about this (for what it may be worth). What I think is that this is a bald-faced admission of deception on the highest governmental levels in both the USA & Japan, who have decided to "slow up" the advent of Cold Fusion (CF) and Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation (LENT) by getting their Secreta ries of State to spread about the "cover story" that this field of investigatio must be slowed down "lest Colonel Gadafhi learn how to make Tritium" and that those susceptible to government control will be "ordered" in the name of "National Security" to c ooperate. I hope to God that I am mistaken, but I base my conclusion upon several items of which I have first-hand eye-witness knowledge, augmented by various items of hearsay of debatable reliability, which I will now rehearse. In the first place, Martin Fleischmann in his BBC interview reprinted in the latest issue of Infinite Energy (#13/14) says that he believes that a covert "FIX" may be the most rational conclusion. (I am glad that 5,000 copies of IE went out and it is no w beyond the power of even the USA government to silence everyone who is aware of what has happened in this field during the past 8 years.) In the second place, at the Rockwell Science Center (1988-92) I was an eye-witness to many events which could be interpreted as "the _fix_ is in." For example, the RSC at first signed an NDA with the U of U and tried to duplicate the F&P results. Then Dr. Nathan Jacobsen, of the Rockwell ETEC (Electro-Technology Engineering Center), which Rockwell operated as a "National Lab" for the DOE, and which got practically all of its money from either DOE or EPRI, advised the V.P. in charge of the RSC, Dr. Joe Longo, _not_ to pursue CF "because the government will _NEVER_ put one cent of money into it!!!" He did not say how he was so UTTERLY certain as to advise Dr. Longo to make a very important decision, except that he sounded like he "knew" what he was talk ing about. I said to him on the phone, "In other words, the FIX is in!" and this angered him so much he hung up on me. Later, he wrote an incredibly one-sided book (whose unbelievably propagandistic nature has been dissected in IE by Jed Rothwell) in wh ich he harped on every difficulty of reproducibility and totally ignored all positive evidence; Nate told me that EPRI had paid for 5,000 copies of this book to be printed and mailed to every Electric Utility in the nation. It seems that at the very top of EPRI, there is a war between two V.P.'s, one of whom wanted to investigate CF and was reponsible for SRI's funding of the excellent work under Dr. Mike McKubre (which _concluded_ that the F&P claims were experimentally _true_), and the other ot which [ in my interpretation] was determined to suppress this new field and funded the transparent propaganda effort at ETEC under Dr. Nate Jacobson [who, shortly after his book was published, retired from Rockwell, moved to Israel and as far as I can learn has b een incommunicado ever since]. As one who has followed this field for 8 years (particularly the evidence of ANEUTRONIC d + d => He^4 found by Dr. Bockris at TAMU, by Dr. Mel Miles at China Lake Naval Weapons Center, by Dr. Gozzi in Rome, by Drs. Arata & Zhang in Japan, etc. etc.) I b elieve that it is _impossible_ for an objective and open-minded scientist to review _all_ of the evidence of low-energy transmutation of Deuterium to Helium_4 without concluding that this phenomenon is real beyond shadow of a doubt [though admittedly plag ued by irreproducibility-upon-demand problems]. People like Stan Pons, John Bockris, and Ed Storms have all admitted the problem of getting "CF grade palladium" and inexplicable failure of many experiments to work, whereas other seemingly identical exper iments produce far more excess enthalpy than could any conceivably merely chemical reaction or storate-battery effect. In my opinion, the most powerful people in the world are all those heavily invested in the existing energy business. That such people have the power to have their perceived "enemies" flung into jail on trumped-up false charges is amply demonstrated by t he raid by 400 Federal Marshalls upon Lyndon LaRouche's compound, after which the top ten under LaRouche got decades-long jail sentences. Moreover, one of the Feds has confessed that his orders were to _execute_ LaRouche if he could find any excuse (e.g. apparent "resistance to arrest"). Now a Federal Court has ruled that the entire Bankruptcy of LaRouche's Fusion Energy Foundation was a " fraud on the public" perpetrated by the cooperation between over-zealous public & private interests determined to "get" LaRouche. His journal "Fusion Energy" and his popular magazine "Fusion" were both arbitrarily put out of business by what a Federal Judge. belatedly ruled were acts of "governmental fraud on the public." But for the first few months of the CF flap, after the APS voted that CF was "dead," the LaRouche magazines were the only available outlet on newstands in America from which concerned citize ns could learn the truth about CF! Having learned the futility of trumped-up Federal charges, the anti-LaRouche interests turned to a more corrupt legal system in the State of Virginia, and sent up LaRouche's next tier of followers for 30-year jail sente nces on a minor technicality (receiving political loans without a license, for which George Bush's own brother had merely been fined $1,000 and given no real punishment), which the Secretary of State of VA at first claimed was not subject to the security laws; later she reconsidered, they were indicted, and she was given a Judgeship virtually the next day! The presiding Judge has been forced to admit that during the trial he accepted _ex parte_ communications from LaRouche's enemies, including virulent p ropaganda from the B'Nai B'Rith Anti-Defamation League to the effect that most of LaRouche's followers (who are Jewish) were guilty of "crimes against humanity" (as perceived by the ADL) and so this Jewish judge sentenced them all to _30 years_ for not ha ving a Securities License when they accepted "political loans" (which were not defined as Securities under VA law until the VA Secretary of State was bribed to change her mind). The preceding is just the tip of the iceberg, but it has all been documented by a former Solicitor General of the United States!!! (The Solicitor General is the person who presents the "government's" position to the Supreme Court.) The whole thing against LaRouche started when Kissinger asked the FBI to "protect" him from LaRouc he's followers' denunciations; there was a meetiing of both government officials and top media people at the home of Wall Street wizard John Train (author of "Dance of the Money-Bees") at which an elaborate "get-LaRouche" scenario was mapped out between t op agency officials and top TV & newspaper executives. (The Democratic Party cooperated with the Republicans in this "get LaRouche" exercise, because they had been frightened by the fact that one of LaRouche's followers had run on the Democratic primary ticket for Lt. Gov. of IL, and succeeding in getting the nomination despite opposition from the backroom kingmakers.) Early in the CF flap, I remember being told by various academic physicists that they had been told by colleagues that they had received "overt threats" from government officials that "all of their research grants would be canceled" unless they "stayed away" from CF. The nominal reason (actually a mere excuse for the ruling elite to protect their investments in the existing energy infrastructure) was that "the State Department doesn't wan't Colonel Gadafhi to lear n how to make Tritium." The most interesting thing about the fact that the Japanese government has "officially given up" on CF is that the NYTimes, etc. quote Dr. Hideo Ikegami as saying that CF couldn't be confirmed. This totally clashes with my first-hand knowledge of Dr. Ikegami's technical astuteness and cynicism about the "politicization" of the hot-fusion program in the USA and how much more "objective" was his personally-drected Japanese approach at the time he directed the largest Hot Fusion lab in Japan. By accident Dr. Ikegami sat next to me on a plane trip from Salt Lake to Los Angeles after the ICCF-1 in 1990. When I mentioned that I had worked at what was "Project Matterhorn" but is now the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPNL) Theoretical Div., 1957 -59, we had "old home week" talking about mutual acquaintances whose work we both admired. Dr. Ikegami told me (if my memory serves) that he had been on both of the Hot Fusion staffs at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) and Lawrence Livermore National Lab (L LNL) and also had been on the faculty of either Stanford or UC Berkely. He told me that in Japan, in order to avoide the "politicization" which he had observed between the various hot fusion labs in the USA, they had a deliberately "more objective" approach, namely the _same team_ rotated every few months between one of the half-dozen leading approaches, so that every few years the entire team had worked on every leading approach. His English was both fluent & colloquial and it was quite evident to me that he believed that the "potliticized" hot fusion labs in the USA were trying to suppress CF. However, just as out plane landed, he asked me with very great enthusiasm and excitement what I thougt about Cold Fusion (as opposed to hot fusion). To my dying day I will never forget the _gigantic_ enthusiasm that shone in his eyes about this dazzling new prospect of aneutronic, clean power! Later I read that he had offered in writing to testify before our Congress that he thought that the physicists in the USA were trying hard "NOT" to find Cold Fusion, whereas he wanted the physicists in his own country to be objective and to uncover its secrets if it were real. Ikegami is a very intelligent man, and a very well-informed physicist, about both hot & cold fusion. I cannot believe for one second that anyone as astute as Ikegami could contemplate the evidence for d + d => He^4 and deny the reality of this paradigm- quake discovery. I also cannot believe for one second that Ikegami cannot understand or accept Jed Rothwell's criticisms of the incompetent way in which the MITI program was run, and I cannot believe for one second that Ikegami discounts the many brilliant discoveries about d + d => He^4 which have been made by his own countrymen, starting with the discoveries at Nippon Telegraph & Telephone years ago. Therefore, there is no possible conclusion that I can see except that the Emperor or the Prime Minister or someone whom Ikegami believes has his nation's best interests at heart has _directed_ him to cooperate with the USA's DOE-guided program of deception and disinformation to convince the potential investors in this new form of aneutronic, non-polluting, environmentally benign, _decentralized_ power that it is all a mirage. Fortunately, not even the Federal Forces who perpetrated the massacres at Ruby Ridge & Waco, nor the corrupt VA legal system which sent an Editor of "Twenty-First Century Science & Technology" to jail for _THIRTY YEARS_ on utterly trumped-up charges, hav e enough power to silence the thousands of free citizens around the globe who now have some inkling of the truth, and who can be counted upon to continue R&D despite governmental opposition until all of mankind, rather than a selfish little clique intent upon preserving its own undeserved priviliges, can enjoy the benefits of this millennial Godsend. P.S. As additional evidence of covert government manipulation, I was today told in confidence by a well-known researcher in this field that in 1992 the DOE, in the form of an UnderSecretary of State (or of the DOE) _ordered_ him to keep secret his CF-li ke process for producing Tritium, and made him sign an Oath to abide by this Secrecy Order. He may have broken the law in telling me this, so I will never reveal his name short of torture, but I will be happy to swear under oath & penalty of perjury that _someone_ of the highest plausibility told me this in confidence, and I am willing to take a Polygraph test or Voice-Stress Analyzer test or whatever other test any Investigative Reporter might propose in order to find out if I am just inventing this or if this incident actually happened. If I should die "accidentally" in the near future, go to see the movie "Conspiracy Theory" in order to see a chilling dramatization of the Black Helicopters in action and wonder if you are next on the list of trouble-makers who needs to be silenced. (Also s ee the forthcoming movie "Broken Symmetry," written by an MIT faculty-member who was an eye-witness to the criminally culpable fraud-on-the-public which he perceived his MIT hot-fusion colleagues as perpetrating in order to preserve their own privileges.) Sincerely, Bob Bass ------------------------------------------------------------ MITI Cancels Cold Fusion Program The New York Times, the Nikkei and Reuters have reported that MITI is closing down the New Hydrogen Energy cold fusion research program. The Times report was published on August 26, 1997, in an article titled "Japan, Long a Holdout, Ending Cold Fusion Quest," by Andrew Pollack. It begins: The idea that cheap, bountiful energy can be produced by so-called cold fusion suffered another blow today when the Government of Japan said it would terminate its research, which has failed to confirm that the phenomenon exists. Japan had pursued the quest for cold fusion, room-temperature nuclear fusion, long after most governments and scientists in the United States and Europe had dismissed the concept as an illusion. Now Japan is also throwing in the towel. The article quotes Hideo Ikegami: "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion. We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future." I should point out that Ikegami himself obtained positive results in his lab, which he transmitted to me. But he never published them, for reasons that remain unclear. Unless he is being misquoted by the New York Times, I do not understand why he is ignoring the many positive experimental results in Japan. The article says that the NHE lab in Sapporo "is expected to be shut." Akito Takahashi says that funding for university level academic research is also likely to be terminated. A MITI spokesman pointed out that the $20 million spent on cold fusion was "was a pittance" compared with what is spent on other energy programs, like nuclear fast breeder reactors. The Nikkei reported this story on August 24, 1997. It quotes a MITI spokesman, "regrettably, we have not seen the effect in our experiments," but "we do not deny that the cold fusion effect exists." The article quotes Akito Arima, a leading physicist and hard-core opponent of cold fusion. He says, "this shows how important it is to seek the opinions of qualified experts before spending government money on a physics project." The Nikkei comments that the failure of this program will discourage research into controversial, unproven areas of science. Our magazine, Infinite Energy, reported on the astonishing weaknesses of the NHE program in Vol. 2, No. 10. We pointed out several technical problems with the research in our ICCF6 review and in An Open Letter to Japan's NHE Lab Directorate, written in Japanese and English, on page 28. The letter includes 17 references to the literature, and it lists concrete problems with the protocols and materials used at the NHE lab, including low cell temperatures, improper cell and cathode materials, inadequate preparation and pre-testing of cathodes, and so on. These technical criticisms did not originate with us. They were suggested by Pons, Fleischmann, Bockris, Storms, Mizuno, Ikegami and the others cited in the footnotes. We pointed out that the French Atomic Energy Commission has successfully replicated the Pons-Fleischmann IMRA boil off experiments (originally reported in Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129), because they were more careful about replicating every detail of the experiment, without making any changes. The NHE does not employ any PhD electrochemists. We urged the NHE researchers to pay more attention to the literature; to hire some electrochemists for the research; and to try the techniques suggested by these lead ing workers, but as far as I know they have not done so. We did not receive any official response to the Open Letter, nor did we expect any. Unofficially, NHE researchers denied that there is anything wrong with their techniques, and they refused to address any of the technical points in the Open Letter. They accused us of plotting to bring down the lab in league with arch-enemies of cold fusion like John Huizenga and Frank Close. In the final analysis I agree with Arima: more attention to the opinions of qualified experts might have helped this program. He meant that the program should never have begun, because MITI should have listened to the plasma physicists who say that cold f usion is impossible. I believe MITI should have paid more attention to the expert electrochemists and others who have successfully replicated the effect. - Jed Rothwell --------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent 29,130 [ex-Prof Physics] Inventor: Topolotron, Plasmasphere, issued; QRT Cold Fusion, pending P.O.Box 1238, Pahrump, NV 89041-1238; phone/FAX (702) 751- 0932/0739 Voice-Mail: (702) 387-7213 e-Mail: rbrtbass pahrump.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 11:03:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:58:24 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:57:48 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window References: Resent-Message-ID: <"R46o3.0.ec3._sm1q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10342 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jorg Ostrowski wrote: > Patrick: Thank you for your response. If you or anyone has a copy of > this > or relevant article, I would be grateful. Thank you the visit from the > > real world. My fax number is listed below. > ____________________________________________________________ > Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect > in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978), > > - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and > office > A.S.H. - Autonomous & Sustainable Housing Inc., > Phone: (403) 239-1882, Fax: (403) 547-2671 > Web Site [under construction]: > http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Jorg,I've located the article in question at http://www.popsci.com/content/hometech/news/970628.h.html The info I gave as to its thermal characteristics was in error. One inch of Aerogel has the thermal equivalent of a ten inch conventional window utilizi ng 15 panes of glass with trapped air between each pane. -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 09:55:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:01:57 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window References: Resent-Message-ID: <"HreVz3.0.hp2.cvl1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10338 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 29, 1997 Jorg, I recall a few years ago a science news item about aerial infrared photos of polar bears on the ice in the Artic-- they were colder than the ice landscape! Further study reveal that their long white fur hairs were highly effective fiber optic ligh t pipes that took infrared and visible light from the outer end right down into the roots to be absorbed. Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 10:14:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:05:59 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:14:55 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu, kirk.shanahan srs.gov, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch Subject: Dick Blue critique of Cincy report Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"QsxTB1.0.V8.r5m1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10339 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pilot21.cl.msu.edu (pilot21.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.31]) by holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA07665 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot21.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA52042; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:05:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199708271405.KAA52042 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Thorium measurements using Nuclear Physics] To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:05:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <34039944.62EF@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Aug 26, 97 08:04:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Martin is right on track with his analysis of the Thorium activity as far as he takes it. There is one more consideration to bear in mind, however, and that is the time dependence. How long does it take the decays of all those daughters to reach some so rt of equilibrium? Of course we can't even define a starting point at which the true composition of the Cinci solution is known very well. Also it is significant to note that many of those gamma energyies may be near or below the detection threshold for the detector used by Liversage, for example. As I said we don't really have a clue as to what radiation is actually being counted as indica tive of thorium activity. Finally the rate estimate confirms what I had guessed, namely the fact that the signal is close to background levels from other sources -- something Liversage says nothing about. How much more evidence does it take to convince people that these experiments are not worth a diddle? Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 12:38:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:33:34 -0700 Date: 29 Aug 97 15:23:13 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"8MMb92.0.aQ7.BGo1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10348 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Terry, > Well, last night ABC explained where the outrageous idea of CF > originated last night. It was merely a case of P&F seeking fame > and popularity. Fascinating that a Fellow of the Royal Society should seek "fame and popularity". Sheesh. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 12:51:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:44:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Zack Widup Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"9Ur9a3.0.4T2.9To1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10350 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Terry Blanton wrote: > > >Well, last night ABC explained where the outrageous idea of CF originated last > >night. It was merely a case of P&F seeking fame and popularity. There was > >never anything to it. They even hoaxed Toyota into building them a > >multimillion > >dollar research facility in France. > > > >Amazing. This is the same network which reported the "remarkable" work by > >CETI > >on CF and radiation remediation. An obvious case of multiple personality > >disorder for the network. > > > >And they wonder why people are fleeing to cable TV. > > I'm not a religious man myself, but some of my more zealous acquaintances > seem to be of the opinion that Satan has been in control of the main TV > networks for some time. Now of course some of these people believe that > anything that *isn't* all about their particular religious beliefs is > simply the work of Satan. But from what I've seen lately on TV, I'm > beginning to see their point. Well, I have my own ideas about this. I wouldn't call it "Satan" but it does seem to be a part of the thrust of certain groups into society. I hardly ever watch TV (partly due to work load and partly due to the fact I'd rather spend my time in the library digging up rare articles or trying to talk to someone on a radio expedition to a far-flung place such as Heard Island.) > > Remember what Mick sang: "...and confusing you's the nature of my game." "Woo - woo" :-) Zack Widup Urbana, IL > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 13:45:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Aug 97 16:21:39 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Comment on Blue's post Resent-Message-ID: <"OYWNT3.0.bs3.QAp1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10353 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell passed this to me for comment, and then suggested that I post it here with my own comments as an addendum. ---------------------------------------------------- Rich Murray posted a message written by Dick Blue, in which Blue confuses a hypothetical physics experiment proposed by Martin Sevior with a completely different, unrelated chemical assay actually performed by Liversage. He makes other astounding errors. Blue writes: Martin is right on track with his analysis of the Thorium activity as far as he takes it. There is one more consideration to bear in mind, however, and that is the time dependence. How long does it take the decays of all those daughters to reach some sort of equilibrium? This does not matter. The sample can be tested before the experiment and retested hours, weeks or months after the run, to make sure it is at equilibrium. The evidence for Wolf's transmutations at Texas A&M gradually faded because the isotopes were shor t lived. The evidence for Th reduction will last for billions of years (the half-life). You can easily determine that any short-lived products are gone and the mass of Th has been reduced by a factor of 10. Something that has not been mentioned here, and should be, is that Sevior assumes the decay path in the Cincinnati Group experiment is the same as the natural decay sequence. We assume the process generates 228Ra, 228Ac, radon gas, and so on, but we do k now that yet. If the process is real, it is so far outside the bounds of known physics that any assumption may be wrong. Of course we can't even define a starting point at which the true composition of the Cinci solution is known very well. Of course we can. It is a mixture of laboratory grade chemicals. Before and after samples of it were run through the mass spectrometer. The whole point of the experiment was to determine the true composition of the solution! Also it is significant to note that many of those gamma energyies may be near or below the detection threshold for the detector used by Liversage, for example. He did not use a particle detector, he use a Perkin Elmer spectroscope. A scintillation counter was also used to verify that all Th was extracted from the cell. It detected an overall reduction in radioactivity, which is taken as additional verification of the chemical assay. Finally the rate estimate confirms what I had guessed, namely the fact that the signal is close to background levels from other sources -- something Liversage says nothing about. Sevior estimates the rate in the proposed experiment would be 50 counts in 2 hours. Whether this is close to the background or far above it depends on the shielding in the lab where the experiment is performed. Furthermore, many detectors intercept far more than 1% of the gammas. Sevior is talking about a test performed with a simple, off-the-shelf instrument rather than a gadget they would use at Kamiokande. Blue has made similar mistakes lately. He suggested that the half life of Th is determined by testing a sample and waiting until it the counts fall off measurably. Anyone can see there would be no measurable change in the entire span of human history. The half-life is determined by estimating the moles of thorium and comparing that to total disintegrations. I am sure that Rich Murray found the errors in Blue's message as easily as I did. Let me ask him: Why do feel it was a good idea to post this kind of thing? What is the purpose? Why spread this message thing around when you see for yourself it is confused? Or is it possible you see some merit in this message; something worthy of serious scientific discussion? If so, what? I have posted some wretched mistakes on e-mail groups. I hope you do not intend to dig them up and embarrass me by cross posting them to other groups. If Rich can show us something of value in the Blue message, I take this back. - Jed ----------------------------------------------------- Jed makes some valid points, and I would add that Dick recently commented that fission produces the well-known "double-hump" distribution of products, and the CG experiment doesn't. That of course demonstrates that the old boy has lost it rather badly, s ince he is proposing an impossible process and then complaining that its products aren't seen. Say "fission" and he just cannot imagine it meaning anything but the specific significance the word has in "standard" nuclear physics. I think Rich (and some others) are misusing the way email can spread stuff all over the place, by spreading "fringe" postings - from either side. They should try to filter out very long or very meaningless stuff before posting it around. This post from Blue is void of any relevance whatsoever, and can only serve to embarrass him. Again, I raise the basic points. It is FUTILE to spend much time in speculative armchair analyses of the thorium work. We all know (if we are honest) that the results can't be dismissed as trivial, and we know that strange claims like this have a habit of coming down to non-reproducibility or being plain wrong. Accordingly, it is likely that firm assertions at this stage are just going to rebound on those who make them. What is exciting about the CG work is that it seems to have a high degree of repro ducibility, and CG are making full disclosure and selling kits with a money-back guarantee. We therefore, for just about the first time, have hope of seeing something like this being cleared up one way or the other. Anyone have a problem with that? Chris Tinsley X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 14:04:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Aug 97 16:49:26 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Ragland Triode update Resent-Message-ID: <"2kl8T1.0.qN4.YQp1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10354 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Scott Little writes: Our first run with the Tanaka Pd (before we made the latest calorimeter improvements) went through periods in which the Pout/Pin ratio ranged up around 1.10 and, at rather low current densities, once went as high as 1.14. What would you have done at this point, Jed? Ignore the possible positive result and go on to the next experiment? Call a press conference to announce successful replication of the Ragland's excess heat effect? We decided to removed the Tanaka cell and put in our calibration cell and it, too, showed ~1.10 under certain combinations of ambient conditions . . . Ragland reported 100 to 300% excess, so this would not be a successful replication. I personally would never trust anything less than 150% over I*V. Since your blanks worked with much less than 14% noise, a slight excess would make me slightly excited. I would either wait for it to grow MUCH larger, or I would do what you did: test the instrument. As you know, I recommend a joule heater in the cell an d recalibration on-the-fly, as shown on page 59 of I.E. #13. I wonder if that would have caught your problem? I suppose it would have, since your method of putting in a joule heater cell showed a false 10% excess. In other words, we cram the calibration cell in with the regular cell and we leave electrolysis running (which is noisy, I'll grant). You keep the two separate, so it took you an extra step to find out the machine had wandered 10%. Anyway . . . if I found a 15% excess I hope I would do what you did: keep calm, determine it is an artifact, and then find out which ambient conditions caused it. At that point, I would ignore it. You fixed it; I would ignore it. As you know, Chris and I paid no attention when the cell went from recovering 71% up to 85%. We think recovery was improved by electrolysis stirring, based on temperature readings at various spots and on the fact that electrolysis was much higher with the better recovery. But we did not rigorously prove it, and who cares anyway? You will never convince anyone with less than 100% excess. Besides, Fleischmann and Storms say that a good piece of palladium can be used over and over again, so if you ever find one you can tighten up your calorimetry and run it again. As long as you wear gloves and keep things clean, you do not have to worry ab out hurting the cathode. During the Storms triage procedures, the cathodes get loaded and deloaded, and they undergo other shocks, hard knocks, slings and arrows. They have to survive it or they are no good anyway. It is a bit like the freshman orientatio n hazing rituals at The Citadel. Disappointed with our calorimeter we then elected to make the modifications described in the last post. I would be disappointed in the cathode. I do not understand why you are disappointed in a calorimeter which shows a mere 15% artifact under known ambient conditions when the goal of your experiment is to find a huge 100% to 300% excess. Just avoid the con ditions. On the other hand, if it only took a few hours or a day to fix things, I guess that's worth it. My point about time is this: if I knew the cause of a 15% artifact, I would ignore it (or quick-fix it) and concentrate instead on pretesting new cathodes by measuring expansion, watching the bubbles form on the surface, checking the OCV, and the other me thods recommended by Storms, Fleischmann, Bockris and Cravens. That would keep anyone employed full time. Just learning those techniques would take me years! Frankly, I think I lack sufficient manual dexterity to do a lot of that stuff. At SRI and the NHE they have gone to much greater extremes than you, of course. They devoted years and millions of dollars to the calorimeter, while they practically ignored the material sciences tests. When Storms tested some of the NHE cathodes recently, he found all kin ds of deficiencies, including some that are easily detected. At ICCF4 Cravens stood up and revealed what Martin called "half our secrets." I assumed everyone would go home and start using these techniques. The upside-down test tubes and whatnot. Storms had been using them all along, and he later published refined, careful descriptions. I assumed that ICCF4 would be the turning point, and the major Pd CF groups would soon enhance their replicability by using tried-and-true techniques. Four years later . . . I am still waiting. SRI and the NRL cannot reproduce their own earlier results; and the NHE is about to go out of business -- and none of them ever bothered to try! It's mighty peculiar. As a highly successful CF scientist-who-shall-remain-nameless said t o me yesterday, "the big guys just will not take lessons from little guys," even at the cost of disgraceful failure. We are now moving on to the next experiment which will use a Pd-Ag alloy cathode. Sounds good! If you happen to have $33,000 handy, I suggest you coordinate with Martin and buy some of this special grade Johnson-Matthey Pd he has been talking about. It is a shame the minimum order is 2 kg. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 13:59:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:54:38 -0700 Date: 29 Aug 97 16:52:54 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Boiling cell in flow calorimeter Resent-Message-ID: <"P7t8J.0.5E2.DSp1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10355 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: The effect [of borosilicates] is measureable. It does NOT, however, produce excess heat. Yes. That is what I meant to say, and what I hope I finally said in my revised message. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 13:31:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:36:00 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Design73 aol.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, storms@ix.netcom.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com Subject: Re: Help! References: <970827112253_-768999731 emout10.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"E056z3.0.jd3.L4p1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10352 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 29, 1997 Wayne Green, I enjoyed your peppy popular-style summary of cold fusion via trapped neutrons. I haven't heard any of the other CF researchers referring to Kozima's theory. The experimental evidence so far for me is not completely convincing about the re ality of low-energy nuclear transmutations. The various experiments are very simple, so for me it's disturbing that a lot of labs have not yet reported confirmations of the claims by Miley, Mizuno et al, Dash, and the Cincinatti Group. Scott Little of E arthTech in Austin, TX, one of the most careful and even-minded researchers, has said nothing about his runs with CETI's RIFEX cell, which he has had since December. And, looking over the debate this week on Vortex-L about the validity of the Cincinatti Group data in IE, there certainly seems to be dozens of ways for the measurement processes to go wrong. So, day by day, I for one just don't know for sure, and without a solid base in repeatable, multiply-confirmed, experiments, described in thorough and exhaustive detail, then the various ingenious theories are just talk. So, given my limited training and resources, I've been trying on the Internet to encourage more debate and discussion and efforts to replicate among the various players. Hopefully, w e'll soon hear about clearcut, definitive explorations of the very simple Cincinatti Group experiment. Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 15:22:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Aug 97 18:09:25 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"lmdZu3.0.eb6.obq1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10356 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rick M. said: >>Remember what Mick sang: "...and confusing you's the nature of my game."<< The Stones are coming to Atlanta! But first the stage in the GA Dome must be modified for wheelchair access. How old is Mick? If you saw ABC's "Junk Science" you might want to send them some email (www.abc.com). Mine: >>RE: Junk Science Cold Fusion is not Junk Science. Stossel would do well to review the GMA and Nightline (both ABC) shows on Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. before making such claims. "Junk Science" was Junk Journalism.<< Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 16:54:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:27:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 17:37:21 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, g-miley@uiuc.edu, rbrtbass pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net Subject: Blue's critical offerings Resent-Message-ID: <"T3eH93.0.X01.whr1q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10357 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 29, 1997 Hi all, I've been busy for hours this week, cross-posting various critical comments about the IE report on the Cincy Group transmutation claim. I never get any response from Steven Jones and Douglas Morrison, so I think I'll send them items very rarely from now on. I'm not always in agreement with Dick Blue's assessments, but appreciate that he does respond, and this post of his offers some information about cadmium and zinc contamination that is new to me. I've been hoping that the flow of information and imp ressions is two-way: that the "pathological skeptics" will see that the community of "true believers" includes a wide range of viewpoints, and many very competent, thoughtful players. Who knows how many lurkers simply scan these posts without participati ng? In recent days, there's been illuminating discussions about calorimeter errors of various sorts. I've posted many items to sci.physics.fusion for months, but have found only one response, a positive appreciation, in addition to a few from Blue-- but the "CF is dead," refrain there is noticably more muted. I'm ready to relax my informative efforts: the word is out that the CF cell is boiling; anyone truly interested can subscribe to Vortex-L and "Infinite Energy" (only $ 30 for six issues), or do a DejaNews search regularly. I'm surprised to see no responses from any players in the Cincinatti Group. Are their stainless steel end caps contaminating the results? I wish Miley would post his specific, complete mass spectrometer data. Has anyone heard of attempts to replicate the amazingly simple transmutation experiments of Dash and of Mizuno et al? Could one of these experiments be made into a very low-cost ($ 100?) kit with a simple, sensitive specific chemical assey for a specific transmutation product? Rich Murray Received: from pilot18.cl.msu.edu (pilot18.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.28]) by finland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA22017 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot18.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA102878; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:40:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199708291440.KAA102878 pilot18.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Transmutations, 1923, spark] To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:39:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <3404CA29.DB5@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Aug 27, 97 05:45:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Richard, Are people who talk about easy nuclear transmutations all so totally ignorant of what one sees in every analysis for trace impurities regardless of the nature of the sample and the analysis technique? Purity (of anything) just is not the natural state! So we get these totally wild claims that start with the assumption that anything unexpected in the composition of whatever is "proof" that some nuclear process plays a role. Why can't people accept, as an alternative hypothesis, the notion that perhaps t he unexpected behavior has its explanation entirely within the domain of chemistry? Just to give one example of a simple "chemical" hypothesis that may account for a frequently occurring trace impurity, consider the appearance of cadmium in spark spectra or SIMS analysis or whatever. It is a simple fact that the vapor pressure of cadmiu m is high enough that it can migrate about easily. Zinc is another example of this phenomenon. Not so long ago cadmium was widely used for plating various bits of common hardward and zinc is still very widely used in that role so the potential sources f or contamination with these elements were common around every experimental set-up. If the current trend continues people will soon be finding evidence for massive nuclear transmutations in anything and everything. It will be difficult to explain why nuclear transmutations of this type are not, in fact, naturally occurring! Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 17:58:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 17:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: ABC Program Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:39:16 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"TwR203.0.me3.Vus1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10359 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vos, I didn't see the ABC segment with the misinformation about CF. I hope this is not the opening gun of an active campaign of disinformation. If so, it is a sign that the field is successful enough to worry somebody. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 18:11:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 21:02:14 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex , John Schnurer Subject: Coil method Resent-Message-ID: <"D9odH2.0.-04.29t1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10360 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo., It seems several people a trying to wind coil [s] in which turns balance. An old technique follows: a] Pay out .. say ... 100 feet of wire and have friend hold one end. b] Have second friend stand at other end of 100 feet and without cutting wire pay out another 100 feet returning to first friend. This leaves a very long loop or "hairpin" of two parallel wires. c] Taking the turn around or end of loop "the bend in the hair pin" carefully tape to avoid damage of insulation and chuck this end up in drill motor. d] At moderate speed twist the wire so turns are reasonably uniform .... and maybe 4 to 10 twists to the foot.... more if the wire is not becoming stiff. e] Carefully remove from drill motor chuck and allow to naturally relax-uncurl. f] Wind the twisted loop on non magnetic form.... heavy cardboard or plastic. g] Slip the coil off the form and tie in several places with cotton string to prevent spreading and becoming tangled. h] If done carefully cancellation should be 1 to 1,000, or better. i] REMEMBER: DO NOT CUT LOOP! The connections are made to the two free ends. J X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 19:12:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 19:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:37:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: vorte x-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Comment on Blue's post Resent-Message-ID: <"ebiCm3.0.PU5.s2u1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10362 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 29 Aug 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Jed Rothwell passed this to me for comment, and then suggested that I > post it here with my own comments as an addendum. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Sevior estimates the rate in the proposed experiment would be 50 > counts in 2 hours. Actually it's 50 counts per hour +- a factor of 2. I suspect it will be above background without shielding if a high resolution gamma detector is used. There are devices that have well above 25% total effficiency but getting time to use them would be very difficult. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 14:25:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:07:27 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"o0AYs2.0.iK3.To82q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10383 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt - As you can see, the mail seems to be running against your opinion that Greg's efforts might not have been ethical. I think the majority opinion here is correct, but don't feel too bad; I'm sure the idea has crossed everyone's mind hereat some point. But l ooking carefully over the record logically while toning down any overly active sense of mistrust does provide a picture very different from that of a scam artist. My opinion remains that he's probably behind the curve when it comes to hacking out multiple reproductions of something that was very difficult to reproduce by itself in the first place. He's pretty much said this or something similar on the lists here. I'm just sorry, as he probably is, that he announced that he was so close to shipping so long ago, and then perhaps finds out how hard it is to make kits capable of solid replication of the effects he's claimed. I think we should be careful about assigning sinister motives to people in situations like this. Others have correctly pointed out how Greg has posted a great deal of material on his development progress that certainly puts him outside the usual category of free-energy scammer. And his kit price and the whole context of the offering also point to honest motivation. When you're looking for infinite energy, I guess you need infinite patience too. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 20:06:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 22:57:20 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: ABC's Pseudo-pods Resent-Message-ID: <"gDL801.0.Gv6.0ru1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10363 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John, I don't watch it .... Muppet Babies is OK .... or Star Trek with a bowl of ice cream and one of the kids is not so bad. J On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, John E. Steck wrote: > On Aug 29, 11:12am, Terry Blanton wrote: > > > And they wonder why people are fleeing to cable TV. > > How about fleeing TV all together? I've noticed as my free time gets more and > more scarce, the less I want to waste it watching the "stupid" box. Rarely is > there anything worthwhile or "all the facts" anymore. Can't say the papers are > much better. I find much better/more complete/detailed info out here in the > electronic wasteland. > > Ranting again, sorry! > > > -- > John E. Steck > Prototype Tooling > Motorola Inc. > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 18:59:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 21:59:04 -0500 Subject: Vigier says "tight orbitals" can yield "excess energy" Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"1YiEF2.0.Q15.Ymt1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10361 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex (et. al.): Here is some good news to offset the bad news about Japan's shutdown of the MITI - NHE program. I just returned from the "Vigier II" symposium at York University in Toronto [Ref. 1]. On Tuesday (26 August), Jean-Pierre Vigier gave a talk [Ref. 2] which outlined new developments in electromagnetic theory which predict the possibility of obtaining "excess energy" by inducing electrons in H2+ and D2+ atoms to fall into "tightly bound st ates" below the first conventional Bohr orbit. As I understand it, Vigier's proposal (originally given at ICCF 4 [Ref. 3]) is this: by treating the electron as a real spatially-extended charge distribution within the deBroglie-Bohm Quantum Potential formalism, and by taking into account the coupling b etween spin-spin and spin-orbit magnetic moments of an atom within an applied magnetic field, one can predict that "soft X-rays" on the order of several thousand electron-volts per atom will be produced. Conventional quantum mechanics (eg, the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr) fails to see this possibility because it assumes that electron spin orientations are totally random, says Vigier. Quote from Ref. 2: "These new EM interactions lead to possible interpretations of recent exothermic electrolytic and plasma discharge experiments, and predict new chemical bonds and new nuclear phenomena in dense media under the influence of real short range magnetic intera ctions." Vigier's paper cites a few recent publications [Refs. 4 to 6], and he also mentioned the work of Geo. Miley at Chicago and Mike McKubre at SRI. In discussion, Vigier said that if "excess heat" is generated in Pons-Fleischmann type Cold Fusion experiments (ie, a metal lattice loaded with D2 or H2), its source would not be nuclear fusion but rather the collapse of electrons into "tight orbits" as p redicted by his theory. He also said that the French Atomic Energy Authority (eg, Biberian et. al.) and "Shell" are sponsoring major work in France to study this possibility. It's worth noting (though it proves nothing scientifically) that Vigier is an eminent scientist (age 77) whose long career included work with Louis deBroglie and David Bohm, among others. He is currently an editor of Physics Letters A, published in Europe . ---------------------- [1]. "Causality and Locality in Modern Physics and Astronomy: Open Questions and Possible Solutions. A Symposium to Honour Jean-Pierre Vigier". August 25-29, 1997, York University. Website at URL: http://turing.sci.yorku.ca/VigierII/ [2] "Possible Consequences of an Extended Charged Particle Model in Electromagnetic Theory" by J.-P. Vigier. Presentation 26 August 1997 at Ref. 1. [3] J.P. Vigier. "New Hydrogen (Deuterium) Bohr Orbits in Quantum Chemistry and 'Cold Fusion' Processes". ICCF4 Proceedings. Hawaii (1993). [4] N.V. Samsonenko, D.V. Tahi, and F. Ndahayo. "On the Barut-Vigier Model of the Hydrogen Atom". Physics Letters A 220 (1996) 297. [5] A.O. Barut. "Prediction of New Tightly-Bound States of H2+ (D2+) and 'Cold Fusion' Experiments". Colorado University Preprint (1995). [6] J.P. Vigier. Physics Letters A. 211 (1996) 138. Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================ Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates - Custom Software Development - - Quality Control Engineering - ============================================ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Aug 29 20:19:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:16:02 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Numbers Game? Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:14:15 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970828130804.AAA25183 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"6Kk3X.0.b6.i1v1q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10364 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:08:06 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >To Vortex, > >Suppose that in CF or HF, production of "Light Lepton" pairs >(from say, 1.0 to 2 ev photons in a very narrow range) >"Hydrinos-Deutrinos" were being formed and were responsible for >"Quantum Mechanical Tunnelling" and/or heat, how much return could >one expect from a "photon energy investment" with any of the of the >CF or HF phenomena when say one in N thousand photons in the >1 to 2 ev range produced a pair and this pair produced the heat or >a few fusion reactions? 1000 * 2 eV = 2000 eV. Resultant energy from just about any simple nuclear reaction +- 1 MeV. Return on investment 500:N (not counting conversion of heat to electricity, but then 1 MeV is also very rough). > >Same question for "fractional orbits" in hydrogen producing the >"Hydrinos-Deutrinos" and the "catalyzed" effects. See http://www.blacklightpower.com/ for Hydrino calculations. Somewhere in there he does a calculation for a power plant, in which the equivalent formula is revealed to your "N in a thousand". Sorry can't find it right now. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 02:17:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 02:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:21:57 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, storms@ix.netcom.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, g-miley@uiuc.edu, design73 aol.com Subject: Cincinatti Group report: some questions Resent-Message-ID: <"UYpCX3.0.-f5.aI-1q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10366 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com August 29-30, 1997 The Cincinnati Group had Robert R. Liversge of Data Chem Laboratories [4388 Glendale-Milford Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242-3706, 513-733-5336] analyze by ICP/MS four vials of 20.0 ml solution each in June, 1997: Vial 1: Unprocessed reagent Blank, 5 % concentrated nitric plus 5 % hydrochloric acid in water, used for blank subtraction of the mass spectra from the other three vials, and to dilute the other three vials. Vial 2: Processed cell blank, two drops hydrochloric acid in 600 ml water, then 25 ml was processed in a zirconium cell with 60 Hz AC for 30 minutes, up to 7.5 A, up to 176 V, up to 277.4 degrees F, up to about 4 atm pressure. Solutions for Vials 2, 3, and 4 were diluted 100X and 20.0 ml placed in each vial and tested by ICP/MS. Vial 3: Processed thorium test sample, two drops hydrochloric acid plus about 6 grams thorium nitrate in 600 ml water, and then 25 ml was processed and later diluted. Vial 4: Unprocessed thorium test sample, not processed, and diluted. The 1.5 inch diameter zirconium [amu 90, 91, 92, 94, 96] cell had thick stainless steel end caps with "non-conductive gaskets", held firmly with four thick outer bolts. An inner disk zirconium electrode, with about .125 inch clearance, was held on an axia l stainless steel rod with teflon tube insulator sleeves. The cell was operated horizontally. Five full pages of ICP/MS data in small print are in "Infinite Energy", much easier to read if magnified to 135 % by zerox copying onto 11X17 paper. Masses are listed from amu 4 to 245, except for 14-20 [N, O, F, Ne] and 39-40 [K, Ar, Ca]. Why these omi ssions? Here is a summary of Total Intensity [TI] and Assigned Intensities [AI = by a data analysis computer program] for some of the amu masses: Vial 1: 32: TI: S 2,961,796 AI: S 2,961,796 NO 1,524 ? -1,524 33: TI: S 8,668 AI: S 23,695 ? -15,027 34: TI: S 10,568 AI: S 131,567 ? -120,999 So, for Vial 1, for three S isotopes, the computer program estimates the amount of Assigned Intensity for amu 33 and 34 on the basis of the natural isotopic ratio, with the Total Intensity of amu 32, the most common isotope, as a basis. This causes the p rogram to calculate that there is a substantial deficit of the two S isotopes 33 and 34, and thus the question marks. Down the list, there is a cluster of five unknown high values for amu = 64, 65, 66, 67, and 68 [Zn, Ni, Cu isotopes], with TI values = 3 748, 3756, 2640, 1880, and 1924. Are these interferences from SS molecules? The program gives many odd molecular interferences I would never have dreamed of: NAr, ArOH, and ArAr. This is enough to demonstrate that the data hold multitudes of interlocke d puzzles. Cl, from the hydrochloric acid, at amu 35 and 37 has TI 1,694,916 and 455,808. So, why so much more S? Or is the high value at amu 32 from OO? Th-232 gives TI 1896, while U-238 explodes with 1,365,680. Wow! The questions bespeak themselves... Oh, now I see, on page 22: "7.) Beryllium, germanium, and uranium were spiked into all four solutions as standards for matrix effect compensation..." S o, must be that a little Th piggybacked on the U. Pb [amu 204, 206, 207, 208] was AI 12, 180, 172, 399. Vial 2: 25 ml slightly acidic water solution was processed, and then diluted 100X with the solution measured as Vial 1. So, it is striking that there are AI values over 100,000 for Si-28, S-32, Cl-35, Cr-52, Cr-53, Fe-54, Mn-55, Fe-56, 57, Ni-58, Co-59, Ni-60. Th-232 was 3308. This certaily lends credance to Joe Champion's judgement that substantial corrosion of the stainless steel has occured. What does the stainless steel look like? Was it weighed accurately, before and after? What is its exact composition? I am surprised that zirconium [amu 90, 91, 92, 94, 96] had TI 228, 592, 372, 384. Did most of the current pass from the stainless steel axial rod to the stainless steel end plates, largely bypassing the obstensible zirconium electrodes? What was the appearance of the zirconium, its composition, and its before and after weights? Pb [amu 204, 206, 207, 208] was AI 811, 12924, 12376, 28640. What was its source? Vial 3: 25 ml slightly acidic solution containing about .25 gram thorium nitrate was processed, and later diluted 100X. We have AI over 100,000 for Si-28, S-32, Ti-46, 47, 48, 49, 50, Cr-52, Fe-54, Fe-56, Mn-55, Ni-58, Co-59, Th-232. Th-232 is 475,500. Pb [amu 204, 206, 207, 208] was AI 10, 152, 146, 336. This is very close to the unprocessed Vial 1, and much less than the processed Vial 2. What gives? Was the Pb deposited onto and into the stainless steel along with some of the thorium, thereby providing convenienly located shielding for the gammas? Vial 4: Unprocessed slightly acidic thorium nitrate solution, diluted 100X. AI values are for S-32 520,269 and Th-232 1,373,696. For Vial 1, S-32 had AI 2,961,796. Now, 99 % of Vial 4 solution is the same as Vial 1, and just 1 % is from the unprocesse d undiluted thorium nitrate solution, given the 100X dilution. But, the data from Vial 1, the reagent blank, was subtracted from the data for the other three vials. So, the value for Vial 4 indicates that it had about 15% more than Vial 1, after the solution was diluted 100X with Vial 1. So, the concentration of S-32 in the undiluted solution must have been very high. It's 2:25 AM here in Santa Fe, and I find this confusing, but you get the drift. What is the source of this excessive S-32? At a glance, no other mass, except Th-232, seems to present a large discrepancy. Is it possible that, if most of the current was from the stainless steel axial rod to the stainless steel end plates, the thorium was plated onto the stainless steel along with other metals to enough of a degree to shield the tell-tell emision of gammas? Or is it possible that the thorium was converted to a gaseous compound which escaped promptly upon opening of the cell, or a low vapor pressure compound that evaporated more slowly into the open air? I don't see any way to evade the outstanding isotopic anomaly of excess Cu-65-- unless it's actually an interference from SS [sulfur atom pairs, conveniently covalently bonded, much like OO, oxygen atom pairs.] One S-32 plus one S-33 = voila! an item of a mu 65. Or two Si-28 with that almost forgotten additive, Be-9, for a manage de trois. Oh well, it's beddy-bye for me, folks. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 rmforall earthlink.net AS: X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 04:21:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 04:18:16 -0700 Date: 30 Aug 97 07:17:03 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"0peZh3.0.SE3.t502q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10367 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt, > Here's another possibility (and this is only my opinion): > > > con artist + scam + suckers = Greg Watson selling kits to > vortex-l readers I'm certainly not denying any possibilities. It's just - well, it's just that so often boring, ordinary explanations turn out to be right. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 06:20:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 06:17:26 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Numbers Game? Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 13:16:47 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"M1XGT2.0.A55.br12q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10369 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >See http://www.blacklightpower.com/ for Hydrino calculations. > Whether it be production of Hydrinos by "fractional orbits" or by production of "Light Lepton" pairs from 1 to 2 ev photons and subsequent Hydrino production in CF or HF, or the Griggs-Yusmar triboluminescence-chemiluminescence-electroluminescence -sonolu minescence photons-hydrinos, the fact remains that if you only get a few thousandths of the invested energy returned (even in the photoelectric effect there is only one photoelectron/million incident 2 ev photons)the "numbers game" is the same as the one being played in Hot Fusion, only you are investing pennies instead of ten-dollar bills. This seems to be borne out in the electrolysis cells where low current input gives a higher "ou" multiplier.For instance in electronic amplifiers you can get voltage gains of billions if you put in picovolt signals. :-) So, you take it for granted that CF is occurring at a few ev or Kev and see what R.O.I. you can get. The Sun has a Nuclear Reaction Zone estimated to be about 4.0E8 meters in diameter (out of it's total diameter of 1.4E9 meters) and whether the nuclear burn "temperature" needs to be a couple of ev or twenty Kev, the 3.86E26 joule/second (watts)total outp ut created in this Zone is about 12 watts/meter^3 or 12 microwatts/cm^3. The NRZ could get a lot smaller before you get 12 watts/cm^3. :-) Then again if the Sun is running Too Hot to produce 1 to 2 ev photons that may be what is keeping it from exploding. :-) I certainly hope that Randy Mills' Hydrino generator can beat that. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 02:16:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:03:35 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 23:01:14 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"3jPbz1.0.-Z4.cDJ2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10397 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt - > If the shoe fits, wear it. Good point. And it doesn't fit well at all. That's my point. It's not rationalization, and I'm not a kit buyer in denial. I'm an experimenter who has quite a few hours of SMOT experimentation under his belt. I also eke out a living as a prototype developer and short run manufacturer of cast urethane products. I *kn ow* how hard developing prototypes and short manufacturing runs can be, even when the objects have no moving or adjustable parts and don't presume to overturn the laws of physics! I also know the facts surrounding the offering of the kits, the amount of m oney and time which is probably involved, and other facts about Greg mentioned by Dan Q and others. It all adds up to the fact that the scam idea doesn't add up. Look, we mess with some skittish ideas on these lists. We play with controversial gizmos from time to time. Sometimes we're wrong, and sometimes it's just hard to get a solid answer. And yes, there sure are scammers out there. So don't apologise to anyone if you don't think you have anything to apologize for, but remind me not to offer any parts or gizmos or anything for money on this list while you're still on it, ok? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 02:21:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:11:59 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 23:09:37 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: I am Back & SMOT Mk2 Beta 5 Resent-Message-ID: <"FfBTx2.0.og4.ULJ2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10398 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg - > The flat rollin length has been ignored so far, > but is a REAL element in a SMOT ramp's > performance. Aha! That makes sense, at least in that it's a whole 'nother parameter I never really looked at. Like having a longish magnet array, and a longer flat or (upwardly curved?) shallow slope culminating in a steeper section nearer to the intense fields - mayb e higher altitude gained by the increased momentum resulting? Is that it? What would the field exit curve be like on such a unit? Not sharp, you said? About what radius? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 09:12:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'rmforall@earthlink.net'" , "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Cincinatti Group report: some questions Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 09:04:20 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"zP-9c.0.7Y3.ON42q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10372 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id JAA28928 Rich, I am only going to address two of your questions for the rest will become obvious after the Los Alamos test. Masses are listed from amu 4 to 245, except for 14-20 [N, O, F, Ne] and 39-40 [K, Ar, Ca]. Why these omissions? This straight forward. You have atmospheric presence and transport presence (H2O) of H, N, & O. After the aqueous stream passes the nebulizer, it the mixes with the carrier gas Ar which has a contaminate of Ne. This accounts for the non reporting of th ese numbers. So, for Vial 1, for three S isotopes, the computer program estimates the amount of Assigned Intensity for amu 33 and 34 on the basis of the natural isotopic ratio, with the Total Intensity of amu 32, the most common isotope, as a basis. This causes the p rogram to calculate that there is a substantial deficit of the two S isotopes 33 and 34, and thus the question marks. There is an obvious problem in the algorithm in this ICP/MS. The mass of the major sulfur isotope is 32. But this is also the mass for di-atomic oxygen O2. The most recent Perkin Elmer Software takes this into account. As far as the anomalies in Vial 3, I would say that they are most likely created from anomalies in the ICP system. In my humble opinion, the CG has not provided a single thread of evidence that transmutation occurred. Yes they reported a 3:1 decrease in radiation, but add up the numbers and you will see from there cell contamination that they diluted the sample 6:1. With the microscopic quantity of Th that they started with and the dilution of the ending sample by contamination -- one would the RM-60 small window detector to have a lower reading. Under no circumstances does this infer transmutation. I am going to wait for Claytor's report -- for he follow an accepted scientific protocol. Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.98 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 09:14:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:10:31 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Watson and *Simple Magnetic* References: Resent-Message-ID: <"7EBva3.0.Rb3.ZP42q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10373 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Schnurer wrote: (and Patrick snipped) > I personally am working on a simple demonstration kit for > demonstration of one aspect of Eugene E. Podkletnov's work. I am > close > but not there yet. > John,On which aspect of Podkletnov's experiment are you working? And how close are you? -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 10:43:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:39:35 -0700 X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 13:36:43 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window. ( Aerogel.) Resent-Message-ID: <"sRojI3.0.R33.Mh52q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10376 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Patrick, and All: I went to the site that Patrick mentioned: ...and quoting Judith Anne Gunther therein; "The next step is to produce 80 samples of these aerogels aboard a space shuttle flight scheduled for January 1998. With the longer exposure to low gravity, the researchers hope to make virtually transparent aerogels -- -and to discover why gravity plays a role in aerogel pore size. Noever predicts that windows using aerogel technology could hit the market within five years." Now I was just idly wondering if this aerogel has diamagnetic properties?. ..and if they need to reduce internal bouyancy during manufacturing, would it not be possible to just use a high strength magnetic field? Not enough for a full-frog diamagnetic suspension of course, but of sufficient strength for the period of time neces sary to allow the aerogel bubbles to do what is required. ( for a 'marketable' transparency. ) The aerogel material might act as if it were in a low G field, and it might save millions of dollars in space research costs... Btw, Patrick; your Web Site: looks kinda empty. Whatever did you do to it, and why? I know you have some great links there, but I can't seem to see them anymore! ;-) Colin Quinney. ( Perpetual student ) At 12:57 PM 8/29/97 -0500, you wrote: >Jorg Ostrowski wrote: > >> Patrick: Thank you for your response. If you or anyone has a copy of >> this >> or relevant article, I would be grateful. Thank you the visit from the >> >> real world. My fax number is listed below. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect >> in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978), >> >> - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and >> office >> A.S.H. - Autonomous & Sustainable Housing Inc., >> Phone: (403) 239-1882, Fax: (403) 547-2671 >> Web Site [under construction]: >> http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> >> > >Jorg,I've located the article in question at >http://www.popsci.com/content/hometech/news/970628.h.html >The info I gave as to its thermal characteristics was in error. One inch >of Aerogel has the thermal equivalent of a ten >inch conventional window utilizing 15 panes of glass with trapped air >between each pane. > > >-- >Patrick V. Reavis >Student at Large > /\ > / \ > / G \ > ~~~~~~~~ > DELTA-G > > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 11:25:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:22:15 -0700 Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 22:14:47 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: pay no attention References: <199708301635.SAA19359 sunny.bahnhof.se> Resent-Message-ID: <"xPHO63.0.aY4.MJ62q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10377 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >>>Please disregard the negative comments on vortex. Me too.. Anyway, I don't believe Watson can be turn off with any negative reactions. This is because if you see the "free energy" or its sign you never giveup! (This is not to exclusive to FE, but to any scientific breakthrough.) This is the point, and explain en ormous effort made by WATSON to replicate his results (by third parties), and share his discovery. hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 11:33:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:30:18 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:22:35 -0700 Subject: SMOT is not a scam References: <970830111702_100433.1541_BHG77-1 compuserve.com> X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4,6,8-9,11-14,16,18,20,22-24,26,28-30,33-47 From: tv@juno.com (Tim D Vaughan) Resent-Message-ID: <"Qun6V3.0.J25.tQ62q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10382 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I may be wrong, but I don't think Mr. Watson is a con artist. It is very apparent from his very considerable efforts and detailed documentation that he is genuine in his efforts. I have followed this very closely including the construction of SMOT I and SMOT II. Most of what he has said can be confirmed. The tricky part of course is the overunity claims which I and most others have not yet been able to verify. That was the whole idea behind the kits. The whole purpose of the kits was to provide a repeatable demonstration of the phenomena that Greg claims to observe. Nothing more. If he was a con artist he would have asked much more than the quite reasonable $115. I still say be patient. The SMOT phenomena if it is really overunity is a subtle and poorly understood. I think Greg is just trying to standardize it. Engineering something can often take longer than anticipated especially when it involves new principles. Greg may be wishing he had not made the offer so early, but how did he know how difficult it would be. As far as why he is not posting messages: Maybe he is sick with the flu or something (remember it is winter still in Australia) or he is on a trip. I would not post the fact that I was going to go on a trip on the internet. Would you ? Lets give him the benefit of the doubt. So far Greg Watson has gone much farther than any other inventor of a free energy device in assisting others to verify his claims. Tim Vaughan ( tv juno.com ) > > Here's another possibility (and this is only my opinion): > > > > > > con artist + scam + suckers = Greg Watson selling kits to > > vortex-l readers > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 11:30:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 14:22:37 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Gravity Re: Watson and *Simple Magnetic* Resent-Message-ID: <"rua0O3.0.xx6.QO62q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10380 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo., E E Podkletnov demostrated what I term "Gravity Modification" which is what I use in the title of the patent application. I have replicated a reduction on roughly 40 out of 500 runs. Recently, with yet another stab at modification of the set up I am getting reduction modification in nearly every run. My next step will be to go through a few more variables and try for the 'every time a go' goal. Reasonably close. J On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Patrick V. Reavis wrote: > John Schnurer wrote: > (and Patrick snipped) > > > I personally am working on a simple demonstration kit for > > demonstration of one aspect of Eugene E. Podkletnov's work. I am > > close > > but not there yet. > > > > John,On which aspect of Podkletnov's experiment are you working? And > how close are you? > > > -- > Patrick V. Reavis > Student at Large > /\ > / \ > / G \ > ~~~~~~~~ > DELTA-G > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 11:26:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:24:06 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: SMOT To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 13:24:02 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"0dNXa.0.Af4.5L62q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10379 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt Johmann wrote: > Here's another possibility (and this is only my opinion): > con artist + scam + suckers = Greg Watson selling kits to vortex-l readers This is a bit extreme. It is highly evident that Greg has thought a lot about these sorts of devices -- whether or not there is really O/U involved. Anybody who as ever labored to make things elegantly simple will see the same care and affection in Greg's work. It is also likely that he has spent more of his own time and money working on these devices than he could hope to recoup from "kit" sales to the e-mail groups. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 11:32:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:27:09 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Scientists Discover Massive Jet Streams Flowing Inside the Sun Resent-Message-ID: <"E3hLq.0.cz6.DP62q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10381 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thanks for this post, I might have missed it otherwise; The observations are actually tracking the flow of aether out of the sun, indirectly, via tracking the effect of that aether flow on the ions in the way. > >> "We have detected motion similar to the weather patterns in > >>the Earth's atmosphere," said Dr. Jesper Schou of Stanford. > >>"Moreover, in what is a completely new discovery, we have found a > >>jet-like flow near the poles. This flow is totally inside the > >>Sun. It is completely unexpected, and cannot be seen at the surface." > >> What they are seeing is that the aether released in fusion reactions in the core must flow out through the volume of the sun to become more of the ocean of a universe we call the "empty vacuum of space". The reason the aether is flowing is because the fu sion reactions in the core release aether that otherwise was confined in the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms. Composite particles up to iron are not able to confine as much aether per nucleon, and so some of the aether is emitted from the oscillating aether resonances (particles) in jets during the fusion reactions. Those jet like emissions at nuclear scales (ie ~E-15 m) lead to the acceleration of the nuclei away from one another, and thus, to heating. But once released, the aether becomes part of the ambient pressure of the ocean (universe). And because the pressure of the aether in the core of the sun is greater than it is out in deeper space, there is a flow that is initiated away from the sun. The rivers they measure are literally rivers of aether trying to get out of the sun. These carry away angular momentum (rotational), and this is why the suns rotational period is so much slower than physicists expect. Also, the rotation of the aether co ntinues sort of like a huge whirlpool, right on out of our solar system. Thus, the velocity of the aether relative to the circular velocities of the planets is essentially zero. This is why Michelson and Morley did not measure any aether wind, among oth er reasons. > >> Finally, the solar physicists have determined that the > >>entire outer layer of the Sun, to a depth of at least 15,000 > >>miles, is slowly but steadily flowing from the equator to the > >>poles. The polar flow rate is relatively slow, about 50 miles per > >>hour, compared to its rotation speed, about 4,000 miles per hour; > >>however, this is fast enough to transport an object from the > >>equator to the pole in a bit more than a year. The poles are the paths of least resistance to the flow. That is why you have the high velocity component of the solar wind (800 m/s vs 400 m/s elsewhere). That high velocity component is blowing matter out of the sun, and so other matter must cycle nor th and south to replace it. It is a sort of rolling recycling of the matter throughout the sun. I haven't nailed this down very well as of yet. But this motion ought to be additionally involved with the magnetic fields of the sun. So it may well be that this motion reverses every 11 years as the solar magnetic polarity reverses. It has been a long time since I worked on these details, so I may be too glib here. But keep an eye on their mention of the direction of motion of the matter toward the poles to see if that motion reverses when the polar fields reverse on the next cycle. > >> > >> "Oddly enough, the polar flow moves in the opposite > >>direction from that of the sunspots and the zonal belts, which are > >>moving from higher to lower latitudes," said DeForest. The sun spot cycle is induced because the reactivity in the core of the sun varies on the 11 year cycle. In other words, as the reactivity goes up and down, the volume of aether that must flow out through the volume of the sun also goes up and down. At the velocity of the solar wind, the distance from core to surface is measured in a small number of hours. But, it is hard for the aether flowing out through the particles of the sun to proceed, ie the resistance is large. It is like having a fluidized bed of particles as in a grain silo. The fluid must flow outward (air for silo, aether for sun) while the p articles (grain for silo, ions for sun) fall at their local terminal velocity in the opposite direction. The terminal velocity is determined by the effect of the interference of the particles with the wave energy arriving from above, and pushing them dow nward. That is "gravity". The interesting thing about the sunspots is that if you turn up the flow of fluid in a fluidized bed, there is a period of adjusting to the new flow conditions. In a grain silo, or sand fluidization, what happens at first is that the rising fluid punches holes through the matter to be fluidized forming in essence, tunnels. This is easier to do than to fully fluidize the media. So the first stage in fluidization is this formation of tunnels from the region of least resistance toward the regions of maxi mum resistance to the flow. Eventually, the entire media heap is fully fluidized, ie the separation distances between particles is slightly larger, so the overall resistance to flow is balanced out and evenly distributed, and tunnels are no longer an advantage. This is like the dif ference between starting water to boil, and the eventual rolling boil in a sense, but fluidized beds are much better analogies, even if few people are familiar with how they work (a fluidized bed of sand for example offers almost no resistance to your pus hing your hand down into it and very fragile ceramic shells can be built up in this manner for casting processes by coating a wax positive with successive layers of sand. The air fluidization of the sand offers little perceptible resistance to one puttin g ones hand down into the seemingly "solid" bucket of sand) In any case, the polar routes for aether emission are the easiest routes. So when the solar flow increases, the poles will be the first regions from where additional aether escapes. But then that flow will propogate and gradually fluidize the balance of the sun. The flow is slow enough to lead to tunnel formation at the highe r lattitudes and away from the poles, so sun spots (which are just aether tunnels, go look at a detailed photo and you will be convinced ;-) first form at mid to high lattitudes and then migrate toward the equator as the fluidization process proceeds. Some times, large bubbles of aether are formed and the flow is not rapid enough to evacuate the aether. So we see huge coronal mass ejections blast out of the entire sun. Typically, this occurs in opposing jets and global events. These are not the spre ading out of energy released in solar flares, which are now known to be a completely independent and different kind of an event. Flares are due to the magnetic field geometries which I won't go into here. While CME's are due to the aether emissions. At the surface of the sun, when the aether breaks out of the surface, the pressure drops rapidly, the aether accelerates rapidly, and the ions caught up in that are as well, accelerated inertially in that short time span. We observe this heating mechanis m as the coronal heating. I have posted querries about recent observations dealing with the ion heating and velocity dispersions, but no one is responding, and the follow up paper to the spring 96 announcement has not yet appeared. It was supposed to be out this spring, but has n ot been released to my knowledge. SOHO researchers were looking into the peculiar fact that the ions in the corona seem to have similar velocity dispersions, something virtually unthinkable if one is restricted to using magnetic resonance heating mechanisms. But, if you have aether flowing out of the sun, and that pressure drop flings the ions in that aether, the interaction should be approximately inertial, ie coupling to mass, not charge to mass ratio. This is what is observed, but there is no classical ex planation for it. One must work with an aether based universe to explain it. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 14:24:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 14:23:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:26:01 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Scientists Discover Massive Jet Streams Flowing Inside the Sun Resent-Message-ID: <"hsb4F2.0.QX3.yy82q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10384 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Thanks for this post, I might have missed it otherwise; > >The observations are actually tracking the flow of aether out of the sun, >indirectly, via tracking the effect of that aether flow on the ions in the >way. > >> >> "We have detected motion similar to the weather patterns in >> >>the Earth's atmosphere," said Dr. Jesper Schou of Stanford. >> >>"Moreover, in what is a completely new discovery, we have found a >> >>jet-like flow near the poles. This flow is totally inside the >> >>Sun. It is completely unexpected, and cannot be seen at the surface." >> >> > >What they are seeing is that the aether released in fusion reactions in the >core must flow out through the volume of the sun to become more of the ocean >of a universe we call the "empty vacuum of space". The reason the aether is snip-- >up paper to the spring 96 announcement has not yet appeared. It was >supposed to be out this spring, but has not been released to my knowledge. >SOHO researchers were looking into the peculiar fact that the ions in the >corona seem to have similar velocity dispersions, something virtually >unthinkable if one is restricted to using magnetic resonance heating >mechanisms. > >But, if you have aether flowing out of the sun, and that pressure drop >flings the ions in that aether, the interaction should be approximately >inertial, ie coupling to mass, not charge to mass ratio. This is what is >observed, but there is no classical explanation for it. One must work with >an aether based universe to explain it. > >Later, Ross Tessien Dear Ross, Thanks for your very interesting and informative post. It represents further corroboration of what Dr. Ellsworth Huntington (EARTH & SUN) and Joseph Newman (THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN) have stated is the case relative to the Sun. As Joseph Newman stated in his book in the chapter on Astronomy: "On the bottom of page 283 of EARTH AND SUN, Huntington states that he is not implying that the energy emitted from sunspots is derived from the planets, but that the planets act as a catalyst to cause the release of energy that is continuously present in the Sun, i.e., similar to a 'trigger mechanism' used in an explosion. 44-N(1). I agree with this statement completely. 44-N(2). The Sun is Matter (electromagnetic energy), and the Matter is continuously converted into electromagnetic energy of one form or another. When tiggered by electromagnetic induction, the Sun apparently accelerates its conversion of Matte into electromagnetic energy. (See Figure 44-O.) 44-N(3). The sunspots and planets are behaving in accordance with the known Laws of Electromagnetic Induction. 44-N(4). Sunspot reversal is caused by the sum of the total effect of all the planets in terms of whether the resultant, dominating, electromagnetic induction force is above or below the Sun's equator. As the planets continuously vary in their alignment , it is obvious that the resultant, dominating, electromagnetic induction force will also vary as it occurs throughout the observed sunspot cycle. As Joseph Newman has stated: "The Sun's magnetic field connects with a far larger magnetic field: _our galaxy's magnetic field_. "...all planetary motion in our Solar System is controlled by the Sun's magnetic and electric fields of force." "...the triggering of the release of energy in sunspots also have an electromagnetic induction force into the planets." _______________________________ Best regards, Evan Soule' X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 16:41:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:37:42 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"d250X3.0.IH6.LyA2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10388 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dan said; >This hardly deserves response, nobody with any real familiarity with the >situation could come up with that assessment. Read the archives, fella. But >just for the latecomers and people who must have a logical argument: > >Greg may have sold a couple dozen kits at most. Figure the real income from >that. He spent hundreds of hours on this project, who knows how many tens of >hours just dealing with the e-mail on the subject. Figure the hourly income >from the above two numbers, that's the net benefit. This is absolutely the case and to post otherwise is plain malicious. Kurt ought to offer up an apology if he hasn't already, as should anyone else who has proposed that Greg is not trying to build the kits. What Greg is doing is not easy. Second, if you didn't want to buy a kit, then you could have built your own device, but if you add up the value of your time plus materials, you would have spent a whole lot more. I own a manufacturing company, and if Greg contracted me to fabricate these things for him to sell to you guys, I would probably charge him about $600.00 to build ten of them. The reason is because the design is not nailed down and I know it would take m y machinists a lot of hours fiddling around to get them to work. The hundred dollars or so that was charged is not enough to cover the cost of fabrication. It probably only just covered his materials costs since you must buy larger quantities of things when you are fist buying stuff, so he is definitely losing money on this deal. That fact is probably why it is taking so long. He definitely must be earning an income from some other source, work or retirement (don't know his age!) And things go wrong when you build the first prototypes, they always do. So if you want some of the first of anything, then put up **and** shut up about the wait. As many posts as Greg has made it is simple to know that he is trying to demonstrate this effect. Newcomers, please disregard the discourteous statements above. Think about it; even if someone wanted to scam a bunch of people what would they do? delay shipping? no. You would want to get a lot of people to buy them just like the Levitron top, a neat toy. Whether or not it is ou is irrelevant, it is still a va luable product as a toy since people are not used to seeing things roll up hill. I paid $40 for a Levitron, and if Greg gets things squared away I might just buy one of his things too. But I don't expect they are ou devices. Ross Tessien Impulse Engineering, Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 17:13:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:10:11 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 00:09:36 GMT Organization: Improving References: <34070D9B.AE508FD7@ro.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"JKAMP2.0.9Z7.XPB2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10391 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:57:48 -0500, Patrick V. Reavis wrote: [snip] >Jorg,I've located the article in question at >http://www.popsci.com/content/hometech/news/970628.h.html >The info I gave as to its thermal characteristics was in error. One inch >of Aerogel has the thermal equivalent of a ten >inch conventional window utilizing 15 panes of glass with trapped air >between each pane. [snip] Sounds like it would be useful in skylights, as it is. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.eisa.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." PS - no SPAM thanks! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 21:20:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:15:04 -0700 Date: 31 Aug 97 00:13:16 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 CompuServe.COM> To: vortex-l Subject: A Lady Resent-Message-ID: <"-hOA3.0.dH6.7_E2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10394 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com We extend our deepest sympathies to our British friends on the loss of Diana, Princess of Wales. We loved her, too. Terry USA X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 22:24:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 22:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 22:19:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Randall Subject: Re: A Lady Resent-Message-ID: <"CNdhk1.0.wR6.LyF2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10395 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Peace on Earth X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Aug 30 23:30:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 23:26:22 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 00:24:11 -0600 (MDT) From: "John R. Tooker" To: vo rtex-l Subject: Re: A Lady Organization: Calgary Free-Net Resent-Message-ID: <"TY_oT3.0.AC2.DwG2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10396 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Yea verily. We in Canada shal miss her as well. We also grieve for her children for thier loss. John Canada On 31 Aug 1997, Terry Blanton wrote: > > We extend our deepest sympathies to our British friends on the loss of Diana, > Princess of Wales. > > We loved her, too. > > Terry > USA > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 02:18:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 31 Aug 97 05:10:22 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: SMOT, gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"7nPRY.0.YK2.DNJ2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10399 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I was delighted to see Greg's posting, and trust that Kurt will have the generosity of spirit to make an appropriate apology. On the matter of John Schnurer's post, I look forward to hearing more about his apparent improved reproducibility. I would also add that I agree entirely with his comments on the difficulty of tackling Ol' Momma Nature. I'm just now working on some expe rimental stuff, and as usual all kinds of irritations and frustrations are coming up to get in my way. And that is simply an effort to sort out the measurements with better instruments! Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 02:44:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:37:37 -0700 Date: 31 Aug 97 05:35:57 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Matthews slams Hawking Resent-Message-ID: <"KQbxC2.0.vw4.WjJ2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10400 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com May I draw the attention of this group to the excellent article by Robert Matthews in today's (UK) The Sunday Telegraph. In it, he launches a scathing attack on the fizzix of Hawking and others, with especial reference to a forthcoming TV series about hi s ideas of an imminent Answer To The Ultimate Question Of Life, The Universe And Everything. This soon be available on the web, www.telegraph.co.uk - at present Matthews' contribution of last week, about how so much that is now published in science is a total waste of time. Interesting, that. Matthews has always been interested in new physics - he wrote some good stuff on zpf - but he was always pretty much conventionally based. Like so many of us, he now seems to have lost patience with the way so much honest science has degenerated into Hawking-style speculative drivel or time-wasting. And this in the most establishment-minded newspaper in the UK. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 08:23:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 08:20:32 -0700 From: atech@ix.netcom.com X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 11:25:34 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com, List Server Freenrg Subject: Princess Diana Copyright (was Re: Diana) Cc: List Server NeoTech , List Server Newman Resent-Message-ID: <"3hlS21.0.Jh4.-kO2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10408 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com How about modifying the Copyright Laws so that celebrities could Copyright their own image? Regards; Dennis C. Lee At 04:12 AM 8/31/97 -0600, John R. Tooker wrote: > > > >On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Greg Watson wrote: > >> >> To All who care about others and personal freedom, >> >> It is with much sadness that my family & I learned of Diana's untimely >> death. >> >> Our heart felt wishes go out to her family and sons. >> >> Too bad she didn't live in South Australia. Here we have anti stalking >> / harassment legislation and Diana could have gotten legal protection >> from the press's unwanted intrusion into her life which has now cost her >> so much. >> >> I would request you ALL to press for this type of legal protection. >> >> Tomorrow someone you love could be Diana. >I couldn't agree more! As a victim of stalking (my ex wife) myself, I urge >anyone and everyone to consider the value of such laws. >Regards, >John > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 07:00:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 06:57:42 -0700 From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Diana Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 12:57:29 GMT References: <34094004.7F496703 microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"CVg_O1.0.Zn1.LXN2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10403 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by big.aa.net id HAA26401 On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:27:24 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: _>To All who care about others and personal freedom, _>It is with much sadness that my family & I learned of Diana's untimely _>death. _>Our heart felt wishes go out to her family and sons. [snip] _>Tomorrow someone you love could be Diana. Hear! Hear! I am also greatly saddened by this incident. Diana was a good person and deserved much better than this. [rant_mode] Diana has not been given one moment's peace by the media since she and Charles were married. Virtually every other "celebrity" on the planet is similarly and continuously harrassed. The "Freedom of the Press" is all very well as a principle but the media are blatantly abusing their privileged position. They demonstrably care nothing for objective reporting. Their sole interest is in what "sells". They, without exception, pander to the baser interests of people and, by so doing, encourage proliferation of such interests. They thereby prove that they have absolutely no interest in the well-being and future viability of our society. Those photogs committed, IMHO, an act of homicide and should be judged and sentenced accordingly. It is long past time for the media to start taking responsibility for the results of their actions, to police their own ranks and to stop being merchants of the cheaply sensational and of chaos. If they do not, such "free" press as still exists will ultimately disappear and we will be one step closer to a world wide police state. [/rant_mode] ====================================================== Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of. - Michael Sinz ====================================================== X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 00:25:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:20:19 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:17:56 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Death of Princess of Wales Resent-Message-ID: <"l-fM01.0.PQ.noc2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10432 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > Let us abandon this discussion. Agreed. We can get all we want of it on TV, other forums, or anywhere else for that matter. No disrespect intended to either the victims themselves or those on the list here who are responding emotionally to it, but the issues raised by the incident are not appro priate subjects for discussion here. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 07:53:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 07:51:14 -0700 From: Tstolper aol.com Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:50:39 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ragland Triode update Resent-Message-ID: <"Z_Wu61.0.1H3.XJO2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10404 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris, Scott, Some more questions about your tests of Ragland's triode cell: What kind of water purification did Ragland use? Did he use a deionization and decontamination system of the kind that college chemistry labs use? Did he use distilled water that hadn't been deionized and decontaminated? If Ragland did use a water purification protocol, did you use the same one? (Just finished the report by Tinsley and Rothwell in IE No. 13-14, didn't see anything about this on a first reading.) Ragland gave Cravens the credit for developing the triode cell. Has there been a report somewhere of Cravens' triode results? Did you consult Cravens? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 07:55:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 07:52:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:50:44 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"qPMYy2.0.A67.mKO2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10405 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Terry Blanton reported that an ABC-TV program on August 28, "Junk Science," disparaged cold fusion. How long was the program? How long was the segment on cold fusion? Does anyone have any other details on that segment? Or was it just a passing mention? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 07:53:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 07:51:26 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:50:48 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: CF & Lake Van Monster Resent-Message-ID: <"B3xFn1.0.vH3.jJO2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10406 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert Park said that a story about a Nessie-like monster in Lake Van, Turkey, bumped the story about CETI from the first hour of the June 11 Good Morning America program to the second hour. I didn't see anything about a Lake Van monster in the transcript of the program. Was there a mention of the monster during one of the breaks for local or world news? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 08:05:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 11:01:53 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hal; Re: NASA posts the results... Resent-Message-ID: <"rkDT83.0.F5.DVO2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10407 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross, Thanks for your comments. I also see much resonance between our somewhat different approaches. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 13:35:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:01:54 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: CF & Lake Van Monster References: <970831105047_1260370059 emout10.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"SqN9X2.0.35.XLT2q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10417 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > Robert Park said that a story about a Nessie-like monster in Lake Van, > Turkey, bumped the story about CETI from the first hour of the June > 11 Good > Morning America program to the second hour. > > I didn't see anything about a Lake Van monster in the transcript of > the program. Was there a mention of the monster during one of the > breaks for local or world news? I live in Turkey, in the same territory of the Lake Van, but far away. This is a traditional rumour continuing for hundred years. I never consider it seriously. I am not denying it. But there is no strong evidence ever. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 08:28:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 08:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: 31 Aug 97 11:23:53 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Ragland Triode update Resent-Message-ID: <"Mvm433.0.2j.5rO2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10409 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tom, > If Ragland did use a water purification protocol, did you use the > same one? (Just finished the report by Tinsley and Rothwell in IE > No. 13-14, didn't see anything about this on a first reading.) Although Ragland has on occasion diluted his heavy water with light water, the basic experiment uses high-purity heavy water. I'm sorry if our report in IE did not make this entirely clear. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 09:26:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 09:24:21 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Pyroelectric-Electrothermal-caloric Effects. Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:23:43 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"TLsBe2.0.Ej6.qgP2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10410 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, The thermoelectric conversion approach used by Harold Aspden, that Mike Carrell discussed recently, prompted some searching of the literature on pyroelectric, electrothermal, and electrocaloric effects. Seems that certain dielectric films have a built-in Polarization that can cause these effects. Amongst them are cellulose, and cellulose-based materials such as viscose-rayon, celluloid, cellophane, acetate rayon. and even cane sugar, and tartaric acid. The Polarization change; dPi = (rho)i * dT i = x,y,z, (rho)i is the pyroelectric coefficient. Then for the electrocaloric or electrothermal effect and the built-in electric polarization: dT = T/ (rho)*Cp = Sum PiEi i = x,y,z, I would say that the aluminized "plastic" film that Aspden used in his "thermoelectric converter" and the aluminized cigarette package paper that I noticed a thermoelectric effect with, are showing these pyroelectric effects. Seems that this could be a very fertile area of investigation. Do you agree, Mike? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 11:37:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 11:33:32 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:32:52 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window References: Resent-Message-ID: <"vmMGy1.0.lU2.xZR2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10411 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jorg Ostrowski wrote: > Patrick: Thank you for your response. If you or anyone has a copy of > this > or relevant article, I would be grateful. Jorg,Here is another source of information about aerogels.http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/aerogel/aerogel.htm Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 12:00:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 11:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:54:42 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window. ( Aerogel.) References: <3.0.32.19970830133641.00792a60 inforamp.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZMmob3.0.BI5.ZvR2q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10413 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Quinney wrote: > > > Btw, Patrick; your Web Site: > > looks kinda empty. Whatever did you do to it, and why? > I know you have some great links there, but I can't seem to see them > anymore! ;-) > > Colin Quinney. > ( Perpetual student ) Colin, It seems to be working for me, perhaps you could try again... :) -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 13:03:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 12:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 12:55:18 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"8BN_Q3.0.sZ6.vnS2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10414 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hal; Thanks for the comments, here is an example where you might be able to grasp my ideas yet better, and where you may have the mathematical skills to formalize these notions using a real fluidic behavior. I have lots of these things. Consider this for a short moment, but focus intensely. Get a copy (you probably have one) of Chaos by Gleick. Turn to page 128 in the paper back, there should be two images of flow patterns between rotating cylinders showing bifurcation of the flow geometry, they describe them as being like stacked doughnuts in the description. Now, imagine that particles are spherical oscillations with focal diameter at Planck scale, E-35m. Second, imagine for simplicity that spacetime is nothing but an acoustic resonant structure in 3D + t that resembles a chess board in cubic version. Conne ct all white cubes into one manifold, connect all black cubes into a second manifold. The cubes are also at Planck scale, E-35m. consider spherical (particle) resonances to be composed of a bunch of concentric spherical shells, like an onion, each shell alternating in color from white to black. Thus, the centermost Planck scale *sphere* is at the E-35m diameter size. Now for the tricky part and then I will get to the example. Perform an Escher like morphing of the two manifolds above, so that as you move through E20 nodes from the nuclear scale down to the Planck scale, the cubic manifolds **gradually** are warped and compressed along a radial line toward the center of a parti cle. The cubes smash into diamonds, and the diamonds smash flat until they are crushed into spherical shells, and then proceed the rest of the way into the innermost reaches of, a "particle". Black and white represent "charge". They represent the timing of the pressure oscillations of the entire ocean of aether. Each manifold alternates from high to low to high pressure. Or if you prefer, high to low to high aether density. Or again equiva lent, low to high to low propogation velocity for acoustic pressure transmission (ergo gravitational lensing). Now, the spacetime manifold is all permeating, throughout the entire universe. I would have to go into the BB boiling of a huge black hole to explain why, just assume it for now. You have that black and white manifold everywhere, right on into the inter ior of a star, through the earth, into and through a neutron star etc, and right on into the interior of particles themselves. But in the innermost reaches of particles, the manifold begins to change into a spherical resonance as I described. Now, imagine what is going to happen if you get a bunch of them moving in any organized manner......... Take the fluid in the journal as a case in point. Spacetime, and particles, are virtually identical structures if you will notice. By that I mean not that their geometry is the same, but rather that they are both just simple acoustic vibrations in an oc ean of aether. Particles oscillations are driven by spacetimes oscillations, and **that** is why forces, space, time and particles are all so well corelated in their interactions. Spacetime is the dynamic structure of acoustic oscillations driving the particles dynamic oscillations, and forces are nothing by the acoustic geometries of the waves made locally by other particles (particles are underdamped resonances, so you must work with the amplification factor as with any underdamped resonance. This m eans that the amplitude of the pressure fluctuations in the vicinity of a particle are greater than the intensity of the pressure fluctuations of spacetime itself, but the equilibrium scale is probably the nuclear. Inside of that, the particle resonances dominate and outside of that spacetime dominates). But, imagine how phased array radar works. You have a bunch of low intensity sources of wave energy which are all phase and frequency synchronized such that their cumulative power is abnormally large and coherent. but that effect only exists along the l ine of constructive interference. Now take the case of the particles in the images. You have the journals rotating relative to one another. So, you have a bunch of moving phased array emitters in a sense. But they are not moving in a random manner. They are moving in an organized manner. I think that what is happening, is that when the rotational velocity of the journal induced the shear rate of the fluid to reach harmonics with the inter-atomic vibrational frequencies of intercommunicated wave energy, that you are winding up with constru ctive interference in three dimensions throughout the fluid. And so the sum of all of the wave energy is inducing a larger than normal interference effect on the directions the particles take. Put another way, I don't think that the paths of the particles are uncertain, as in QM. Rather, I think that the instantaneous geometry of the spacetime pressure distributions throughout the spacetime manifold are what induce the uncertain QM behaviors. But this journal behavior ought to be able to be solved mathematically. There is an average spacing between radial atomic layers. And it takes a certain amount of time for the particle wave energies to be communicated across that distance. And then one can consider (with 1/R^2 reduction in intensity), contributions in wave energy from locations 2, 3, 4.... atomic distances away, and sum all of the wave energy contributions. By considering the total atomic contributed power around a given atom in the fluid, and by then altering the shearing velocity, I think it should be po ssible to predict the shearing rates that will induce the strange effects. These should occur at shearing rates where you get constructive interference of the communicated wave energy. I drew it out showing the atomic spacings two atoms away from a given atom I wanted to consider. (just treating the fluid like atomic, rather t han adding the H2O complexity at this point. ie, do it with liquid He or N.) The trick is that the communicated wave energy is coming from all of the particles all the way around the journal, at c. I don't know how localized the effect is, ie would changing the material structure of the journal and shaft alter the shearing rates at which the fluid performs the behaviors? I think that the fluid is interacting with the fluid all around the journal, and with the waves from the metal atoms, but that the latter are at different frequencies so they will precess relative to one another and the fluid will be the primary influence. (Note, the Planck scale resonances are the fundamental ones, and that is the wave energy to analyze in the above descriptions. But the atomic resonances are much lower frequency ebbs and flows of aether, but may be responsible for the observed effects. Treat Planck scale like ocean waves on shore, and atomic "wave function" as ebb and flow of tides. Related phenomena but different frequencies entirely.) Any way, there is one manner of mathematically determining the wave structure and intercommunication of particles macroscopically. CF is another unexpected behavior of the group wave interactions where group motions lead to the destruction of the nuclear wave structure and larger atoms fission in violation of current theories. Quantum tunneling is another very similar effect at very much lower energy, where Brownian motions in the crystalline lattice lead to electrons "fissioning" from one well to another in what we call quantum tunnelling. But "uncertainty" has nothing really to do with it. Rather, it is an observation that the w ave energy of the lattice is a phase and frequency *locked* structure. To light, crystals and even fluids are virtually frozen and unchanging. Many reflections occur between various coupled particles when c is the velocity coupling their oscillations wa ve energies. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 13:07:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:05:05 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:05:00 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hal; Re: NASA posts the results... Resent-Message-ID: <"BD-D41.0.iQ5.mvS2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10415 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Ross, > >Thanks for your comments. I also see much resonance between our somewhat >different approaches. > >Hal Puthoff Greetings Hal; I think the primary difference between my approach and that of yours and virtually everyone else, is that I treat the aether as having two states, vapor and condensate, with tremendously different densities and a huge pressure to induce the condensation s tate. Most others work with particles, forces, spacetime. Or with aether, particles, spacetime. Or with just aether solid or aether as a fluid. My approach leads to a huge lattitude to behavior in that you can drive a bunch of aether into, or out of, a small volume of the universe if you have sufficient energy to do it. But, aether must be conserved, no matter what you do. Thus, a BH is an aether sink and it houses an aether condensate core. And particles are resonances and they resonantly amplify the energy density by a fourth power term due to the spherical convergence of the wave energy. When the pressure build up enou gh to induce the condensation of the aether, you get a non linearity that halts any further **coherent** phase and frequency matched convergence of the energy. So you don't get to infinity because turbulence in essence, manifests. This all means that in E = mc^2, mass too must be conserved because it is what is being shot out of the standing wave in order that the accelerations are induced during nuclear reactions (chemical too but at much lower intensity of aether emission). You should really look carefully into the work of Donald Reames at NASA on CME's. you will find that CME's cannot be explained by diffusion from flares, that the shock fronts freely cross magnetic field lines while the particles involved don't! ie, the shock is an aether induced one, and not a particle induced one. CME's occur when a huge bubble of aether bursts out through the surface of the sun, and some ions that are carried along with it from the core, and some ions caught by it near the surface ar e all flung out into space. But it is the aether itself that is inducing the shock, not the particles. They circle in the magnetic fields (curved structure to the spacetime acoustic nodes described in other posts). Have a good week, Ross X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 13:35:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:32:52 -0700 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 00:21:24 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Negative effects of destuctive critism on a research Resent-Message-ID: <"wngX21.0.6A6.qJT2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10416 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi, This issue is once became actual by the offensive posting on SMOT research. I know my experience and my english will not suffice to state what I thinking on this issue but try to explain as possible. Internal dynamism of a research program is a very important issue for reaching successful results. This dynamism is determining the next step based to previous results, to shape dynamically to frame of the research and selecting the next target to achieve . Feedbacks are always welcomed as they offer different reasoning and show different aspect of the reality which not be to accounted the the researchers. But sometimes critisms may have negative effects or totally targeting the researchers or globally the reseached issues rather than to discuss results, theories and experiments and procedures. These critisims may easily force the reseacher to response these claims by changing the path of the reseach and changing the priority of the goals of the research w hich they are optimized by the internal dynamism. For example the excess heat may not the original goal the CF research but it become so, because it was the only way to proof for a new, unexpected phenomenon is occuring. As the CF researchers was focused on excess heat rather tan other artifact of the ph enomenon (but not exlusive to CF and could not be used as ultimate proof. But this artifact may have great value to understabd the phenomenon. Some other examples can be given for both experimental and both theoretical research. A theoritician can spend i ts time unproductively to answer to questions or to claims to minor issues which are not critical for the theories but if they left unanswered it may reduce the credit of the theory. SMOT reseach is the same thing. All researchers (primarily Greg) should plan and conduct their reseaches respecting the internal dynamism and respect to the feelings, not to according external enforcements and stresses. People always wants "roll arounds" rather than "roll aways". Yes this is important for strong proofing the OU, but still there is lot of unknowns and too many factor to solve first. Without understanding better the phenomon of the SMOT, a strong the roll around may not be possible because the roll away setup does n ot offer same magnetical polarisation and strengh, same speed, same microscopic status of the ball each time its complete the loop. So, caution to destructive critisism. They not be simply neutralized by positve ideas and arguments but they have some memory effects should be managed carefully to not affect the reseach negatively. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 13:41:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:38:40 -0700 X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:35:56 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window. ( Aerogel.) Resent-Message-ID: <"MIksR3.0.WL6.FPT2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10418 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:54 PM 8/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >Quinney wrote: > >> >> >> Btw, Patrick; your Web Site: >> >> looks kinda empty. Whatever did you do to it, and why? >> I know you have some great links there, but I can't seem to see them >> anymore! ;-) >> >> Colin Quinney. >> ( Perpetual student ) > >Colin, >It seems to be working for me, perhaps you could try again... :) > Oops..Sorry. ..It was this one that I was referring to: Why the "hidden" links? Colin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 13:51:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:48:08 -0700 Date: 31 Aug 97 16:41:56 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Diana death not due to stalking Resent-Message-ID: <"bDnvP.0.Yf6.7YT2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10419 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex This is off-topic, but I'd like to comment on Greg Watson's idea that Diana was a victim of stalking, and on the fact that the press, the public, the Royal Family, and Charles Spencer are blaming this senseless tragedy on the paparazzi. I do not like to s peak ill of the dead, but I think this is ridiculous. It is irresponsible. The Princess was killed by her driver in vehicular homicide. The car was speeding at night, going 80 to 100 miles per hour along narrow urban streets where the speed limit is 40 m ph. The passengers, including the Princess, were not wearing seat belts according to AP reports. The photos of the wreck show that it must have been going at a tremendous speed. The paparazzi photographers may also be guilty of reckless driving, but unles s one of them blocked the way or nudged the car, they are not guilty of causing this death -- at least not by the standards of U.S. traffic laws. Unless the driver was crazy he was acting under orders from his distinguished passengers. Anyone who drive like this, or would countenance such driving, is guilty of criminal recklessness and suicidal stupidity. There is no excuse. The peopl e chasing them on motorcycles were carrying cameras, not machine guns. I reject the idea that this is a case of stalking. If the passengers wanted privacy they should have had curtains installed in the car. Diana is a public figure. She and the rest of the Royal Family live on public property they receive hundreds of million s of dollars in salary, goods and services from the nation. They use their influence and limelight to advance their own agendas. If they want privacy they should abdicate, live on private property, and pay taxes like everyone else. As long as they are Royalty they must expect to live in a fishbowl like the U.S. President. It is part of the job. If Diana wanted a private meal and a private drive there are plenty of locations in Europe that could accommodate her; the Ritz Hotel is not one of them. She and her relatives could easily escape the limelight. They can also learn to wear seatbelts and abide by the traffic laws. Seatbelts mi ght well have prevented or reduced the damage to the lungs and internal organs. Many people have survived similar high speed crashes thanks to belts and air bags. Also, the French should place more of those plastic barrels filled with sand in front of ver tical obstructions. I do not recall seeing many in France. Some European celebrities, and even members of the press, are calling for restrictions on these obnoxious paparazzi and other reporters. Any decent person abhors their tactics, especially when they hound children and when they cornered Princess Diana as s he left the doctor's office. But this should not be used as a pretext to limit the freedom of the press. Reporters have a right to be obnoxious -- just as celebrities do. Restricting the press in any way is a very dangerous step. It would only compound th e tragedy. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 14:10:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 14:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 00:58:39 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; References: <199708311955.MAA01430 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"6QpCF.0.Ur.fsT2q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10420 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Ross, I also read your article briefly by skipping parts that did not understand. I will return it again and I will try to understand it fully. BTW, it seems that you totally exclude the electromagnetic phenomena from your theory like the well known gravitati onal theories. So I have a question: How the electricity may be introduced to your theory? Is it an basic property of the spacetime or the aether? Or it is a superficial concept? Shortly, what is electricity ? hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 22:49:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 22:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: 31 Aug 97 19:17:30 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Resent-Message-ID: <"Pz9XX3.0.5H1.cQb2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10429 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tom, The Junk Science program was only an hour show and they covered about six topics but no other New Energy ones. It was mainly a slanderous attack on P&F and how they sought "fame" by announcing their results via a press conference. Stossel, the narrator, was obviously unaware that it was the U of U that insisted on the conference. F&P were also accused of deceiving Toyota in the construction of their lab in France. The Junk was in the Journalism. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 18:14:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 18:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: ABC's Pseudoscience Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:22:20 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"weoDt1.0.Sf2.1QX2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10423 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The program "Junk Science" discussed here was a rerun of the same program aired earlier this year. I did not see the CF segment, which was the first quarter of an hour program. I found myself in agreement with the points made on the other three segments, but my memory being faulty, I don't remember the topics. At first, seeing only quotes here, I thought it new and smelled disinformation. The show must have been put together much earlier in the year, before recent developments (not that they would have ma de any difference). Apparently, it was a compilation of the same misinformation that has been floating about for years. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 18:14:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 18:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Pyroelectric-Electrothermal-caloric Effects. Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:34:50 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"vcJyP3.0.2f2.vPX2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10421 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank Sparber pointed out that the plastic films used in the Aspden thermoelectric converter have properties similar to the ones used in another experiment he reported a while back in Vortex. However, a reading of the relevant papers by Aspden shows that the device constructed and modes of operation have very little similarity to the experiment Fred reported. Certainly there are many items worthy of study, including the full text of the Aspden energy reports listed on his Web page. The fundamental effect in the Aspden device is the Nernst effect, which is discussed in his Energy Science Report No. 3. It relates electric and magnetic fields and heat gradients. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 18:14:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 18:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Negative effects of destructive criticism on a research Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:57:30 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"Ew6SR1.0.7f2.wPX2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10422 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar is notable for his thoughtful contributions to Vortex, and his recent commentary on destructive criticism by Kurt with respect to SMOT was to the point. In a logical matrix of possible models to fit a set of observed data such as the CF world, fraud and incompetence are always items in the matrix. What cell in the matrix you choose to fixate on is a matter of one's mind-set. What Kurt has chosen to ignore is that several people in the Vortex community have succeeded in building SMOTs which perform rollaways, etc., from Greg's drawings and instructions. Unless Kurt also chooses to regard these as fictional, including the mater ial on Jean-Louis Naudin's Web pages, he has a problem understanding the scientific process. Without the confirmations by others, I, too, might give weight to the "fraud and incompetence' cell in the logical matrix. But that is not the best fit to all the available data. Greg very likely reported honest observations. He volunteered to build kits for a very nominal fee, with a money-back guarantee. He has found, and freely admitted, that the problem of replication is much, much, more difficult that building one. Replicatio n and commercial sale are the touchstones which demonstrate understanding. Jed has hammered on this point, and rightly so. The dearth of items-on-the-shelf from CETI and BLP and E-Quest are all illustrations of the difficulty of R&D which ***is not*** app reciated by those who haven't done it. The CG are standing up with Greg to offer kits for sale with a money-back guarantee. Mike Carrell ---------- > From: Hamdi Ucar > To: vortex > Subject: Negative effects of destuctive critism on a research > Date: Sunday, August 31, 1997 4:21 PM > > Hi, > > This issue is once became actual by the offensive posting on SMOT > research. I know my experience and my english will not suffice to state > what I thinking on this issue but try to explain as possible. > > Internal dynamism of a research program is a very important issue for > reaching successful results. This dynamism is determining the next step > based to previous results, to shape dynamically to frame of the research > and selecting the next target to achieve. Feedbacks are always welcomed > as they offer different reasoning and show different aspect of the > reality which not be to accounted the the researchers. But sometimes > critisms may have negative effects or totally targeting the researchers > or globally the reseached issues rather than to discuss results, > theories and experiments and procedures. These critisims may easily > force the reseacher to response these claims by changing the path of the > reseach and changing the priority of the goals of the research which > they are optimized by the internal dynamism. > > For example the excess heat may not the original goal the CF research > but it become so, because it was the only way to proof for a new, > unexpected phenomenon is occuring. As the CF researchers was focused on > excess heat rather tan other artifact of the phenomenon (but not > exlusive to CF and could not be used as ultimate proof. But this > artifact may have great value to understabd the phenomenon. Some other > examples can be given for both experimental and both theoretical > research. A theoritician can spend its time unproductively to answer to > questions or to claims to minor issues which are not critical for the > theories but if they left unanswered it may reduce the credit of the > theory. > > SMOT reseach is the same thing. All researchers (primarily Greg) should > plan and conduct their reseaches respecting the internal dynamism and > respect to the feelings, not to according external enforcements and > stresses. People always wants "roll arounds" rather than "roll aways". > Yes this is important for strong proofing the OU, but still there is lot > of unknowns and too many factor to solve first. Without understanding > better the phenomon of the SMOT, a strong the roll around may not be > possible because the roll away setup does not offer same magnetical > polarisation and strengh, same speed, same microscopic status of the > ball each time its complete the loop. > > So, caution to destructive critisism. They not be simply neutralized by > positve ideas and arguments but they have some memory effects should be > managed carefully to not affect the reseach negatively. > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 20:16:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:12:21 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Bull Shit Re: Diana death not due to stalking Resent-Message-ID: <"ZYGjw1.0.-_4.eBZ2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10424 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed sums it up as the drivers fault. On the surface, he is correct. However, to believe that the press is not guilty is like saying that those who torture prisoners are not guilty of driving a person insane. The press repeatedly hounded Diana, and when she became involved with Dodi, he found himself in their aim. Psycho logical torture has many forms, and we are none of us able to resist all forms of torture. Some can endure more than others, but when you head out on your boat for a quit, **private** afternoon and wind up with helicopters hovering and speed boats chasin g you, finally, anyone could snap. Was the driver going to fast, absolutely. Is the press responsible, absolutely. Are the idiots who buy the tabloid newspapers and fund this relentless pursuit of celebrities responsible, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. If you care about this, then don't buy or watch the media that supports it, and it will go away. Unfortunately, the human condition today is such that we lack the moral character to turn our heads and resist such negative sensationalism. I, for one, can proudly state that the tabloid papers have never earned a penny from me. I know a little about techniques of torture and what a POW can go through (not first hand). And the experiences we allow our celebrities to endure, qualify. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 20:55:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 20:52:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Bull Shit Re: Diana death not due to stalking Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 03:50:59 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"NDzpE2.0.Zu5.HmZ2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10425 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:12 AM 9/1/97 +0000, Ross Tessian wrote: > >Jed sums it up as the drivers fault. On the surface, he is correct. > >However, to believe that the press is not guilty is like saying that those >who torture prisoners are not guilty of driving a person insane. Hear, Hear. The Networks sold more GARBAGE all day today by preempting all of their other garbage for an in depth coverage of Diana's personal life that was scraped up by those nosey bastards. I sometimes wonder if Jed might have been tortured or had shock therapy. >The press >repeatedly hounded Diana, and when she became involved with Dodi, he found >himself in their aim. Psychological torture has many forms, and we are none >of us able to resist all forms of torture. Yes, I'm imposing a media "blackout" until the media and their "ain't it a shame, now a word from our sponser" bullshit is over. Regards, Frederick > >Ross Tessien > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 21:11:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:06:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:06:06 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"F8oRd.0.Hv7.tyZ2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10426 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Hi Ross, > > I also read your article briefly by skipping parts that did not >understand. I will return it again and I will try to understand it >fully. BTW, it seems that you totally exclude the electromagnetic >phenomena from your theory like the well known gravitational theories. >So I have a question: How the electricity may be introduced to your >theory? Is it an basic property of the spacetime or the aether? Or it is >a superficial concept? Shortly, what is electricity ? Greetings Hamdi; I do not exclude any forces from my theory, however I do not treat any of them as fundamental. They are all secondary structures and accelerations induced by large acoustic structures of standing waves in the continuous ocean of aether. Simply put, all "particles" are standing waves. Positive and negative charge is a measure of whether the particles are coupled to the white, or the black, nodes of spacetime as described in previous posts. These are phase opposed, ie at a relative phase angle of 180 degrees. If you review old work on aether theories of Thomson, Bjerknes, and others in the late 1800's around 1870's, you will find that two standing wave oscillations in aether that are phase opposed will be accelerated toward one another, and two oscillations that are phase synchronized will be accelerated away from one another. An electric field, therefore, is a structure of acoustic pressure resonances in the spacetime manifold where there is an imbalance between the intensity of resonances at 0 degrees phase angle relative to an arbitrary spacetime 0 reference, and the intensi ty of resonances at 180 degrees relative to that same reference. This becomes a bit easier to understand if you consider the checkerboard structure of resonances, and then place just one spherical resonance into that manifold. There will be an imbalance in the wave energy timed to the center of the spherical resonance s innermost core. Thus, the intensity of wave energy takes on a gradient, centered either on the white or the black manifold. A magnetic field is simply a precession of the above, as the particle moves. You need the balance of matter in the balance of the universe to drive the spacetime oscillations, so there is really never a condition of there being just one particle, ie no such thing as a magnetic mono-pole. the magnetic field is just the precession in origin of the electric field. It is very hard to visualize. You need to work with the timing delays for the wave energy. To try to get some of this, begin working and considering how groups of oscillators can all lock together. Two pendulums will phase and frequency couple as you likely know. So too will an entire line of them. So too will a series of JJ's. The difficult thing to imagine is how a 3D group of coupled oscillations will lock up. The chess manifold description is a good start at this, but there is a more complicated geometry to the real thing I cannot begin to describe in words. The forces fall out as; Nuclear strong; coupling of two or more adjacent spherical standing waves to form a composite resonant structure. (To see some of this in a visual, 1D + 1 system look up Oscillons on the net, and look into how they lock into groups of oscillations. "Space" in that case being the vertical, 1D vibration of the table, and "Time" being the period of the oscillation, and spacetime thus being that system in motion. Our spacetime is like that, but with 3 degrees of spatial freedom for the aether pressure waves, and time once again being quantized at the period of the nodal oscillations. The nuclear scale is the scale at which the intensity of the wave energy from the underdamped particle oscillation reaches the intensity of the ambient spacetime standing wave energy. Thus, as you probe further down to smaller dimensions, the particles r esonance dominates and spacetime becomes ripped apart from being a checkerboard cubic like structure and it collapses into the spherical concentric shell geometry of the particle standing wave, locally. But don't be too rigid with the spherical shells. Think of the little Russian dolls inside of dolls, or of a tornado that we might describe as a cone, when indeed the geometry is much more fluid and robust. ie, the exact "center" of a spherical standing wave may not be precisely centered inside of its spherical shell resonance way out at the nuclear diameter. Nuclear Weak; A measure of conservation of phase angle in exchanges of standing wave resonances, (particles), into and out of the nucleus composite structure. If you send in a "neutrino" with a 90 or 270 degree phase angle, and blast out a positron at a 0 degree phase angle, you can alter a "proton" to become a neutron. The weak force is thus a measure of conservation of phase angle in the interior of the nucl eus. (Note, I mention 90 and 270 degree resonances here and didn't in the electric field descriptions. This is because these resonances will not induce an acceleration on 0 and 180 degree phase angle resonances, and thus will interact in a "neutral" man ner. In the structure I work with, quarks are composed of three muon resonances at a combination of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degree resonances. This part of my theory I am not settled on yet so it may be wrong. But it offers some very compelling insight whe n you consider beta decay. And it may mean that "neutrinos" are really electron like resonances but at orthogonal phase angles. Electric; A measure of the wave energy from spherical standing wave resonances which is first communicated out to the "chess board like" spacetime manifold, and then later converges back into another spherical resonance. A degree of coherency is lost because diffe rent particles need not be perfectly in synchrony with one another if they are far apart (ie greater than nuclear distances). This is described above in more detail, but if you realize that an underdamped resonance will amplify until dissipation equals the energy convergence, then you will realize that you have spacetime wave energy headed into the particle, and waves of pressur e information headed away from the particle like ripples on a pond. So there is a discrete drop in the intensity of the wave energy as you move away because relative to some other particle in the same spacetime, the coherency of the communicated energy w ill not be as good as if they were right next to one another. This leads to an interesting expectation. First, as you head into the interior of electrons, you ought to find that the electric force at some distance begins to rise dramatically. And so scattering collisions of direct hits, should be of a greater inte nsity. Also, the innermost core of the electrons is even more intense than I have described because the aether has two states, vapor and condensate. The interior of the electron is capable of inducing the condensate state, just as is a BH. The electric force is a measure of the acceleration induced on two phase like, or phase opposed, resonances. Gravitation; Gravitation is unique among the forces. All forces are wave interactions based on aether acoustic wave communication. But notice that all of the above forces deal with the phase angle of frequency coupled oscillations. In other words, all of the above interactions occur in regions of the universe that are close enough that the local frequency of spacetime is not altered sufficiently to become out of synchrony with the particles oscillations. Gravitation is not a phase angle interaction. It is a frequency interference. Gravity is due to the amount of energy that particles filter out because that energy is out of synchrony with the local particles resonances. It is a measure of how much wave energy is arriving from the deep universe, frequency shifted due to the Hubble flow. Thus, gravitation is not a measure of how hard matter pulls on other matter. Rather, it is a measure of the mass of the balance of the universe. It is a measure of how intense the wave energy arriving from deep space is such that matter locally is filtering out those oscillations. So it is no wonder that the universe is so nearl y balanced and almost flat. It is us who have missed that the observation that the universe IS so nearly flat was telling us that gravity is a result of that mass, and induced by it. You are pushed downward toward the earth more strongly than you are pushed away from the earth because the earth filtered out some of the wave energy arriving from the deep universe as it passed through. And the wave energy that the earth re-emitted, was re-emitted in frequency match with your oscillations here, so it did not push you away as strongly. Thus, gravitation is a differential force of repulsion, and not a pulling attractive mechanism. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 21:27:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:12:48 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Bull Shit Re: Diana death not due to stalking Resent-Message-ID: <"07buK1.0.gN6.K4a2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10427 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >>The press >>repeatedly hounded Diana, and when she became involved with Dodi, he found >>himself in their aim. Psychological torture has many forms, and we are none >>of us able to resist all forms of torture. > >Yes, I'm imposing a media "blackout" until the media and their "ain't it a >shame, now a word from our sponser" bullshit is over. > >Regards, Frederick If I had photographers flashing bulbs constantly in my face when I wanted to go out on a date, I would want to race away to one of my apartments without being followed so that I didn't have them outside my bedroom all night long waiting for a photo through a curtain that accidentally had a crack in it. He had a few places he could go that night, but with zero doubt just wanted to go there alone and enjoy the woman he was with. In the end, a dumb decision agreed. But he should have had the right to a private life, everyone one should. They were in psychological jail, no, hell. To try to escape that hell now and then is only natural, and if driving fast is what you have to do to accomplish it, then I know I would do that at times when I couldn't take it any more. The flashes must be just like the Chinese water dripping torture, you can never escape it as you are pinned onto the planet by gravity and hounded by flashes and prying eyes. Ross Tessien
Back To Delta-GBack To Patrick's Page< A HREF="http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Delta-G_investig.htm">To Earlier Publication