X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 03:29:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 03:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 08:47:39 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"AsT4T2.0.0c6.OWf2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10438 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Ross, Thanks lot for the theory. You have strong points: First, it is an unified theory. Only need is aether. Time and the dimensions are its property, Current understanding of space-time is only a virtualization of the ether. Which is wrong. Ether is not lied on space-time but it is source of the space-time. Is it true ? Second, everything you postulate is function of space-time or the aether. Forces are not static entities but as a result of interference of the space-time. Sure, your theory is more realistic than eleven dimensional string theories. Third, as I know you are the first to postulate the electricity. You successfully mapped the apparent negative and positive strength of electrical potentials to radius (using spherical symmetry and to a phase in time. This satisfy the first requirement for modelling the electricity. Forth, You don't need to introduce the "force" concept to explain the gravity. Force is not a basic physical concept but introduced to model macroscopic events. See below for further comments an ideas. Fifth, your theory seems to be self constistent. It seems to be a good useful model to describe the reality, if mathematically written. I did not fully visualized the mechanism of the forces and the particles, but by combining my own ideas with that you written about gravity, i resulted a meanfull results: Aether oscillations which can be visualized as riples (of space-time?) tend to increase their amplitudes or energies and tend to move to direction of gradient of the energy is positive. (As any resonating system tend increase its amplitude by receiving al l the energy available, and as a fluid choose the maximum inclination path to flow.) This is enough to demonstrate the gravity is born from this property. This is a deviation from your ideas, but if this a simpler way to describe it, why to give up. Yes, probably gravitational interaction may have more complex mechanism and needs frequency domain and some statistical modeling tools as you state. Maybe the p ressure and filtering concepts are not needed anymore, as the pulling and pushing mechanism are not needed. This is very important progress to describe the gravity free of the forces as the GR did. Newton needed the "force" concept to describe the gravity and this is weakest point of his theory. Still force concept is controversial and incomplete need to introduce the "counter force" Einstein remove the force and introduced the curvature. This is very interesting. As the gravity can be postulated as the ripples in the context of this discussion, if ripples is visualized on 2D as ondulation of a elastic tissue, overall tensions and deformations or curvatures should be generated around the are where the ondulations are introduced. As the universe has already a primordial ondulation, and considered native property of the aether according your theory, this will be again consistent with GR which predict the universe is not flat in large scale and curved in some extend. where the closed or open universe discussions rise. If we return to original context, the tendency of aether oscillations buildup and advance to direction where the gradient of energy (due to oscillation) is maximum(+), there is instability on this basic property of the aether and this property allows to m atter or particle buildup. I have feeling that our ideas are not far apart, and be combined in same extend. If you wish to reveal more my ideas and compare it with yours, A summary is on "A very theoretical discussion", Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:30:44 +0400, The section beginning with "According my unified theoretical view". Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 22:47:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 22:43:36 -0700 X-Sender: danyork@mail.airmail.net Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 00:37:27 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Re: Bull Shit Re: Diana death not due to stalking Resent-Message-ID: <"q6Tsr2.0.o13.6Ob2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10428 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:50 AM 9/1/97 +0000, you wrote: >At 03:12 AM 9/1/97 +0000, Ross Tessian wrote: >I sometimes wonder if Jed might have been tortured or had shock therapy. Jed IS shock therapy. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 23:15:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 23:11:55 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:17:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"FjQ0X3.0.-q3.fob2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10430 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Ross Tessien wrote: -snip- >>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 -snip- * >> >>Nuclear strong; *(got it (i think:)) Chessboard >>-snip- >>Nuclear Weak; *(got it (i think:)) Escher (inward) >>-snip- >>Electric; *(got it (i think:)) Phased OPPOSED resonance >>-snip- >>Gravitation; * :( Freq. Interference?? --snip-- I liked your 'Escher Chessboard' representation a lot! :) >> >>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 nearly 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 -------------------------------------snip I have two questions, (beside's " Have you or have either of your parents been or every have been a member of an alien party? " :) --------------------------------------- Gravitational 'push' & Flater universe then I previously envisioned makes me wonder, (unless were back in the center of the universe (or the aether is stronger on the outer edges (probably as I'm just starting to see the ChessBoard effect)), that Earth sh ould be somewhere *NOT* centered (not counting of course Dark-matter & BH locations.) If that's the case, then wouldn't I weigh less at night?, or Noon?, or 6pm (whatever time my frequency interference BACK is "AWAY" from the center of the universe/aether CENTER) ??? [1] If your answer is NO, I'd presume the 'Escher Effect' is rippling our pond from all sides equally !?! ------ If syncronized (out of phase) aether repels more so than unsyncronized (in phase) attracts .... Why do Absolute Zero (Kelvin) material(s) seem to puddle or 'congeal' together rather than 'evaporate apart' ??? [2] Thanks... -=se=- /don't mean to tie up your holiday week-on on the computer/ a simple [1] = NO [2] = phase imbalance, will keep me busy thinking for a week or more! :) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Aug 31 23:58:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 23:54:48 -0700 Date: 01 Sep 97 02:52:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Death of Princess of Wales Resent-Message-ID: <"uaMMC3.0.RF5.sQc2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10431 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com My own feelings are that this subject is not an appropriate one for this list. I would also add that I find it quite bizarre that some here - notably Jed - are so quick to form conclusions about the accident in advance of the police investigations. Repo rts already emerging from Paris indicate that things were rather more complex. Phrases like "enjoy the woman" are also somewhat tasteless, I feel. Let us abandon this discussion. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 00:47:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:34:18 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: CF & Lake Van Monster Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:29:25 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"I2Eon3.0.Zo.u_c2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10433 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Hamdi, all, > > > > 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. Just had to comment, as "cryptozoology", as it's called, has always been an interest of mine. There are lake monsters reported all over the world with surprisingly consistent descriptions (basically a plesiosaur-like creature). Much like studies of Yeti (abominable snowmen), or for that matter UFOs, what appears to be pure fiction becomes more and more substantial the more one investigates it-- the opposite of what one expects with hoaxes. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 00:56:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 97 03:51:40 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Diana death not due to stalking Resent-Message-ID: <"eTlqc3.0.OT4.qId2q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10434 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed said: >> 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 mph. The passengers, including the Princess, were not wearing seat belts a ccording 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 unless one of them blocked the way or nudged the car, they are not guilty of c ausing 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. << As a Brit who is as shocked as anyone by this tragedy, I am inclined to agree with Jed's analysis. After a night at the Ritz and feeling a little high, I can imagine the two love-birds egging the staid old driver to go faster and faster, just for the fun of it. It will be interesting to hear the evidence of the surviving bodyguard, if it is ever publ ished. He would have been sitting alongside the driver. Lets hope he survives long enough and is not got at by Al Fyad. These were not a couple of innocent inexperienced kids. They were very experienced worldly-wise adults, very used to the press and not likely to be scared by 7 photographers on bikes. I reserve judgment pending the full investigation. Norman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 00:58:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 97 03:51:42 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Death of Princess of Wales Resent-Message-ID: <"-G7461.0.VT4.rId2q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10435 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >> Let us abandon this discussion. Chris << Sorry, I don't agree Chris. This has a bearing on the whole subject of analysis of cause and effect, and is therefore IMHO within the bounds of a discussion list such as this. The knee-jerk reaction of the public and politicians to this tragedy gives me the creeps. It has the same smell as the scientific establishment's automatic reaction to new theories - as we all know. Jed has injected a breath of fresh air and sanity into the subject, and indicates that his approach to technological problems is also sane and objective. An over-inquisitive press is better than a muzzled press - for all of us. Norman X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 01:14:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 01:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 01:04:48 -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: <"1Nr1L3.0.hc4.lTd2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10436 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > >>Gravitation; * :( Freq. Interference?? Just imagine filtering for simplicity. The only difficulty you will have is that thinking of simply filtering leads to the consideration as to why the earth doesn't build up in energy content since it is filtering. But the energy is re-emitted at the lo cal spacetime resonant frequency. So there is no build up. I guess, just think of matter as being like a band pass filter. And the energy the earth emits is in that band, so it is *not* filtered. Thus, there is less wave energy at red shifted frequencies available to filter coming from under your seat. >--snip-- > I liked your 'Escher Chessboard' representation a lot! :) Take it to heart! >I have two questions, (beside's " Have you or have either of your parents >been or every have been a member of an alien party? " :) Not that I know of. But I hope to construct a device to tap into the effect they accidentally tapped into at Tampere, in a big way. So maybe I will travel to another star system and then I will be an alien! :-) >--------------------------------------- > >Gravitational 'push' & Flater universe then I previously envisioned makes >me wonder, (unless were back in the center of the universe You presume that our universe, is all that there is. I think this is not correct. Our universe exploded outward from a huge black hole that breached confinement and boiled from aether condensate into the aether vapor we now live in and are made of. The remaining droplets of aether condensate that have not yet boiled off are at the center of convergence of standing waves humans call, "particles". > If that's the case, then wouldn't I weigh less at night?, or Noon?, You weigh more at night, you have the sun and the earth blocking radiation from deep space. And you *do* weigh more at night! >If your answer is NO, I'd presume the 'Escher Effect' is rippling our pond >from >all sides equally !?! It is essentially equal from all sides. The filtering effect is really tiny compared to other effects such as EM and strong. But, all matter is filtering the energy, whereas most atoms are neutral and so you have no net EM thrust (equal pressure from al l sides yields no net thrust). So for massive bodies, gravitation becomes important. > >------ >If syncronized (out of phase) aether repels more so than unsyncronized (in >phase) attracts .... Why do Absolute Zero (Kelvin) material(s) seem >to >puddle or 'congeal' together rather than 'evaporate apart' ??? [2] Absolute zero is a condition we think of as being zero motion. But then we have these "degeneracy pressures" and the like. In any case, zero motion in our context means that the location of the center of the standing waves is not moving relative to oth er matter nearby we are using as a reference. But it does not mean that the "particle" is not a standing wave. Thus, while it is true that the standing wave is not moving relative to other local standing waves, absolute zero does *not* mean that there is no more aether motion in the standing waves. There is no such thing as a lack of motion in our universe, anywhere. GR found this out about the galaxies and the universe at large. But QM needs to learn the same lesson. Matter, is a bunch of standing waves and they are constantly in motion. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 09:26:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 09:20:44 -0700 From: Mike Butcher To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Diana death not due to stalking Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 09:18:42 +0100 Encoding: 22 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"EZ-Br2.0.5S7.Rjk2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10448 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. Etc.< I knew I could count on you Jed to get overcome with emotion. Even as a Brit. I probably agree with your analysis and I suspect there will be quite a few in this country deeply regretting the whole incident - as its really messed up their TV schedules. I am now waiting for the commercial - "It would never happen in a Volvo". We do have to remember that thousands of other people died that night, last night and will die tomorrow night. Mike Butcher X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 02:41:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 02:34:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 03:39:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"uGTHW.0.hE4.Nme2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10437 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Ross Tessien wrote: se>>> If that's the case, then wouldn't I weigh less at night?, or Noon?, >>You weigh more at night, you have the sun and the earth blocking radiation >>from deep space. And you *do* weigh more at night! >> se>>> I'm not an astro-anything, but, wouldnt' I also weigh more say in the fall OR summer nights than winter OR spring (whatever)too... or am I thinking too small (step one: year earths-system rotational travel) OR (step two: we are still outwardly being spread 'away' from our center BH) and of course this would be an 'open' universe (I'll ask about our initial (1) Black Hole start later If I can get a handle on this) and it would appear that the 'FORCE' as depicted in the 'Star War' series movies would then indeed be both detectable / or could be FELT and Instantanious!. --- whew, (I LIKE IT!) It's a bit (err lot) hard to grasp, BUT a lot easier to think about everything as ONE when you can see it, then to try to figure out this field and that field and throw out the remainder as an anomaly.. and Escher was JUST an Artist!! (ah Math!!) Thanks for the reply -=se=- BTW thinking of the ChessBoard 1. e4 __ :) 2. 3. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 03:38:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 03:35:44 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 03:35:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@eskimo.c om Subject: Re: Bull Shit Re: Diana death not due to stalking Resent-Message-ID: <"IsGsh3.0.cg5.-ff2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10439 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hmmm...off topic again. Couldn't we put Princess Di's death to rest on this forum? I mean, its been covered to death on the media here in the US as it is...does it have to pervade all aspects of our existence? Death happens. (Lest we forget, approximately 1 human dies every second, and in fact it is estimated that an entire species becomes extinct every few minutes...) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 04:20:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Bull Shit Etc. Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:17:10 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"bZis9.0.-6.ZIg2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10440 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:35 AM 9/1/97 +0000, Barry Merriman wrote: >Hmmm...off topic again. Couldn't we put Princess Di's death to rest >on this forum? I mean, its been covered to death on the media here >in the US as it is...does it have to pervade all aspects of our >existence? Death happens. (Lest we forget, approximately 1 human >dies every second, and in fact it is estimated that an entire species >becomes extinct every few minutes...) > I Agree. I think OUR time and resources and those of the PRESS, CIA, KGB, and FBI, could be better spent looking for WALDO. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 05:16:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 05:12:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:12:08 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l@eskim o.com Subject: Re: Diana, you said it. Resent-Message-ID: <"jQUCW1.0.7I7.j4h2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10441 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, Sick of the sentimentalising/romanticising and media over saturation. Bet they wouldn't spend that amount of time on someone who really did something in life - not someone of 'high birth' with one C.S.E. (very elementary high school qualfc.) in art who by imposition becomes the nation's ambassdor on anything she thinks will give her gravitas. This is not to be heartless - beautiful young women, mother etc. and the suddeness. She was no lady though! She schemed, was bossy and slept around. She has been compared (only a few days ago on Radio 4) to Marie Antonniette. I'd go even further and say there was a conspiracy to kill her, so many people wanted rid of her: . 'loose cannon' in general - (or loose porthole as some wag on the newsquiz put it). . kept bowing into politics when royality aren't meant to - leads to the abolition of the monarchy. . Camila is always seen as Charles other woman - constitutional problems with his remarriage and the relation of church and state. . Arms manifacturers would like to be rid of her. . Dodi Fayed, son of Al-Fayed foray into the establishment. A severe rap across the knuckles tell him 'don't mess with us!' You see Fayed has a few battles to settle with the British establishment. And how is it possible for a professional driver to lose control of a car?: either . he received a constant earbashing from Diana (she's bossy remember to underlings) to go faster or . the car was... (I'm not prepared to say). Either way this would have been known (her temperament) and a tip off to paparazzi to hound them would, with high probability, lead to the desired result. You see it was really the press' fault (heavy irony). It has all the trappings of a coup style cover-up - the media blitz, solemm music on the radio all day, eulogies, hastily 'improvised' services of rememberance. Remi, (a smileys would be appropriate, but this is a serious subject about the power of the state and the appropriateness of a monarchy at the dawn of a new millenia) Viva free speech, viva freedom! X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 06:11:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:01:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Diana, you said it. Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:59:55 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"07L2Q.0.UL1.voh2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10442 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:12 PM 9/1/97 +0000, Remi wrote: >Jed, > >This is not to be heartless - beautiful young women, mother etc. and the >suddeness. > Some of the press coverage I saw (only briefly)seemed to be more concerned with the loss of the Mercedes. > >And how is it possible for a professional driver to lose control of a car?: > On the other hand I would be happy to make a sizeable donation toward the purchase of a similar model Mercedes if a group of (Jackals-Vultures) from the press would re-enact the high speed crash in every detail. :-) > > >It has all the trappings of a coup style cover-up - the media blitz, >solemm music on the radio all day, eulogies, hastily 'improvised' >services of rememberance. Along with commemorative T-shirt ads. "All credit cards accepted." > >Viva free speech, viva freedom! > Viva human decency and sensitivity. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 07:05:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:58:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: A Gift for Jed? Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:56:31 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZTAsN.0.l03.zdi2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10444 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com For all the wisdom and (Pulitzeristic) journalism that Jed has brought to this forum, I think an appreciative gift is in order. Saw a good deal on "Bungee Jumping" outfits on; www.contractorshotline.com and related equipment on; www.surplusrecord.com I figure we could all chip in and "Spring" for a 150 foot crane and a 200 foot Bungee Cord. :-) Just pulling your cord, Jed. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 07:09:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 07:00:05 -0700 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 08:59:22 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity References: Resent-Message-ID: <"W3ygf.0.mS2.afi2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10445 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Schnurer wrote: > 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. John, when it come to the "hitting it with a stick" , is hickory as effective as oak? ;} Best of luck to you in your experiments! -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 07:32:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 07:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:24:20 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: from Xenon to o/u Vortex window. ( Aerogel.) References: <3.0.32.19970831163554.00a13db0 inforamp.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"2r2sa3.0.Iw3.62j2q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10446 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Quinney wrote: > Oops..Sorry. ..It was this one that I was referring to: > > > Why the "hidden" links? > > Colin Colin, I created this WebPage to be unique. I've always preferred to march to the beat of my own drums...:) -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 07:59:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 07:52:20 -0700 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:51:37 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; References: <199709010406.VAA30711 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"nXCwV3.0.Xb4.ZQj2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10447 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross Tessien wrote: {lots of good stuff snipped} > Gravitation; > 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 nearly 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 Ross, I find your explanation of gravity fascinating! As a non-scientist, I Don't comprehend the implications of equations that attempt to explain gravitation, however you make sense to me in light of Podkletnov's results. Podkletnov reported that the 'field' or area of gravity modification was a cylindrical column that corresponded exactly to the shape of the 12-inch spinning superconductor. This, of course, is counterintuitive. But if the source of gravity is external, as opposed to internal, and originates from very far away, I would expect such a 'shadow effect'. This doesn't explain why the shadow is on the side facing away from the Earth, but perhaps the gravity-shielding ef fect is a gravity-absorbing effect. This might explain how it is possible that the field did not vary with distance above the spinning disk according to the inverse square law... Disclaimer: Feel free to ignore ramblings above.... -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 06:43:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 16:08:15 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vortex " Subject: ANAID Resent-Message-ID: <"k2l0T1.0.vC2.aFi2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10443 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com An tragical accident: N'he, or First Line Japanese Cold Fusion sat in a car with her lover, Traditional Science. The driver went so slowly and in a so wrong direction that the car rusted and has fallen apart. N'he, in 1993 so young, so beautiful, so promising, has passed away. A great loss. The lovers hated the press and vice-versa. Some people call this event "mismanagement". We have to learn from this accident, we cannot afford to repeat it. Actually it was not the first one of this kind in the field. I don't know if you are familiar with a guy called Josef Stalin. He had invented a wonderful trick/theory: as we get nearer to the final victory of communism, the class struggle is becoming increasingly sharp. Based on this he eradicated millions of his p otential enemies. We lost a few relatives and close friends too. I told this because during the last weeks the intensity of the attacks against cold fusion is steadily increasing so I am reminded of this Stalinistic method. Does somebody know an explanati on? As regarding the other tragical accident, let's discuss it with our wives and friends, not here! Please! Thank you, 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 Mon Sep 1 10:23:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:12:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: RE: Diana death not due to stalking Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 17:11:28 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"9gmZb3.0.Mz.LUl2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10450 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:18 AM 9/1/97 +0000, Mike Butcher wrote: > >To: Vortex > >I knew I could count on you Jed to get overcome with emotion. > >Even as a Brit. I probably agree with your analysis and I suspect there >will be quite a few in this country deeply regretting the whole incident - >as its really messed up their TV schedules. I am now waiting for the >commercial - "It would never happen in a Volvo". > >We do have to remember that thousands of other people died that night, last >night and will die tomorrow night. To be sure. This is the Labor Day holiday weekend. Usually 600 or so deaths to remember next May, on Memorial Day weekend which usually has a toll of 600 or so, too. I sure hope all get to Heaven. One sure way of getting "Freedom From The Press." Regards, Frederick >Mike Butcher > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 09:36:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 09:31:58 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:36:01 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Diana death Resent-Message-ID: <"LNcsQ1.0.oF.ytk2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10449 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 Your comment about the "flashes" brings a few questions to mind: 1) Is it possible that flashbulbs from pursuing photographers on motorcycles either distracted or momentarily blinded the driver and precipitated the accident? [recognizing that his high speed also contributed to the accident] 2) Has anyone seen reports on the blood-alcohol level of the driver? (not to mention the blood-alcohol level of the photographers in question -- after all, it was late Sat. evening in Paris; could some have been "having a few drinks" while waiting for th e next "photo-op"?) 3) Should the bodyguard hopefully survive with all faculties intact, it would be very informative to hear his side of the story. 4) One photographer was supposedly "beaten up" by a bystander. No further news had been heard about either...... I would agree with an earlier suggestion that these "papparazzi" are one end of a "chain of pure greed" Evan Soule' X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 13:16:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 97 16:10:06 EDT From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Legally Drunk? Resent-Message-ID: <"Qo1Z92.0.Ju6.67o2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10453 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Evan, >>I haven't heard any confirmation re the "legally drunk driver" story?<< The reports I have heard (CNN) placed his alcohol blood content at over .17 in a country whose legal limit is .08, I think. The downward slope of the underpass seems to indicate that the car might have gone airborne after turning inward on a curve. This could have made it impossible to steer away from the pylons dividing eastbound and westbound traffic. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 13:36:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:29:15 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Pyroelectric-Electrothermal-caloric Effects. Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 20:28:34 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"JK5CN1.0.bx.PMo2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10454 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, It seems that the Pyroelectric materials behave in a manner similar to Piezoelectric materials. Thus it seems possible that with the right materials heat flow through the material (crystals?) should cause oscillatory stresses and thus (with suitable circu itry) an alternating electric potential in the fractional Megahertz range should be observed between the electrodes. Metal coatings on paper (cellulose-fiber-crystals) should work also. With a series capacitor (to cause a displacement current)and a small load in series to extract some electrical energy from the heat flow through the device, or several such devices stacked in "series" and a rectifier circuit, it might make an interesting Thermoelectric Converter. Might even work with cane-sugar crystals below 250 deg F in a dry environment. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 12:48:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:45:06 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Legally Drunk? Resent-Message-ID: <"iyXfc1.0.OZ5.bgn2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10452 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------------------------------------- >The Mercedes Benz company has also stated that the damage indicates >the vehicle was traveling at over 100 MILES per hour... > >As to the traffic, yes it wasn't rush hour -- but all those tourists >who were immediately on the scene gives a clue that the area wasn't >abandoned either...the location IS close by the Eiffel Tower.... > >The Lincoln Tunnel isn't that crowded at 11pm either, but no one >should be driving thru it at over 100mph either... > >BTW, CNN is reporting the driver of the Mercedes was legally drunk at >the time... > >Donna _______________________________________ I haven't heard any confirmation re the "legally drunk driver" story? Has anyone else? If this is true, it may begin to put a slightly different "twist" on the story. Evan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 13:53:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 97 16:45:31 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Scientific accident investigation Resent-Message-ID: <"4XMWy1.0.yO.seo2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10455 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I was surprised at how upset people are at my point of view regarding the Paris accident. I would have thought that most people would agree that adults who drive into a wall at 120 mph bear a heavy responsibility for the act, even when they are only passe ngers. In Georgia they would, especially if the driver was drunk, as he was in this case. Well, I promise I will not address that issue again, but since the accident is very much on people's minds, I'd like to point out a couple of interesting aspects of the scientific investigations now underway, and the public perception thereof -- a subject very much on-topic here. Two points: 1. A German auto expert was quoted as saying that in severe accidents of this nature even a seat belt and air bag will probably not help. The speedometer was frozen at 196 kph (121 mph). I think he said that at these speeds the trauma of stopping is enoug h to fatally damage blood vessels and internal organs. This sounds reasonable, but it is manifestly incorrect because one passenger survived. He is no longer in critical condition. This is a good example of a scientific statement which happens to be total ly at variance with the facts, yet which is not challenged, or qualified. People write AP dispatches and newspaper reports in a hurry. You expect glaring discrepancies. What I find fascinating is that if you look years from now, you may find the same discrepancies in biographies of Diana. The record may never be corrected. (I expect the survivor was wearing a seat belt. I have read that an adult wearing a seat belt in a race car can often survive a 120 mph crash -- a worst case two car head-on collision. This was an armored limousine. The passenger compartment looks remarka bly intact.) I have traced misunderstandings and deliberate distortions of reports of major events like the Titanic disaster and Battle of Midway. Nearly every account claims that the Titanic owners were trying to achieve a speed record on the maiden crossing. This is false. There was no way the reciprocating Titanic engines could challenge the turbine driven German ships, as every shipbuilder knew. You can find threads of such mistakes from the first newspaper reports to histories written decades later. Newspapers tr uly are "the first draft of history" -- for better or worse. Unfortunately, this is also the case with scientific disputes, from the Columbus flat earth myth (invented out of whole cloth by Washington Irving in 1828), to the Challenger explosion, to cold fusion. The Patent Office rejects cold fusion claims by citing 1989 newspaper clippings from the New York Times. 2. I do not know much about police accident reports or highway safety, but I have read a number of books about airplane crash investigation. These investigations are often models of good applied science. The techniques are brilliant. Yet air safety progra ms do not reflect this scientific quality. If they did, we would shift billions of dollars away from projects designed to find bombs; projects to automate cockpits; and projects to avoid mid-air collisions. We would concentrate instead on reducing pilot e rrors. One of the most common causes of accidents is known as "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" (CFIT). The pilot accidentally flies into a maintain, or into the water. Comparatively little attention has been paid to this. Recently, a three dimensional 20 MB compressed computer database of landscape altitudes has been developed which might help. The people who pick safety goals are highly trained experts who know the acc ident statistics, yet their choices of spending initiatives is irrational. Perhaps they do not want to think about pilots whacking into mountains. It seems stupid . . . somehow embarrassing. For the first 80 years of the automobile era the most important cause of accidents was virtually ignored in the U.S. It is drunken driving, a contributing cause of the Paris accident. Until the organization of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), "drunke n driving was considered a socially acceptable form of homicide" (quoting a MADD founder). It is amazing how distorted our safety, risk & health priorities can be. You would think these things are strictly guided by objectively established facts and stati stics, but that is not always the case. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 14:00:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Diana death Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 16:52:22 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"yLr_l.0.gY.zlo2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10456 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Evan said: > 1) Is it possible that flashbulbs from pursuing photographers on > motorcycles either distracted or momentarily blinded the driver and > precipitated the accident? As a motorcycle rider, the notion of taking flash pictures while riding at high speed in traffic is improbable, to say the least. But if I were a skilled rider, a motorcycle would be a good vehicle for following a car in traffic. 2) Has anyone seen reports on the blood-alcohol level of the driver? Leaked reports from the French police today indicate that the driver was seriously drunk. Jed as usual has the incisive analysis, but enough blame to go around. I would vote for a 200 ft crane and a 150 ft bungee cord. Reminds me of the story of the court Jester who incurred the king's wrath, and was sentenced to hang. The jester asked for a boon, to choose the tree. The king granted the request but was puzzled when the hangman returned with a live jester. The hangman explained that the jester chose a sapling for the hanging tree, and announced that he was willing to wait. The king, amused, forgave the Jester. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 14:23:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:17:24 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Scientific accident investigation Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 21:16:47 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"hY9lE1.0.6g2.Z3p2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10457 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Shucks Jed, I had it all figured for that "Bungee Jump" gift. (150 Ft. Crane with a 200 Ft. cord) I was "giving you some slack," and if you used your head you could make a lasting impression. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 16:46:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 16:42:41 -0700 Date: 01 Sep 97 19:39:43 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex , VORTEX Subject: Re: Scientific accident investigation Resent-Message-ID: <"lYHAV2.0.HA.mBr2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10459 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >2. I do not know much about police accident reports or highway safety, but I >have read a number of books about airplane crash investigation. These >investigations are often models of good applied science. The techniques are >brilliant. Yet air safety programs do not reflect this scientific quality. If >they did, we would shift billions of dollars away from projects designed to >find bombs; projects to automate cockpits; and projects to avoid mid-air >collisions. We would concentrate instead on reducing pilot errors. Since smoke that interferes with the pilot's ability to fly has often been implicated, in part or in whole, in aircraft disasters, one would think the FAA would mandate an economical anti-smoke safety system for aircraft, but they have not. There are ejec tor systems and recirculating ssytems, but these are apparently totally inadequate for dense, continuously produced smoke My colleague, Bertil Werjefelt, runs an avitaion safety equipment company in Hawaii. (Yes, he is also the man with O/U motor claims, but he says he is too busy making real money on his business in aviation safety to focus much on these more difficult O/U matters.) He has a patented device, EVAS, which is about the ONLY way to insure pilot visibility through dense smoke, yet this device has not been mandated by the FAA. The device is a transparent bag that inflates, and fits against the windshield and crit ical instruments. The pilot has goggles that press against the bag for viewing. Thus, the cockpit can have very dense smoke and visibility will be OK. There have been many legal battles to get Pena et al (no longer with FAA, now with DOE!) to have it man dated -- as is apparently required by law-- but these have failed. The device only costs $15K or so per station. It would add mere pennies to airline tickets, but the FAA apparently prefers to see more Ricky Nelson-type aviation deaths, and ValuJet deaths , before it does anything. I know I would feel much better if I knew that the pilot aboard a commercial flight I was on was never in danger of being blinded. Gene Mallove X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 16:46:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 16:42:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 17:48:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Scientific accident investigation NNG!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"DyI0N2.0.b8.OBr2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10458 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: Jed wrote: Evan wrote: *.* wrote: >>I had it all figured for that "Bungee Jump" gift. (150 Ft. Crane with >>a 200 Ft. cord) I was "giving you some slack," and if you used your >>head you could make a lasting impression. :-) >>Regards, Frederick Now, Now, Now Gentleman... '!!!' :-| PLEASE, (ok with sugar to everyone)... back to the discussion of the list! Thank you -=se=- 'nuff said X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 18:48:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 18:39:33 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Pyroelectric Radiation Detectors Etc. Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 01:38:51 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"_WlWT3.0.fI5.Jvs2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10460 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Did a brief web search on Pyroelectric devices. There were about 840 hits. The units use "organic materials", PVDF, and all sorts of exotics like KTN (potassium tantalate niobate) and others. Many devices available for measuring infrared (1 to 14 microns) x-rays, laser pulses etc. most of the technology is coming from Japan, Russia, and China. For the PVDF; www.chinatech.com/detector.htm Guess Harold Aspden was on to something, Mike. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 21:01:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 20:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: Re: Scientific accident investigation Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 03:50:31 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"Lm-uG.0._44._ru2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10461 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed wrote: >2. I do not know much about police accident reports or highway safety, but I >have read a number of books about airplane crash investigation. These >investigations are often models of good applied science. The techniques are >brilliant. Yet air safety programs do not reflect this scientific quality. If >they did, we would shift billions of dollars away from projects designed to >find bombs; projects to automate cockpits; and projects to avoid mid-air >collisions. We would concentrate instead on reducing pilot errors. One of the >most common causes of accidents is known as "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" >(CFIT). The pilot accidentally flies into a maintain, or into the water. >Comparatively little attention has been paid to this As an FAA employee who happened to be in the vicinity when certain horrendous pilot error incidents/accidents occurred, I agree that the potential for much improved systems to provide information to pilots and controllers are feasible and have good cost/b enefit ratios, but, like everything else in government, all change is politically driven. A good idea is not a good idea unless the right person can be made to look good by its success. On two occasions that resulted in fatal crashes I listened to tapes that made it clear that the pilots incorrectly thought they was in controlled airspace and were awaiting further instructions. One ran into a mountain, the other directly into a thunderhead. Confusion is often a problem. The August edition of IEEE S pectrum has an excellent article called "The Truth About Air Traffic Control" that was actually quite informative. Politics reaches into the lowest levels. Some recent changes have been quite good in allowing us much more flexibility in acquisition and regulation, but basic issues of responsibilities seem to be questionable. The ubiquitious perverse incentives as well as union influence flourishes. Accountability is a concept foreign to the workforce, and everyone fears acknowledging problems because to do so is to de facto accept responsibility for correction. Ignorance is bliss. Belligerance makes one powerful. I get nervous walking through the room with the ARTS computers. They and their accompanying displays, DEDS, are so old and fragile that any work done on them invites a multitude of perplexing problems. Officially inflated figures for reliability have be en used to justify keeping the antique electronics operating, because the figures are tied to the performance reviews of employees. On many occasions, I see outages go unrecorded, as a mutual courtesy. Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General of the DOT, is extremely critical of the FAA writing in _Flying Blind, Flying Safe_, she cites the billions lost in the recently failed Advanced Automation program and the mis-designed Mode-S radar (for examples). There is no question about the technical feasibility of doing certain things. There is a lack of expertise sometimes, a lack of competent leadership. The changes in technology and increasing complexity have left many of our technical people in the dust. Many technicians will try replacing a couple of circuit cards before giving up and calling out an engineer from another state. But, on the bright side, there are a number of tenacious and smart technicians. I am extremely fortunate to be out in the most remote facilities bringing into service new equipment, usually by myself. Sorry for the ranting, but the more you know about FAA, the more you'll like AAMTRAK! Disclaimer: if anyone further up the feeding chain in government reads this, my identity was forged. Ed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 23:41:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:32:04 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:35:57 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Robert Bass , vortex-L@eskimo.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, kirk.shanahan srs.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr Subject: Re: Murray's summary/analysis of CG Report References: <199708301848.LAA00413@pahrump.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"p7eya2.0.t-6.YBx2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10462 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 1, 1997 Dear all, Dr. Robert W. Bass, to his ever-lasting credit, very wide-mindedly immediately reposted my critique of the Cincinnati Group thorium transmutation experiment to dozens on his list, along with this comment: Rich Murray's Summary/Analysis/Queries re CG Report Not being an experimentalist, nor experienced in interpreting raw experimental data, I find it frustrating that there are so many complexities/ambiguities preventing a straightforard evaluation of the Cincinnati Group (CG) Report in Infinite Energy, vol. 2, Nos. 13/14, August 1997. If anyone can suggest improvements to the protocol which would reduce ambiguities and make the experiment and its evaluation more clear-cut, I am sure that all concerned would be highly grateful. R.W.B. This is the highest standard of science, to accept reasoned criticism of one's own deeply cherished work, and to open the channels of communication, so that further debate and experimentation may resolve issues to mutual benefit, for we are together shari ng in an open-ended quest for truth. It would be helpful to do a run with, say, potassium nitrate, instead of thorium nitrate, to study the redeposition of metals from the stainless steel in the cell. Chemical analysis, of course, can accomplish much, and nuclear magnetic resonance could al so identify whether elements are dissappearing or appearing real-time in a small closed cell. Other control runs can be done with gold-plated or ceramic end caps. A quartz or pyrex observation window in the cell, perhaps both end caps, would allow a fiber optic lens to enable closeup videotaping of any boiling or arcing in the cell. The horizontal positioning of the cell may cause most of the current to flow bwt ween the stainless steel structures. Various alternative electrode arrangements can be tried. What has been the rational for using zirconium for the obstensible electrodes? Gratefully, Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 00:26:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 01:25:21 -0500 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 netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, wireless rmii.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, design73 aol.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, rmills@blacklightpower.com, wrgood earthlink.net Subject: Blue's viewpoint Resent-Message-ID: <"HgGQS2.0.uF.mvx2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10463 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept 1, 1997 Dear all, I'm sending on this post by Dick Blue, not because I'm in total agreement with it. It's a pithy, well-spoken, partisan, biased negative position, worth reflecting on. Do these misshapened shoes happen to fit? We have seen a large number o f promising reports appear and then fade into oblivion, like seasonal flowers. Without claiming to be a well-informed or qualified critic, I, for one, am willing to post that I don't expect to see anything come out of the Correa's Pulsed Abnormal Glow Di scharge, of CETI's Patterson cell, of the Cincinnati Group's throrium remediation, of Blacklight Power's excess energy claims, or of the equally too simple, too wonderful transmutation reports by Mizuno et al, and by Dash. Please, show me wrong! Publish details that carefully and thoroughly nullify alternative explanations, and prove careful replications by fully independent, competent research groups. The strongest contender I know of currently is Claytor's tritium produ ction from glow discharge in deuterium gas on palladium alloy electrodes, at Los Alamos. I hope to see some thorough critical appraisals of that work. Has anyone replicated Mitchel Schwarz's experiments, claiming reliable excess heat? Let's have at it, folks, let's do some real science! Subject: Re: Japan drops funding for CF research Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:38:33 GMT From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion It certainly is interesting to see how the Cheer Leaders change their tune in response to any new information relating to cold fusion -- particularly when it's bad news for their side. For years Jed Rothwell told us the Japanese were the ones with the foresight to follow this promising line of research, but $20-million dollars later Jed is not going to accept the conclusions they derived from that research. We are back to the same old argument that says anyone who does not get the effect must not be doing things right! Are we not supposed to notice that the definition of what it takes to do a CF experiement "right" is subject to constant revision? I haven't heard any mention recently of James Griggs and the "Hydrosonic Pump", for example. At one time Mallove and Rothw ell were telling the world that kilowatts of power were waiting to be tapped by anyone who would stir water with sufficient vigor. Now the name of the game for some people is "massive nuclear transmutations." These claims are now becoming so common under such a variety of conditions that it is hard to believe that such transmutations aren't occurring spontaneously all the time! Of course an elementary consideration of the claims shows them up as being totally absurd, but absurdity has never held the CF advocates in check. They will believe anything! Then there are those who think, in spite of all the negative results, there still is a reality to claims for the production of "excess heat." I find it very hard to explain the history of CF research if "excess heat" could, in fact, be established as a r eal phenomenon. We are asked to believe that Pons and Fleischmann, after discovering a fool-proof way to boil water, dropped that promising line of research and walked away from the dream they claim to have invested years of research to bring it reality. Isn't it just p ossible that they quit because they found themselves no closer to success than in their first very flawed experiments? I suggest you make a list of all the claims for break-throughs in CF research from the entire 8-year history of this field and rate each experiment in terms of the follow-up investigations that confirmed those results in detail. Then ask the simple quest ion as to why that line of investigation has not continued to produce positive results? Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 03:00:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 02:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 97 05:53:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Blue's viewpoint Resent-Message-ID: <"TEcaM.0.xv4.iB-2q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10464 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Richard, I doubt that I'll ever take the time to explain again, but here is another effort to get my point across. Did you ever read Asimov's *Foundation* SF series? He had a decaying Empire, and lampooned some scientists whose idea of science was to "weigh the opposing views of the experts". Well, you are doing something similar - by distributing these "views". An d views, from either side, are of little value when those who hold them are gullible fools. Blue is one such, he is a gullible fool who believes that science has all the answers already. His comments in this matter - oh, I'm bored with demonstrating how false they are. Jed may take the time, I can't afford it right now. > Without claiming to be a well-informed or qualified critic, I, for > one, am willing to post that I don't expect to see anything come > out of the Correa's Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge, of CETI's > Patterson cell, of the Cincinnati Group's throriu m remediation, of > Blacklight Power's excess energy claims, or of the equally too > simple, too wonderful transmutation reports by Mizuno et al, and > by Dash. And I should care? > Please, show me wrong! Publish details that carefully and > thoroughly nullify alternative explanations, and prove careful > replications by fully independent, competent research groups. And what are we doing? Everything we can to make that happen. And it is Mallove who persuaded the Cincinnati Group to disclose fully in IE, and OFFER KITS FOR SALE WITH A MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. You want instant gratification - like some reader of a tabloid newspaper. The basic F&P effect has been endlessly replicated, but the newer work will take time before it gets that far: HISTORY TAKES LONGER WHEN YOU ARE LIVING THROUGH IT. The only way t o shorten that is do real work yourself. What the hell more do you want from us? And what the hell are YOU doing which is of similar value? > Let's have at it, folks, let's do some real science! Oh, stuff it. Read IE, and see the "real science" done on the Potapov and Ragland work. Come over to England and see me doing further experimental work right now. Stop shouting for more when we (and others) are off our backsides and working as hard as we can. Science isn't done in Blue's bloody armchair - or yours. By the way, I only ever spam by mistake. Vortex alone is enough for me. If anything I have to say is of interest, people know where to find it. At least, unlike some spammers, you sometimes edit your stuff into readability. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 03:49:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 03:46:34 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:46:12 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l@eskim o.com Subject: Re: Diana, conspriacy theories, gullibility Resent-Message-ID: <"EiHkK1.0.Vh4.9w-2q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10465 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vortex, I'm not kidding. Diana was a very powerful woman - she was the people's princess, not some type of film star - when she spoke, people listened. Intellectually she wasn't the hottest and rather emotional. Establishment were in fear of her getting 'bees in her bonnet' and causing some faracus. Fact: Charles is 'defender of the faith', he is also very independent and if he could not marry the woman he loved, he more than would likely renounce this position. The church state relationship is one of money and privilage - many people would stand to lose. Fact: The monarchy is under threat and our whole way of doing things (I'm pro monarchy if they are above reproach - like the Queen and her Mother) from Europe and other constituional reforms - times they are a' changing. Stable Monarchy has probably saved this country from dictatorship and excessive trendy political swings. Of course, Europeans know how to run our affairs better than us... Fact: Al-Fayed has a problem with the establishment, they denied him citizenship and stopped a few of his business ventures. He might have been able to use the Di-Dodi relationship to further his cause - and with Diana as a spokesperson... Fact: The Arms industry doesn't want to go the way of the tobacco industry (it would never be wiped out though) from sudden trendy swings in public opinion. Foreign relations is extremely tricky and plots often take many years to brew. It's not often just ified to get so emotional in the short-term without the long term picture: E.g. would you have wanted unilateral disarmament in the cold-war, Oh God, come-on!! Without wishing to blow cover on the game, don't you find it odd that:- . The normal car use as a decoy just didn't work. . They can have the best of anything - the best drivers, so why the drunk? . Eye witnesses reported of the unusally large numbers of paparazzi pursuing the car. . The stiffling media coverage on the state network, BBC (under control of civil servants) and the rapid apportioning of blame and scapegoating. Stranger things have happened in more recent times and of course there's British history: Herny VIII wives (marriages and deaths of convience), Lady Jane-Grey, or the two little boys in the tower (going back a fair bit). No, all I'm asking is that people be a little bit skeptical when fed news (just like science) and how forces crush debate, alternative views so quickly. If you want freedom and lassiez-faire, it requires a maturity and ability to think for oneself - who was it who said that 'knowledge is power'. If you don't want freedom, you can always have what Europe had before the renaissance - then think of Galileo, Copernicus et-al or politically, Joan of Arc. Likewise it's the ability to stand back and question any contending ideas: ESP, UFOs, cold-fusion, electroalchemy or perpetual motion, without getting swayed by the press releases and salesman speak. Liberty means responsibility, Remi. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 1 10:43:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:31:49 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 05:13:14 +1200 From: John Berry To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Diana death not due to stalking References: <01BCB6FB.7A387C60 ppp189.enterprise.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"qJYwW3.0.8-2.4ml2q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10451 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike Butcher wrote: > We do have to remember that thousands of other people died that night, last > night and will die tomorrow night. > > Mike Butcher Yes but we are not grieving for the person, the person is gone they are already in heaven or hell and crying for them would do no good, also they would not want you to cry (except as a sign of love and respect) the only person are we morn or shed a tear for is ourselves not the person, however it is a necessary time for people and it must happen, If the person was well known and well loved then there should be more done about it because there are more people that are affected by this even only one person died, It is NOT like she was more important than 800 people or even two people for that matter to except for the number of people affected. John Berry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 21:33:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:20:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: 3.5 Micron Resonance Point for Lepton Pairs? Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:22:19 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"8DVFq.0.6d2.nLE3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10493 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, In looking at Infrared absorption data for several materials three of which were hydrogenous, there are strong absorption points at 3.5 microns (0.35 ev) and 7.0 microns (0.175 ev).Naturally if 3.5 microns is where Light Lepton pairs are being formed, doe sn't it follow that there will be a "dip" at 7.0 microns? This Might indicate that the proposed Leptons +/- have a rest mass of about 0.175 ev, or about 3.1E-37 kg. Photons of this wavelength can readily be produced by thermoluminescence at 300 to 500 degree C (warm filaments or such) or triboluminescence etc. Interesting that the 3.5 micron energy (0.35 ev) is close to the "blackbody temperature" of the surface of the Sun. I couldn't find any data on the Raman-Stokes lines at these wavelengths. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 07:13:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:09:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 08:13:58 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-l eskimo.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, wireless@rmii.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, halfox slkc.uswest.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ceti@onramp.net, design73 aol.com, jaeger@eneco-usa.com Subject: Re: Blue's viewpoint References: <970902095355_100433.1541_BHG88-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"DiAIu1.0.3n1.iu13q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10467 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 2, 1997 Chris Tinslely, Actually, I am a couch critic, in that I have my Compac Presario right beside my large meditation mirror, so as I sit crosslegged on my couch, I can work with the keyboard on my lap, and all my shelves right around me. I am very glad to see "Infinite Energy" doing careful evaluation of the Potatov water vortex system, which has sold by the thousands in the Russian sphere, the Ragland electrolysis cell, and soon the Cincinnati Group thorium remediation, and to see the vi gorous, cooperative exploration by the Vortex-L network of Watson's Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy. However, all these efforts seem to or soon will establish firm negative results, as seen from my couch. It took me only about ten hours of effort to compose a fairly complete, devastating critical analysis of the Cincinnati Group report, thanks to the profuse data published in "Infinite Energy". What is now needed is not the sale of unproductive kits, but the publication on Vortex-L of all the specific data already collected, as well as new experiments to explore with clarity just what has been going on in their runs. Why wasn't this simple critical work already done by someone more qualified and experien ced? I've haven't been in a science classroom in 33 years, and never held any technical position. All the same, "Infinite Energy" might save a lot of wasted enthusiasm and establish a more substantial reputation, by hiring me to review the next promisin g possibility. I'll do it for $ 20/hr consulting fee plus the right to freely publicize the information supplied and my discoveries and questions. I always discontinue posting to anyone who requests this courtesy. I send my posts to those who I think are not of the happy elite who subscribe to Vortex-L. You may have noticed that Robert W. Bass immediately forwarded my CG critical post to dozens on his own list. Wryly, Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 06:52:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.c om ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:45:55 -0500 References: <1.5.4.32.19970830083458.0067f998 atlantic.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Resent-Message-ID: <"-ghY42.0.Wx1.fZ13q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10466 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Aug 30, 3:37am, 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 I think this is inappropriate. I think it very altruistic for Greg to share as much as he has. If everything was as complete as everyone assumes, why would he need this forum at all? If he has your money, I think you have every right to seek answers, b ut not with slander. The ensuing mob action and flame wars only discourage others from posting their research (as there are over 200 emails in my box this morning, I can only assume this has already blown way out of proportion). I am not in a position t o defend him, that his business, my concern is the irresponsibility of the comment. I am very disappointed to read this. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 08:42:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:37:58 -0700 Date: 02 Sep 97 11:28:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: Blue's viewpoint Resent-Message-ID: <"TdafK2.0.iP5.EB33q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10468 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Richard, > Chris Tinslely, At least get my name right. > It took me only about ten hours of effort to compose a fairly > complete, devastating critical analysis of the Cincinnati Group > report, thanks to the profuse data published in "Infinite Energy". You're serious about that statement? Extraordinary arrogance, if I may say so. > What is now needed is not the sale of unproductive kits, but the > publication on Vortex-L of all the specific data already > collected, as well as new experiments to explore with clarity just > what has been going on in their runs. Sez you. And just how come you are the arbiter of what is right? And how do you know the cells will be "unproductive"? You take my breath away, you really do. And how else is the data to appear if nobody does the experiments, and how will they do the experiments without the kind of approach being taken by IE and the Group? > Why wasn't this simple critical work already done by someone more > qualified and experienced? By whom, would you suggest? And how are your suggestions necessarily correct? And has it ever occurred to you that the CG are not some fat-cat academic or government lab, but a few people with limited resources? How would they pay for all this work to be done? > I've haven't been in a science classroom in 33 years, and never > held any technical position. All the same, "Infinite Energy" > might save a lot of wasted enthusiasm and establish a more > substantial reputation, by hiring me to review the next pr omising > possibility. I'm sorry, Bill Beaty, but there are times when the my habitual British phlegm just can't handle things. Richard, I think you are a quite pathetic little wanker in regarding yourself so highly. > Wryly, No, not wryly. Pathetically, arrogantly, stupidly. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 09:11:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:54:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:42:14 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: The Mail proc ess & IE To: 76570.2270 compuserve.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"02KnR.0.SB6.eQ33q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10470 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 2, 1997 Gene, Hi. What's with the mailing of the combined issue? To save you mail expenses, I requested my subscription be sent by Bulk Mail rates rather than Priority or First Class. I thought it ridiculous to be spending a large protion of the subscription fee for mail costs. Now I am reading of some discussiuons of the issue from far away as Romania and the Vortex and I still see undelivered mail. Certainly doesn't go toward popularizing subscriptions. I understand the Barnes & Noble super bookstores carry IE but have yet to see them on the shelves the times I visited them. So I would say close to zero for public exposure of IE. The snail in the snail mail process must be dead insofar as IE bulk mail is concerned. And the mail gets delivered when the snail is kicked in the right direction eventually? Funny, I still get tons of irrelevant 'junk' mail from distances equally far awa y. I'll wait another month to see if the magazine arrives. If the magazine does not arrive by the begining of October, Please send another copy and bill me. I'll let you know. Of course there is the dishonest snail mail to contend with also. This where packages are delivered torn and bereft of contents, ragged magazines delivered late, and indifferent wrong address deliveries. Then there are those mail 'robber-ratties' that raid unlocked boxes. One time, I was surprised to see a female postal deliverer quite purposefully get off her Jeep, walk to a commercial dumpster and dump a a large bundle and drive off. She didn't see me. Curious, I looked in and saw it was a bundle of those 'weekly special s' that markets send out to residents. I do not think it her function to judge on such material and junk it. I notified the post office and the mailer. Didn't get to find out what happened afterward since the post office immediately internalized the scand al. But I 'figger' she was not fired, what with 'civil rights' and spineless interpretations now days. Needless to say, the mailer was scandalized, outraged and angry -- as well it should be. So I always wonder what happens to my postal material of any kind. Trauma. Too bad important mail is being black mailed into buying higher rates -- in a 'democracy' y et. Oh yes, I have also seen postal deliverers take a break and down a 'half-pint' before resuming. This was before drugs became so prevalent. So nothing strange about the killings that have occurred in the system. And the rates are due to go up! Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 12:14:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:54:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:42:14 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: The Mail proc ess & IE To: 76570.2270 compuserve.com Cc: aki ix.netcom.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"02KnR.0.SB6.eQ33q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10470 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 2, 1997 Gene, Hi. What's with the mailing of the combined issue? To save you mail expenses, I requested my subscription be sent by Bulk Mail rates rather than Priority or First Class. I thought it ridiculous to be spending a large protion of the subscription fee for mail costs. Now I am reading of some discussiuons of the issue from far away as Romania and the Vortex and I still see undelivered mail. Certainly doesn't go toward popularizing subscriptions. I understand the Barnes & Noble super bookstores carry IE but have yet to see them on the shelves the times I visited them. So I would say close to zero for public exposure of IE. The snail in the snail mail process must be dead insofar as IE bulk mail is concerned. And the mail gets delivered when the snail is kicked in the right direction eventually? Funny, I still get tons of irrelevant 'junk' mail from distances equally far awa y. I'll wait another month to see if the magazine arrives. If the magazine does not arrive by the begining of October, Please send another copy and bill me. I'll let you know. Of course there is the dishonest snail mail to contend with also. This where packages are delivered torn and bereft of contents, ragged magazines delivered late, and indifferent wrong address deliveries. Then there are those mail 'robber-ratties' that raid unlocked boxes. One time, I was surprised to see a female postal deliverer quite purposefully get off her Jeep, walk to a commercial dumpster and dump a a large bundle and drive off. She didn't see me. Curious, I looked in and saw it was a bundle of those 'weekly special s' that markets send out to residents. I do not think it her function to judge on such material and junk it. I notified the post office and the mailer. Didn't get to find out what happened afterward since the post office immediately internalized the scand al. But I 'figger' she was not fired, what with 'civil rights' and spineless interpretations now days. Needless to say, the mailer was scandalized, outraged and angry -- as well it should be. So I always wonder what happens to my postal material of any kind. Trauma. Too bad important mail is being black mailed into buying higher rates -- in a 'democracy' y et. Oh yes, I have also seen postal deliverers take a break and down a 'half-pint' before resuming. This was before drugs became so prevalent. So nothing strange about the killings that have occurred in the system. And the rates are due to go up! Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 03:08:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 02:58:30 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 23:56:03 -1000 To: vortex From: Rick Monteverde Subject: [OFF-TOPIC] Diana - Please Read! Resent-Message-ID: <"Gw-9S.0.eS.4JJ3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10495 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts - I very busy and have little time to scan all the mails I get now. I'm sorry she's gone and all, but if you must discuss this here, would you mind please using a flag like the "[OFF_TOPIC]" I've put in the subject line of this message? We who depend on the use of filters to trim down the daily e-load would appreciate it. Adopting a consistent standard text item like that for filters like that has been working well in one of the high traffic lists (125++ messages/day) I'm on. Whatever... Bill? Thanks, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 08:57:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:49:19 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Blue's viewpoint, uncharacteristically Chris! Resent-Message-ID: <"EwUf61.0.r65.eN33q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10469 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris, On 2 Sep 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Richard, > > > Chris Tinslely, > > At least get my name right. ... > Sez you. And just how come you are the arbiter of what is right? Arms akimbo! Bad hair day! ... > I'm sorry, Bill Beaty, but there are times when the my habitual British > phlegm just can't handle things. Richard, I think you are a quite > pathetic little wanker in regarding yourself so highly. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And I imagined you had the cool of a David Niven! Remi. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 10:08:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 97 12:49:54 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: Blue's viewpoint, uncharacteristical Resent-Message-ID: <"vp9Z41.0.w3.NK43q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10471 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Remi, > And I imagined you had the cool of a David Niven! Of course you did, but it is all a facade. My English blood only accounts for one quarter of my heredity, and the Scots, Irish and Norwegian quadrants do surface on occasion. By the way, I have sent a note of apology to the other addressees for having spammed them. Regrettably, I had neglected to instruct my email system to delete all the other recipients. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 10:34:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:26:18 -0700 (PDT) From: HLafonte aol.com Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:22:05 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Time to magnetize Resent-Message-ID: <"0aoGc.0.YW1.rm43q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10472 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I need to find out about the "time to magnetize" aspect of metals such a ferrite, as the switching time in a spin balance system may be a shorter time period. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 10:52:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:44:46 -0700 Date: 02 Sep 97 13:41:46 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Test for "sceptics" Resent-Message-ID: <"12ZGq1.0.uz3.C253q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10473 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Some time ago, I asked Barry Merriman to respond to my "standard test for CF sceptics". He may do so at some stage, but so far *no single person* has ever responded in any substantive manner; I thought perhaps it might be of interest to repeat it: --------------------------------------------------- 1. Since "CF" (in the sense of an energy anomaly unexplainable by conventional physics) has been published and replicated over and over again, how is it that the general science community rejects its own rules for acceptance of reality in this one specif ic case? 2. The New Scientist published on 1 May 1993 an article on the Physics Letters A paper (of approximately the same date) by Fleischmann and Pons. This article was a (possibly deliberate) tissue of lies and distortions, and yet I was unable to obtain any response from the magazine despite several mailings and faxings of a perfectly polite commentary by myself. Any honest sceptic would wish to study the paper and this article and make an assessment of the lack of basic integrity of this example of science journalism on the subject of CF. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the French nuclear group CEREM have replicated this rather dramatic experimental result. At the time, I wrote to the magazine as follows, and to be certain I sent it both by fax and recorded-delivery mail. New Scientist always responds to correspondence, but they did not do so in this case. ------------------------------------------------------- Letters to the Editor - New Scientist 0602-254308 [now (+44/0)-115-925-4308] 127 Wollaton Vale Nottingham NG8 2PE 2 May 1993 Dear Sir, You express your concern (Comment, 1 May) that science matters should be accurately reported. Turning to page 6 of the same issue, I saw with interest your article on the latest cold fusion paper from Profs Fleischmann and Pons, which I was able to compare with the actual paper (Physics Letters A, Vol 176, 1012, 3 May 1993). This comparison showed a level of distortion and inaccuracy which astonished me. Your article refers to excess energy of up to 2W/cm3. The paper refers to excess energy which "remains relatively constant at about 20W/cm3 for the bulk of the experiment, followed by a rapid rise to about 4kW/cm3 as the cells boils dry." Further, even af ter the cell has boiled dry, it remains at a temperature of about 100[deg]C for some hours. The article shows a diagram based on a graph from the paper. This shows an aspect of the calorimetry during the first few hours of the experiment. The calorimetry of the boiling phase which occurs some days later is shown in the paper in the adjoining gra ph, which you omit. This graph shows the sudden increase in excess energy per unit volume which accompanies the start of the boiling phase. The comments from Dr Williams on "small discrepancies in the measured temperature" and "It is very sensitive to exp erimental error," seem to me quite ludicrous in this context. Having seen his quoted remarks in the French newspaper L'Express, I am driven to doubt whether Professor Vigier would consider your report of his actions or comments to be fair or in context. As to the question of whether the excess energy has a nuclear o rigin, it should be noted that the paper - as the title clearly states - is concerned solely with the calorimetric aspects of the work. However, a simple calculation based on the information in the paper shows that in the boiling phase alone the excess en ergy is several hundred eV/atom of Pd, which is two orders of magnitude greater than any possible chemical reaction. These comments are far from exhaustive. Should you not decide to follow this remarkable travesty of science reporting with a full and accurate report on the subject then it will at least be a matter of record that you are happy to let it stand. Yours faithfully, Christopher P Tinsley X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 11:53:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 97 14:45:55 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Murray's devastating critiques Resent-Message-ID: <"ajmTE.0.ZZ4.k-53q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10475 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Rich Murray writes: It took me only about ten hours of effort to compose a fairly complete, devastating critical analysis of the Cincinnati Group report, thanks to the profuse data published in "Infinite Energy". In that case you should thank us for publishing so much data. But I doubt that this critique is "devastating," except, perhaps, to you. Let me remind Murray and the readers of this forum that his previous Miley critique has been thoroughly discredited. Mi ley explained: . . . the main thrust of his critiques, that the +- 15% uncertainly of the NAA invalidates the isotope ratios, is simply an error in his understanding of what we did. As stressed in the first paper, the isotope ratios were measured by SIMS while NAA was used to obtain absolute concentrations. Thus the isotope ratio uncertainties are determined from the SIMS data, not from the NAA data as Murray assumes. Consequently the table he presents (and forwarded to Morrison) is simply not applicable. I do not know if Murray ever retracted, but I am satisfied that Miley has show that his key argument has no merit. Murray's other arguments were nitpicking. Some were over my head, but the ones I understood were wrong, as I showed in a message posted here twice. Murray never responded. For those who missed his message, Miley made two other important points [Murray] worries that the SIMS probe beam created some of the elements. SIMS is so widely used that others should have seen this if it happens. Further, in the present case, since SIMS was done before and after a run, anything created would have been subtracted out in taking the different to obtain a net "yield". Also, there was nothing "new" observable in the SIMS analysis before a run . . . Second, the NAA analyses were done with a NIST certified reference sample of the element(s) in place in each case. The accuracy then varies, depending on the element being detected, the background, the neutron fluence, etc., (standard procedure for high precision NAA with reference standards) and the 15% was cited to illustrate a conservative average value. Actual values ranged from 1% to over 30%, depending on the sample and irradiation conditions. . . . The suggestion that a SIMS might induce transmutations is a classic example of "skeptical" handwaving: 1. There is absolutely no prior evidence for the claim, despite thousands of man years of experimentation and hands on experience with SIMS machines. 2. If it were true, it would be a tremendously important discovery in its own right. You could win a Nobel prize for demonstrating that SIMS machines transmute elements. Frank Close would revolutionize physics if his "deep electron shell" theory was accep ted. Yet outside the context of cold fusion he never mentions it, oddly enough! The "skeptics" often claim that cold fusion itself is an example of item 1: something investigated in detail long ago. This is incorrect. Prior to 1989, few people looked at the enthalpy of hypersaturated hydrides, and as far as I know only one person eve r saw hydrides produce neutrons or any other nuclear signal. That was Tadahiko Mizuno. It was a serendipitous discovery. He wasn't looking for neutrons, and he did not recognize them at the time. He shrugged his shoulders and dismissed the signal as inexp licable instrument noise. After 1989 he reviewed the data and realized what it (probably) meant. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 12:05:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:59:18 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 15:01:35 -0400 To: rmforall earthlink.net From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Zenon shortfall on Earth Cc: Vortex-L eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"kh1nJ1.0.yC7.5863q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10476 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:43 PM 8/25/97 -0700, Rich Murray wrote: > 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 I just love this type of incredibly stupid story. One of the most stable Xenon compounds I know is the platinate: Xe2Pt3O6 if memory serves. Even in solution in the presence of other metals it was stable over periods of years. The silicate may be more stable in an anhydrous environment, and there are a lot of silicates under our feet. But the silicate tends to convert to Xenon trioxide in the presence of water, which makes me very leery of experimenting with it. XeO3 is t he nastiest explosive I have ever met--stronger and more brissiant than nitroglycerin and much less stable when dry. XeO3 is very stable in solution, it is just that--if you are lucky--you will find one morning that it started evaporating and created a f ew crystals around the rim. Now all you have to do is clean up the debris. I guess I was luckier...I spilled a few drops on a table--and the next day found splinters all over the place from a one-inch hole. If you know you spilled some, the usual treat ment is to flush thoroughly, and run the water through a pipe filled with steel wool to release the xenon. I missed this one spot. But I don't know of ANY Xenon compound where it serves as other than an electron donor with a usual valence of +6 or +8, and I have worked with lots of Xenon compounds, usually in the process of trying to avoid creating them. I would never expect Xen on to combine with iron. 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 Tue Sep 2 13:23:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:19:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:20:29 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Zenon shortfall on Earth Cc: Rich Murray , Vortex-L@eskimo.com References: <340226C8.50B1@earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"Yr9i2.0.SE7.wI73q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10477 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:12 PM 8/26/97 -0600, Jorg Ostrowski wrote: >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. Huh? Xenon, Neon and Argon are all extracted from air as a byproduct of liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen production. The part left after you liquify the LOx is all noble gasses. Argon is the most plentiful, and in spite of the name, the gas used mo st in "neon" signs. Are you planning to use Xenon because of its IR spectrum? I'd think argon would be slightly better at preventing heat reradiation. 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 Tue Sep 2 14:07:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:59:12 -0400 To: rmforall earthlink.net From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Zenon shortfall on Earth Cc: Jorg Ostrowski , vortex-L@eskimo.com References: Resent-Message-ID: <"-rLJ61.0.MC1.vt73q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10478 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:55 PM 8/26/97 -0700, Rich Murray wrote: > 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! Xenon is not an inert gas. Simple experiment, well, simple if you have the materials and equipment to handle them...otherwise very lethal. I feel free to post this here because if anyone can gather the starting materials, you know about the risks. Take a PURE nickel container, put in one part Xe, three parts F2. Elemental fluorine is not considered to be quite as dangerous as plutonium, but it has killed a lot more chemists. Liquid fluorine is now "routinely" shipped in nickel tank trucks for use in making fluorocarbons and uranium hexafluoride, but it isn't all owed to my knowledge on open roads, just moved around inside large chemical complexes--you don't want to pipe it. Heat the nickel container to 400 degrees C for about four hours. If you are like me, you will have an external gas reservoir and a constant volume mixer--all parts exposed to the gas flow nickel or teflon--and cook overnight. React the remaining gas in the container with something to mop up the excess fluorine. I used powdered aluminium. Note that hydrofluoric acid (HF) is used to etch glass, so you don't want to use hydrogen, and the XeF6 you form will react instantly wi th water to form XeO3 and HF. In that pair, the HF gas is lethal if inhaled, and eats through almost anything other than Teflon. But HF is benign compared to XeO3. I think that the largest dose of XeO3 I ever intentionally exploded was just under one m illigram. And if it is dry, you can set it off by sneezing--a mile away! Once you have XF6--actually a mixture of mostly XF6 and some XF4--you can work with such fun things as silane gas (SiH4), phosphene (PH3), and other fun toys to create more complex compounds. (Actually my preferred way to create Xenon and Argon compounds was to run a gas mixture through a plasma torch. But that is not a standard laboratory toy, and is somewhat more dangerous than fluorine gas--it likes to convert air into cyanide gas. But it helps you to stay away from XeF6, ArF4, and XeO3 as intermediataries.) 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 Tue Sep 2 14:09:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:01:56 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:07:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Two Voyager Spacecraft Still Going Strong After 20 Years (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"V403_1.0.zA.3x73q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10479 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:12:40 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: Two Voyager Spacecraft Still Going Strong After 20 Years Donald Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC September 2, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1547) Mary Hardin Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 97-189 TWO VOYAGER SPACECRAFT STILL GOING STRONG AFTER 20 YEARS Twenty years after their launch and long after their planetary reconnaissance flybys have been completed, both Voyager spacecraft are now gaining on another milestone -- crossing that invisible boundary that separates our solar system from interst ellar space, the heliopause. Since 1989 when Voyager 2 encountered Neptune, both spacecraft have been studying the environment of space in the outer solar system. Science instruments on both spacecraft are sensing signals that scientists believe are coming from the heliopaus e -- the outermost edge of the Sun's magnetic field that the spacecraft must pass through before they reach interstellar space. "During their first two decades, the Voyager spacecraft have had an unequaled journey of discovery. Today, even though Voyager 1 is now more than twice as far from the Sun as Neptune, their journey is only half over, and more unique opportunities for discovery await the spacecraft as they head toward interstellar space," said Dr. Edward Stone, the Voyager project scientist and director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. "The Voyagers owe their ability to operate at such great dis tances from the Sun to their nuclear electric power sources which provide the electrical power they need to function." The Sun emits a steady flow of electrically charged particles called the solar wind. As the solar wind expands supersonically into space, it creates a magnetized bubble around the Sun, called the heliosphere. Eventually, the solar wind encounters t he electrically charged particles and magnetic field in the interstellar gas. The boundary created between the solar wind and interstellar gas is the heliopause. Before the spacecraft reach the heliopause, they will pass through the termination shock -- the place where the solar wind abruptly slows down from supersonic to subsonic speed. Reaching the termination shock and heliopause will be major milestones for the spacecraft because no one has been there before and the Voyagers will gather the first direct evidence of their structure. Encountering the termination shock and helio pause has been a long sought-after goal for many space physicists, and exactly where these two boundaries are located and what they are like still remains a mystery. "Based on current data from the Voyager cosmic ray subsystem, we are predicting the termination shock to be in the range of 62 to 90 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun. Most 'consensus' estimates are currently converging on about 85 AU. Voyager 1 is currently at about 67 AU and moving outwards at 3.5 AU per year, so I would expect crossing the termination shock sometime before the end of 2003," said Dr. Alan Cummings, a co-investigator on the cosmic ray subsystem at the California Institute of Technology. "Based on a radio emission event detected by the Voyager 1 and 2 plasma wave instruments in 1992, we estimate that the heliopause is located from 110 to 160 AU from the Sun," said Dr. Donald A. Gurnett, principal investigator on the plasma wave subsystem at the University of Iowa. (One AU is equal to 93 million miles (150 million kilometers), or the distance from the Earth to the Sun.) "The low-energy charged particle instruments on the two spacecraft continue to detect ions and electrons accelerated at the Sun and at huge shock waves, tens of AU in radius, that are driven outward through the solar wind. During the past five ye ars, we have observed marked variations in this ion population, but have yet to see clear evidence of the termination shock. We should always keep in mind that our theories may be incomplete and the shock may be a lot farther out than we think," said Dr. Stamatios M. Krimigis, principal investigator for the low energy charged particle subsystem at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Voyager 2 was launched first on Aug. 20, 1977, and Voyager 1 was launched a few weeks later on a faster trajectory on Sept. 5. Initially, both spacecraft were only supposed to explore two planets -- Jupiter and Saturn. But the incredible success of those two first encounters and the good health of the spacecraft prompted NASA to extend Voyager 2's mission to Uranus and Neptu ne. As the spacecraft flew across the solar system, remote-control reprogramming has given the Voyagers greater capabilities than they possessed when they left the Earth. There are four other science instruments that are still functioning and collecting data as part of the Voyager Interstellar Mission. The plasma subsystem measures the protons in the solar wind. "Our instrument has recently observed a slow, year- long increase in the speed of the solar wind which peaked in late 1996, and we are now observing a slow decrease in solar wind velocity," said Dr. John Richardson, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, principal investigator on the plasma subsyste m. "We think the velocity peak coincided with the recent solar minimum. As we approach the solar maximum in 2000, the solar wind pressure should decrease, which will result in the termination shock and heliopause moving inward towards the Voyager spacec raft." The magnetometer instrument onboard the Voyagers measures the magnetic fields that are carried out into interplanetary space by the solar wind. The Voyagers are currently measuring the weakest interplanetary magnetic fields ever detected and thos e magnetic fields being measured are responsive to charged particles that cannot be detected directly by any other instruments on the spacecraft, according to Dr. Norman Ness, principal investigator on the magnetometer subsystem at the Bartol Research Ins titute, University of Delaware. Other science instruments still collecting data include the planetary radio astronomy subsystem and the ultraviolet spectrometer subsystem. Voyager 1 encountered Jupiter on March 5, 1979, and Saturn on Nov. 12, 1980, and then, because its trajectory was designed to fly close to Saturn's large moon Titan, Voyager 1's path was bent northward by Saturn's gravity sending the spacecraft ou t of the ecliptic plane, the plane in which all the planets but Pluto orbit the Sun. Voyager 2 arrived at Jupiter on July 9, 1979, and Saturn on Aug. 25, 1981, and was then sent on to Uranus on Jan. 25, 1986, and Neptune on Aug. 25, 1989. Neptune's gravity bent Voyager 2's path southward sending it also out of the ecliptic plane and on toward interstellar space. Both spacecraft have enough electrical power and attitude control propellant to continue operating until about 2020 when the available electrical power will no longer support science instrument operation. Spacecraft electrical power is supplied b y Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) that provided approximately 470 watts of power at launch. Due to the natural radioactive decay of the plutonium fuel source, the electrical energy provided by the RTGs is continually declining. At the begi nning of 1997, the power generated by Voyager 1 had dropped to 334 watts and to 336 watts for Voyager 2. Both of these power levels represent better performance than had been predicted before launch. The Voyagers are now so far from home that it takes nine hours for a radio signal traveling at the speed of light to reach the spacecraft. Science data are returned to Earth in real-time to the 34-meter Deep Space Network antennas located in Cali fornia, Australia and Spain. Voyager 1 will pass the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in January 1998 to become the most distant human-made object in our solar system. Voyager 1 is currently 6.3 billion miles (10.1 billion kilometers) from Earth, having traveled 7.4 billion miles (11.9 billion kilometers) since its launch. The Voyager 1 spacecraft is departing the solar system at a speed of 39,000 miles per hou r (17.4 kilometers per second). Voyager 2 is currently 4.9 billion miles (7.9 billion kilometers) from Earth, having traveled 6.9 billion miles (11.3 billion kilometers) since its launch. The Voyager 2 spacecraft is departing the solar system at a speed of 35,000 miles per hour (15.9 kilometers per second). JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology, manages the Voyager Interstellar Mission for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, DC. - end - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 15:36:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:10:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus spectre.mitre.org Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 18:05:05 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Bull Shit Re: Diana death not due to stalking Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"oD0PN3.0.B-3.4x83q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10480 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:12 PM 8/31/97 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: >Was the driver going to fast, absolutely. That the driver had been drinking seems to have been established, but whether the excessive speed at the point of the crash was cause or effect has yet to be established. I know of several cases where the driver of a car panicked and floored the accel erator instead of the brakes. Also note that Diana's regular driver had taken off as a decoy, this was a new driver, unused to paperratzzi pursuit and tactics. > 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. More than absolutely on both counts. There is some indication from the more reliable news sources that a flash camera was used just before the car entered the tunnel. If I were TRYING to kill someone under those circumstances, a flash camera might be a better weapon than an Uzi, especially if reflected off the tunnel walls just before entry. Also there is plenty of evidence that the paperrazzi were actively interfering with the rescue attempts, rather than attempting to help. 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 Tue Sep 2 15:48:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:36:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Two Voyager Spacecraft Still Going Strong After 20 Years Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:34:46 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"D6S5W1.0._S5.rJ93q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10482 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thanks to Steve Ekwall for forwarding the message. I am pleased to see that the Thermoelectric Power Generators are still at almost 75% power after 20 years. Had lots of fun in the late 1960's working on designs and testing the Plutonium fuel capsules, and slamming "dummy" capsules carried on a rocket-sled into granite at 100 meters/second to see how well they stood up (in case of a launch mishap). U.S. Patent 3,801,446 (Apr.,1974)was my effort to keep the power level "flat" over long periods by venting the Helium from the Pu-238 decay into a heat-pipe, which meant that you could start out with excess radioisotope heat that would be dumped by therma l radiation, then as the isotope decayed the helium build-up in the heat pipe would automatically lower the thermal loss to keep the power generator heat input essentially constant. Several NASA and Contractor patents followed this by the time of launch of the Pioneer and Voyager probes. A lot of credit for good science goes to the R&D folks at 3M, Gulf General Atomic, RCA, General Electric, and others. Don Ernst, now at Thermocore, was with RCA Lancaster, when we worked together on the Nickel-Potassium heat-pipes at Oak Ridge Labs. :-) I'm really surprised and pleased that the thermoelectric elements didn't "sublime" away. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 17:14:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 18:06:35 -0500 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, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, jaeger eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, rmills blacklightpower.com, wrgood@earthlink.net, davidk@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, kirk.shanahan srs.gov Subject: Blue on subtleties of radioactive decay chains Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"fOoN2.0.Px1.kdA3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10486 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pilot14.cl.msu.edu (pilot14.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.24]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23146 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot14.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA74235; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199709021428.KAA74235 pilot14.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Murray's summary/analysis of CG Report To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340BA5BD.4BFA@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 2, 97 00:35:57 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Rich, Very Good! There is much about the cell design and experimental protocol that remains to be explained. How do these people arrive at these methods? Of course it becomes a typical response when anyone attempts to replicate this kind of experiment that they must stick absolutely to this protocol, even to details that are not specified. Hence, no one is likely to achieve replication in spite of the fact the the Cincy Group claims to be able to repeat this performance every time. Well, if Bass is truly interested in improving the experiment I would suggest a major upgrade in the activity measurements. Unless they make measurements that identify very specifically the radiation being detected there simply is no way to tell what acc ounts for any shifts in count rate. First it should be recognized that Thorium is NOT very active! That means that any number of other radiation sources can dominate the observed activity -- even at chemical concentrations below the limits for analytic chemistry of any sort. And, as a radi oisotope, thorium is automatically a source of its own contamination! So when you go to the store to buy thorium nitrate what is it you are actually purchasing? In other words, how well do the Cincy Group know their starting material? The answer, I suspect, is that they probably don't know what they have to start with so any comparison with what remains at the end is equally in doubt. Just for the sake of argument let's describe a simple case of a radioisotope that decays to a single daughter that is, in turn, radioactive. After an appropriate period of time the relative concentration of daughter to mother approaches secular equilibri um. What is the ratio of daughter atoms to the mother atoms? It's in proportion to their half-lives. So, for example, if the mother has a half-life of 10^10 years and the daughter has a half-life of 1 year the mother will be contaminated by the daughter at a level of 1 in 10^10 -- hardly significant from the standpoint of analytic chemistry. However the next question is what is the ratio of activities of daughter to mother? The answer is that the ACTIVITIES ARE EQUAL!!!!! So take a look at the thorium decay chain. It starts with 232Th, goes through alpha decay and two beta decays to produce 228Th which has a half-life of about 2 years. So if one starts with natural thorium and does a perfect chemical separation to remove absolutely everything but thorium you still have 228Th present at the level of 1 in 10^10 I suppose, and it's activity matches that of the 232Th. Now it's likely much more complex than that. I doubt that the chemical purity of the starting material is perfect. Shall we say the purity is at the parts per million level? What other activities can we essential count on being present at levels suffic ient to influence the measurements as reported by the Cinci Group? Let's make a list. 232Th (1.4 E10 yrs) 228Ra (6.7 yrs) 228Ac (6.1 hrs) 228Th (1.9 yrs) 224Ra (3.64 days) 220Rn (51.5 sec) 216Po (0.16 sec) So my assertion would be that the starting material is likely contaminated with perhaps half a dozen other activities that are comparable to the 232Th activity. It seems unlikely to me that you could even maintain the activity at a constant value through out a chemical process if you were determined to do so. So what does the fact that the activity changes prove? Absolutely nothing! So the radiochemical aspects of the Cinci experiment are total hog wash. If Bass is serious about wanting to improve these experiments there is certainly room for improvement there. Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 16:27:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vorte x-l eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: A Land-Mine? Resent-Message-ID: <"yA_gi3.0.R27.8x93q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10485 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Evan Soule wrote: [snipped the whole thing] Please, people, this Diana stuff is entirely irrelevant. The obsession with this topic is symptomatic of people who have bought into the tabloid/marketing/infotainment mass 'culture', whether you read the tabloids or not. Save it for alt.rec.gossipconspir acyvoyeurism! Dan Quickert X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 15:49:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:47:36 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Diana death not due to stalking Resent-Message-ID: <"aS_zo2.0.ku5.VR93q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10483 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >At 08:12 PM 8/31/97 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: > >>Was the driver going to fast, absolutely. > > That the driver had been drinking seems to have been established, but >whether the excessive speed at the point of the crash was cause or effect >has yet to be established. I know of several cases where the driver of a >car panicked and floored the accelerator instead of the brakes. Also note >that Diana's regular driver had taken off as a decoy, this was a new >driver, unused to paperratzzi pursuit and tactics. > >> 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. > > More than absolutely on both counts. There is some indication from the >more reliable news sources that a flash camera was used just before the car >entered the tunnel. If I were TRYING to kill someone under those >circumstances, a flash camera might be a better weapon than an Uzi, >especially if reflected off the tunnel walls just before entry. Also there >is plenty of evidence that the paperrazzi were actively interfering with >the rescue attempts, rather than attempting to help. > > Robert I. Eachus > Was just the driver "drunk?" Were the other occupants of the automobile "having a good time," "enjoying a Parisian evening," and also "intoxicated."? Did Dodi order the driver to "lose those paparratzzi." ? Could Dodi or the bodyguard have jokingly(?) told the driver to: "lose those paparratzzi or lose your job?" Or, did the driver himself take the initiative and simply lose control because of his drunkenness and excessive speeding? just, questions...... If one is going to "blame" the paparratzzi in general (setting aside for the moment the question of _pro-active_ interference with the operation of the motor vehicle), then one should also consider "blaming" those who buy such tabloids throughout the worl d: they serve to finance such "photography." Evan Soule' X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 16:03:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:02:21 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: A Land-Mine? Resent-Message-ID: <"RQhqt2.0.iK6.Kf93q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10484 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com prepared by: M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S http://WWW.MiddleEast.Org Emad Mohamed "Dodi" el-Fayed's maternal uncle is ADNAN KHASHOGGI. At American University in Washington, D.C., there is a very large building with the name ADNAN KHASHOGGI writ large for all to see. Former Arab League Ambassador Clovis Maksoud has his office nearby. It's also quite an embarrassment however. Once praised as an international businessman, Khashoggi is now known to have been an international arms salesman and a swindler working closely with the Saudi Royal family as an intermediary. Criminal indictments and law suits galore are now associated w ith his name. AU took his money before the crash, and remains stuck with his name, though rumors abound the university has been looking for some other wealthy patron to make a new deal with. The family fortune of Emad Mohamed "Dodi" el-Fayed can be traced not to Egypt, but rather to the two sources of Muslim cash and unbridled corruption in our era - the Saudi royal family and the Sultan of Brunei. Indeed, the main reason Dodi's father has been unable to obtain British citizenship and wasn't even sure he'd be able to bury his son in England, can be traced back to his very shady business dealings where he repeatedly lied about the source of his funds and on whose behalf he was acting. The connection to the Saudi royal family is through Dodi's mother, the sister of Adnan Khashoggi. And irony of ironies, much of the money that has built the Mohamed Fayed empire -- and that however indirectly contributed to the death of the Princess of Wales, so known in recent days for her anti-land-mines and humanitarian efforts -- began as commissi ons and profits from arms sales. ---------------------------------------- Assuming the above information to be correct: It would be ironic if the Princess of Wales protested land-mines (and related arms), some of which may have been indirectly financed by her future "uncle-in-law." X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 18:38:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:32:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:26:13 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: Rich Murray cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, jaeger eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, rmills blacklightpower.com, wrgood@earthlink.net, davidk@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, kirk.shanahan srs.gov Subject: Barker Resent-Message-ID: <"oYMF41.0.-j4.1vB3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10487 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Folks, I again try to call to your attention the work of Wm. A Barker. We replicated a few years ago at Antioch College. It works. This is a simple method. Go to IBM patent and do Boolean search for field: Any; Electrostatic and field: Inventor; Barker. Very easy to do. JHS On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Rich Murray wrote: > Received: from pilot14.cl.msu.edu (pilot14.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.24]) > by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23146 > for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:28:50 -0700 (PDT) > Received: (blue localhost) > by pilot14.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) > id KAA74235; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:45 -0400 > Message-Id: <199709021428.KAA74235 pilot14.cl.msu.edu> > Subject: Re: Murray's summary/analysis of CG Report > To: rmforall earthlink.net > Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:44 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Richard A Blue" > In-Reply-To: <340BA5BD.4BFA earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 2, 97 00:35:57 am > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] > Content-Type: text/plain > > Rich, Very Good! There is much about the cell design and experimental > protocol that remains to be explained. How do these people arrive at > these methods? Of course it becomes a typical response when anyone > attempts to replicate this kind of experiment that they must stick > absolutely to this protocol, even to details that are not specified. > Hence, no one is likely to achieve replication in spite of the fact > the the Cincy Group claims to be able to repeat this performance > every time. > > Well, if Bass is truly interested in improving the experiment I would > suggest a major upgrade in the activity measurements. Unless they > make measurements that identify very specifically the radiation > being detected there simply is no way to tell what accounts for > any shifts in count rate. > > First it should be recognized that Thorium is NOT very active! That > means that any number of other radiation sources can dominate the > observed activity -- even at chemical concentrations below the limits > for analytic chemistry of any sort. And, as a radioisotope, thorium > is automatically a source of its own contamination! > > So when you go to the store to buy thorium nitrate what is it you > are actually purchasing? In other words, how well do the Cincy > Group know their starting material? The answer, I suspect, is that > they probably don't know what they have to start with so any > comparison with what remains at the end is equally in doubt. > > Just for the sake of argument let's describe a simple case of > a radioisotope that decays to a single daughter that is, in turn, > radioactive. After an appropriate period of time the relative > concentration of daughter to mother approaches secular equilibrium. > What is the ratio of daughter atoms to the mother atoms? It's > in proportion to their half-lives. So, for example, if the > mother has a half-life of 10^10 years and the daughter has a > half-life of 1 year the mother will be contaminated by the daughter > at a level of 1 in 10^10 -- hardly significant from the standpoint > of analytic chemistry. However the next question is what is the > ratio of activities of daughter to mother? The answer is that > the ACTIVITIES ARE EQUAL!!!!! > > So take a look at the thorium decay chain. It starts with 232Th, > goes through alpha decay and two beta decays to produce 228Th which > has a half-life of about 2 years. So if one starts with natural > thorium and does a perfect chemical separation to remove absolutely > everything but thorium you still have 228Th present at the level > of 1 in 10^10 I suppose, and it's activity matches that of the > 232Th. > > Now it's likely much more complex than that. I doubt that the > chemical purity of the starting material is perfect. Shall we > say the purity is at the parts per million level? What other > activities can we essential count on being present at levels > sufficient to influence the measurements as reported by the > Cinci Group? Let's make a list. > > 232Th (1.4 E10 yrs) > 228Ra (6.7 yrs) > 228Ac (6.1 hrs) > 228Th (1.9 yrs) > 224Ra (3.64 days) > 220Rn (51.5 sec) > 216Po (0.16 sec) > > So my assertion would be that the starting material is likely > contaminated with perhaps half a dozen other activities that > are comparable to the 232Th activity. It seems unlikely to > me that you could even maintain the activity at a constant > value throughout a chemical process if you were determined to > do so. So what does the fact that the activity changes prove? > Absolutely nothing! > > So the radiochemical aspects of the Cinci experiment are > total hog wash. If Bass is serious about wanting to improve > these experiments there is certainly room for improvement there. > > Dick Blue > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 18:58:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:51:59 -0700 Date: 02 Sep 97 21:50:10 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 CompuServe.COM> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Blue on subtleties of . . . Resent-Message-ID: <"zwKtw1.0.Zg5.zAC3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10488 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex; >INTERNET:rmforall earthlink.net Rich Murray has again posted a message from Dick Blue containing many egregious errors, like this: So when you go to the store to buy thorium nitrate what is it you are actually purchasing? In other words, how well do the Cincy Group know their starting material? The answer, I suspect, is that they probably don't know what they have to start with so any comparison with what remains at the end is equally in doubt. Again, let me point out that the starting material was run through a mass spectrometer. Is there any better way to "know the material"? Rich Murray: Do you know a better way?!? Look here, Blue has apparently not read the Liversage report, or he does not u nderstand the function of a mass spectrometer. Surely you *do* understand what a mass spectrometer does, and surely you can see why these statements are absurd. So rather than broadcasting them far and wide, please do us a favor and explain to Blue the su btle difference between a mass spec and a gamma detector. Of course there are potential errors in this experiment, but "not knowing the material" isn't one of them. Contamination might enter the cell during the test, or material might be lost from it, so the apparent transmutations might be an artifact. You know the starting point A and the ending point Z, but you cannot be sure how it gets from A to Z. But there can be no error caused by "not knowing" A and Z, unless you claim Liversage used the mass spectrometer incorrectly. That is a different story. Despite the Liversage report and the messages I have sent Blue, he apparently believes that they attempted to analyze the chemical composition by looking at the radioactive signature of the material, rather than breaking it down in a mass spec. I am the only one who has tried to set him straight on this. His fellow "skeptics" will never argue with him or correct his errors. It isn't part of their culture. They believe in presenting a unified front. Once more let me ask you Rich: What is your purpose in cross posting such messages? I promise this will be my last word on the subject. But I am mystified. I am deeply curious to know why you are doing this, and what value you see in posting such confusio n and misinformation. Do you agree with Blue? Are you also wondering how they "know the material"?!? Or have I totally misunderstood Blue's position?!? - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 19:19:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:15:31 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"l57pi.0.WV5.KYC3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10489 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greetings; Hamdi wrote; >You have strong points: > First, it is an unified theory. Only need is aether. Time and the >dimensions are its property, Current understanding of space-time is only >a virtualization of the ether. Which is wrong. Ether is not lied on >space-time but it is source of the space-time. Is it true ? If you have ever had a pan of water, and then buzzed it with some electric motor or vibrating thing, you may have noticed that at some frequencies, the water surface becomes dimpled with standing waves. In my model, spacetime is a structure of standing waves like that. "Space" is the measure of how many nodes you pass moving from "here" to "there". To measure distance, count the nodes (at the Planck scale of E-35 m). We count distance using things lik e light fringes etc., and those are huge structures compared to the Planck scale spacetime nodes, but one is coherent to the other, so counting spacetime nodes is essentially what we are doing when we use a ruler to measure distance (or any other instrume nt). Space, therefore, is a measure of how many nodes you have passed. You will know that you have passed them as you move (if you were E-35 m tall) because you could count how many of the pressure nodes you "rode" past. Time, is measured by staying in one location, and measuring how many times the local pressure nodes oscillate from high to low to high pressure (analogous to watching a little dimple on the water surface by your boat rise and fall and rise. By counting the number of waves **that pass your location**, you learn how much time has transpired. Notice, to measure distance, you count how many nodes you pass from here to there. To measure time, you count how many nodes pass your location. How does one discern if they are moving, or if the nodes are moving past them? One cannot, so we come up with a new measure of translation called "spacetime". Giving rise to the spacetime nodes requires discussion of the big bang and of aether condensate boiling and of black holes in which aether condenses. A lot of discussion you might look up in dejanews.com to begin with or be prepared for a lot to grasp on that stuff. Discussion of one aspect of the universe in this theory leads frequently to discussion of other seemingly unrelated aspects of the univ erse. > > Second, everything you postulate is function of space-time or the >aether. Forces are not static entities but as a result of interference >of the space-time. Sure, your theory is more realistic than eleven >dimensional string theories. Seems pretty simple to me, and there is a lot of observational evidence for my notions, if you know what to look for. > > Third, as I know you are the first to postulate the electricity. You >successfully mapped the apparent negative and positive strength of >electrical potentials to radius (using spherical symmetry and to a phase >in time. This satisfy the first requirement for modelling the >electricity. Actually, Thomson, Bjerknes, Maxwell all worked on this stuff and demonstrated that aspect of these ideas over a hundred years ago. So I didn't accomplish that first, but when I read that they found the same thing, it re-assured me I was not way out in l eft field! > Fifth, your theory seems to be self constistent. It seems to be a good >useful model to describe the reality, if mathematically written. I think this is so. A grad student thought he derived QED from GR suppositions combined with my rule of "Aether is conserved in all interactions". ie, he used a fluid mechanical basis for the derivation of GR, Maxwells equations, Pauli Exclusion princip le and QED. But I could not critique his work and a professor said there were some errors in it. So I cannot say this is accomplished yet. >Aether oscillations which can be visualized as riples (of space-time?) >tend to increase their amplitudes or energies and tend to move to >direction of gradient of the energy is positive. (As any resonating >system tend increase its amplitude by receiving all the energy >available, and as a fluid choose the maximum inclination path to flow.) >This is enough to demonstrate the gravity is born from this property. >This is a deviation from your ideas, but if this a simpler way to >describe it, why to give up. Yes, probably gravitational interaction may >have more complex mechanism and needs frequency domain and some >statistical modeling tools as you state. Maybe the pressure and >filtering concepts are not needed anymore, as the pulling and pushing >mechanism are not needed. This is very important progress to describe >the gravity free of the forces as the GR did. Newton needed the "force" >concept to describe the gravity and this is weakest point of his theory. >Still force concept is controversial and incomplete need to introduce >the "counter force" Einstein remove the force and introduced the >curvature. Good ideas, and I can't delete the stuff and have my response make sense, so I am leaving it above. First, you cannot have "pressure" as the impetus for gravity. If you do, then you need for there to be a flow of aether in order for there to be an effect. Otherwise, the pressure just builds up and equalizes on both sides of your object and you get no net force. You have about 10,000 pounds of force on the front of your body, but you don't go flying backwards because you have the equal pressure on your rear. Next, you cannot have a flow of aether and use pressure because if you did, you would violate the rule of conservation of aether in all interactions. To violate this rule would be to rule out using aether compression waves as your mechanism for communicating information about the presence of standing waves aka particles. You cannot have aether just appearing and disappearing arbitrarily or you will wi nd up with a QM like "Uncertainty" based wierd behaving unpredictable universe where action and reaction are not the rule. Therefore, the only way you can induce gravitation is if there is a differential interaction with existing wave energy. The only way to accomplish this, and simultaneously not violate the conservation of aether law, is if you work with resonators which a ttenuate certain frequencies of wave energy differently than other frequencies. Thus, you wind up with matter acting as filters like band pass filters and you have red shifted energy from deep space that is interfering with the local oscillations of our particles. Thus, you are pushed away from space above harder than you are pushed away from deep space wave energy that passed through the earth and was **partially** filtered. Remember that the entire earth is virtually crystal clear and transparent to wave energy at the Planck scale of E-35 meters. But a tiny fraction will be filt ered,..... and that is gravity. > >This is very interesting. As the gravity can be postulated as the >ripples in the context of this discussion, if ripples is visualized on >2D as ondulation of a elastic tissue, Yes. Think of a boat on the water. It has a natural bobbing frequency. If waves arrive at any other frequencies, they will lap against and thrust the boat away from, their origin. Thus, a boat can be pushed toward shore without wind if the waves inter fering with the boat headed toward shore are stronger than the waves filtered out by the shore, reflected, and headed out to sea. Alternately, logs tend to congregate in log jams because they all have about the same bobbing frequency. That is the filtering effect I am talking about. Though wind is usually the culprit in log jams, waves can do it too. >If we return to original context, the tendency of aether oscillations >buildup and advance to direction where the gradient of energy (due to >oscillation) is maximum(+), there is instability on this basic property >of the aether and this property allows to matter or particle buildup. Sounds on target. A particle is a region of the aether where the wave energy is converging into a small region, spherically. The convergence of acoustic wave energy leads to a fourth power build up in the energy density. This can either be a KE or a PE build up, and I think it is a pressure and thus density amplification of the aether, and a conversion of the KE to PE. Thus, particles are essentially sustained by a positive feedback and refraction of the wave energy of spacetime down into the interior regions of the particles. As an aside, the structure of the nucleus I work with uses four possible phase angles for resonances, relative to spacetime as the reference. These are 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees. I have arbitrarily selected 0 as positive and 180 as negative charge tim ings. This leaves two "neutral" timings at 90 and 270 degrees. And you can then construct nuclei from 9 muon resonances at those phase angles. You get 2 muons resonating at each of the four phase angles, and you have one extra resonance at one of the 4 phase angles. If that is 0, you have a proton, if 90 or 270, then you have a neutron, and if it is at 180, then you have an anti proton. What i s interesting, is that you only need to blast that one extra resonance laterally a tiny bit in order to bump its phase angle from say 0 (proton) over to say 270, and you have formed a neutron. To accomplish the bumping, you need to conserve phase angle energy. So you need a resonance with 270 degree energy to converge into the proton, and you must shed some 0 degree energy. ie, you need a "neutrino" to converge into, and a positron to diverge away from, the nucleus. This would be a positron emission beta decay converting a proton to a neutron. Notice something else important. I have two kinds of neutrons at opposing phase angles. So while they should not interact with positive and negatively charged particles, they should interact with one another. And because it appears that the majority of the universe wave energy is at 0 and 180 degrees spacetime phase angles, one would expect that a nucleus would prefer to have their "imaginary" charged resonances balanced out. Now go check out your table of the isotopes. You will find that virtually all naturally occuring isotopes have an even number of neutrons. And you will also find that the nuclei with odd numbers of neutrons **tend to be** better neutron grabbers (ie the y have larger neutron cross sections) Notice something else. Of the isotopes that have virtually all of their nuclei of just one isotope, they are virtually all from odd numbers of protons, and **even** numbers of neutrons. Nature likes to balance out the numbers of neutrons for some reason , but I am not confident that neutrons are as hard and fast to their "imaginary charge" as are protons and electrons. They may be able to precess or some such. But when you send a neutron beam through a gradient magnetic field, indeed, the neutrons do split into two distinct beams. Is this because their imaginary charge is being forced to interact with the changing field? I think so. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 19:21:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:15:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:15:34 -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: <"9VC-O1.0.o17.CXC3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10490 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Podkletnov reported that the 'field' or area of gravity >modification was a cylindrical column >that corresponded exactly to the shape of the 12-inch spinning >superconductor. This, of course, is counterintuitive. >But if the source of gravity is external, as opposed to internal, and >originates from very far away, I would expect such >a 'shadow effect'. This doesn't explain why the shadow is on the side >facing away from the Earth, but perhaps the >gravity-shielding effect is a gravity-absorbing effect. The superconductor is superior at reflecting wave energy incident upon it. So, the spinning disc is reflecting the wave energy arriving from above and directing it back upwards again. Thus, the masses are being pushed downward by energy arriving from above, upward by energy that passed through the earth headed up, *and* it is a dditionally pushed upward by the wave energy reflected off of the disk. So you have this additional component you don't normally have, and so the mass weighs less in that field of reflection. I don't understand why the shape is so columnar though, but assume it has to do with the axis of rotation and the atomic lattice structure inside the disk. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 19:59:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:54:14 -0700 Date: 02 Sep 97 22:28:46 EDT From: Gene <76570.2270 CompuServe.COM> To: VORTEX , , Robert Bass , , , , , , , , , , , Fred Jaeger , Subject: Re: Blue's viewpoint Resent-Message-ID: <"UseXR3.0.d02.K5D3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10492 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich Murray wrote, >It took me only about ten hours of effort to compose a fairly complete, >devastating critical analysis of the Cincinnati Group report, thanks to >the profuse data published in "Infinite Energy". What is now needed is >not the sale of unproductive kits, but the publication on Vortex-L of >all the specific data already collected, as well as new experiments to >explore with clarity just what has been going on in their runs. Why >wasn't this simple critical work already done by someone more qualified >and experienced? I've haven't been in a science classroom in 33 years, >and never held any technical position. All the same, "Infinite Energy" >might save a lot of wasted enthusiasm and establish a more substantial >reputation, by hiring me to review the next promising possibility. I'll >do it for $ 20/hr consulting fee plus the right to freely publicize the >information supplied and my discoveries and questions. What unmitigated crapola! Rich, sorry, don't send me your C.V. I wouldn't pay one plugged nickel for anything you have written so far -- or for that matter anything you are likely to write in the future. I think Jed has adequately demolished you in anothe r posting. I have concluded that you, like other pretenders to an understanding of science before you, e.g. Tom Droege from who we have mercifully heard little in many months, have virtually no understanding of what science is. Go back to your meditating mirror -- you are much better at looking at yourself than at reality. Gene Mallove 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 Tue Sep 2 19:56:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:50:58 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Murray's Blue viewpoint Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:44:09 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"9wf3N.0.kx1.G2D3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10491 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich writes: ----------------- > Dear all, I'm sending on this post by Dick Blue, not because I'm in > total agreement with it. Then why are you sending it? Why don't you use your devastating analysis on Blue's comments? > It's a pithy, well-spoken, partisan, biased negative position, worth reflecting on. Why? Are you unaware of the many times Blue's pronouncements have been shredded? > Do these misshapened shoes happen to fit? Whose feet? >Without claiming to be a well-informed or qualified critic, An honest admission >I, for one, am willing to post that I don't expect to see anything What sort of "anything"? >come out of the Correa's Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Remarkable. The kindest, and I think the first, of Rich's reviews was of my article on the Correa PAGD in IE #8 last summer. I was grateful for it. The PAGD story is not over. > of CETI's Patterson cell The assorted demonstrations, papers, visits by government agencies are all fiction? Are you denying that CETI succeeded in transmuting Uranium before an official of DoD, who made a supporting statement on ABC television? Or claiming that the water heater that was said to run for months is a special effect? > of the Cincinnati Group's throrium remediation You may have found flaws in the data, but did your analysis demonstrate that no thorium was transmuted? Are you denying that the CG and CETI results are complementary? > of Blacklight Power's excess energy claims How would you know? Have you studied the data available on their Web site, or in Mill's book? I have not seen your analysis of these either. > or of the equally too simple, too wonderful transmutation By what criterion "too simple", "too wonderful" ? Not enough high cost machinery? > Please, show me wrong! You are confusing several kinds of proof. And to prove means to test, not to establish truth. There is the existence proof, the finding that a phenomenon or datum exists. All that is necessary is that the report or reports are not deliberate fiction or error. If you were diligent in research, following up on references in IE, here on Vortex and th e Web pages -- you would find ample, mutually supporting evidence in anecdotal reports and detailed, technical papers for the excess heat signature of the P&F effect. Not only the excess heat, but the production of helium and other nuclear ash (transmutat ions) in well constructed, well documented reports, such as Arata's. If you do not see this, please look in that mirror of yours and see a person in denial. A secondary level of proof, or test, is the characterization of the phenomenon so that it can be easily replicated and scaled up. This is lacking in all the data, all the experiments within your view, and your scholarship is correct in pointing out the we ak spots. No one is denying that they exist. A third level of proof, or test, is the exact characterization of a phenomenon to form a reliable base on which a theoretical structure can be built. We are decades away from this. > Publish details that carefully and thoroughly nullify alternative explanations, and prove careful > replications by fully independent, competent research groups. Many of these have been published or cited by Jed and Chris, referring to journal and conference documents. Have you looked up their references in your thorough research? Miley replicated the Patterson cell from the patent information, and measured excess heat. Do you deny this? Is this not a replication? Is Miley, a full professor, not competent? As Chris pointed out, who is to fund this work? CETI and BLP both have private backing and working relationships with various groups. These would not exist without convincing evidence reviewed by technical people. > The strongest contender I know of currently is Claytor's tritium production from glow discharge > in deuterium gas on palladium alloy electrodes, at Los Alamos. If tritium can be produced in a glow discharge instead of an accelerator or reactor, why do you deny that other transmutation reactions can occur at low energies? This is an existence proof. >I hope to see some thorough critical appraisals of that work. Why aren't you doing it? > Has anyone replicated Mitchel Schwarz's experiments, claiming reliable excess > heat? Why don't you ask Mitchell? > Let's have at it, folks, let's do some real science! You are demanding the second and third levels of proof when various investigators are just establishing the existence proofs. You can show us the way by doing experimental science yourself, where Nature, not opinion, rules. Your "scholarship", as Chris p ointed out, is a comparison of authorities, more appropriate to the compilation of biblical concordances than a contribution to cutting edge research. Now Blue's pronouncement: ------------------------ > It certainly is interesting to see how the Cheer Leaders change > their tune in response to any new information relating to cold > fusion -- particularly when it's bad news for their side. The tune did not change. > For years Jed Rothwell told us the Japanese were the ones with > the foresight to follow this promising line of research Which was true at the inception of the program. The Japanese reputation for thorough, patient development and the government funding was very promising indeed. As was the commitment by the Toyoda family in building the laboratory for P&F in France. > but $20-million dollars later It was more than that, I think > Jed is not going to accept When Jed talked to the NHE workers at ICCF6 and found what they were doing, he published a scathing criticism in English and Japanese in IE and directly to the NHE management. > the conclusions they derived from that research. Which was not surprising, since NHE did not follow the best advice available and repeated conditions known to suppress the P&F phenomenon. > We are back to the same old argument that says anyone who does not get the effect must not > be doing things right! That is not an argument, it is factual, based on available and published information, which Blue continues to ignore. > Are we not supposed to notice that the definition of what it takes to do a CF experiement >"right" is subject to constant revision? This is a surprise in a developing field? >I haven't heard any mention recently of James Griggs and the "Hydrosonic Pump", for example. Why should he? Griggs is still in business, selling pumps, no "news". > At one time Mallove and Rothwell were telling the world that kilowatts of power > were waiting to be tapped by anyone who would stir water with sufficient vigor. This is a flat misrepresentation. The Griggs pumps operate at the multi-kilowatt level routinely in the jobs they are designed for. And they are modestly o/u, so a few kilowatts of excess heat energy is produced routinely. Gene tested the Potapov unit, an other cavitation device, and found no o/u heat and so published the data after optimistic early reports. > Now the name of the game for some people is "massive nuclear > transmutations." These claims are now becoming so common > under such a variety of conditions that it is hard to believe > that such transmutations aren't occurring spontaneously all > the time! Perhaps they do, and haven't been noticed. We are struggling with an existence proof. > Of course an elementary consideration of the claims > shows them up as being totally absurd, but absurdity has never > held the CF advocates in check. They will believe anything! Blue's mind is made up, don't confuse him with facts. He is secure in his belief that all is known. > Then there are those who think, in spite of all the negative > results, there still is a reality to claims for the production > of "excess heat." Only those who see the positive results in their own laboratories and who read such reports reliably reported. > I find it very hard to explain the history of CF research if "excess heat" could, in fact, be > established as a real phenomenon. I am sure Blue finds it very, very hard, since he is part of the problem. > We are asked to believe that Pons and Fleischmann, after discovering > a fool-proof way to boil water, dropped that promising line > of research and walked away from the dream they claim to have > invested years of research to bring it reality. Their boiling-water experiment has been replicated by the French nuclear energy agency by an engineer who replicated the experiment and didn't invent anything. Been there, done that. IMHO, P&F may have realized that the solid electrode, heavy water system was only a starting point and other systems, such as the Patterson cell, point toward future development. Supposedly, they were advisors to the NHE program, which did not follow their advice. > Isn't it just possible that they quit because they found themselves no closer > to success than in their first very flawed experiments? Anything is possible to the suspicious and uninformed mind. > I suggest you make a list of all the claims for break-throughs > in CF research from the entire 8-year history of this field > and rate each experiment in terms of the follow-up investigations > that confirmed those results in detail. Then ask the simple > question as to why that line of investigation has not continued > to produce positive results? Blue also is confusing existence proofs with proofs of the second and third kind. Where commercial work is concerned, there are first experiments (such as the 1995 Patterson Cell demonstrations), followed by discoveries of problems of replication and comm ercialization, and new paths forward. -------------------- I want to temper the above rather biting dissection of Rich's post by quoting another recent one, in quite a different mood, in response to Bass' very gracious handling of Rich's critique of the CG data in IE: >This is the highest standard of science, to accept reasoned criticism of >one's own deeply cherished work, and to open the channels of >communication, so that further debate and experimentation may resolve >issues to mutual benefit, for we are together sharing in an open-ended >quest for truth. Would that Rich have been so tempered in his earlier dissections of Miley's work. But let me comment on Rich's suggestions: >It would be helpful to do a run with, say, potassium nitrate, instead of >thorium nitrate, to study the redeposition of metals from the stainless >steel in the cell. The question is whether the thorium was transmuted, the existence proof. The question is not whether other processes occurred which could result in the appearance of anomalous elements in the post-run assay. >Chemical analysis, of course, can accomplish much, >and nuclear magnetic resonance could also identify whether elements are >disappearing or appearing real-time in a small closed cell. NMR is a very expensive procedure, relying on the measurement of weak RF signals, usually tuned to the resonance of hydrogen for exploring soft tissue in animals. It would be shielded by the closed metallic cell and very probably confused by the electrica l noise associated with the internal arc in the cell, unless very careful and expensive shielding is used. The suggestion is based on a lack of information about the NMR technology. >Other control runs can be done with gold-plated or ceramic end caps. >A quartz or pyrex observation window in the cell, perhaps both end >caps, would allow a fiber optic lens to enable closeup videotaping of >any boiling or arcing in the cell. This is appropriate to the second and third levels of proof. it's rather obvious that both boiling and arcing do indeed occur in the cell. It gets hot. For the third level of proof, studies of spectra would be interesting. > The horizontal positioning of the cell may cause most of the current to flow between the > stainless steel structures. Various alternative electrode arrangements can be tried. Rich, you preen yourself on your "devastating" critiques. Yet you have not understood the illustration of the CG cell on p17 of the IE article. Clearly shown are two non-conductive gaskets in disc form, which cover the ends of the reaction cell and insulate the contents of the cell from the stainless steel end plates. There can be no current flow between the stainless steel structures, which are electrically insulated. If you read between the lines of the data available to you, it is obvious that the published cell configuration is not a happenstance, but the end product of a series of experiments. Yes, for the second and third levels of proof, various configurations ca n be explored, but these are not existence proofs. IMHO the horizontal position assures vigorous convection currents and circulation of the fluid in the cell, which probably does not fill it. Rich, the most elementary consideration of the cell geometry and applied power will show that the action will occur in the .125-inch gap between the zirconium disc and the zirconium cylinder. An arc will form there, creating an energetic, turbulent plasma fed by thorium atoms and plenty of protons from the water. In that region all kinds of things can happen. If this isn't obvious to you, you have indeed forgotten much of what you were exposed to in a classroom decades ago. > What has been the rational for using zirconium for the ostensible electrodes? Ostensible? You did not carefully examine the cell illustration, as noted above. This is the singular, critical, important question in all that Rich has asked. It is a partial answer to Blue's point that if transmutation is that easy, why isn't it everywhere? The answer for the existence proof is that it works, and is apparently a key to the whole phenomenon. Why it works and what it implies for our understanding of physical theory, is an exercise left to we students. For Rich, and any fellow Vortex members who are still with me, Harold Aspden has posted a Research Note on the CG cell at his new Web site {http://www.energyscience.co.uk}. From his long-developed Aether Science, he is able to postulate reactions which wi ll account for the ratios of Ti and Cu reported, and the absence of high energy radiation as well. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 2 23:31:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 23:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 00:24:09 -0500 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, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, rdeagleton csupomonma.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, JosephHRowe@compuserve.com, dennis wazoo.com, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu, davidk@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Subject: Murray re CG report, Carrel post Resent-Message-ID: <"dsuvm.0.y37.X7G3q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10494 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 3 1997 Dear all, I am very pleased with Mike Carrel's lengthly answer to posts by me and Dick Blue. Carrel expresses well his views, and offers pointed criticisms and questions and also appreciations, without name-calling. This is just the kind of open, fair , and reasonable debate that I am trying to catalyze. It is a real addition to all our debates to have his description of the three levels of proof: existence, then replication, then exact characterization. He admits that the second level has hardly bee n reached, and argues that the first level is well established for some experiments for any impartial evaluation. I want first to discuss my critique of the CG thorium transmutation report. As Joe Champion deserves great credit for first pointing out, the data for both Scan #2, the processed cell blank, and Scan # 3, the processed thorium test sample, shows undeniable evidence for much release of elements from the stainless steel end caps and axial rod: Fe, Ni, Cr, and, I think it is reasonable to suppose, Cu, Ti, V, Co, Mo, and perhaps even Pb. This data at a glance proves that the stainless steel was th e major player in the cell electrolysis, gaskets notwithstanding. So, of course it is essential to know what is in stainless steel in general and in these specific components, and to inspect their physical condition carefully for electrolytic corrosion and redeposition. The reason I suggested doing a control run with potassium nitrate in place of thorium nitrate is not to attempt different transmutation reactions, but to test if the presence of the nitrate causes much of the differences between these two runs. For insta nce, #2 has MORE Cu-63 and Cu-65 than #3, yet no claim was advanced that transmutation occured in Run # 2. #3 has two orders of magnitude more Pb, all four isotopes, than #2, yet no claim was advanced that transmutation of Pb occured. So, I guess that the presence of the nitrate may account for these puzzles, whether the source of the Cu and Pb is in the stainless steel, the zirconium electrodes, the thorium nitrate, or in the three test additives, beryllium, germanium, and uranium, o r any or all of the above. Of course, we need exact analysis of these additives, and of course, data on how much of each was added. In both # 2 and # 3, the Zr levels were very low, indicating that the obstensible zirconium electrodes played almost no role in the violent electrolysis. This can be verified by careful examination and weighing of the electrodes, at virtually no financia l cost. Joe Champion has clarified that the mysterious amu 32 is probably O2, the very staff of life. So in # 2 and #3, the puzzles at amu 64 and 65 could be O4 and O4H, if such beasties exist. The published data is the messenger, not Rich Murray. Is Rich arrogant, malicious, or stupid for allowing this data to speak haltingly for itself: "We are a complete mess, not understood, nor understandable. But this we do say, and hear us well, we are e ntirely chemical." Mike Carrel and Jed Rothwell have questioned my present assessment of Miley's work and of other CETI claims. Look back a month or so at my Eighth Miley Critique, which grudingly concedes that a few of Miley's transmutation claims, out of many dozens originally, are still arguable. He has not to my knowledge, yet released the before and after data that would allow the true voice of the data to be heard. His excess energy claims had very wide error margins, and no description of any details, to my knowledge. CETI's high power heating unit has not, to my knowledge, been described in any detail to the impartial scientific community: surely, it would be rash for any of us to advance any position. I hope soon to be ignominiously buried forever under an avalanche of results from the RIFEX kits, but I fear I am destined for long and loq uacious life. I won't attempt any experiments myself, until I am confident that I have the wit, the wealth, the will, and the wisdom to not instigate an inarticulate mess of data. Rich Murray I want to reemphasize a central point of my critique of the CG thorium tran X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 03:35:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:27:29 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 06:22:46 +0000 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post Resent-Message-ID: <"cK9J31.0.ye1.GkJ3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10496 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:24 AM 9/3/97 -0500, Richard Murray wrote: >Sept. 3 1997 > the >processed thorium test sample, shows > undeniable evidence for much release of elements from the stainless >steel end caps and axial rod: Fe, Ni, Cr, and, I think it is reasonable >to suppose, Cu, Ti, V, Co, Mo, and perhaps even Pb. The components of SS are well known, and only few select types, if any, have the materials which you suggest. For example, "weathering steel" and the Mo. Suggest you read, H.Uhlig, Corrosion and Corrosion Control. Their compositions like the glass in glass electrodes are well known and a science in itself. =============================================== > This data at a >glance proves that the stainless steel was the major player in the cell >electrolysis, gaskets notwithstanding. So, of course it is > essential to know what is in stainless steel in general and in these >specific components, and to inspect their physical condition carefully >for electrolytic > corrosion and redeposition. If there was "redeposition", it would deposit on the same surface. Perhaps you mean codeposition or electrodeposition to the cathode. =============================================== >Joe Champion has clarified that the mysterious amu 32 is probably O2, >the very staff of life. So in # 2 and #3, the puzzles at amu 64 and 65 >could be O4 and O4H, if such beasties exist. Water is the staff of life, and oxygen is the electronegative electron collector (that forms more water with transfer of four (4) electrons). BTW, many terrestrial lifeforms dont even use oxygen, which is toxic unless the life form has catalases, superoxide dismutases, and singlet oxygen inactivators. Real moeities (not beasties) include O2, O2-., OH-, OH., ... with dimers occuring infrequently unless held (chelated) by usually Group VIII metals in their reduced electronic (i.e. ferrous as opposed to ferric) states. When such coupling occurs, the re is usual intramolecular electron transfer, and sometimes even antiferromagnetic properties appearing. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 04:11:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 04:06:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Summing it up Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:04:59 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"uKk6b2.0.aG6.BJK3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10497 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 06:16 PM 8/27/97, Frank Stenger wrote: >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 in their little >spheres of internal reflection! I think that if you substitute a photon of selected "resonance" energy for the "energetic gamma" you would be hitting the nail on the head. If Nature is consistent, photons of particle-forming resonance energies of about a Gev, 1.02 Mev, 7445 ev, 54.4 ev, and 0.396 ev should do the "wave dance" and form lepton pairs. The 0.396 ev photons-pairs would explain the CF and other ou effects (including transmutations)involving hydrogen or hydrogenous materials. Most likely the 54.4 ev and/or the 7445 ev pair production would explain the detonation of the Hydrogen Bomb, and Supernovas- BIG BANG. So, you are talking a temperature range from about 500 K to 1.0E13 K. I'm not about to ask you for the "next dance". :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 12:28:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: X-Sender: mwm aa.net Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 12:24:19 +0100 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Barker Resent-Message-ID: <"vwTNi2.0.pF5.0bR3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10504 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com yep - it does work so does a tesla coil putting about about 100 kv put the sample on top of the coil with a radiator on top of the sample or call me for inline description or get my lab book on the subject. At 09:26 PM 9/2/97 -0400, you wrote: > > > Dear Folks, > > I again try to call to your attention the work of Wm. A Barker. > > We replicated a few years ago at Antioch College. > > It works. This is a simple method. Go to IBM patent and do >Boolean search for field: Any; Electrostatic and field: Inventor; Barker. > > Very easy to do. > > JHS > > > >On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Rich Murray wrote: > >> Received: from pilot14.cl.msu.edu (pilot14.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.24]) >> by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23146 >> for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:28:50 -0700 (PDT) >> Received: (blue localhost) >> by pilot14.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) >> id KAA74235; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:45 -0400 >> Message-Id: <199709021428.KAA74235 pilot14.cl.msu.edu> >> Subject: Re: Murray's summary/analysis of CG Report >> To: rmforall earthlink.net >> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:44 -0400 (EDT) >> From: "Richard A Blue" >> In-Reply-To: <340BA5BD.4BFA earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 2, 97 00:35:57 am >> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] >> Content-Type: text/plain >> >> Rich, Very Good! There is much about the cell design and experimental >> protocol that remains to be explained. How do these people arrive at >> these methods? Of course it becomes a typical response when anyone >> attempts to replicate this kind of experiment that they must stick >> absolutely to this protocol, even to details that are not specified. >> Hence, no one is likely to achieve replication in spite of the fact >> the the Cincy Group claims to be able to repeat this performance >> every time. >> >> Well, if Bass is truly interested in improving the experiment I would >> suggest a major upgrade in the activity measurements. Unless they >> make measurements that identify very specifically the radiation >> being detected there simply is no way to tell what accounts for >> any shifts in count rate. >> >> First it should be recognized that Thorium is NOT very active! That >> means that any number of other radiation sources can dominate the >> observed activity -- even at chemical concentrations below the limits >> for analytic chemistry of any sort. And, as a radioisotope, thorium >> is automatically a source of its own contamination! >> >> So when you go to the store to buy thorium nitrate what is it you >> are actually purchasing? In other words, how well do the Cincy >> Group know their starting material? The answer, I suspect, is that >> they probably don't know what they have to start with so any >> comparison with what remains at the end is equally in doubt. >> >> Just for the sake of argument let's describe a simple case of >> a radioisotope that decays to a single daughter that is, in turn, >> radioactive. After an appropriate period of time the relative >> concentration of daughter to mother approaches secular equilibrium. >> What is the ratio of daughter atoms to the mother atoms? It's >> in proportion to their half-lives. So, for example, if the >> mother has a half-life of 10^10 years and the daughter has a >> half-life of 1 year the mother will be contaminated by the daughter >> at a level of 1 in 10^10 -- hardly significant from the standpoint >> of analytic chemistry. However the next question is what is the >> ratio of activities of daughter to mother? The answer is that >> the ACTIVITIES ARE EQUAL!!!!! >> >> So take a look at the thorium decay chain. It starts with 232Th, >> goes through alpha decay and two beta decays to produce 228Th which >> has a half-life of about 2 years. So if one starts with natural >> thorium and does a perfect chemical separation to remove absolutely >> everything but thorium you still have 228Th present at the level >> of 1 in 10^10 I suppose, and it's activity matches that of the >> 232Th. >> >> Now it's likely much more complex than that. I doubt that the >> chemical purity of the starting material is perfect. Shall we >> say the purity is at the parts per million level? What other >> activities can we essential count on being present at levels >> sufficient to influence the measurements as reported by the >> Cinci Group? Let's make a list. >> >> 232Th (1.4 E10 yrs) >> 228Ra (6.7 yrs) >> 228Ac (6.1 hrs) >> 228Th (1.9 yrs) >> 224Ra (3.64 days) >> 220Rn (51.5 sec) >> 216Po (0.16 sec) >> >> So my assertion would be that the starting material is likely >> contaminated with perhaps half a dozen other activities that >> are comparable to the 232Th activity. It seems unlikely to >> me that you could even maintain the activity at a constant >> value throughout a chemical process if you were determined to >> do so. So what does the fact that the activity changes prove? >> Absolutely nothing! >> >> So the radiochemical aspects of the Cinci experiment are >> total hog wash. If Bass is serious about wanting to improve >> these experiments there is certainly room for improvement there. >> >> Dick Blue >> >> >> > > Best Wishes, Michael Wells Mandeville, Redmond USA "Return of the Phoenix" at http://www.aa.net/~mwm/phoenix/phoenix.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 08:53:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:47:43 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) F rom: "John E. Steck" Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:58:57 -0500 References: <199709030215.TAA07040 Au.oro.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"XCi412.0.eL2.SQO3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10500 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 2, 9:16pm, Ross Tessien wrote: > If you have ever had a pan of water, and then buzzed it with some electric > motor or vibrating thing, you may have noticed that at some frequencies, the > water surface becomes dimpled with standing waves. Perhaps the wrong forum, but this conundrum has been nibbling at me for a while : IF our spacetime is a standing wave of energy resonance, AND this standing wave is caused by converging resonances of other standing waves, AND the "matter" of this spacetime is ultimately energy condensate of this resonance node, Does this restrict our movements to within one and only one spacetime? Would we "evaporate" if we were to travel beyond the influence of our natural resonance state? or would we become a unique spacetime until we get within sinc proximity to a new spacetime? Our node boundaries is....... the heliosphere? the milkyway? not relevant? Look out! Big scary unknown straight ahead! 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 12:06:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:56:09 -0700 From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Barker To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:58:00 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"rEBqM3.0.OE.6BR3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10503 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Schnurer writes: > I again try to call to your attention the work of Wm. A Barker. > We replicated a few years ago at Antioch College. > It works. This is a simple method. Go to IBM patent and do > Boolean search for field: Any; Electrostatic and field: Inventor; Barker. The patent number is 5076971. -- - 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 Sep 3 08:26:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:20:32 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:03:48 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: PACE - Advanced Energy Research Resent-Message-ID: <"_WqQv3.0.ox6.x0O3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10498 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This link does not seem to work anymore. Was a link page to many vort's homepages. I thinned out my bookmarks having found a central reference, but now I am S.O.L. Anyone recognize the owner? Did he/she switch ISPs? Does anyone else maintain a simila r list? http://energie.keng.de/~pace/otherlinks.htm Thanks in advance. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 08:46:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:28:56 -0500 References: <9709031003.ZM11560 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: PACE - Advanced Energy Research Resent-Message-ID: <"cBzPx.0.TQ2.tBO3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10499 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 3, 10:25am, John E. Steck wrote: > This link does not seem to work anymore. Was a link page to many vort's > homepages. I thinned out my bookmarks having found a central reference, but > now I am S.O.L. Anyone recognize the owner? Did he/she switch ISPs? Does > anyone else maintain a similar list? > > http://energie.keng.de/~pace/otherlinks.htm NEVERMIND. IT'S BACK NOW. Sorry. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 10:00:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 20:28:07 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; References: <199709030215.TAA07040 Au.oro.net> <9709030858.ZM11139@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"qGJ0V1.0.VS6.8LP3q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10501 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi, Ross's unified theory is very inspiring, but; As like the other theories based on a concept Aether, it has a big flaw: It is a pre relativity theory (SR). It is unacceptable without adapting it self to principle of relativity, which state that no reference of frame has a priority over an other. All r eference of frames are equivalent to describe the physical reality. This is unaccelerated frame for SR, but this restriction is removed even by the GR. If any physical theory have a preferred reference of frame, it will encounter big difficulties. Ross theory seems to have a preferred reference frame as Aether. As the Aether have structures (at Planck scale) and this structures constitute the spacetime, it have an absolute reference of frame as the original Aether is thought at rest to fixed stars. As I stated above, this violate the relativity principle and hardly acceptable, even one does not accept the General Relativity. Note: I scanned major Ross posting and did not found any reservation for principle of relativity. If I missed it, please correct me. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 10:09:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:03:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:03:19 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"oFW3N.0.I31.VXP3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10502 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On Sep 2, 9:16pm, Ross Tessien wrote: > >> If you have ever had a pan of water, and then buzzed it with some electric >> motor or vibrating thing, you may have noticed that at some frequencies, the >> water surface becomes dimpled with standing waves. > >Perhaps the wrong forum, but this conundrum has been nibbling at me for a while >: > >IF our spacetime is a standing wave of energy resonance, Yes. >AND this standing wave is caused by converging resonances of other standing >waves, Yes, the summation of wave energy from particles across the universe. It was established during the Big Bang black hole core breach of confinement when a huge ball of aether condensate escaped the inertial confinement and essentially, boiled. You would think of a swimming pool of water suddenly released from the space shuttle. The whole thing would boil and as it did, the process takes time because the whole mess is **inertially confined** just like the laser beam plasma in ICF. The gist is, as the boiling process takes place, all of the water gets broken into smaller and smaller droplets trying to flash explode and vaporize. This is just atomization of a fluid. What is interesting is that if you focus on the interior during th is vaporization, you realize that the regions in between the droplets are filled with vapor that is in the saturated condition or close to it. So, if you have some wave energy that is a bit spherically convergent, the vapor can collapse into the condensate form spontaneously (virtual particles) and then flash vaporize again. What this leads to are resonances where the particles are buzzing as t hey vaporize. Now, if you can stretch your mind so that the ball of water is now a huge ball of aether condensate and and as it is vaporizing, it is inflating to produce the entire universe, then you are on target. The droplets are like coupled oscillators as the entire ball is boiling and all the droplets are nearly adjacent to one another during the inflationary phase. So you find that the only place droplets will **not** have vaporized toward the end of the proc ess will be in the **acoustic nodes**. Those nodes are the only places the droplets can remain as condensate because the nodes are focusing wave energy spherically and at the innermost convergence, the pressure is high enough to maintain the condensate. Those are what we call "particles" today, and they are still in the nodes. The boiling is still going on too. We call it exothermy. All processes of releasing energy, chemical, electrical, nuclear, gravitational, are processes that are releasing aether confined in the standing waves. The Great Red Spot is known to be a high p ressure vortex from its rotation direction and the elevated cloud tops. I think that is an aether vent tube from the helium rain happening in the interior of that planet. >AND the "matter" of this spacetime is ultimately energy condensate of this >resonance node, Well, aether condensate. Not to be picky here, but the word "energy" has no substantive meaning and I want to be explicit. "Energy" is a measure of aether in motion (KE) or aether with the ability to induce motion, ergo pressurized above ambient, ie gag e pressure above zero (PE). > >Does this restrict our movements to within one and only one spacetime? >Would we "evaporate" if we were to travel beyond the influence of our natural >resonance state? >or would we become a unique spacetime until we get within sinc proximity to a >new spacetime? > >Our node boundaries is....... the heliosphere? the milkyway? not relevant? Good questions John. OK here goes a stab. First of all, if our universe emerged as the interior of a huge aether core breach of a universe sized black hole, then there necessarily exists more spacetime and another universe outside of ours. ie, the stuf f that had failed to get pushed in prior to the convergent momentum of that previous universe slowing down and the inward inertial momentum lessening and finally failing to maintain confinement. Thus, I must consider that there exists an Omniverse, of which we are a little patch. Hot spots in the CBR may be where our expansion slammed into previously existing galaxies from outside of our BB event, and any black holes in them could have penetrate d into the interior of our expanding BB shock front. Thus, it is possible for us to observe remnants of the previous universe from inside of our universe. Regarding how far the spacetime acoustic manifold extends, Answer: throughout our universes interior. Otherwise particles would not be able to be intragalactic. I can imagine that in different patches of our universe today, that the intensity of the spacetime vibrations are less than in other regions. But if this is so, then the phenomena known as "Tired Light" would be valid. And I am not ready to accept that phenomena, though I acknowledge the possibility that it is the correct interpretation for a percentage of the red shift information in the Hubble flow. It is possible that there could exist regions of spacetime with a completely different acoustic pattern than our own. In that case, there would be a turbulent transition region and yes, we would probably stretch and evaporate. We would give off a lot of energy as we did because the energy confined in the tip of my pinky finger is about that which is emitted in a nuclear weapon. That energy would be given off in phase and frequency synch with my matters oscillations, and it would act to temporarily buoy the intensity of wave energy in synch with my matters oscillations in that region of turbulent spacetime. Actually, this is all radioactivity is. Components of the nuclei are weakly confined by the spacetime wave energy. So when some spacetime waves come rolling through a region occupied by such a particle, it fissions. The emission of aether during the pr ocess leads to an intensification of the spacetime wave energy local to the particle that is in synch with the resulting particles resonances. Thus, the Cincy groups device (assuming it is really working), has found one manner of inducing spacetime turbulence locally at an intensity large enough to disrupt the confinement of the loosely confined components that are flying off. If the "new spacetime", as you ask, happens to have the same geometry as ours (a reasonable possibility once you understand the geometries of matter resonances assuming I found the right ones), then you would probably never notice a thing. As you transit ioned out of our universe and into the exterior Omniverse, spacetime would be twisted, but I think that it is very possible that the resonances would remain continuous. Experiments in those regions would likely find huge magnetic fields to be present. This is just like around our sun, where aether is being emitted and where it at times blasts out in huge gusts called CME's and flares. The spacetime there is highly turbulent and heats ions dramatically. The fact that the matter is ionic is not why the heating is taking place (ie CME's are not magnetic phenomena at their core). CME's are literally aether blasting out of the sun like a fluid out of a fluidized bed of particles. The connections are INERTIAL! and not EM. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 14:18:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:07:35 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: "Ambassador" interviews Gene To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"R6USp3.0.ti2.ICo3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10529 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex There is a splendid interview with Gene Mallove in this month's TWA in-flight magazine "Ambassador," by Bennett Davies. It is the cover story, starting on page 32. Gene is portrayed as a radical gadfly, yet thoughtful and serious. There are interesting quotes from both sides of the debate including Storms, Lewenstein, Park, Morrison, and others. Davies really did his homework. This is way ahead of the typical newspaper or news magazine coverage. I like this quote from McKubre: If there's a 1% chance that cold fusion could be an effective method of producing virtually unlimited clean energy, then we should be investing a significant amount of resources to find out how to do it -- and in my view, the chances are very much greater than 1%. For him, that's equivalent to dancing naked and yelling YOWZAA!!! EUREKA!!! These airline magazines are thoroughly read by a captive audience. It is a wonderful sales tool, hearkening back to the Spanish Inquisition. You cram the prospective customer into a corner, feed him recycled cardboard, subject him to noise, vibration, and a rude, arbitrary game of Simon Says ("starting with row numbers 30 and above . . .") Resistance breaks down after a few hours. It is shame we can't grab people off the street and subject them to this treatment. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 13:53:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:45:05 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hamdi GR Resent-Message-ID: <"dbzsV.0.f31.joS3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10505 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greetings' >Ross's unified theory is very inspiring, but; > >As like the other theories based on a concept Aether, it has a big flaw: >It is a pre relativity theory (SR). This is not accurate. I have been describing to you the principles of working with wave energy as spacetime, and with standing waves as particles in that aether ocean and driven by the spacetime wave structures. In general, this is akin to trying to des cribe to you, SR, in the case of relativity combined with some insight into QM at the same time (as they are one and the same in this theory). However, I have not delved into describing the more complicated situation you encounter when you deal with aether density gradients. These can be supported in any region where you have wave energy converging into and reflecting out away from any location . Large bodies, consisting of large numbers of standing waves, lead to such a condition. And thus, large bodies lead to the expectation of aether density gradients to accompany them. This in turn leads to a shift in the velocity of propogation of the wave energy in the aether, and thus to a distortion to the shape of the geometric nodes I have described. The distortion can most easily be considered if you think of the particles of matter as little emitters of any short wavelength you care to use as an analogy. The actual case is Planck scale wave energy at E-35 m as I have stated. But as with a phased a rray radar beam, composed of several antennae all operating at the same phase and frequency, you will end up with a "beam" of constructive interference of all of the emitters headed away from the antenna, or in the case of the waves I am describing, a pla net or a star along a radial line. The summation of the wave energy headed away from a body and the wave energy that is spacetime and is arriving from astonomical objects across the universe leads to a local distortion to the shape of the nodes. ie, a spherical curvature. This is due to the density gradient, and thus to the gradient in propogation velocity for wave energy that gives rise to, the spacetime structure. "Flat" spacetime is spacetime without an aether density gradient. Gravitational Lensing is due in part to the refraction of aether wave energy passing through regions with aether density gradients. It is unacceptable without adapting >it self to principle of relativity, which state that no reference of >frame has a priority over an other. All reference of frames are >equivalent to describe the physical reality. This is unaccelerated frame >for SR, but this restriction is removed even by the GR. If any physical >theory have a preferred reference of frame, it will encounter big >difficulties. First of all, we already have a well established frame of reference within our universe. This is defined by the CBR (cosmic background radiation). All observers in all parts of the universe can equally establish that they are in motion relative to, or stationary wrt, that frame of reference. So one must be very careful with this notion supposed by Mr. E. Second, we have never built a laboratory and accelerated it to near c to establish that this supposition is correct. What we have done is to accelerate particles to near c, but then we observe them from a relatively slow frame of reference. As an example, pretend we had a laboratory moving at near c, and then we shot a particle forward out of the nose of the craft where the velocity of the particle relative to the craft was near c and the craft relative to galaxies and CBR was near c too. W e do not know for a fact that the particle would or would not emit Cerenkov radiation. We assume it would not. But we have this little problem that we observe that radiation in water tanks in nuclear reactor cites. This is explained away as not being a problem because the particles are still moving slower than c in a vacuum. But how is it that the particles, emitted from inside the reactor bar of material (where c is also slow), managed to get to a velocity greater than c in the materials in which they were accelerated? > >Ross theory seems to have a preferred reference frame as Aether. As the >Aether have structures (at Planck scale) and this structures constitute >the spacetime, it have an absolute reference of frame Not an accessible frame, and not a frame that you can tell if you are moving or not. I explained how our measure of distance, and of time, are both governed by exactly the same process. So we cannot know that we are moving through time or through space. This distinction is simply one we make in our minds, and not a physical distinction. The nodes are fluid dynamic, so you don't know if the oscillations you are counting really correspond to time or space so all you know is motion through spacetime. My theory gives you no access to a preferred reference frame any more than do current theories. The CBR and other frames of reference exist, but these are large structures. One cannot use matter, which is composed of Planck scale resonances, to determin e any preferred geometry of the Planck scale references from which it is composed. This is non sensical. as the original >Aether is thought at rest to fixed stars. As I stated above, this >violate the relativity principle and hardly acceptable, even one does >not accept the General Relativity. Be very careful here because "Aether" is the fluid, and "Spacetime" is the acoustic structure in the fluid. It is possible for the fluid to be moving, and for the spacetime structure to be stationary. The spacetime structure only shifts its geometry in regions where there is an acceleration of the flow of aether. Such occurs outside of stars where the aether breaks out of the fluidized bed of standing waves (particles) of the sun. In that region, ion s are flung to high energies, ie temperatures, in the solar corona. **NOTE**; That heating couples to mass, not to charge to mass ratio, as directly observed by SOHO in the past two years. Such is impossible according to current theories, and anticipated by my theory. Newborn stars have jets suddenly emerge, they erode surrounding dust clouds from the **outside in**, and numerous other things. In any case, my theory is fully compatible with GR and SR as best I can tell. Though for GR one must work with the wave emissions in time delayed mode, and one must additionally work with essentially a gravitomagnetic interaction due to the rate of chang e of orientation to the object that is gravitating. So the simple description of GR spacetime curvature is a bit more complicated if you choose to analyze precisely the origins of the curvature in detail. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 15:54:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:48:54 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 02:30:26 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hamdi GR References: <199709032045.NAA15598 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"C1ys53.0.c26.KbU3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10507 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Ross, These are important points that seems not clear. If we agree on these points we could discuss more easily the rest: You said that CBR has reference of frame. If so, we can determine our absolute direction and velocity respect to it by measuring the anisotropy. I am not sure but, the radiation energy difference caused by "absolute velocity" will slowdown the astronomica l bodies(by converting their "KE" to heat and finally everything should be in rest to this radiation. This is controversial. > Gravitational Lensing is due in part to the refraction of aether wave > energy passing through regions with aether density gradients. If so, gravity is already explained simplest way: Matter increase the aether density and aether density gradient is the gravity causing the EM waves and matter (which are both aether wave energies) refraction. After we can answer how "the matter" cause to increase the aether density, or more correctly, how the aether density increases while the matter is formed and concentrated in one region. This way, things could be explained more easily by the non-linear wave mechanics. > In any case, my theory is fully compatible with GR and SR as best I > can tell. If you accept this, everything can be taken on their local frames, any equation describing matter, matter interactions, aether waves in the frame should not include the movement of the frame relative to aether. More correctly, there should be no such thing as "relative to aether". I could not realize this in your theoretical context. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 15:54:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:48:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:48:08 +0100 (BST) X-Sender: dominic@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Unverified) To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Dominic Murphy Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"akc5V3.0.A06.vaU3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10506 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Interested in the device that might get you to the stars. I'd make do with a trip to our little pet on Mars. How do you intend to do it? I'll supply the hamper if you need companions. At 01:04 01/09/97 -0700, you wrote: > >> >>Gravitation; * :( Freq. Interference?? > >Just imagine filtering for simplicity. The only difficulty you will have is >that thinking of simply filtering leads to the consideration as to why the >earth doesn't build up in energy content since it is filtering. But the >energy is re-emitted at the local spacetime resonant frequency. So there is >no build up. > >I guess, just think of matter as being like a band pass filter. And the >energy the earth emits is in that band, so it is *not* filtered. Thus, >there is less wave energy at red shifted frequencies available to filter >coming from under your seat. > >>--snip-- >> I liked your 'Escher Chessboard' representation a lot! :) > >Take it to heart! > > >>I have two questions, (beside's " Have you or have either of your parents >>been or every have been a member of an alien party? " :) > >Not that I know of. But I hope to construct a device to tap into the effect >they accidentally tapped into at Tampere, in a big way. So maybe I will >travel to another star system and then I will be an alien! :-) > >>--------------------------------------- >> >>Gravitational 'push' & Flater universe then I previously envisioned makes >>me wonder, (unless were back in the center of the universe > >You presume that our universe, is all that there is. I think this is not >correct. Our universe exploded outward from a huge black hole that breached >confinement and boiled from aether condensate into the aether vapor we now >live in and are made of. The remaining droplets of aether condensate that >have not yet boiled off are at the center of convergence of standing waves >humans call, "particles". > > >> If that's the case, then wouldn't I weigh less at night?, or Noon?, > >You weigh more at night, you have the sun and the earth blocking radiation >from deep space. And you *do* weigh more at night! > > >>If your answer is NO, I'd presume the 'Escher Effect' is rippling our pond >>from >>all sides equally !?! > >It is essentially equal from all sides. The filtering effect is really tiny >compared to other effects such as EM and strong. But, all matter is >filtering the energy, whereas most atoms are neutral and so you have no net >EM thrust (equal pressure from all sides yields no net thrust). So for >massive bodies, gravitation becomes important. > > >> >>------ >>If syncronized (out of phase) aether repels more so than unsyncronized (in >>phase) attracts .... Why do Absolute Zero (Kelvin) material(s) seem >>to >>puddle or 'congeal' together rather than 'evaporate apart' ??? [2] > >Absolute zero is a condition we think of as being zero motion. But then we >have these "degeneracy pressures" and the like. In any case, zero motion in >our context means that the location of the center of the standing waves is >not moving relative to other matter nearby we are using as a reference. >But it does not mean that the "particle" is not a standing wave. Thus, >while it is true that the standing wave is not moving relative to other >local standing waves, absolute zero does *not* mean that there is no more >aether motion in the standing waves. > >There is no such thing as a lack of motion in our universe, anywhere. GR >found this out about the galaxies and the universe at large. But QM needs >to learn the same lesson. Matter, is a bunch of standing waves and they are >constantly in motion. > >Ross Tessien > > > Dominic Murphy 44+ (0)181 747 0499 0973 886770 (mobile) dominic dircon.co.uk X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 17:30:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:25:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:23:45 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"KvM-71.0.-P2.70W3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10508 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:34 PM 8/9/97 +0000, you 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? A related topic that bent my brain a while back was from a book called _Fuzzy Thinking_ by Bart Kosko. As I remember it, the conundrum was posed by Bertrand Russell, and it goes something like this: Is the set of all sets which are not members of themselves a member of the set? If it is a member, there is a contradiction in that it is a set which is a memb er of itself and therefore not qualified to be a member of the set; and if it isn't a member, it is not a member of itself, and therefore must be included in the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The idea Kosko was leaning toward was that here was an example of the intersection of set A and not-A being a non-empty set; that Aristotle was wrong in insisting that a logical proposition was either true or not true. When Russell raised this paradox, it stumped a lot of people (like me), some of whom insisted that this was a linguistic problem, not a logic problem. If it is a semantic problem, what is it? At one time, Euclidian geometry was the only conceivable representation of physical space. Are we fooling ourselves about logic in a similar way (assuming GR is correct)? I dunno.... Ed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 17:58:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:51:11 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hamdi GR Resent-Message-ID: <"u5Iyi3.0.jG3.FPW3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10509 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greetings; >You said that CBR has reference of frame. If so, we can determine our >absolute direction and velocity respect to it by measuring the >anisotropy. I am not sure but, the radiation energy difference caused by >"absolute velocity" will slowdown the astronomical bodies(by converting >their "KE" to heat and finally everything should be in rest to this >radiation. This is controversial. It isn't controversial at all, it is simply an observational fact. We know that our velocity relative to the CBR zero relative velocity frame is X in direction Y. ie, it is easy to measure. In order to show that the CBR is "uniform in all directions" a s is typically touted, one must first subtract out our relative velocity to it. This is well known. > >> Gravitational Lensing is due in part to the refraction of aether wave >> energy passing through regions with aether density gradients. > >If so, gravity is already explained simplest way: Matter increase the >aether density and aether density gradient is the gravity causing the EM >waves and matter (which are both aether wave energies) refraction. After >we can answer how "the matter" cause to increase the aether density, or >more correctly, how the aether density increases while the matter is >formed and concentrated in one region. This way, things could be >explained more easily by the non-linear wave mechanics. It is easy to postulate an aether density gradient. But then one will fail to understand why that gradient persists rather than dispersing. Gravity is not induced by the density gradient, it is a result of the wave interaction between particle standing waves and the noisy deep space wave energy (frequency shifted to a variety of frequencies whereas matter must resonate at the most powerful local frequency of spacetime). But, when you have a material density gradient, that results in an aether density gradient. Remember that the particles of matter are tiny locallized resonances in aether, and they too result in local aether density gradients, but this time due to the lo cal resonance. In a really crude sense, you might think of a galaxy or a solar system, as huge particles. This is because there is a density gradient that increases on into the interiors of particles, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc. Remember, matter IS composed of aether in the form of aether standing waves. So you don't get an aether gradient because "matter" (ie something different) is there. You get it because matter IS an aether density gradient structure maintained by resonance. And the spherical (convergent) resonances are maintained by aether wave co nvergence due to refraction in the Escher analogy given previously. > >> In any case, my theory is fully compatible with GR and SR as best I >> can tell. > >If you accept this, everything can be taken on their local frames, any >equation describing matter, matter interactions, aether waves in the >frame should not include the movement of the frame relative to aether. >More correctly, there should be no such thing as "relative to aether". I >could not realize this in your theoretical context. I think that in general this is true. By that I mean that in all contexts of our lives and right on up to extreme velocities, I think this is accurate. However, I think that the GR suppositions are not entirely correct and that they conflict with observ ation. Specifically, in any region where the aether has no velocity gradient, I think this will be so. In regions with density gradients, I see no wierd things that are unlike the wierd things you are familiar with in GR. But, there are regions of the universe where there are tremendous aether velocity gradients, and in those regions, I am confident that GR, SR, and QM all fail miserably. The easiest regions to point out from our observations are those where you are converting large amounts of mass into energy. This is because mass must be conserved too. Thus, you have aether flowing out of the sun. Additionally, you have aether flowing out of and into, black holes. So in the huge million light year long jets we observe outside of quasars, those are due to aether flow, literally. And you would observe tremendously curved spacetime in those regions of the universe. Outside of the sun a similar example occurs at the coronal transition region. That 100 km thick region is where the fluidizing aether flowing out of the sun, suddenly expands across a shock front as it is exiting the suns particles. Th e suns particles act as a sort of resistance to the flow, and the gravitational compression allows the particles to be pushed into the stream and for the particles thus to in essence, pinch the flow and add resistance. The net is that you have a sudden **change** in velocity of the aether flow, or, an acceleration. Any matter crossing that region will experience anamolous inertial accelerations not predicted by GR or QM. For a tremendous example of this taken to the extreme, consider an AGN such as Centaurus A, a huge elliptical galaxy. If you make an over exposure of that galaxy, you find that there is an extended line of stars reaching north and south along the galacti c rotational axis. When you look at the galaxy in radio, you find that there is additionally a huge radio jet emerging along that same orientation. What has happened, I believe, is that the rotation of the galaxy has induced a vortex that has penetrated deep into the interior of the black hole at its core. So much so that the tip of the vortices at the poles (like a tornado) have reached down into t he interior of the black hole and provided a path of low confinement for the aether condensate confined inside the event horizon, to shoot out. Classical thinking with gravity as a pull would lead one to believe that nothing can escape the black holes in terior. But if the BH is confined instead, then the interior is highly pressurized, and anything that disturbs that confinement will provide a path to escape. The radio jets are evidence of that aether jet shooting out, and the stars that were blown away with the newly emitted aether are evidence that the spacetime is radically curved along the poles such that the gravitational direction the stars proceed is ac tually away from the mass of the galaxy! While this may sound wierd, it is what we see. And, it is also what I expect we should see. And, it is also not what current theories would expect we should see. Ergo, I keep on working on this theory. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 19:12:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 19:07:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: A Simple Experiment,Scott? Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 02:05:17 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"AY3TQ1.0.CO5.JVX3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10510 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Now that Scott is up and running with his calorimeter, how about immersing a 6 volt 4 amp incandescent lightbulb (automotive?) in an appropriate water-electrolyte solution and seeing if there is any indication of ou at various brightness levels? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 20:52:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 20:47:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 22:46:50 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: A Simple Experiment,Scott? Resent-Message-ID: <"Vqhf-.0.7c.syY3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10511 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:05 AM 9/4/97 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >To Vortex, > >Now that Scott is up and running with his calorimeter, how >about immersing a 6 volt 4 amp incandescent lightbulb (automotive?) >in an appropriate water-electrolyte solution and seeing if there >is any indication of ou at various brightness levels? Pardon me for not following the thread that led to this, Fred. Why might this arrangement exhibit o-u? Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 3 23:25:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:27:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"lN9Yk1.0.l23.VEb3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10512 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Ross Tessien wrote: -snip most all- >>--------- >>If the "new spacetime", as you ask, happens to have the same geometry as >>ours (a reasonable possibility once you understand the geometries of matter >>resonances assuming I found the right ones), then you would probably never >>notice a thing. As you transitioned out of our universe and into the >>exterior Omniverse, spacetime would be twisted, but I think that it is very >>possible that the resonances would remain continuous. Experiments in those >>regions would likely find huge magnetic fields to be present. >> >>This is just like around our sun, where aether is being emitted and where it >>at times blasts out in huge gusts called CME's and flares. The spacetime >>there is highly turbulent and heats ions dramatically. The fact that the >>matter is ionic is not why the heating is taking place (ie CME's are not >>magnetic phenomena at their core). CME's are literally aether blasting out >>of the sun like a fluid out of a fluidized bed of particles. The >>connections are INERTIAL! and not EM. >> >>Ross Tessien >> >> Hi Ross, :) Where to start, where to end?? I've read your posts with REAL Interest & 'i think' I'm following you to a tee to where your theory is going! (been?) (is?)... Question: Can we help out here in vortex-l land ?? Everything you say is backed up by ASTRO-(*not* OMNIuniversal) obsevation.. GREAT!! OK :) If we, I, you, wanted to 'catch' an aether wave (from any direction) do we, i, you, need to look at osciallations in our physical measuerments we 'used to' or since they are THEMSELVES made of condensent (guilty of Heizenburgs can't get THERE from HERE) .... (It's hard to believe, that an OB ultra-sound might be the KEY to the "Birth" of our universe).. :) What would YOU 'look for', build to catch, or expect to happen, so we can freely harness this universal free-flow??? Your greatest dreams will be entertained over many a bowl of 'tobacco' pipe smoke.. but where to start, I guess is the question to you. [i LOVE it] "KISS" for me please - thanks! -=se=- Steve Ekwall X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 03:59:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 03:48:31 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Tribothermal Experiments Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:47:52 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"54Yjg1.0.e36.z7f3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10514 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Rapid rotation of rods of various materials in water or water containing the electrolyte used in the electrolysis cells might cause enough frictional drag-heat to cause ou effects. Small diameter rods such as quartz or glass immersed in the electrolyte and rotated inside a nickel or palladium "sleeve" with a cordless rotary tool (7500 and 15000 rpm, I have one of these someplace and would be willing to donate it) :-) could be of int erest. Or one could cob up something like the Joule "mechanical equivalent of heat" experiment with the falling weight-pulley experiment. Jed might donate some of that Bungee Cord, if it would help. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 04:20:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: A Simple Experiment,Scott? Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:07:44 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"kfq2v3.0.0R3.oRf3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10515 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:46 AM 9/4/97 +0000, Scott wrote: >At 02:05 AM 9/4/97 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >>To Vortex, >> >>Now that Scott is up and running with his calorimeter, how >>about immersing a 6 volt 4 amp incandescent lightbulb (automotive?) >>in an appropriate water-electrolyte solution and seeing if there >>is any indication of ou at various brightness levels? > >Pardon me for not following the thread that led to this, Fred. Why might >this arrangement exhibit o-u? > >Scott > I'm still bird-dogging the idea that low energy photons (0.3 - 1.0 ev) are creating "Light Lepton" pairs in the P&F cells, Yusmar-Griggs "Pumps", the "sonoluminescent" devices, and other agitated hydrogen devices, and these "Light Leptons" are creating th e Mills "Hydrinos" by being absorbed by protons or deuterons, thus giving off heat (256 kev and the collapsing bubble UV) as well as the transmutations reported. A light bulb should provide the photons required, even if the filament is only at 200 deg C or more. Full plate, isn't it? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 05:11:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 04:51:51 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Wavelength-Energy Conversion Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:51:15 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"4W-m02.0.BN.M3g3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10516 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, A quick way to convert from energy in electron volts to wavelength (in microns) is; wavelength (microns) = 1.24/energy (ev). The visible spectrum is in the range; 0.38 to 0.7 microns or 1.24/0.38 to 1.24/0.7 ie., 0.177 ev to 3.263 ev . Sorry :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 06:14:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 05:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:58:22 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: A Simple Experiment,Scott? Resent-Message-ID: <"xrlBH2.0.dJ6.03h3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10517 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:07 9/4/97 +0000, Fred wrote: >and these "Light Leptons" are creating >the Mills "Hydrinos"... >A light bulb should provide the photons required, even if the filament >is only at 200 deg C or more. OK, the experiment you propose is quite simple for us. I can do it "between" runs on the Ragland triode cell. What "electrolyte" do you suggest? Why not pure water? 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 Thu Sep 4 07:05:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 06:54:11 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: A Simple Experiment,Scott? Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:53:33 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"xWjwN3.0.Rk3.2sh3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10518 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:58 PM 9/4/97 +0000, Scott wrote: >At 11:07 9/4/97 +0000, Fred wrote: > >>and these "Light Leptons" are creating >>the Mills "Hydrinos"... > >>A light bulb should provide the photons required, even if the filament >>is only at 200 deg C or more. > >OK, the experiment you propose is quite simple for us. I can do it >"between" runs on the Ragland triode cell. What "electrolyte" do you >suggest? Why not pure water? Sure, why not? Would you use that as a "control"? Since the Potassium or Lithium salts are used in the electrolysis cells and other places that ou shows up it needs to be considered. Personally I think an acidic solution where one would get lots of protons would be worth considering. HCl in aqueous KCL? Regards, Frederick > > >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 Thu Sep 4 08:41:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:34:07 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:33:59 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"yOtzJ2.0.I12.kJj3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10519 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greetings; >Question: > Can we help out here in vortex-l land ?? Everything you say is backed >up by ASTRO-(*not* OMNIuniversal) obsevation.. GREAT!! OK :) > > If we, I, you, wanted to 'catch' an aether wave (from any direction) do >we, i, you, need to look at osciallations in our physical measuerments we >'used to' or since they are THEMSELVES made of condensent (guilty of >Heizenburgs can't get THERE from HERE).... (It's hard to believe, that an >OB ultra-sound might be the KEY to the "Birth" of our universe).. :) > >What would YOU 'look for', build to catch, or expect to happen, so we can >freely harness this universal free-flow??? I would look for aether waves that altered the "radioactive half life" of materials in a time correlated manner in two or more isolated experiments. ie, today, QM tells us that matter is "in and unto itself", uncertain in its behavior in the QM sense. So there should be no correlation in any radioactivity because every particle is making its own decision about when to shoot out its decay products. However, if I am correct, then those particles are standing waves in aether. And so spacetime ripples would lead to the radioactivity in separate experiments being correlated to one another because some wave energy from some distant quasar managed to pass by, and allow to fly apart, nuclei in the two experiments in a correlated ma nner. Thus, I would look for things like a correlation in how many radioactive decays in two or more isolated experiments there were per second when we observed super nova 1987A's neutrino counts manifest. Though the spacetime ripples may have manifested prior to the neutrinos arrivals, or they may have indeed been, the "neutrinos". I am not settled on precisely which of the possibilities my theory allows, are indeed what we call neutrinos. Note; We have already observed a correlation to the radioactive decay of isolated radioactive samples, but this correlation has not been established sufficiently to stand on a podium and start shouting. Also, I would look for devices that managed to somehow induce intense spacetime ripples on nuclei that were either radioactive, or were not the most stable nuclei. Radioactive being the easiest nuclei to allow to fly apart. What you must think in terms of, are that the nucleons (protons and neutrons), are *not* held together by a strong nuclear force. They are confined by abnormally intense spacetime standing waves. The abnormally intense wave structure is due to the indiv idual standing waves (muons) that make up the quarks inside the nucleons being very well phase and frequency coupled. But there is a difference between holding something together, and pushing something together. If nucleons hold themselves together, as physicists think, then there is no chance to interact with them except by getting really close. However, if they are wave structures, then you can "make waves" from a distance and rattle their trees. Think of how almonds are harvested. You grab hold of the trunk and shake the heck out of the tree. The weakest confined almonds, fall to the ground. That is what is going on in radioactive decay, naturally. But if my theory is correct, then there ought to be some other ways of inducing the spacetime waves and you ought to be able to rattle nuclei in manners not previously anticipated. Such experiments ought to show anamolous shifts in isotopic abundunces an d chemical composition of atoms because you are allowing chuncks that are not well confined to fly out from the nucleus. These strange new reactions would be like fission reactions, and so even "stable" nuclei ought to be able to be blasted apart if you can rattle spacetime sufficiently. This kind of reaction is very different in nature from the normal fission and fusion reactions we have studied so well in our labs in the past. So we will have no history of it. We will think that nuclei are magically penetrating the coulomb barrier and the like. when all we really did was to make some waves! The above reactions are currently labled "Cold Fusion". So now you know what my interest is in vortex. the guys in the group have already established the effects, with this device or that. The question is, how does one take control of rattling spacetime? I think I know but this discussion dives off into proprietary technology. FYI, I have finally begun development of the technology and have some investors interested in funding an accelerated program. My interest in vortex is to keep abreast of things going on, and to try to describe the theory I am working on so that others come to understand what our universe is all about. And ultimately, what we ourselves are truly like, ie, we are assemblages of s tanding waves, and so we too are nothing but standing waves with an extent of many hundreds of millions of miles out into our surrounding ocean of aether. Thus, we are all part of the same structure, or ocean. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 09:04:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:57:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:41:42 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Yomiuri article on NHE closing To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"n9YSh2.0.Uz2.Pfj3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10520 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex The September 4, 1997 issue of the Yomiuri newspaper has a half page article describing the closing of the NHE laboratory, by N. Hosaka. Here is a rough translation of selected portions. The headlines are: COLD FUSION RESEARCH ABANDONED Natural Resources & Energy Division ends quest for "dream energy" Some see opportunity to rethink attitude of researchers 2.3 billion yen spent over 5 years, but heat generation cannot be confirmed The lead paragraph explains that cold fusion was announced in 1989, it triggered a world-wide burst of interest, but it is now widely discredited, and bla, bla. It says, "The demise of the program offers many lessons." That follows with the usual boilerplate introduction to cold fusion. In Japanese newspapers, this always includes the statement that this is a fundamentally simple experiment, similar to the electrolysis experiments you may remember from middle school, wi th an anode and a cathode immersed in water. Come to think of it, I don't recall any newspaper ever saying that electrochemistry is a tremendously complex field with many unsolved mysteries and vital applications in industry. The reporters should try look ing up "electrochemistry" in the encyclopedia before they parrot nonsense about how easy it is. After the boilerplate, the article has some interesting comments: If fusion occurs, in addition to excess heat helium and neutrons must also be seen, but they have not been observed. The goal of the verification experiments has been to observe a large amount of excess heat plus nuclear products. The NHE laboratory not only tested a cell from Prof. Pons, it tested other devices, including a Japanese-made one from IMRA Japan (Sapporo) t hat was said to have produced excess heat, and one from the U.S. SRI laboratory. The lab also tested devices designed in-house, but, in the final analysis, no excess heat was observed. "In the Pons replication experiment, we saw excess heat and by the same token we saw examples of a heat deficit, where the energy appeared to vanish" explained program manager Naoto Asami, looking back over the work. "We found problems with their calorime ter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable." However, other researchers say that while it is too early to predict whether this can become a practical source of energy, they have seen persistent evidence that it is a new type of fusion. Prof. Makoto Okamoto of Tohoku U (SEE NOTE) has confirmed neutro ns, which are proof of a nuclear reaction. Research continues in Italy and Russia. Okamoto comments, "The field has become wedded to the dream of large scale energy, which hurt the basic scientific research to explain the effect. There were many poorly done studies with unsatisfactory measurement techniques, which gave the research a sh ady reputation." Important new discoveries and inventions often come from "eccentric" unconventional research. The high temperature superconductors now being developed are a good example. The more unconventional research is, the more it requires researchers with high skil ls and a sincere attitude. NOTE: I believe the reporter has the affiliation wrong. Okamoto is at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, not Tohoku Nat. U. I'll check this out. J. Kasagi at Tohoku has also observed neutrons. And here are some opinions from me. Okamoto & I have reached diametrically opposed conclusions. He thinks there has been too much emphasis on energy, I think there has been far too much emphasis on theory. We will see who is right if and when the first practical CF powered device is publicl y demonstrated. Asami is pointing the finger in order to evade his own responsibility for wasting $20 million of taxpayers money in a botched research project. His statements about poor calorimetry are nonsense. I asked NHE researchers what errors they have discovered in the Pons-Fleischmann calorimetry. The best they can come up with is the "unboiled water" hypothesis. If a significant amount of electrolyte leaves the cell unboiled, and you base your calorimetry on the assumption that all of the water was vaporized, you would overestimate energy production. Fleischmann pointed out that surfactants (usually detergent, I think) in the test tube or heavy water can produce excessive bubbles, which will lead to significant losses of unboiled water. NHE researchers measured t he pH in the condensed steam from a cell and found that some lithium had escaped, which means some unboiled particles of liquid do escape. Years ago, when this hypothesis was first proposed I pointed out that blank runs and an inventory of the lithium lef t in the cell proves that the amount is not enough to significantly affect the calorimetry, but on the other hand "I would never drink the condensate." But, as Pons and Fleischmann and the French AEC researchers have demonstrated, the amount of unboiled w ater lost from a tall, thin cell is far too small to account for the excess heat. I doubt the NHE researchers have done a quantitative analysis showing how this could explain the results at IMRA Europe or the AEC. Fleischmann carefully measured the lithiu m salts left in the cell after the boil-off. The AEC has also checked for unboiled water, but not as rigorously. For another view of NHE program, I recently spoke with Ed Storms. He spent a week visiting the Sapporo lab. The NHE sent him samples of their latest and best palladium to test in his own basement laboratory. He subjected the samples to some of the tests d escribed in "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," (Fusion Technology, 1996). He also looked that the sample with Open Circuit Voltage (OCV), and he performed a new test to measures the initial uptake of hydrogen during alpha phase loading. He dete rmined that quality of the palladium is very poor. It is totally unsuitable for these experiments. Loading is uneven and slow. It is unevenly formed, with discontinuities, and the surface is contaminated which prevents absorption. As he put it, the NHE researchers "still do not appreciate that it's the material." In other words, the cathode metal is by far the most important parameter. Every major researcher I know, and especially every electrochemist, has emphasized the vital importance of preparing and testing the cathode material to ensure even, high loading. Yet the NHE papers and the Storms anlysi s of their cathode material proves that in five years the NHE has never performed the essential steps recommended by Fleischmann, Cravens, Storms, Mizuno, Bockris and others. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 09:08:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:51:05 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: "Ambassador" interviews Gene To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"LLUac2.0.iO5.Okj3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10521 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex There is a splendid interview with Gene Mallove in this month's TWA in-flight magazine "Ambassador," by Bennett Davies. It is the cover story, starting on page 32. Gene is portrayed as a radical gadfly, yet thoughtful and serious. There are interesting quotes from both sides of the debate including Storms, Lewenstein, Park, Morrison, and others. Davies really did his homework. This is way ahead of the typical newspaper or news magazine coverage. I like this quote from McKubre: If there's a 1% chance that cold fusion could be an effective method of producing virtually unlimited clean energy, then we should be investing a significant amount of resources to find out how to do it -- and in my view, the chances are very much greater than 1%. For him, that's equivalent to dancing naked and yelling YOWZAA!!! EUREKA!!! These airline magazines are thoroughly read by a captive audience. It is a wonderful sales tool, hearkening back to the Spanish Inquisition. You cram the prospective customer into a corner, feed him recycled cardboard, subject him to noise, vibration, and a rude, arbitrary game of Simon Says ("starting with row numbers 30 and above . . .") Resistance breaks down after a few hours. It is shame we can't grab people off the street and subject them to this treatment. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 09:09:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:05:15 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:05:09 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: A Simple Experiment,Scott? Resent-Message-ID: <"rWgUo3.0.8O3.wmj3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10522 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 13:53 9/4/97 +0000, Fred wrote: >>>A light bulb should provide the photons required, even if the filament >>>is only at 200 deg C or more. don't we need UV? How about a little halogen bulb (flashlight) operating at slightly over its rated voltage (i.e. maximum possible temperature). I can go up to about 10-15 watts in this calorimeter easily. >HCl in aqueous KCL? OK 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 Thu Sep 4 09:46:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:38:58 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:38:44 -0500 References: <199709041159_MC2-1F2A-49A compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "Ambassador" interviews Gene Resent-Message-ID: <"Ly49k.0.vA5.XGk3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10523 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 4, 11:06am, Jed Rothwell wrote: > These airline magazines are thoroughly read by a captive audience. It is a > wonderful sales tool, hearkening back to the Spanish Inquisition. You cram the > prospective customer into a corner, feed him recycled cardboard, subject him > to noise, vibration, and a rude, arbitrary game of Simon Says ("starting with > row numbers 30 and above . . .") Resistance breaks down after a few hours. It > is shame we can't grab people off the street and subject them to this > treatment. For some of us it's called rush hour traffic. 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 10:40:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:34:29 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: A Simple Experiment,Scott? Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:33:31 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"7xq3X1.0.sW.Z4l3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10524 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:05 PM 9/4/97 +0000, Scott wrote: > >don't we need UV? I don't think so, the "resonances" for pair production, if electron pair production at 1.02 Mev is taken as a reference then the next point will be 1.02E6/137.03 = 7444 ev, then 54.4 ev, then .396 ev which has a wavelength of; 1.24/.396 ev = 3.13 microns. Also, the best UV that you can get using a mercury discharge, as in a fluorescent light with a thin (clear)quartz envelope, is 0.254 microns or 1.24/.254 = 4.88 ev. Then again, some of the 13.6 ev in a hydrogen discharge; 1.24/13.6 = 0.091 microns might n ever penetrate a quartz tube. On the other end of the spectrum you have a pion that has a rest mass of 137.03 * 1.02 Mev = 139.77 Mev and so on for heavier particles indicating that there is an N*137.03*Ee (the rest energy of the electron) or that all particles seem to be quantized o r have a rest mass 1/2 the energy of the quantized photon. So it might take some searching to find out if there are some really light leptons created below 13.6 ev. BTW. 137.03 is the reciprocal of the "Fine Structure Constant" Alpha; 0.00729729. :-) >How about a little halogen bulb (flashlight) operating at >slightly over its rated voltage (i.e. maximum possible temperature). I can >go up to about 10-15 watts in this calorimeter easily. I think that you will want the wattage that an automotive bulb is capable of. Although the halogen flashlight bulbs have a high luminous efficiency I don't think they are over a watt or less if running on D batteries? If you get one pair in 1.0E7 photons you might need the 10-15 watts capability to see some ou. > >>HCl in aqueous KCL? > >OK > Long shots, for sure. :-) Regards, Frederick > > > >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 Thu Sep 4 11:07:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:02:22 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:01:07 -0400 (EDT) To: 76570.2270 compuserve.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, reed@zenergy.com, noever webtv.net, barry@math.ucla.edu Subject: Yomiuri article on NHE closing Resent-Message-ID: <"7OB5D2.0.u_1.jUl3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10526 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com My experiments do not work. My venture with Yuri has still not taken off. Gene Mallove did not publish my story about the conference at the Write Patterson Air force base. Jene that was the best story I had. Someday maybe I'll have another. As for now that's it. It's time for me to take a break and let it up to the real expert Hal Puthoff. Merryman has reminded me many times of the people doing the serious work with real Phd's. Professor Emeritus Heinrich Hora has told me in Orlando, "My theroy explains everyth ing!" Could be he is right and I should listen. Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 11:06:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:03:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.200.226 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:01:31 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: EM-gravity interaction Resent-Message-ID: <"Gxjwb2.0.bg2.UVl3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10525 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com There is a good article on this: V. Hnizdo, "Hidden mechanical momentum and the field momentum in stationary electromagnetic and gravitational systems", Am. J. Phys., 65(6), p 515-518, June 1997. This work agrees with my own and shows that the combined system conserves energy and momentum. I did quite a bit of work on this problem, attempting to find some way in which the combined system could be tricked in order to produce some free energy. T he bottom line was that when the condition that would preclude and free energy production was obtained it was exactly in agreement with the predictions of general relativity. Sad to say there is no chanch of any free energy, but it is interesting that th e predictions of general relativity may be derived by simple classical energy and momentum conservation. I gave a seminar on some of the modifications to the EM field that result from gravity here at GSFC and there were some experts on EM theory in the audience that totally refused to accept the results. The fact that the modifications were predicted by general relativity and were needed to conserve energy seemed to have no effect of these individuals. I will leave a simple exercise for the interested reader. Suppose we have a DC power supply wire going up to a high tower or mountain. Then let us charge up a large capacitor placed on top. The energy of the capacitor is E = C*V^2/2 where C is the ca pacitance and V is the voltage. This energy has some mass given by m=E/c^2. So if we lower it down the tower we can extract some gravitational energy from it. Then we can discharge the capacitor and raise it up again but without having to do work on th e electrical energy. So what accounts for the free energy on the way down? We have to transform either C or V. If we assume that C does not change with height ( a hard problem to work out so just assume it) then the transformation for V may be obtained. The transformation thus obtained is the correct general relativistic resul t. 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 Sep 4 11:45:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:39:44 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:39:05 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Can a collapsing magnetic field cause increase in torque? Resent-Message-ID: <"Ps-1B.0.Wl3.k1m3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10527 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To all: I have a question I have been wanting to ask for a long time. If you had a permanent magnet being attracted to the magnetic field of a large air core coil, and you had a force gauge on the permanent magnet to indicate how much force the coil was "pulling" with, (with the coil's current in a steady state) I ask this. If you were to collapse the coil's magnetic field in the fastest way possible, (like the primary coil in a automobile spark coil), would you see an increase in the "pulling" force on the pemanent magnet during this collapse? (no matter of how short a p eriod) Thanks, Butch LaFonte HLafonte aol.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 14:55:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:41:26 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 22:58:30 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: EM-gravity interaction References: Resent-Message-ID: <"TwWt6.0.Px4.5io3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10530 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Larry Wharton wrote: There is a good article on this: V. Hnizdo, "Hidden mechanical momentum and the field momentum in stationary electromagnetic and gravitational systems", Am. J. Phys., 65(6), p 515-518, June 1997. >> This work agrees with my own and shows that the combined system conserves energy and momentum.<< On month ago, I gave an example on this issue, "Inertia of light (Part I)", 03 Jul 1997, and found interestingly that Frank Znidarsic use the sane example for his ZPE work. >> I did quite a bit of work on this problem, attempting to find some way in which the combined system could be tricked in order to produce some free energy. The bottom line was that when the condition that would preclude and free energy production was o btained it was exactly in agreement with the predictions of general relativity. << Interestingly, there are some work claiming the contrary, extracting free energy according GR: gr-qc/9604044 Anomalous Center of Mass Shift: Gravitational Dipole Moment, Eue Jin Jeong gr-qc/9605001 Extracting Gravitational Energy From The Homogeneous Isotropic Universe, Eue Jin Jeong Also I found some related works which can understand not well(due my weak math background): gr-qc/9512027 Electromagnetism and Gravitation, Kenneth Dalton gr-qc/9512008 Einstein's Energy-Free Gravitational Field, Kenneth Dalton gr-qc/9601004 Gravity, Geometry, and Equivalence, Kenneth Dalton >> Sad to say there is no chanch of any free energy, but it is interesting that the predictions of general relativity may be derived by simple classical energy and momentum conservation. << Yes, But you must use SR for this. (E=mc^2). GR is the natural result of principle of equivalence. >> I gave a seminar on some of the modifications to the EM field that result from gravity here at GSFC and there were some experts on EM theory in the audience that totally refused to accept the results. The fact that the modifications were predicted by general relativity and were needed to conserve energy seemed to have no effect of these individuals.<< As the "c" is constant, EM experts have no need to learn more on relativity. :-) >> I will leave a simple exercise for the interested reader. Suppose we have a DC power supply wire going up to a high tower or mountain. Then let us charge up a large capacitor placed on top. The energy of the capacitor is E = C*V^2/2 where C is the capacitance and V is the voltage. This energy has some mass given by m=E/c^2. So if we lower it down the tower we can extract some gravitational energy from it. Then we can discharge the capacitor and raise it up again but without having to do work on the electrical energy. So what accounts for th e free energy on the way down? We have to transform either C or V. If we assume that C does not change with height ( a hard problem to work out so just assume it) then the transformation for V may be obtained. The transformation thus obtained is the correct general relativistic resul t.<< The above, may be not be perfect example. This is because, when you climb high tower, Earth gravity is also decreased, while working against gravity. You must specify which effect should be taken account for the result. Thank you to announcing the paper. There are new works on EM-gravity interactions described as "Non minimal coupling". Is this the same issue? As I know Am. J. Phys is not available on net or member restricted. Do you know a practical way to obtain it? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 13:22:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:13:20 -0700 From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:12:39 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Blacklightpower News Resent-Message-ID: <"OFPVA2.0.Cy.VPn3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10528 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vorts, The Blacklightpower website has been updated on 9-4-97. Here are excerpts from the two new news articles there. I didn't paste the entire articles as they are copywrited so if you want to read them, hook up to the site. Regards, Vince Las Vegas Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- PacifiCorp's hydrogen gamble By LISA COHN Special writer, The Oregonian In a few years, Pacificorp officials either will be red in the face or at the forefront of a revolutionary new technology that could provide inexpensive, non polluting electricity. Quietly, hoping to draw little attention to the move, Pacificorp has invested more than $1 million of shareholders' money in BlackLight Power Inc. The Malvern, Pa., company claims to have discovered a new source of energy based on changes in the state of the hydrogen atom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- Nearly $10 million raised to power new energy project By Maria Coole Sunday News Staff Writer Will it be horsepower or hydrinos? Dr. Randell L. Mills of BlackLight Power Inc. is betting on hydrinos by a nose. With BlackLight's most recent stock offering bringing in almost $10 million, the president and chief executive officer of the company that contends it has found an abundant, clean energy source that will revolutionize the world, said, "It's a horse race n ow. With that kind of money, I can actually get out there and compete." Mills, who used to live in Lancaster and earned one of his degrees from Franklin & Marshall College, is confident that he will be able to give old-fashioned horsepower a run for the money with his contender, "hydrinos" - the name he has given the smaller- than-normal hydrogen atoms that are the basis of his new energy source. Mills expects that consumers will first use his energy source to heat, cool and light homes and businesses and to power automobiles. The original stock offering filed with the Pennsylvania Securities Commission in March was for $4.95 million, and sold out quickly, Mills said. The board of BlackLight Power of Malvern then decided to increase the amount of the offering to $9.99 million, and again the stock sold completely, he said, with calls still coming in from people who want to invest. The $9.99 million in stock sold in $30,000 units. With this most recent stock offering, BlackLight Power now has about 150 shareholders, Mills said. http://www.blacklightpower.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 16:34:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:46:18 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Blacklightpower News References: <970904160703_-1401337457 emout12.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"WuEEx1.0.ju6.BJq3q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10532 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi, After reading articles at http://www.blacklightpower.com, please remember the posting Vigier says "tight orbitals" can yield "excess energy" Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:49:25 -0700 (PDT) from Robert G. Flower. Theory made by A.O. Barut at 1995. Unfortunately he dies that year. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 16:30:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:23:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:29:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"jX7FL3.0.kC1.wBq3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10531 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Ross Tessien wrote: >>-snip- >>.. I would look for devices that managed to somehow induce intense >>spacetime ripples on nuclei ... -big snip- >>..... These strange new reactions would be like fission reactions, >>and so even "stable" nuclei ought to be able to be blasted apart if you can >>rattle spacetime sufficiently. (sigh) sounds right, the +-/ e-ching/ yen-yang there is like Mr. E's going from an atomic bomb to power stations.. you're going from total free energy OR a really good zapper of matter (disintegration ray-gun) ! course full-circle that would help land-fil l (litter) Are Your INVERSTOR)s( on the Good-guy side?? (hope not military again).. humm people for Fire-wood.. >>-snip- >>So now you know what my interest is in vortex. the guys in the group have >>already established the effects, with this device or that. The question is, >>how does one take control of rattling spacetime? >> >>I think I know but this discussion dives off into proprietary technology. >>FYI, I have finally begun development of the technology and have some >>investors interested in funding an accelerated program. >>Later, Ross Tessien >> I guess It's gotta be, if It's gonna be! good luck -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 16:43:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:36:10 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hal, "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 23:34:31 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199709030215.TAA07047 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"zsGXf3.0.R07.cNq3q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10533 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:15:34 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >The superconductor is superior at reflecting wave energy incident upon it. >So, the spinning disc is reflecting the wave energy arriving from above and >directing it back upwards again. Thus, the masses are being pushed downward >by energy arriving from above, upward by energy that passed through the >earth headed up, *and* it is additionally pushed upward by the wave energy >reflected off of the disk. So you have this additional component you don't >normally have, and so the mass weighs less in that field of reflection. [snip] Ross, Wouldn't this imply that as some of the wave energy coming from space is reflected upward by the disk, there would be less of it below the disk, so things below the disk should also weigh less? (There is also the fact to consider that it should also reflect downward some of the incident energy coming from the direction of the earth, so maybe one needs to take both into account). 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 Thu Sep 4 18:49:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:39:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 19:43:37 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, mark.d.hugo nspco.com Subject: Swartz comments re CG report Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"K1sLS1.0.Fq3.JBs3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10534 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by finland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA15287 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id GAA03581; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mica (world.std.com) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA01684; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:26:19 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970903062144.006d7674 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 06:21:44 +0000 To: rmforall earthlink.net From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post In-Reply-To: <340CF479.289A@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:24 AM 9/3/97 -0500, Richard Murray wrote: >Sept. 3 1997 > the >processed thorium test sample, shows > undeniable evidence for much release of elements from the stainless >steel end caps and axial rod: Fe, Ni, Cr, and, I think it is reasonable >to suppose, Cu, Ti, V, Co, Mo, and perhaps even Pb. The components of SS are well known, and only few select types, if any, have the materials which you suggest. For example, "weathering steel" and the Mo. Suggest you read, H.Uhlig, Corrosion and Corrosion Control. Their compositions like the glass in glass electrodes are well known and a science in itself. =============================================== > This data at a >glance proves that the stainless steel was the major player in the cell >electrolysis, gaskets notwithstanding. So, of course it is > essential to know what is in stainless steel in general and in these >specific components, and to inspect their physical condition carefully >for electrolytic > corrosion and redeposition. If there was "redeposition", it would deposit on the same surface. Perhaps you mean codeposition or electrodeposition to the cathode. =============================================== >Joe Champion has clarified that the mysterious amu 32 is probably O2, >the very staff of life. So in # 2 and #3, the puzzles at amu 64 and 65 >could be O4 and O4H, if such beasties exist. Water is the staff of life, and oxygen is the electronegative electron collector (that forms more water with transfer of four (4) electrons). BTW, many terrestrial lifeforms dont even use oxygen, which is toxic unless the life form has catalases, superoxide dismutases, and singlet oxygen inactivators. Real moeities (not beasties) include O2, O2-., OH-, OH., ... with dimers occuring infrequently unless held (chelated) by usually Group VIII metals in their reduced electronic (i.e. ferrous as opposed to ferric) states. When such coupling occurs, the re is usual intramolecular electron transfer, and sometimes even antiferromagnetic properties appearing. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 18:56:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:47:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 19:51:47 -0500 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, mark.d.hugo@nspco.com, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, ceti@onramp.net, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, rdeagleton csupomona.edu Subject: Blue on stainless steel Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"VxC563.0.3N4.wIs3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10535 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pilot16.cl.msu.edu (pilot16.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.26]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA14955 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot16.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id JAA79742; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:54:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199709031354.JAA79742 pilot16.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:54:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340CF479.289A@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 3, 97 00:24:09 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Rich, The notion that the stainless steel vessel remains inert and untouched through the CG process is, of course, totally unreasonable. As to what is in that stainless steel, it likely has everything. Starting with the basic alloy of iron, nickel, and chromi um, depending on the specific alloy type, there can be a variety of additives that serve to improve corrosion resistance, stabalize the crystal structure when the material is heated, improve fabrication and machining characteristics, etc. First guess wou ld be that it is a free-machining 304 alloy, but it's not up to us to guess, is it? Now we see that when anyone suggests ways to significantly improve the CG experiments they start crying that they don't have the financial resources to do a proper experiment. I could suggest a very simple, inexpensive way to reduce the chemical interact ion between the electrolyte and the stainless steel -- assuming for mechanical reasons that it must be steel. They could apply a protective coat to the stainless. A number of things come to mind. Polyvinylacetate is one coating I have used. Anyone can do it. I also understand that there are shops that repair leaky gas tanks by applying a similar coating. I am sure that CG could find a shop that would do the job for a few bucks. However, I don't see that the CG experiment merits any attention. It is an outrageous claim backed by very poor experimentation. Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 19:01:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:52:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 19:56:46 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ceti@onramp.net Subject: Blue on proof Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"BPe_P2.0.ec4.eNs3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10536 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pilot16.cl.msu.edu (pilot16.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.26]) by holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA07960 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot16.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA36920; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:55:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199709031455.KAA36920 pilot16.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Murray's Blue viewpoint] To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:55:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340CD84B.9C2@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 2, 97 10:23:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain > to establish truth. > > There is the existence proof, the finding that a phenomenon or datum > exists. All that is necessary is that the report or reports are not > deliberate fiction or error. If you were diligent in research, following up > on references in IE, here on Vortex and the Web pages -- you would find > ample, mutually supporting evidence in anecdotal reports and detailed, > technical papers for the excess heat signature of the P&F effect. Not only > the excess heat, but the production of helium and other nuclear ash > (transmutations) in well constructed, well documented reports, such as > Arata's. If you do not see this, please look in that mirror of yours and > see a person in denial. > that they exist. Mike Carrol, I believe, fails to recognize that the results of a poorly designed and poorly executed experiment cannot constitute "proof" of anything significant. The mere fact that someone reports a result still leaves open, as Mike notes, the possibili ty for error. Some errors are easy to spot, and when they are noted and substantiated that should be the end of the story. However, in CF research the advocates have been unwilling to acknowledge these errors and to respond appropriately. Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have detected neutron emission in their first experiments. They made a serious and obvious blunder which was quickly pointed out to them. That should have been the end of that! More recently George Miley made a number of significant and obvious errors in his report of "massive nuclear transmutations." These were called to his attention by Rich Murray and I. There simply is no question that the Miley claim that silicon and tita nium were detected with unnatural abundance ratios is correct. His data clearly show them present with natural abundances. Miley acknowledged "typographical" errors in his report, but has never done anything to clear up these questions. The list of errors that have been noted in relation to CF claims is very large and growing larger so one simply cannot reasonably be too accepting of such claims. > > A third level of proof, or test, is the exact characterization of a > phenomenon to form a reliable base on which a theoretical structure can be > built. We are decades away from this. > Here, I think, is where Mike and I clearly part company. To postpone this third level of proof, or test, to the indefinite future decades away simply is to put off any rational evaluation of assorted experimental claims in some broader general context. C laims that clearly violate all the basic tenants of physics cannot be evaluated in a context that assumes that the laws of physics still do apply. CF advocates have repeatedly attempted to escape from the constraints of quantum mechanics while invoking a ll sorts of wierd and unconfirmed quantum effects. Mills advocates an obvious violation of Maxwell's equations with a theory that, he claims, has its roots in Maxwell's equations. To attempt to interpret experimental results without the guidance of a general understanding of the physics and chemistry of the systems under investigation is to invite a departure from rational investigation into the kind of never-never land between fac t and fancy. For example, to assert that thorium is converted into titanium and copper without ever attempting to account for all the nucleons is just absurd. Would you advocate that nuclear matter is simply lost or destroyed by a bit of cooking in a st ainless steel pot? My assertion has long been that this third level of proof must be a part of any investigation right from the beginning. No experimental data can be properly evaluated or interpreted outside the context of "theory". You can't, for example, do calorimetry without thermodynamics. The fact that CF investigators and their supporters have been unwilling or unable to place their claims in a theoretical context is one clear indication that something is wrong with these data! To ignore the most glaring signs that data is bogus will not further these investigations. It simply leaves everyone to pursue false leads in a misuse of their limited resources As for my criticisms having been "shredded," I would say I have been on the mark pretty well for nearly eight years. I invite anyone to discuss any of the issues I raise publically or privately so if you have a bone to pick with me, please state your ca se on any specific point. Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 19:11:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:06:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 20:10:11 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, ceti@onramp.net, blue pilot.msu.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, jonesse astro.byu.edu Subject: Mark Hugo on CG report Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"-JyZL3.0.E85.Aas3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10537 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 RAA05501 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rbrtbass.pahrump.com (user12.pahrump.com [205.226.146.112]) by pahrump.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12288; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:54:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199709042354.QAA12288 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Ronald Brodzinski" Cc: "Mark D. Hugo" , "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 Huggins" , "Rich Murray" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Robert M. Wood" , "Steve Okerlund" , "Tim Mitchell" , "John Strumila" , "Mike Carrell" Subject: Serious Analysis of CincyGrp Claims Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:52:52 -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 Some commentary on the "Cincinnati Group" claims: I offer these comments not as a "critic" nor as a "believer", but hopefully with the idea of reasonable discourse regarding the CG device and their claims. First of all, the CG cell is obviously constructed of Zirconium, 304SS and Teflon. Before one can cart-blanch accept a claim of transmutation into Cu and Ti of Thorium, it would seem prudent to examine the known constituents of Zirconium , 304SS and Teflon. >From "Trace Analysis", Interscience, 1965, George Morrison, Ed, we have (Page 111) the following impurities in Teflon: (By neutron activation analysis in PPM) Na .9, Cl .8, Br .1, Al 3, Mn .1 no other elements. (No Ti or Cu). >From "Zirconium in the Nuclear Industry", ASTM Tech. Pub 824, we have (pages 50, 51) two tables of about 20 impurity elements listing of no more than 15 PPM Ti and 5 PPM Cu for Zirc. Oxide or Zirc. sponge. >From the "Metals Handbook" (ASM) "Deskbook" we have a table with a variety of Stainless Steel chemistries which notes .75% Ti for several precipitation hardening SS's, but NO Ti listed for 304, and only .1% N listed as "other" in the composition tables. Thus as a "first pass" it appears from the literature that neither the SS, the Zirc or the Teflon would supply the Ti and Cu observed. How about the "mis-informed" claim that the Cu 65 is actually Cu63H,H...i.e. a "hydrided" Cu? One of the best references I could come up with on this was, "Determining Radionuclides in Soils by ICP/Mass Spec using Flow Injection Preconcentration", ASTM, C 1310 (Volume 12.01 ASTM Standards), from 1995. The above document has an excellent discussion of interferences for a couple of the isotopes involved and notes possible inteferences of MoH and ThH for Mo99 and U233 respectively and then gives the percentage of these "interferences" as .001% and .01%. ( With MoH being a WELL KNOWN hydride.) I would be interested in anyone producing a literature reference showing Cu forming a "stable" hydride of any sort. Continuing comment on the Cu 65/63 ratio anomaly, there is the possibility of this being the result of fraud. I have investigated this from two approaches. The first is the cost, i.e. of enriched Cu 65. The basic cost for 99.6% Cu 65 is $5000 a gram. The second approach is to check out the purchases of Cu 65. Keith Smith at ISOTECH has indicated that there are only TWO sources of Cu 65, the US and the former Soviet Union. He is (as of 9/4/97) actively investigating sales and will inform me if the Cincy group appears to have purchased some. (Doubtful.) Thus we have discussed three important sources of potential "error" in the Cincy group's work, namely: 1. Contamination. Conclusion: Not likely from literature information on the materials used in the work. (We presume the analytic grade of Thorium/HCl/Distilled water covers that end of the substances used.) 2. ICP/Mass spec. errors. Conclusion: Unlikely, although further literature research into Copper Hydrides would be useful. 3. Fraud. Conclusion: Unlikely from two aspects, #1. Cost to perpetrate is high. #2. Traceability on fraudulent action is easy to check. One other source of "error" remains, and is illustrated by the article, "Orientation of Hydrides in Zirc. Alloy Tubes". (ASTM 824). Photos from this work clearly show the network of micro- cracks that hydration can cause in zirconium metal. Other sources (personal contacts) have indicated to me that an A/C current into an electrolyte is NOT an effective way to generate H2 and or O2. This consideration aside, a metallurgical cross section of a Cincy group tube and examination at about 100 X in a dark field microscope would be useful to eliminate the possibility of Thorium "hide out" in a network of microcracks. In this same line of thought we can also suggest that an SEM/EDAX probe of the Zirc from the inner surface outwards may help establish (without leaving any room for "self shielding" claims) whether the Thorium is merely "absorbed" on the zirc surface. One last note, in the "Trace Element Analysis" book, Teflon is noted as a very desirable containing barrier for many solutions because it not only has few impurities to add to the solutions, but allows nothing to be absorbed from the solution either. Thus, in a first pass, literature backed assessment of the Cincy group cell, there is nothing that stands out as a source of contamination or error. Continued dissection of the cells and "control based" analysis work of the electrolyte and the cell compon ents will be the final answer to these questions however. By: Mark Hugo, P.E. September 4, 1997 Minneapolis, MN ------------------------------------------------- forwarded by: 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 Thu Sep 4 19:44:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 20:38:08 -0500 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, wireless rmii.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, ceti onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu Subject: Liversage Answers Criticisms of CG Verification Report Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"oMpjn1.0.3m5.e_s3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10538 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 (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA25643 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rbrtbass.pahrump.com (user12.pahrump.com [205.226.146.112]) by pahrump.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA12492; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:25:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199709050025.RAA12492 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Ronald Brodzinski" , "Robert W. Bass" Cc: "Mark D. Hugo" , "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 Huggins" , "Rich Murray" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Robert M. Wood" , "Steve Okerlund" , "Tim Mitchell" , "John Strumila" , "Mike Carrell" Subject: Liversage Answers Criticisms of CG Verification Report Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:23:00 -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 Mr. Liversage will continue to answer all responsible queries or criticisms of his Third Party Verification Report posted on the CincyGroup website (URL: http://web.gcis.net/cincygrp/ and published in the most recent issue of "Infinite Energy" magazine: --------------------------------------------------- Answers by Robert Liversage: All sample solutions were diluted x100 for ICP/MS analysis to minimize physical matrix affects. Uranium was added to all four sample solutions as an internal standard to compensate for any residual matrix affects. The uranium internal standard is evident in the reagent blank(scan#1) data shown in Infinite Energy magazine volume 3, number 13 & 14, page 23. Scans 2, 3 &4 do not show uranium intensity at mass 238 because blank subtraction was applied. The data was reprocessed without blank subtraction to de termine the uranium intensity in each solution for subsequent normalization of the thorium intensities. Intensities were normalized with respect to the unprocessed thorium test sample intensities because this sample had a simpler matrix than the process ed samples. The uranium intensities in the four analyses indicated that a <10% matrix suppression occurred in the processed samples relative to the reagent blank. A 2mg/L uranium calibration standard was analyzed to determine the accuracy of the total quant response factor for uranium (units = counts per second/PPM). Response factors are used to convert assigned intensities (units=counts per second) into concent rations (PPM) as described in the above mentioned magazine, page 23. Assigned intensities divided by response factors equals concentrations. The total quant program determined the 2.0 mg/L uranium standard to be 1.6 mg/L; an error of only 20%. This indi cated that the plasma and ion optics parameters used to generate the third party verification data were very similar to the conditions the vendor used to generate the response factors. Consequently, it was assumed that the ratio of the total quant progr am's thorium to uranium response factor ratio would be similar to the ratio of the thorium to uranium response factors on the instrument used to generate the third party verification data. Therefore, a valid thorium response factor for determining thorium concentrations for the third party verification letter, equals: (total quant uranium response factor) X X (ratio of total quant Th/U response factors)X X (1.6 mg/L divided by 2.0 mg/L) where: 1.6/2.0 is the ratio of the measured to the actual uranium concentration in the calibration standard. Rich Murray's response to Joe Champion's comment on his Aug 26, e-mail entitled 'opinion of cincy report' about the missing chlorine peaks in the cell blank and processed and unprocessed thorium test samples is correct. The Cl intensities in these three samples were reagent blank subtracted. A similar occurrence was observed for the internal standards. The data was reprocessed without blank subtraction. The unsubtracted data showed significant Cl intensities. ------------------------------------------------------- forwarded by: Robert W. Bass, M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. 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 Thu Sep 4 20:42:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 20:37:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:29:20 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: R. Bass on CincyGrp Claims To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"katqc1.0.ly.dvt3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10539 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Here are two messages forwarded from the prolific Robert Bass about the Cincinnati Group claims, originally from Hugo and Liversage. I do not think Bass posts to Vortex. If he does, and this is a duplicate copy, I apologize. (I am not sure which channel I got this from. My Internet garbage removal program sometimes eats too much heading. But it NEVER eats message content.) - Jed Date: 04-Sep-97 19:55 EDT From: "Robert Bass" > INTERNET:rbrtbass pahrump.com Subj: Serious Analysis of CincyGrp Claims Some commentary on the "Cincinnati Group" claims: I offer these comments not as a "critic" nor as a "believer", but hopefully with the idea of reasonable discourse regarding the CG device and their claims. First of all, the CG cell is obviously constructed of Zirconium, 304SS and Teflon. Before one can cart-blanch accept a claim of transmutation into Cu and Ti of Thorium, it would seem prudent to examine the known constituents of Zirconium , 304SS and Teflon. >From "Trace Analysis", Interscience, 1965, George Morrison, Ed, we have (Page 111) the following impurities in Teflon: (By neutron activation analysis in PPM) Na .9, Cl .8, Br .1, Al 3, Mn .1 no other elements. (No Ti or Cu). >From "Zirconium in the Nuclear Industry", ASTM Tech. Pub 824, we have (pages 50, 51) two tables of about 20 impurity elements listing of no more than 15 PPM Ti and 5 PPM Cu for Zirc. Oxide or Zirc. sponge. >From the "Metals Handbook" (ASM) "Deskbook" we have a table with a variety of Stainless Steel chemistries which notes .75% Ti for several precipitation hardening SS's, but NO Ti listed for 304, and only .1% N listed as "other" in the composition tables. Thus as a "first pass" it appears from the literature that neither the SS, the Zirc or the Teflon would supply the Ti and Cu observed. How about the "mis-informed" claim that the Cu 65 is actually Cu63H,H...i.e. a "hydrided" Cu? One of the best references I could come up with on this was, "Determining Radionuclides in Soils by ICP/Mass Spec using Flow Injection Preconcentration", ASTM, C 1310 (Volume 12.01 ASTM Standards), from 1995. The above document has an excellent discussion of interferences for a couple of the isotopes involved and notes possible inteferences of MoH and ThH for Mo99 and U233 respectively and then gives the percentage of these "interferences" as .001% and .01%. ( With MoH being a WELL KNOWN hydride.) I would be interested in anyone producing a literature reference showing Cu forming a "stable" hydride of any sort. Continuing comment on the Cu 65/63 ratio anomaly, there is the possibility of this being the result of fraud. I have investigated this from two approaches. The first is the cost, i.e. of enriched Cu 65. The basic cost for 99.6% Cu 65 is $5000 a gram. The second approach is to check out the purchases of Cu 65. Keith Smith at ISOTECH has indicated that there are only TWO sources of Cu 65, the US and the former Soviet Union. He is (as of 9/4/97) actively investigating sales and will inform me if the Cincy group appears to have purchased some. (Doubtful.) Thus we have discussed three important sources of potential "error" in the Cincy group's work, namely: 1. Contamination. Conclusion: Not likely from literature information on the materials used in the work. (We presume the analytic grade of Thorium/HCl/Distilled water covers that end of the substances used.) 2. ICP/Mass spec. errors. Conclusion: Unlikely, although further literature research into Copper Hydrides would be useful. 3. Fraud. Conclusion: Unlikely from two aspects, #1. Cost to perpetrate is high. #2. Traceability on fraudulent action is easy to check. One other source of "error" remains, and is illustrated by the article, "Orientation of Hydrides in Zirc. Alloy Tubes". (ASTM 824). Photos from this work clearly show the network of micro- cracks that hydration can cause in zirconium metal. Other sources (personal contacts) have indicated to me that an A/C current into an electrolyte is NOT an effective way to generate H2 and or O2. This consideration aside, a metallurgical cross section of a Cincy group tube and examination at about 100 X in a dark field microscope would be useful to eliminate the possibility of Thorium "hide out" in a network of microcracks. In this same line of thought we can also suggest that an SEM/EDAX probe of the Zirc from the inner surface outwards may help establish (without leaving any room for "self shielding" claims) whether the Thorium is merely "absorbed" on the zirc surface. One last note, in the "Trace Element Analysis" book, Teflon is noted as a very desirable containing barrier for many solutions because it not only has few impurities to add to the solutions, but allows nothing to be absorbed from the solution either. Thus, in a first pass, literature backed assessment of the Cincy group cell, there is nothing that stands out as a source of contamination or error. Continued dissection of the cells and "control based" analysis work of the electrolyte and the cell compon ents will be the final answer to these questions however. By: Mark Hugo, P.E. September 4, 1997 Minneapolis, MN --------------------------------------------- forwarded by: Dr. Robert W. Bass Date: 04-Sep-97 20:26 EDT From: "Robert Bass" > INTERNET:rbrtbass pahrump.com Subj: Liversage Answers Criticisms of CG Verification Report Mr. Liversage will continue to answer all responsible queries or criticisms of his Third Party Verification Report posted on the CincyGroup website (URL: http://web.gcis.net/cincygrp/ and published in the most recent issue of "Infinite Energy" magazine: --------------------------------------------------- Answers by Robert Liversage: All sample solutions were diluted x100 for ICP/MS analysis to minimize physical matrix affects. Uranium was added to all four sample solutions as an internal standard to compensate for any residual matrix affects. The uranium internal standard is evident in the reagent blank(scan#1) data shown in Infinite Energy magazine volume 3, number 13 & 14, page 23. Scans 2, 3 &4 do not show uranium intensity at mass 238 because blank subtraction was applied. The data was reprocessed without blank subtractio n to determine the uranium intensity in each solution for subsequent normalization of the thorium intensities. Intensities were normalized with respect to the unprocessed thorium test sample intensities because this sample had a simpler matrix than the processed samples. The uranium intensities in the four analyses indicated that a <10% matrix suppression occurred in the processed samples relative to the reagent blank. A 2mg/L uranium calibration standard was analyzed to determine the accuracy of the total quant response factor for uranium (units = counts per second/PPM). Response factors are used to convert assigned intensities (units=counts per second) into concentrations (PPM) as described in the above mentioned magazine, page 23. Assigned intensities divided by response factors equals concentrations. The total quant program determined the 2.0 mg/L uranium standard to be 1.6 mg/L; an error of only 20%. Th is indicated that the plasma and ion optics parameters used to generate the third party verification data were very similar to the conditions the vendor used to generate the response factors. Consequently, it was assumed that the ratio of the total quan t program's thorium to uranium response factor ratio would be similar to the ratio of the thorium to uranium response factors on the instrument used to generate the third party verification data. Therefore, a valid thorium response factor for determining thorium concentrations for the third party verification letter, equals: (total quant uranium response factor) X X (ratio of total quant Th/U response factors)X X (1.6 mg/L divided by 2.0 mg/L) where: 1.6/2.0 is the ratio of the measured to the actual uranium concentration in the calibration standard. Rich Murray's response to Joe Champion's comment on his Aug 26, e-mail entitled 'opinion of cincy report' about the missing chlorine peaks in the cell blank and processed and unprocessed thorium test samples is correct. The Cl intensities in these three samples were reagent blank subtracted. A similar occurrence was observed for the internal standards. The data was reprocessed without blank subtraction. The unsubtracted data showed significant Cl intensities. ------------------------------------------------------- forwarded by: Robert W. Bass, M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. P.O.Box 1238, Pahrump, NV 89041-1238; phone/FAX (702) 751-0932/0739 Voice-Mail: (702) 387-7213 e-Mail: rbrtbass pahrump.com * End of File * X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 21:54:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:41:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 22:45:08 -0500 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, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, design73@aol.com, dennis wazoo.com, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.mil, jaeger eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3@llnl.gov, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, mark.d.hugo@nspco.com, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, wireless@rmii.com Subject: Murray on stainless steel in CG report Resent-Message-ID: <"t6GJe2.0.z63.Uru3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10541 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 4, 1997 Dear all, I'll briefly answer many points raised recently. Jed Rothwell claims the CG solutions are well characterized by the mass spectometer data. However, this data is complex, and full of question marks, placed by the ICP/MS computer program, to indicate many minor and major unknowns. The resolution is only 1 amu. It is not clear to me what the ppb refers to, in terms of the concentrations originally present in the stainless steel cell. As Mark Hugo pointed out, only careful microscopic examin ation will reveal if thorium is deposited deep in microcracks in the cell. Another skeleton in the closet is the fact that only soluable elements and compounds will make the journey from the cell to the ICP/MS. How much distortion does that make in the data? How much is lost to vented gases, sticky gunk, and insoluable grit? Although Hugo makes a good start at estimating impurity levels in the cell, there is no substitute for precise measurements of all the materials involved, given the gravity of the claims. The data for Run # 2, the processed cell blank, shows a large numb er of elements indeed: where do they come from, if not from the stainless steel? Do we in fact have wonderful evidence of multiple transmutations all over the place in Run # 2? This data speaks, to my ears, thusly: "We have our source in the stainless steel. Where else, pray tell?" When we quickly compare Run # 2 with # 3, we find in #2, the processed cell blank, goodly amounts of, for instance, Pb, W, Sn, Ag, and Ba, all in roughly the normal isotopic ratios, although we have to admit, the ICP/MS computer program does its best to a chieve this very result. For Run # 3, the processed thorium nitrate, the isotopic ratios are still fairly normal, but the amounts are reduced to about 1 % for Pb, to about 10 % for Sn, to about 60 % for Ag, to about zero for Ba. So, given that the isoto pes are still in their normal ratios, then the indication is transfer, not transmutation. I was struck by Mike Carrell's [I've spelled it right this time. By the way, according to Chris Tinsley, my middle name is spelled, "Wanker." What does that mean? I truly fear to know...] comment: "An arc will form there, creating an energetic turbulen t plasma..." An arc? An incandescent arc, in the hot compressed air, along the electrolyte surface, or within the solution? Is there any evidence for this on the zirconium, the stainless steel, the teflon, and the "nonconductive gaskets" and O-rings? L et's have some enlarged photos of these items on the CG web site, along with that lone copper flake. Ever since the Challenger accident, I've never trusted gaskets and O-rings, especially in a regime of fast rising temperatures and pressures and thermal expansion, to a peak of 277.4 degrees F. The slightest hole or crack in the gaskets would allow the s tainless steel axial rod to short-circuit through the electrolyte into the stainless steel end caps, building up a localized hot spot that would grow swiftly, burning and melting its own way, and releasing many trace impurities into the electrolyte. By t he way, wouldn't the procedure of rinsing the cell components in the reagent blank solution extract even more impurities [that is, the soluable ones] from the now porous stainless steel? And, scientific horror of horrors, what if the innocent Cincinnati Group, strapped for cash, frugally reused the same cell components, over and over? Let's have a quick answer, please. The diagram in IE on page 17 doesn't make it clear whether the rod is electrically insulated from the end caps, but the pretty color picture on the CG web page shows a bright yellow gasket. Another question: is it possible for the zirconium to build up in one run or in repeated runs a tough insulating layer of oxide, nitride, whatever? Just asking... The CG report refers three times to "oxidizing metal" on page 17. Now, let's listen to the voice of the electrical and temperature data. >From 0 to 5 minutes, we have delta T of about + 4 degrees F per minute, with about 50 V and 1.20 A 60 Hz AC [so there's no cathode-anode distinction], about 50 watts in 25 ml electrolyte, resistance 50 ohms, [rounding the numbers to get a quick fix]. Things start changing fast, and by 9 minutes the current is 8.25 A at 44 V, power is about 350 watts, T is 204.2 degrees F, delta T is 43.2 degrees F per minute, resistance is only 5 ohms. I'm willing to bet that's our arc. By 13 minutes, current drops to 3 A, voltage rises to 72 V, delta T has become minus 4 degrees F per minute, power is 200 watts, T is 258.4 degrees F. There is fluctuation until about 19 minutes. This could be flickering out of the arc. For the last ten minutes the situation is stable: at 25 minutes we have 1.30 A at 176 V, power about 200 watts, T about 257.9 degrees, rising 4.3 degrees F per minute. This might be the absence of the arc. Is this process being controlled by hands-on adjustment of the voltage? How can the same voltage-current profile be applied to Run # 2 and Run # 3, when the cell resistance is different, due to different electrolytes? So, the two runs differ in the applied power, as well as in the presence of the nitrate and of the thorium. We have so far been told nothing about the current-voltage temperature profile for Run # 2. Blue suggests coating the stainless steel with an insulator for a quick, cheap fix. Carrell mentions that Claytor's tritium production is a "proof of existence" for low energy nuclear reactions in general, but his process runs at 2,000 V, and is more in the regime of some of those spark, arc, and exploding wire experiments in the 1920's, that recorded dozens of anomalous spectra, indicating possible transmutations. Carrell mentions that with the Griggs Hydrosonic Pump, "...a few kilowatts of excess heat energy is produced routinely." I am ashamed of my ignorance, not to be aware that such a history-making result is a long-established commonplace truism. Rich "Wanker" Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 21:31:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:23:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Zack Widup Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"73EYw.0.3o1.Reu3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10540 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Ed Wall wrote: > At 09:34 PM 8/9/97 +0000, you 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? > > A related topic that bent my brain a while back was from a book called > _Fuzzy Thinking_ by Bart Kosko. > > As I remember it, the conundrum was posed by Bertrand Russell, and it > goes something like this: Is the set of all sets which are not members of > themselves a member of the set? If it is a member, there is a contradiction > in that it is a set which is a member of itself and therefore not > qualified to be a member of the set; and if it isn't a member, it is not > a member of itself, and therefore must be included in the set of all sets > which are not members of themselves. > Sounds like some of the games presented in GODEL, ESCHER, BACH: AN ETERNAL GOLDEN BRAID by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Is the word "non-self-descriptive" non-self-descriptive? :-) Zack X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 03:14:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 03:06:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Cu-65 or Cu-63 + Hydrinos or DiHydrinos? Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:25:15 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"r0wry1.0.zv.jcz3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10545 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Is it possible? Wouldn't matter if they gets the job done. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 4 22:43:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:37:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'Robert Bass'" , Ronald Brodzinski , "'vortex-l eskimo.com'" Cc: "Mark D. Hugo" , Scott Chubb , Nicholas Palmer <70374.3025 compuserve.com>, John Bockris , Gordon Brightsen , Bill Ward Cc: Charles McNeill , Douglas Morrison , "David A. Scott" , Ed Wall , Grant Hudlow , Gary Steckly Cc: Horace Heffner , "Joseph N. Ignat" , James Bowery , "James A. Carr" , James Powell , "C. D. Johnson" Cc: "Steven E. Jones" , Elliott Kennel , "Kerry S. Lane" , Kirk Shanahan , Scott Little , Larry Vardiman Cc: Tom Van Flandern , Mike McKubre , Martin Kendig , Dave Nagel , "James T. Lo" , Peter Glueck Cc: Paul Koloc , Hal Puthoff , Mike Windell , Robert Huggins , Rich Murray , Robin van Spaandonk Cc: Susan Blackburn , Talbott Chubb , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Robert M. Wood" , Steve Okerlund Cc: Tim Mitchell , John Strumila , Mike Carrell , "\"'DanYork'\""" " Subject: RE: Mark Hugo and The CG Group Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:33:56 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"TfGCX3.0.Vm3.Zgv3q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10542 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 WAA31906 Hello Mark, With respect to the members of Vortex and to the Cincy Boys, I think that enough is enough. In my humble opinion there are adequate discrepancies in the initial findings to find flaws in the instrumentation. Mr. Liversage did a phenomenal job dealing with samples. No one could ask anymore. Nevertheless, I doubt that he realized that he was performing a "peer review" for the group at the time. Mark, you stated the facts. It was either: 1. Contamination. Conclusion: Not likely from literature information on the materials used in the work. (We presume the analytic grade of Thorium/HCl/Distilled water covers that end of the substances used.) 2. ICP/Mass spec. errors. Conclusion: Unlikely, although further literature research into Copper Hydrides would be useful. 3. Fraud. Two other factors exist: 1. The information is correct. 2. Human and machine error. With total respect to everyone, there is only one flaw in low energy nuclear reactions, that is, lack of repeatability! Until someone comes forward and displays a functioning device that will pass the scrutiny of Scott Little (the hardest critic of them all ) then it is only a figment of one's imagination. I am a believer in transmutation, I am a practitioner of transmutation, my associates are doers of transmutation, even Barry Merriman has observed transmutation -- but in reality and respect for the scientific community this does not make it an absolute. Why should someone be upset with the Japanese or the United States because they do not believe? No one has shown proof. Yes, my processes work and the experiments of numerous scientists around the world work. How does one know? Because I said my proce ssed worked. Not to mention, the other scientist said that theirs work. Isn't this enough? HELL NO! There are aspects of this science that require empirical data. Forget the theories, for they are meaningless, unless you have a repeatable experiment to validate. Not being a learned person the only thing I can state for certainty is -- our group has empirical control of an anomaly. In my humble opinion I consider it to be a low energy nuclear reaction. At this time I have requested that Gene Mallove and Scott Little replicate our (my) observations. If successful -- GREAT! However, if not successful it does not take anything away from the 100's of grams of synthesized precious metals that Dan York, Bil l Stehl, Bill Giffin's or numerous others have produced. The bottom line is simple -- why challenge a piece of research that has numerous holes in it. I have been there and made my mistakes (if you do not believe me ask Jed). If low energy nuclear transmutation is to be a part of history, then the common "Joe" has to be able to reproduce! 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 Sep 4 23:32:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:22:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:45:48 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Vortex Subject: Re: Can a collapsing magnetic field cause increase in torque? References: <970904143550_-1633216785 emout10.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"0umjF.0.8a6.-Kw3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10543 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com HLafonte aol.com wrote: > > To all: > I have a question I have been wanting to ask for a long time. Ask away. > If you had a permanent magnet being attracted to the magnetic field of a > large air core coil, and you had a force gauge on the permanent magnet to > indicate how much force the coil was "pulling" with, (with the coil's > current in a steady state) I ask this. > If you were to collapse the coil's magnetic field in the fastest way Jut open the circuit. As long as a spark doesn't result, its gone! > possible, (like the primary coil in a automobile spark coil), would you see > an increase in the "pulling" force on the pemanent magnet during this > collapse? (no matter of how short a period) > Thanks, > Butch LaFonte > HLafonte aol.com Hi Butch, First, the pulling force is not directly related to the energy used to create the field. Many factors in the magnetic circuit can alter (+ & -) the pulling force. Second, No, the pulling force will not increase. A collapsing field can't generate a greater field than that which it came from. Would be a nice trick. Sorry. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 04:29:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:16:04 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Inside the CG Cell Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:13:08 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"zGC8j3.0.dF6.od-3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10546 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com A careful examination of the Cg cell depicted on p17 of IE 13/14 will show that the fluid touches only zirconium during the operation of the cell. The internal volume of the cell is about 116 ml, and the protocol calls for 25 ml of fluid in it, or about 22% of the internal volume. With the cell in the horizontal operating position, the fluid will fill the cell to a depth a little more than 1 cm. The mathematicians here can calculate a more precise number. The fluid is prevented from contacting the stainless steel end plates by the end gaskets and the O-rings which fit into grooves machined in the ends of the central cylinder. The fluid pool is too shallow to contact the Teflon insulators covering the stain less steel rods supporting the central disc. The description notes that the Teflon pieces are longer than the rod, so they are tightly compressed and seal the rod from the reaction chamber. All the current in the cell flows between the periphery of the disc and the interior of the cylinder, a volume nearly 12 cm long and of indeterminate cross section. The electrical power into this volume reaches the order of 200 WRMS. The cell temperature reaches the 250 F, with an inferred internal pressure of the order of 4 atm. Others can check me, but I doubt that boiling of the liquid will occur, being suppressed by the internal pressure. There will be vigorous circulation of the fluid. An arc very probably forms in the fluid between the electrode and shell, but the extent of the arc is uncertain. It probably fills the volume covered by the fluid, and may extend around the circumference, as there will be a conductive vapor in the cell. Critics have cited contamination from structural members as the source of anomalous elements present in the assays of the CG and RIFEX cells. There are some very fundamental differences. In the case of the RIFEX cells, there is a relatively large volume of fluid which circulates through the cell, which (in principle) can sweep contaminates from a large area and deposit them on the beads. And the RIFEX cells operate with DC, so there is a tendency to preferentially deposit material on the cathode beads. The CG cell is closed. The fluid contacts only zirconium, and the inside surfaces of the end gaskets. The end gasket material is unspecified, but is probably Teflon. Arguments that contamination comes from the stainless steel will have to show in detail how this can occur, since the fluid does not touch the stainless steel, except very small wetting which may occur as the cell is assembled and fluid introduced, before it is sealed. The fluid contains 0.25 drop of HCl, .25 gm thorium nitrate, and water. Hardly a corrosive mixture. Further, since the cell operates on AC, and the arc is in a small region, there is no preferred electrode for the deposition of contaminates , if any. The primary transmuted material is in the fluid, not the electrodes. Having witnessed the harumphing of critics in this and other fields, I have noted that the critics are often themselves guilty of the careless observation and sloppy reasoning of which they accuse the experimenters. In the case of the CG cell, I see caref ul thought given to the design of a simple cell whose macroscopic products are easily analyzed, with few sources of contamination. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 05:25:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 05:16:09 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:15:50 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970904002343.AAA16933 HOME> Resent-Message-ID: <"BVIq51.0.4n7.8W_3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10548 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:23:45 +0000, Ed Wall wrote: [snip] >As I remember it, the conundrum was posed by Bertrand Russell, and it >goes something like this: Is the set of all sets which are not members of >themselves a member of the set? If it is a member, there is a contradiction >in that it is a set which is a member of itself and therefore not >qualified to be a member of the set; and if it isn't a member, it is not >a member of itself, and therefore must be included in the set of all sets >which are not members of themselves. > >The idea Kosko was leaning toward was that here was an example of the >intersection of set A and not-A being a non-empty set; that Aristotle was >wrong in insisting that a logical proposition was either true or not true. >When Russell raised this paradox, it stumped a lot of people (like me), some >of whom insisted that this was a linguistic problem, not a logic problem. >If it is a semantic problem, what is it? > >At one time, Euclidian geometry was the only conceivable representation of >physical space. Are we fooling ourselves about logic in a similar way >(assuming GR is correct)? [snip] Personally, I like Russell's solution to all paradoxes: There aren't any. In short there is no set that is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Precisely because this would lead to a paradox. I have a vague feeling that it is the logical equivalent of "out of phase" wave annihilation. 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 Fri Sep 5 05:31:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 05:23:05 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:22:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: Vortex-L eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: suggestion Resent-Message-ID: <"AWb-A2.0.-_7.Wc_3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10550 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com (here I go again assuming that other people think like I do...get's me in trouble nearly every time!) Please consider this potential improvement to our email morass: Instead of sending out messages about the CG results with headers like this: To: rbrtbass pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, design73@aol.com, dennis wazoo.com, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.mil, jaeger eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3@llnl.gov, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, mark.d.hugo@nspco.com, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, wireless@rmii.com Why not send those guys only ONE more message that reads as follows: Greetings, A discusson of the CG results is presently underway on the email list known as Vortex-L. If you are interested in following this discussion you may subscribe to Vortex-L as follows....(etc) ...and then post only to Vortex-L. Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 06:45:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 06:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 07:26:15 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: rbrtbass pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms@netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, wireless@rmii.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, dennis wazoo.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, mark.d.hugo nspco.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Carrell: Inside the CG Cell Resent-Message-ID: <"lVemT.0.J06.9b04q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10552 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 5, 1997 Mike Carrell, Thanks for the lucid, calm, and helpful discussion. The processed cell blank solution, Run # 2, shows Assigned Intensity for Cu-63 37196, with no interferences, while for Run # 3, the processed Thorium nitrate, we have 28676. For Cu-65, we have 16642 and 12830, with a wholloping unknown at amu 65 of Assigned Intensity 95758. So, there seems to be no evidence of a meaninful difference between the two runs for Cu-63, and a possible anomaly for Cu-65. Interestingly enough, this is not the run that produced the famous Cu flake. For amu 64, Run # 2 lists Ni 5823 Zn 11195 ?? 12274, and Run # 3 lists Ni 2546 ?? 92342 . The last number is so close to the Cu-65 anomaly, that we might suspect a connection: perhaps it is a hydride of the anomaly at amu 64. This new anomaly might be another transmutation, or it might be a transient cluster of four oxygen atoms, lasting lon g enough to be measured by ICP/MS. Rich Murray Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (smartlst mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA11387; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smartlst localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) id EAA25586; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:16:04 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:16:04 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Inside the CG Cell Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:13:08 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19970905111629197.AAA114 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"zGC8j3.0.dF6.od-3q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10546 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com A careful examination of the Cg cell depicted on p17 of IE 13/14 will show that the fluid touches only zirconium during the operation of the cell. The internal volume of the cell is about 116 ml, and the protocol calls for 25 ml of fluid in it, or about 22% of the internal volume. With the cell in the horizontal operating position, the fluid will fill the cell to a depth a little more than 1 cm. The mathematicians here can calculate a more precise number. The fluid is prevented from contacting the stainless steel end plates by the end gaskets and the O-rings which fit into grooves machined in the ends of the central cylinder. The fluid pool is too shallow to contact the Teflon insulators covering the stain less steel rods supporting the central disc. The description notes that the Teflon pieces are longer than the rod, so they are tightly compressed and seal the rod from the reaction chamber. All the current in the cell flows between the periphery of the disc and the interior of the cylinder, a volume nearly 12 cm long and of indeterminate cross section. The electrical power into this volume reaches the order of 200 WRMS. The cell temperature reaches the 250 F, with an inferred internal pressure of the order of 4 atm. Others can check me, but I doubt that boiling of the liquid will occur, being suppressed by the internal pressure. There will be vigorous circulation of the fluid. An arc very probably forms in the fluid between the electrode and shell, but the extent of the arc is uncertain. It probably fills the volume covered by the fluid, and may extend around the circumference, as there will be a conductive vapor in the cell. Critics have cited contamination from structural members as the source of anomalous elements present in the assays of the CG and RIFEX cells. There are some very fundamental differences. In the case of the RIFEX cells, there is a relatively large volume of fluid which circulates through the cell, which (in principle) can sweep contaminates from a large area and deposit them on the beads. And the RIFEX cells operate with DC, so there is a tendency to preferentially deposit material on the cathode beads. The CG cell is closed. The fluid contacts only zirconium, and the inside surfaces of the end gaskets. The end gasket material is unspecified, but is probably Teflon. Arguments that contamination comes from the stainless steel will have to show in detail how this can occur, since the fluid does not touch the stainless steel, except very small wetting which may occur as the cell is assembled and fluid introduced, before it is sealed. The fluid contains 0.25 drop of HCl, .25 gm thorium nitrate, and water. Hardly a corrosive mixture. Further, since the cell operates on AC, and the arc is in a small region, there is no preferred electrode for the deposition of contaminates , if any. The primary transmuted material is in the fluid, not the electrodes. Having witnessed the harumphing of critics in this and other fields, I have noted that the critics are often themselves guilty of the careless observation and sloppy reasoning of which they accuse the experimenters. In the case of the CG cell, I see caref ul thought given to the design of a simple cell whose macroscopic products are easily analyzed, with few sources of contamination. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 04:47:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:34:54 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Center for Frontier Sciences To: Hamdi Ucar Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:50:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Blacklightpower News Reply-to: chronos enter.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"7NFnG2.0.1r6.Sv-3q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10547 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 5 Sep 97 at 0:46, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:46:18 +0400 > From: Hamdi Ucar > Organization: Orchestra > Theory made by A.O. Barut at 1995. Unfortunately he dies that year. Hi Hamdi, I didn't know Barut passed away -- sad to hear. He was an explorer of the profound depths of electromagnetism. His books are good guidance. Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================ Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates - Custom Software Development - - Quality Control Engineering - ============================================ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 07:17:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:05:00 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 16:50:52 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: chronos enter.net Cc: vortex Subject: Barut's paper References: <199709051134.HAA01461 mail.enter.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"hgDTy1.0.8m4.B614q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10555 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Robert, There are too many things to say about Barut's works. He strongly addressed to unsolved and ignored problems on QM and Electrodynamics. Years ago, I got on of his articles on a book he collected papers. Unfortunately I did not noted the name of this book which is pressed at 1979 I recall. Below is a parts that I retyped from the copy of his paper. WHAT ARE TRUE BUILDING BLOCKS OF MATTER A.O. Barut International Centre for Theoretical Physics Trieste, Italy >> 1. INTRODUCTION "Can high-energy physics be too easy?" asked a recent editorial in "Nature."1) At present, the picture mostly used in high-energy phenomenology is becoming admittedly very complicated. ... Against this background of recent developments, we wish to expand here a very intuitive and simple physical theory, along the traditions of atomic and nuclear structure theories, from which a unified picture of high-energy phenomena can be deduced. Hi gh-energy physics is very expensive. One must have alternative views, If only to test better the inevitability of the orthodox picture. Furthermore, physical phenomena must be explainable in a simple intuitive form in terms of already verified definite pr imary concepts, and continuous with the existing physics. II. THE PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES Atoms and molecules are best described as built from electrons and nuclei bound by Coulomb forces because they disintegrate into electrons and nuclei, which we detect, and because these constituents are stable as far as atomic processes are concerned . In turn, nuclei and all the hadrons eventually decay into the absolute stable particles: protons, electrons, neutrinos and photons (electromagnetic field). We present here a theory in which all matter is made up of these constituents, bound again by ele ctromagnetic forces. One can of course ask questions about the nature of the absolutely stable particles themselves. This is another level of enquiry. In this paper we shall take as given and elementary. << I suggest you try to find this book and read the full article. On later parts of the article A very simple formula for obtaining leptonic mass spectrum as a result of his theory: N 4 M = m + 3/2 . 1/alpha . m (Sum) n n e e n=0 >> For electron (N=0), muon (N=1)m t(N=2),... The predictions for muon(105.55MeV) and t(1786,08Mev) work very well and the next lepton predicted is (sigma)(10.293GeV). The cooeficient (lamda) = 3/2 1/(alpha) m(electron) can also be derived by semi-classic al arguments.12) These results should be only be considered as a beginning of a dynamical theory of heavy leptons. Nevertheless, they are interesting, beacuse we have the series (e, mu, ta,..., which is one of the most fundemental open problems of particl e physics. 14)<< >>VII. CONCLUSIONS High-energy physics according to the present theory can be considered as an extension of atomic and molecular physics. The Coulomb forces being replaced by the short-ranged strong magnetic forces. Only additional particle not present in atomic physi cs is the neutrino, which is in fact a limiting case of the electron. There is then a welcome continuity and simplicity in the physics, which was perhaps lost by the abstract concepts and free inventiveness of particle physics. No NEW particles, or no new interactions or forces introduced 19) except the stable ones and the electromagnetic field. In this sense it is a truly already-unified theory with one coupling constant e. The only parameter so far, in principle, is the neutrino magnetic moment. All ot her "particles" are transitory; they come as resonances and eventually decay into the absolutely stable particles. The division of forces in nature into strong, weak and elementary was a temporary one; there is no need for such a division.<< >>REFERENCES 1) Nature editorial, 273,497 (1978) . . 12) A.O Barut, PHys Letters 73B. 310 (1978) 13) A.O Barut, and J.P Crawford, Phys. Letters 82B, 233 (1979) 14) S.L Glashow, Comments Nucl. Part PHys. 8, 105 (1978) . . .<< Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 06:17:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 06:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:10:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood To: vortex-l@esk imo.com Subject: Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"2uVQG1.0.3P5.nK04q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10551 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:23:45 +0000, Ed Wall wrote: > [snip] > >As I remember it, the conundrum was posed by Bertrand Russell, and it > >goes something like this: Is the set of all sets which are not members of > >themselves a member of the set? If it is a member, there is a contradiction > >in that it is a set which is a member of itself and therefore not > >qualified to be a member of the set; and if it isn't a member, it is not > >a member of itself, and therefore must be included in the set of all sets > >which are not members of themselves. > > > >The idea Kosko was leaning toward was that here was an example of the > >intersection of set A and not-A being a non-empty set; that Aristotle was > >wrong in insisting that a logical proposition was either true or not true. > >When Russell raised this paradox, it stumped a lot of people (like me), some > >of whom insisted that this was a linguistic problem, not a logic problem. > >If it is a semantic problem, what is it? > > > >At one time, Euclidian geometry was the only conceivable representation of > >physical space. Are we fooling ourselves about logic in a similar way > >(assuming GR is correct)? > [snip] > Personally, I like Russell's solution to all paradoxes: There aren't > any. In short there is no set that is the set of all sets that are not > members of themselves. Precisely because this would lead to a paradox. > I have a vague feeling that it is the logical equivalent of "out of > phase" wave annihilation. Mathematics/logic may be a theory of the same character as a physical theory... i.e. you might get some correct predictions in using it as a tool, but that doesn't mean the interpretation is "right". For hose of this bent, here's a new interesting book (b lurb taken from amazon.com): --------- What Is Mathematics, Really by Reuben Hersh Hardcover, 384 pages Published by Oxford Univ Pr (Trade) Publication date: July 1, 1997 ISBN: 0195113683 Synopsis: Platonism is the most pervasive philosophy of mathematics. Indeed, it can be argued that an articulate, half-conscious Platonism is nearly universal among mathematicians. In this book, renowned mathematician Reuben Hersh takes this philosophy to task, subversively attacking the traditional philosophies of mathematics, most notably, Platonism and formalism. [also constructivism] [argues for socio-historic interpretation] ------------ Todd Heywood X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 06:44:17 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 06:20:34 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:18:37 +0200 From: Vicente Jose Ramos Orenga Reply-To: vramos@ctv.es To: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tesla Car Circuit References: Resent-Message-ID: <"YYEsO.0.b32.XS04q"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/485 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com John R. Tooker wrote: > > Hi Folks, :) > I was toying with a few ideas re the tesla electric car circuits described > in the Teslafe material. > I thought of replaceing the vacuum tubes with 2N2222 transistors, and the > resistors with trim pots, to tune them to the right resistance. > Any thoughts re component values, diode choices, or anything like that? > Thanks in advance! > Regards, > John John A 80 HP electric motor uses 60000 W to run. Do you think this power can be generated with the valves described?. Remember these circuits not are officials. If this car not used battery, how valves were heated?. Some similar appears on the Moray device: Officially not have any battery, but have some conventional valves (except the misterious valve). How valves were heated? 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 Fri Sep 5 08:07:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:03:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 08:20:25 -0500 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, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, mark.d.hugo@nspco.com Subject: Blue re: Carrell: Inside the CG Cell Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"9lBS3.0.N22.Sz14q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10558 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 belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA10225 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot21.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA52593; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:02:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199709051402.KAA52593 pilot21.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Carrell: Inside the CG Cell To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:02:28 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340FFA67.3F93@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 5, 97 07:26:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Isn't Mike just a little far out on the limb when he suggests that he can deduce what actually occurs inside a CG cell by an examination of its structure? As he says, there may or may not be arcing and the cell pressure may or may not reach 4 atm. The fluid may or may not boil, but it could bubble and spatter about even if it does not boil. And if the walls remain cooler than the fluid isn't it possible that condensation on the walls occurs? I would say that the fact that a copper flake was formed in at least one run gives a pretty clear indication that significant mass transfer is occurring by some means other than benign electrolysis. How can you decide what is off limits as a potential so urce when you have no better understanding of what occurs in the cell than Mike's speculations? This is a classic example of people making all sorts of totally wild assertions on the basis of some very weak evidence derived from a poorly designed and poorly executed experiment. By the way, what's wrong with the notion that a simple count of nucleons makes it clear that the observed "products" cannot be derived from thorium anyway by any reasonable means? Are we not allowed to use simple reason to evaluate these claims? Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 06:42:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 06:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:23:58 -0400 From: Gene <76570.2270 compuserve.com> Subject: NEW! Infinite Energy Web Site To: VORTEX Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"y8IX22.0.T46.nc04q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10553 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vortexians: Our NEW Infinite Energy WWW site is now up as of 9/4/97, thanks to the great efforts of our resident WWW expert, Jeremy Slayton. http://www.infinite-energy.com We are still "under construction," so please excuse gaps. What you will see is just the beginning of an expanded effort to get information out to experts and to the general public. Enjoy! Best wishes, Gene Mallove 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 editor infinite-energy.com http://www.infinite-energy.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 06:44:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 06:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:27:50 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Okamoto / cross posting To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"H56Ax1.0.nC6.4f04q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10554 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex It turns out Makoto Okamoto really has moved to Tohoku Nat. U. He still has some projects going at Tokyo Inst. Of Technology, he is dividing his time between them. I thought the reporter was confused. Scott Little would like to improve "our email morass" by inviting people to join this discussion group, instead of cross posting messages with extensive headers like this: To: rbrtbass pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, storms ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, design73@aol.com . . . Well . . . I recommend you chop out these extensive Internet headers. My Pascal program does that for me. I think Scott means that we should refrain from cross-posting. I have cross posted messages occasionally, including sci.physics.fusion postings and private communications. Yesterday Rich Murray and I jumped the gun and posted the same two messages from Hu go and Liversage. That doesn't happen very often. I think they were particularly important & informative messages. I do not think inviting people would help reduce the morass much, because: * Hugo and a few others have told me that a strange technical limitation prevents them from signing up or posting. * Several people have told me they don't have the time to "wade through" Vortex messages. I don't know what they mean, frankly. It never takes me any time. That's why God gave us the Page Down key. * There are different forums for different purposes, and different tastes. The regular contributors to sci.physics.fusion are probably not interested in this forum, and vice versa. Occasionally a message of common interest will appear there, which deserve s to be cross posted. As I have said, I think Rich Murray goes a bit overboard and cross-posts messages that deserve to be ignored. * Many of the people on Robert Bass's mailing list, like Morrison and Jones, would not be interested in this forum. They do not post in any forum as far as I know. I expect they ignore Bass's messages. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 08:10:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:59:18 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:02:42 -0500 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, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, mark.d.hugo@nspco.com, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.ch, design73@aol.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, bockris@chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, ghlin greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, ceti@onramp.net, dennis@wazoo.com Subject: Wanker Resent-Message-ID: <"3ZS6R3.0.H67.5v14q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10556 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 5, 1997 Dear all, We are an all, in that there is only one source, which expresses itself within itself as an endlessly creative process, a minute aspect of which seems to us to be us and our evolving universe. This creativity fluorishes when communication is free, when all players are sharing a commitment to truly express and to truly listen, putting aside all lessor, outdated, less productive stances. So, the scientific ethic, which is an expression of the fu ndamental Golden Rule known to Christianity and other traditions, is a advance in our race's progress toward unity, peace, creativity, and prosperity. Several wonderful, competent players have written to me that they are reluctant to participant in Vortex-L, because of the danger of being flamed. That accounts for some of the "spamming" I do, sending them posts that they value. I've found that people flamed as "stupid" often supply cogent, helpful comments, that benefit us all. The discussion that results from a "stupid" post can be very constructive, indeed. There is a difference between humor or mild to testy sarcasm, and disfunctional, abusive invective, emotionally rejecting and excluding the other. I try to focus on message, not messenger, motive, or membership. We need at all times to be aware of and beware a "circle the wagons" stance that views all disagreement as betrayal. This will create a closed network of "insiders" who set up the isolation they fear, and within which sphere of isolation, deprived of ess ential feedback, they repeat their mistakes. Rich Murray Received: from kosal0.triumf.ca (kosal0.Triumf.CA [142.90.107.10]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA24800 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by kosal0.triumf.ca; id AA07586; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 05:28:17 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 05:28:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Sevior To: Rich Murray Subject: Re: Murray on stainless steel in CG report In-Reply-To: <340F8044.5653@earthlink.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > I was struck by Mike Carrell's [I've spelled it right this time. By the > way, according to Chris Tinsley, my middle name is spelled, "Wanker." > What does that mean? I truly fear to know.. ] Wanker is ENGLISH for Masturbator. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 08:06:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 11:02:56 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com References: <19970904002343.AAA16933 HOME> Resent-Message-ID: <"j5ZNc1.0.wz1._w14q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10557 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:23 PM 9/4/97 -0500, Zack Widup wrote: >Sounds like some of the games presented in GODEL, ESCHER, BACH: AN ETERNAL >GOLDEN BRAID by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Exactly, GEB is an attempt to help people understand that there are some problems that cannot be solved. A lot of computer science is devoted to working around the implications of the halting problem. There are lots of questions that an implementation of H could answer, but the limit exists. For example, it is possible to write computer programs for which the halting question can be answered, but there are real problems which cannot be solved by such programs. Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself? Computer scientists can answer that question easily: Not only is that question not computable, but many questions about the membership of the set are uncomputable. 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 Sep 5 09:32:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:17:26 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:17:16 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"k2uVP2.0.7J3.K234q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10559 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Ross Tessien wrote: Are Your INVERSTOR)s( on >the Good-guy side?? (hope not military again).. humm people for >Fire-wood.. Private sector. If I am shut down in any way, Vor's will find out the details first. >good luck Thanks, Work is underway. But there is a lot of fabrication, and on my budget progress will be slow and methodical (ie don't hold your breath for results as I cannot yet afford to construct the devices I really want to use. But the funding discussions a re going well, and two groups have asked for a third meeting with physicists. So two fish on line, hopefully the frying pan is hot enough to fry them and get the funding. And hopefully that when they sizzle, the technology is hot enough to fry the nucle i into pieces. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 10:01:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:41:37 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:41:27 -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: <"uv3YO2.0.hJ5.-O34q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10560 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Wouldn't this imply that as some of the wave energy coming from space >is reflected upward by the disk, there would be less of it below the >disk, so things below the disk should also weigh less? >(There is also the fact to consider that it should also reflect >downward some of the incident energy coming from the direction of the >earth, so maybe one needs to take both into account). >Robin van Spaandonk Greetings; There are a couple of possible explanations I have been able to think of when trying to apply my theories to that experiment. There is reflection, and there is aether pumping. But I think that if the process is a reflection one, then yes, the masses should weigh less beneath the thing too. If it is pumping, then there are two options. Either the aether can be getting pumped axially up through the lattice of the SC. Or, the a ether can be getting pumped in from a radial line and then be deflected vertically upward. In either case, there should be another region around that thing that is exhibiting an anamolous thrust toward the device, thus conserving the effect of thrust. ie, this is not a case of QM mystery where we need to think that action and reaction are not always there. I believe that notion in QM is false, and that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When applied to the two slit experiment and electron waves spreading out across space, I think that QM notion is silly. What is being observed is how the electron standing wave is interacting with the spacetime waves in the region the electron is moving through. Ergo, I believe the electron has position and momentum, but that we are unable to track it because **spacetime** is inherently noisy, and **not** because the electron is inherently unpredictable. >From an experimental basis, the above can be considered semantics because we cannot measure things at the Planck scale. But as in the above experiment, if you believe that things can occur due to magic, then you quit looking for what caused them to happ en. Somewhere, if the Tampere stuff is real, there is a reaction. It is possible, however, that the reaction could be really subtle, ie like a torque induced on the rotation as the aether is pumped through the thing. So don't hold your breath for anyone to prove the above statements correct any time soon. They don't yet understand what to do to increase the effect. That is the second project I want to tackle, after I get the atom cracker working and producing energy. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:30:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:49:52 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 11:54:04 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Blue on subtleties of radioactive decay chains] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"BDu5v2.0.UQ1._O44q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10563 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from iceland.it.earthlink.net (iceland-c.it.earthlink.net [204.119.177.28]) by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA15682; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vogmudet (1Cust49.max2.albuquerque.nm.ms.uu.net [153.34.14.49]) by iceland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27069; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <340C9BFB.2ACA earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 18:06:35 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, jaeger eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, rmills blacklightpower.com, wrgood@earthlink.net, davidk@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, kirk.shanahan srs.gov Subject: Blue on subtleties of radioactive decay chains Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from pilot14.cl.msu.edu (pilot14.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.24]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23146 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot14.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA74235; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199709021428.KAA74235 pilot14.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Murray's summary/analysis of CG Report To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340BA5BD.4BFA@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 2, 97 00:35:57 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Rich, Very Good! There is much about the cell design and experimental protocol that remains to be explained. How do these people arrive at these methods? Of course it becomes a typical response when anyone attempts to replicate this kind of experiment that they must stick absolutely to this protocol, even to details that are not specified. Hence, no one is likely to achieve replication in spite of the fact the the Cincy Group claims to be able to repeat this performance every time. Well, if Bass is truly interested in improving the experiment I would suggest a major upgrade in the activity measurements. Unless they make measurements that identify very specifically the radiation being detected there simply is no way to tell what acc ounts for any shifts in count rate. First it should be recognized that Thorium is NOT very active! That means that any number of other radiation sources can dominate the observed activity -- even at chemical concentrations below the limits for analytic chemistry of any sort. And, as a radi oisotope, thorium is automatically a source of its own contamination! So when you go to the store to buy thorium nitrate what is it you are actually purchasing? In other words, how well do the Cincy Group know their starting material? The answer, I suspect, is that they probably don't know what they have to start with so any comparison with what remains at the end is equally in doubt. Just for the sake of argument let's describe a simple case of a radioisotope that decays to a single daughter that is, in turn, radioactive. After an appropriate period of time the relative concentration of daughter to mother approaches secular equilibri um. What is the ratio of daughter atoms to the mother atoms? It's in proportion to their half-lives. So, for example, if the mother has a half-life of 10^10 years and the daughter has a half-life of 1 year the mother will be contaminated by the daughter at a level of 1 in 10^10 -- hardly significant from the standpoint of analytic chemistry. However the next question is what is the ratio of activities of daughter to mother? The answer is that the ACTIVITIES ARE EQUAL!!!!! So take a look at the thorium decay chain. It starts with 232Th, goes through alpha decay and two beta decays to produce 228Th which has a half-life of about 2 years. So if one starts with natural thorium and does a perfect chemical separation to remove absolutely everything but thorium you still have 228Th present at the level of 1 in 10^10 I suppose, and it's activity matches that of the 232Th. Now it's likely much more complex than that. I doubt that the chemical purity of the starting material is perfect. Shall we say the purity is at the parts per million level? What other activities can we essential count on being present at levels suffic ient to influence the measurements as reported by the Cinci Group? Let's make a list. 232Th (1.4 E10 yrs) 228Ra (6.7 yrs) 228Ac (6.1 hrs) 228Th (1.9 yrs) 224Ra (3.64 days) 220Rn (51.5 sec) 216Po (0.16 sec) So my assertion would be that the starting material is likely contaminated with perhaps half a dozen other activities that are comparable to the 232Th activity. It seems unlikely to me that you could even maintain the activity at a constant value through out a chemical process if you were determined to do so. So what does the fact that the activity changes prove? Absolutely nothing! So the radiochemical aspects of the Cinci experiment are total hog wash. If Bass is serious about wanting to improve these experiments there is certainly room for improvement there. Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 10:10:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:56:47 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: CuH Re: R. Bass on CincyGrp Claims Resent-Message-ID: <"w2hSh2.0.9M6.Mf34q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10561 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >.01%. (With MoH being a WELL KNOWN hydride.) I would be >interested in anyone producing a literature reference showing >Cu forming a "stable" hydride of any sort. Not to detract from the comments, as this is an interesting post. But check out your CRC Chemistry and Physics. A lot of elements form hydrides, and copper is one of them. See, CuH But it has a note, "exist?" which is the abbreviation for existence. And it also gives solubility properties of insoluble in water. So I don't know if this is an affirmation of existence or not. But it seems to be in that it gives color etc. for the s tuff. Well, I thought this would be a simple slam dunk, but it isn't. Aldrich doesn't list it for sale. ?????Ross X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:07:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:01:00 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Schwarz on CG report Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"owj4F2.0.6A1.fW44q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10564 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by finland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA15287 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id GAA03581; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mica (world.std.com) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA01684; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:26:19 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970903062144.006d7674 world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 06:21:44 +0000 To: rmforall earthlink.net From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post In-Reply-To: <340CF479.289A@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:24 AM 9/3/97 -0500, Richard Murray wrote: >Sept. 3 1997 > the >processed thorium test sample, shows > undeniable evidence for much release of elements from the stainless >steel end caps and axial rod: Fe, Ni, Cr, and, I think it is reasonable >to suppose, Cu, Ti, V, Co, Mo, and perhaps even Pb. The components of SS are well known, and only few select types, if any, have the materials which you suggest. For example, "weathering steel" and the Mo. Suggest you read, H.Uhlig, Corrosion and Corrosion Control. Their compositions like the glass in glass electrodes are well known and a science in itself. =============================================== > This data at a >glance proves that the stainless steel was the major player in the cell >electrolysis, gaskets notwithstanding. So, of course it is > essential to know what is in stainless steel in general and in these >specific components, and to inspect their physical condition carefully >for electrolytic > corrosion and redeposition. If there was "redeposition", it would deposit on the same surface. Perhaps you mean codeposition or electrodeposition to the cathode. =============================================== >Joe Champion has clarified that the mysterious amu 32 is probably O2, >the very staff of life. So in # 2 and #3, the puzzles at amu 64 and 65 >could be O4 and O4H, if such beasties exist. Water is the staff of life, and oxygen is the electronegative electron collector (that forms more water with transfer of four (4) electrons). BTW, many terrestrial lifeforms dont even use oxygen, which is toxic unless the life form has catalases, superoxide dismutases, and singlet oxygen inactivators. Real moeities (not beasties) include O2, O2-., OH-, OH., ... with dimers occuring infrequently unless held (chelated) by usually Group VIII metals in their reduced electronic (i.e. ferrous as opposed to ferric) states. When such coupling occurs, the re is usual intramolecular electron transfer, and sometimes even antiferromagnetic properties appearing. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:23:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:03:12 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"NVpKJ1.0.7L1.Sd44q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10566 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pilot16.cl.msu.edu (pilot16.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.26]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA14955 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot16.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id JAA79742; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:54:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199709031354.JAA79742 pilot16.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:54:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340CF479.289A@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 3, 97 00:24:09 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Rich, The notion that the stainless steel vessel remains inert and untouched through the CG process is, of course, totally unreasonable. As to what is in that stainless steel, it likely has everything. Starting with the basic alloy of iron, nickel, and chromi um, depending on the specific alloy type, there can be a variety of additives that serve to improve corrosion resistance, stabalize the crystal structure when the material is heated, improve fabrication and machining characteristics, etc. First guess wou ld be that it is a free-machining 304 alloy, but it's not up to us to guess, is it? Now we see that when anyone suggests ways to significantly improve the CG experiments they start crying that they don't have the financial resources to do a proper experiment. I could suggest a very simple, inexpensive way to reduce the chemical interact ion between the electrolyte and the stainless steel -- assuming for mechanical reasons that it must be steel. They could apply a protective coat to the stainless. A number of things come to mind. Polyvinylacetate is one coating I have used. Anyone can do it. I also understand that there are shops that repair leaky gas tanks by applying a similar coating. I am sure that CG could find a shop that would do the job for a few bucks. However, I don't see that the CG experiment merits any attention. It is an outrageous claim backed by very poor experimentation. Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:11:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:59:56 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:04:08 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Murray's Blue viewpoint]] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"SEiba.0.Ow1.RY44q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10565 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pilot16.cl.msu.edu (pilot16.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.26]) by holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA07960 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot16.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA36920; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:55:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199709031455.KAA36920 pilot16.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Murray's Blue viewpoint] To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:55:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340CD84B.9C2@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 2, 97 10:23:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain > to establish truth. > > There is the existence proof, the finding that a phenomenon or datum > exists. All that is necessary is that the report or reports are not > deliberate fiction or error. If you were diligent in research, following up > on references in IE, here on Vortex and the Web pages -- you would find > ample, mutually supporting evidence in anecdotal reports and detailed, > technical papers for the excess heat signature of the P&F effect. Not only > the excess heat, but the production of helium and other nuclear ash > (transmutations) in well constructed, well documented reports, such as > Arata's. If you do not see this, please look in that mirror of yours and > see a person in denial. > that they exist. Mike Carrol, I believe, fails to recognize that the results of a poorly designed and poorly executed experiment cannot constitute "proof" of anything significant. The mere fact that someone reports a result still leaves open, as Mike notes, the possibili ty for error. Some errors are easy to spot, and when they are noted and substantiated that should be the end of the story. However, in CF research the advocates have been unwilling to acknowledge these errors and to respond appropriately. Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have detected neutron emission in their first experiments. They made a serious and obvious blunder which was quickly pointed out to them. That should have been the end of that! More recently George Miley made a number of significant and obvious errors in his report of "massive nuclear transmutations." These were called to his attention by Rich Murray and I. There simply is no question that the Miley claim that silicon and tita nium were detected with unnatural abundance ratios is correct. His data clearly show them present with natural abundances. Miley acknowledged "typographical" errors in his report, but has never done anything to clear up these questions. The list of errors that have been noted in relation to CF claims is very large and growing larger so one simply cannot reasonably be too accepting of such claims. > > A third level of proof, or test, is the exact characterization of a > phenomenon to form a reliable base on which a theoretical structure can be > built. We are decades away from this. > Here, I think, is where Mike and I clearly part company. To postpone this third level of proof, or test, to the indefinite future decades away simply is to put off any rational evaluation of assorted experimental claims in some broader general context. C laims that clearly violate all the basic tenants of physics cannot be evaluated in a context that assumes that the laws of physics still do apply. CF advocates have repeatedly attempted to escape from the constraints of quantum mechanics while invoking a ll sorts of wierd and unconfirmed quantum effects. Mills advocates an obvious violation of Maxwell's equations with a theory that, he claims, has its roots in Maxwell's equations. To attempt to interpret experimental results without the guidance of a general understanding of the physics and chemistry of the systems under investigation is to invite a departure from rational investigation into the kind of never-never land between fac t and fancy. For example, to assert that thorium is converted into titanium and copper without ever attempting to account for all the nucleons is just absurd. Would you advocate that nuclear matter is simply lost or destroyed by a bit of cooking in a st ainless steel pot? My assertion has long been that this third level of proof must be a part of any investigation right from the beginning. No experimental data can be properly evaluated or interpreted outside the context of "theory". You can't, for example, do calorimetry without thermodynamics. The fact that CF investigators and their supporters have been unwilling or unable to place their claims in a theoretical context is one clear indication that something is wrong with these data! To ignore the most glaring signs that data is bogus will not further these investigations. It simply leaves everyone to pursue false leads in a misuse of their limited resources As for my criticisms having been "shredded," I would say I have been on the mark pretty well for nearly eight years. I invite anyone to discuss any of the issues I raise publically or privately so if you have a bone to pick with me, please state your ca se on any specific point. Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 10:15:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:08:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood To: vortex-l@esk imo.com Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"LfEJ_2.0.cq6.Qp34q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10562 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > At 11:23 PM 9/4/97 -0500, Zack Widup wrote: > > >Sounds like some of the games presented in GODEL, ESCHER, BACH: AN ETERNAL > >GOLDEN BRAID by Douglas R. Hofstadter. > > Exactly, GEB is an attempt to help people understand that there are some > problems that cannot be solved. A lot of computer science is devoted to > working around the implications of the halting problem. There are lots of > questions that an implementation of H could answer, but the limit exists. > For example, it is possible to write computer programs for which the > halting question can be answered, but there are real problems which cannot > be solved by such programs. > > Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of > itself? > > Computer scientists can answer that question easily: > > Not only is that question not computable, but many questions about the > membership of the set are uncomputable. Not so easy. First, (un)computability and "problems that cannot be solved" are based on the assumption that a certain mechanism (Turing machine) is the only possible way to ask/solve problems. "Turing mechanics" can be shown to be equivalent to Newtonian mechanics (deterministic transitions), and to quantum mechanics with probabilistic transitions. So if there are *real* phenomena at odds with mainstream physical theory (here's the connection to vortex-l... back on topic!) then there may be non-Turing way s to ask/solve *real* problems which cannot be solved currently. Second, computability theory is built using diagonalization arguments, i.e. proof by contradiction/paradox. Using paradoxes to reason about logical paradoxes is a bit weird to say the least. Todd Heywood X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:22:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:07:34 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:11:43 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"nhRBe.0.xN2.af44q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10567 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Received: from pilot16.cl.msu.edu (pilot16.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.26]) by slovakia.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA14955 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot16.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id JAA79742; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:54:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199709031354.JAA79742 pilot16.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Murray re CG report, Carrel post To: rmforall@earthlink.net Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:54:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <340CF479.289A@earthlink.net> from "Rich Murray" at Sep 3, 97 00:24:09 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain Rich, The notion that the stainless steel vessel remains inert and untouched through the CG process is, of course, totally unreasonable. As to what is in that stainless steel, it likely has everything. Starting with the basic alloy of iron, nickel, and chromi um, depending on the specific alloy type, there can be a variety of additives that serve to improve corrosion resistance, stabalize the crystal structure when the material is heated, improve fabrication and machining characteristics, etc. First guess wou ld be that it is a free-machining 304 alloy, but it's not up to us to guess, is it? Now we see that when anyone suggests ways to significantly improve the CG experiments they start crying that they don't have the financial resources to do a proper experiment. I could suggest a very simple, inexpensive way to reduce the chemical interact ion between the electrolyte and the stainless steel -- assuming for mechanical reasons that it must be steel. They could apply a protective coat to the stainless. A number of things come to mind. Polyvinylacetate is one coating I have used. Anyone can do it. I also understand that there are shops that repair leaky gas tanks by applying a similar coating. I am sure that CG could find a shop that would do the job for a few bucks. However, I don't see that the CG experiment merits any attention. It is an outrageous claim backed by very poor experimentation. Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:33:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 14:22:18 -0400 From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701 compuserve.com> Subject: [off topic] A Mother To: vortex-l Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"xwlbp2.0.by1.uz44q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10568 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mother Teresa had no material possessions and lived a fulfilling life. Princess Diana had no wants but lived a life of emptiness. Will we ever get the message? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:47:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:30:20 -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, 5 Sep 1997 13:23:07 -0500 References: <3410392C.5D0D earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Blue Resent-Message-ID: <"-cTua3.0.UR3.w-44q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10570 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 5, 12:50pm, Rich Murray wrote: > Dick Blue Why is this conversation 3rd party? This is insane. If Blue can't or won't join this list officially there is probably a good reason for it. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:30:17 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:23:22 -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, 5 Sep 1997 13:23:11 -0500 References: <3410392C.5D0D earthlink.net> To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Blue Resent-Message-ID: <"AgUSK3.0.5A3.Pu44q" mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/504 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 5, 12:50pm, Rich Murray wrote: > Dick Blue Why is this conversation 3rd party? This is insane. If Blue can't or won't join this list officially there is probably a good reason for it. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 11:33:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:32:52 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Arcing in CG Cell? Resent-Message-ID: <"gwbrn2.0.K02.F_44q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10569 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com IN the recent discussion there have been speculations that the cell produces electrical arcs during operation. I present some thoughts on this topic. 1. The AC voltage is large enough to sustain an arc once established, but it is too low to start an arc. There would have to be some other mechanism present to start an arc. 2. Arcs leave melted spots and/or tracks on the electrodes. These are readily visible. Either they are there or they are not. 3. I estimated the resistance of the solution from data from AgNO3 solution conductivity, the closest data I had available. For the dimensions of the cell and the amount of solution contacting the electrodes, The 50 ohm or so resistance at moderate tempe rature is entirely plausible for 0.25 g Th nitrate in 25 g H2O. I do not have data for ionic conductivities at higher temperatures, but it is well known that they increase quite strongly with temperature. Therefore, I do not see the need to invoke an arc hypothesis. 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 Sep 5 13:32:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:38:10 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Arcing in CG Cell? Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:37:30 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"IxYae.0.gh6.X-54q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10571 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:32 PM 9/5/97 +0000, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: >IN the recent discussion there have been speculations that the cell >produces electrical arcs during operation. I present some thoughts on this >topic. > >1. The AC voltage is large enough to sustain an arc once established, but >it is too low to start an arc. There would have to be some other mechanism >present to start an arc. I have found that localized arcing in electrolytes is a "different breed of cat" as opposed to carbon arcs or arcs in gases. You can "flash anodize" aluminum with a sulphuric acid or molybdic acid solution by making a piece of aluminum the anode, using 120/240 v.a.c. and a half-wave rectifier and dipping it into a metal can (cathode). The aluminum piece will arc something fierce as you immerse it into the electrolyte and anodize almost as fast as you can dip it. Reliable rubber gloves are required as you do this! > >2. Arcs leave melted spots and/or tracks on the electrodes. These are >readily visible. Either they are there or they are not. Yes. A great way to change the end of a screwdriver. :-) > >Therefore, I do not see the need to invoke an arc >hypothesis. What is the voltage of the "cell"? The arcing tends to be at the contact point of the liquid-air surface and the electrodes. Regards, Frederick > >Michael J. Schaffer > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 13:39:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:28:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:26:41 -0500 From: Craig Haynie Reply-To: ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [off topic] A Mother References: <199709051426_MC2-1F51-44E3 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"uPlZ_1.0.fd.Rj64q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10572 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Terry Blanton wrote: > > Mother Teresa had no material possessions and lived a fulfilling life. > > Princess Diana had no wants but lived a life of emptiness. How do you know? I wouldn't make these assumptions. > Will we ever get the message? Not from this data. Craig Haynie X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 13:56:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:43:08 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Dick Blue? Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 20:40:21 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"4cXo43.0.1G1.Qx64q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10574 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John E. Steck wrote: > >Why the third Party? > Gee, John. Figured you would remember Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 13:56:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 15:41:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Blue Resent-Message-ID: <"dTID42.0.QF6.9x64q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10573 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 13:23 9/5/97 -0500, John E. Steck wrote: >> Dick Blue > >Why is this conversation 3rd party? This is insane. If Blue can't or won't >join this list officially there is probably a good reason for it. Yeah, Rich. I'd like to see the extensive 3rd party conversations disappear from Vortex. An occasional posting of something outstanding said by a 3rd party is fine but not a daily deluge... any other votes for this to stop? Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 16:00:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: mwm@aa.net Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 15:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:18:41 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Blue To: vortex-l eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gIj232.0.jY3.9s84q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10575 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott, > any other votes for this to stop? Oh, please, PLEASE! I'm getting stuff of - ah - "varying quality" repeated endlessly from various sources. And for some curious reason the posts get longer and longer - and contain less and less. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 17:47:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 17:34:49 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thorium again References: <970823115912_100433.1541_BHG40-1 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"J85OU.0.9q6.xLA4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10577 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris Tinsley wrote: > > My congratulations 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. > Chris, you sound like you just fell off the turnip truck, as we say out west. This is really just "De ja vu all over again", as we also say. CETI has been selling cheap kits for many months now, with no indications of any results pro or con. You and Scot t Little essentially had Ragland Triode kits, with no meaningful results. Potapov and Griggs have been selling "working version" of their cavitation devices for several years now, with no definitive test results. Joe Champion has been pushing his processe s for nearly 10 years, with no definitive results. I agree its great that someone making an anomalous claim is willing to provide others with the information/hardware to test those claims. But, as the above examples show, there does not necessarily seems to come any satisfactory resolution from this proce ss. I find it hard to get excited about---I will not be at all surprised if a year from now the CG's results are simply mired in controversy, and stay that way for an indefinite time. There are certainly examples of such occuring...and we just eventually decide to ignore them if enough time goes by. -- 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 Sep 5 18:02:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:19:38 -0700 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: protech frii.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 18:13:33 -0700 Organization: ProTech Subject: Re: X-Posting & Evans/Bearden Correspondence Resent-Message-ID: <"XaIlQ.0.Fb3.P6A4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10576 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com RE: Rich's tedious cross posts They can be made to disappear via a filter or by using the delete key. However, I agree that the list would be nicer if these folks would do their own posts. Some interesting correspondence between Myron Evans and Tom Bearden can be seen at: http://www.europa.com/~rsc/physics the files a re labled Bearden 1thru 5 Ron X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 18:46:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:43:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Thorium again Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 01:41:19 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"O9CR1.0.LU1.mKB4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10579 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: >I agree its great that someone making an anomalous claim >is willing to provide others with information/hardware >to test those claims. Oh yes, Lord! It has only been about half-a-century that the A.E.C., E.R.D.A, and now D.O.E., and what next, has been selling Hot Fusion "Kits" too big to send by mail. :-) >I will not be at all surprised if a year from now CG's results >are simply mired in controversy, and stay that way for an indefinite >time. Talk about "De ja vu all over again". Must be contagious. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 19:29:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:25:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Thorium again Resent-Message-ID: <"8V1UF2.0.Fp2.JzB4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10580 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:41 AM 9/6/97 +0000, Barry Merriman wrote: >I will not be at all surprised if a year from now CG's results >are simply mired in controversy, and stay that way for an indefinite >time. I'm beginning to wonder if Infinite Energy refers not to how much we're going to get out of these phenomena but to how much we have to expend to find one that really works! Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 19:29:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:27:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 22:27:29 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward X-Sender: lewis3@st aff1.cso.uiuc.edu To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: web site Resent-Message-ID: <"wmExZ3.0.Pe.M-B4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10581 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I have new articles up on my web site. Most are about ball lightning. One is about superconductivity. If you are interested in the topic of scientific revolutions, paradigms, crisis periods, or economic depressions, you'll find an abstract to a long book I have written. I am selling copies of this for 35 dollars. If people have tried to email me and I haven't responded, please try again. I realized that the email link on the web site didn't work. If atoms dissipate sufficiently, what should remain is a proton or neutron or something smaller. But I don't think that the proton or neutron was actually inside. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 18:34:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:26:39 -0700 (PDT) From: olso3562@novell.uidaho.edu Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:31:50 -0800 Subject: GR problem Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"7DDQK1.0.Fy.D5B4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10578 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts All! I've got another spinning paradox for you vorts to look at. The problem is this. If gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, what happens when you have a charged particle in orbit around a gravity source? As far as the charged particle is c oncerned, his centripetal acceleration is balanced by the acceleration of gravity. Not accelerating. But from an observer's view far enough away from the gravity source, the particle is in uniform circular motion and thus is accelerating. So the observer would expect the charged particle to radiate its energy away and fall into the gr avity source, but this is at odds with what someone floating along with the electron would have the right to observe! HELP! BTW, thanks for the opinions on the length contraction of a spinning ring a month or so ago. :) JAY X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 20:47:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 20:45:51 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 22:15:27 -0500 From: George Marklin Reply-To: marklin@flash.net Organization: Internet Physics Academy To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem References: <1F3EC13FFE hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"XD7S62.0.X23.k7D4q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10582 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu wrote: > > Gnorts All! > > I've got another spinning paradox for you vorts to look at. The > problem is this. If gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, > what happens when you have a charged particle in orbit around a > gravity source? As far as the charged particle is concerned, his > centripetal acceleration is balanced by the acceleration of gravity. > Not accelerating. But from an observer's view far enough away from > the gravity source, the particle is in uniform circular motion and > thus is accelerating. So the observer would expect the charged > particle to radiate its energy away and fall into the gravity source, > but this is at odds with what someone floating along with the > electron would have the right to observe! HELP! BTW, thanks for the > opinions on the length contraction of a spinning ring a month or so > ago. :) > > JAY There is no problem here. The charged particle is in free-fall and not accelerating, as measured from any local inertial frame. So there is no radiation. The distant observer, seeing the circular motion, might naively think there is acceleration and wo nder why he sees no radiation, but if he knows his GR he will realize that the absense of radiation proves that there must be a gravitational source at the center of the orbit and he will even be able to calculate its mass. George Marklin marklin flash.net X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 21:15:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:12:42 -0700 X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 04:12:08 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"h5GxN1.0.EI5.uWD4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10583 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:02 PM 9/5/97 +0000, Robert Eachus wrote: >At 11:23 PM 9/4/97 -0500, Zack Widup wrote: > >>Sounds like some of the games presented in GODEL, ESCHER, BACH: AN ETERNAL >>GOLDEN BRAID by Douglas R. Hofstadter. > > Exactly, GEB is an attempt to help people understand that there are some >problems that cannot be solved. A lot of computer science is devoted to >working around the implications of the halting problem. There are lots of >questions that an implementation of H could answer, but the limit exists. >For example, it is possible to write computer programs for which the >halting question can be answered, but there are real problems which cannot >be solved by such programs. > > Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of >itself? > > Computer scientists can answer that question easily: > > Not only is that question not computable, but many questions about the >membership of the set are uncomputable. > > Robert I. Eachus Your reply begs the question. Whether or not some thing can be determined by the use of computer places an illogical (because unnecessary--it does not follow that the set of thoughts that can be modeled with imitative means constitutes the set of rationa l thoughts) restriction on the thing. Ed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 21:21:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 21:19:12 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem References: <1F3EC13FFE hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> <3410CACF.715@flash.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"rNLDK1.0.RN6.MeD4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10584 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com George Marklin wrote: > > > I've got another spinning paradox for you vorts to look at. I wish folks would post these general physics questions to sci.physics---that is the purpose of that newsgroup, and you are more likely to find someone who knows what they are talking about. There are too many people on this particular forum with the own personal views of physics to get straight answers.... > There is no problem here. The charged particle is in free-fall and > not accelerating, as measured from any local inertial frame. So > there is no radiation. Huh? That is ridiculous. Bodies in gravitational orbits are accelerated, and if they are charged they will radiate, at least by classical GR + EM. As for philosophical Machian issues, or extreme spacetime configurations, I won't vouch for that. -- 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 Sep 5 21:44:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:42:23 -0700 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 23:42:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: GR problem Resent-Message-ID: <"Fwi2R1.0.CV6.kyD4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10585 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:19 PM 9/5/97 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: >Huh? That is ridiculous. Bodies in gravitational orbits are >accelerated, and if they are charged they will radiate... Is it really accelerating, Barry? In orbit, the outward centrifugal force is precisely balanced by the inward gravitational force resulting in ZERO net force on the body. Thus, by definition, it is not accelerating....right? What about a charged body sitting still on the surface of the Earth? Is it accelerating at 1g? If so, is it radiating? Struggling with Relativity without Approaching c! -- Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 21:55:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:53:28 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 04:53:14 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199709030215.TAA07040 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"mr9un2.0.z-6.77E4q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10586 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:15:31 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >But when you send a neutron beam through a gradient magnetic field, indeed, >the neutrons do split into two distinct beams. Is this because their >imaginary charge is being forced to interact with the changing field? I >think so. [snip] Ross, Doesn't this imply that neutrinos would also be affected by a magnetic field? 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 Fri Sep 5 22:21:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 22:13:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 22:25:49 -0700 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc1.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thorium again References: <970823115912_100433.1541_BHG40-1 CompuServe.COM> <3410A529.32B7@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"9wVxw2.0.oq7.WPE4q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10587 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > I will > not be at all surprised if a year from now the CG's results are simply > mired in controversy, and stay that way for an indefinite time. > There are certainly examples of such occuring...and we just > eventually decide to ignore them if enough time goes by. > I assume the "we" refers to the mainline physics community. Since 1989, there have been many different criterea for deciding when a result constitutes proof of OU. The various goalpost positions I can remember are: 1. Experiment must have a good control. 2. Must be replicated. 3. Must be replicated by a prestigious lab. 4. A paper must be published in a quality scientific journal. 5. Detailed construction plans must be published. 6. Detailed experimental results must be published. and more recently 7. The loop must be closed (perpetual motion device constructed). It seems pretty clear that 1-6 have been achieved in several different experiments (P&F style heavy water-Pd, CETI/Mill light water Ni, and probably CG soon). But 1-6 are clearly not enough for general acceptance, given that the controversy continues. So either a new goalpost has been erected between 6 and 7, or now it takes an engineering result to convince scientists to believe their own experiments. Barry, I am curious as to where your personal goal posts are now. Could you describe an experiment or set of experiments, (short of an engineering device), that could be reported in some way by some group, which would be sufficient evidence to convince y ou that an OU/transmutation result is correct? -- Bob Horst X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 23:00:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 22:58:13 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:56:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Zack Widup Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"0fTCr3.0.hB1.p3F4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10588 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Ed Wall wrote: > At 03:02 PM 9/5/97 +0000, Robert Eachus wrote: > >At 11:23 PM 9/4/97 -0500, Zack Widup wrote: > > > >>Sounds like some of the games presented in GODEL, ESCHER, BACH: AN ETERNAL > >>GOLDEN BRAID by Douglas R. Hofstadter. > > > > Exactly, GEB is an attempt to help people understand that there are some > >problems that cannot be solved. A lot of computer science is devoted to > >working around the implications of the halting problem. There are lots of > >questions that an implementation of H could answer, but the limit exists. > >For example, it is possible to write computer programs for which the > >halting question can be answered, but there are real problems which cannot > >be solved by such programs. > > > > Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of > >itself? > > > > Computer scientists can answer that question easily: > > > > Not only is that question not computable, but many questions about the > >membership of the set are uncomputable. > > > > Robert I. Eachus > > Your reply begs the question. Whether or not some thing can be determined > by the use of computer places an illogical (because unnecessary--it does not > follow that the set of thoughts that can be modeled with imitative means > constitutes the set of rational thoughts) restriction on the thing. > > Ed > Actually, Hofstadter's brilliantly entertaining piece of work was partly to demonstrate that we humans have a quality that computers will never have. A computer can only do what it is programmed to do, but we can "step outside" and solve a certain proble m, or determine that it is unsolvable, while the computer just keeps chugging away forever getting nowhere [e.g., the "MIU Puzzle"]. Zack X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 5 23:52:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 23:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 02:28:08 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Thorium again To: vortex-l eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"c_zDM.0.ev1.-jF4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10589 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry, > Chris, you sound like you just fell off the turnip truck, as we > say out west. This is really just "De ja vu all over again", as we > also say. CETI has been selling cheap kits for many months now, > with no indications of any results pro or con. With tiresome legal strings and no money-back guarantee. That's the point, Barry. It IS different. This way if the cells are good - great. If not - we bury it. And nobody is poorer. Anyway, I'm now off-line for a week. Maybe my temper will be sweeter on my return. And maybe you'll have commented on the Nes Scientist/P&F paper. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 04:04:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 04:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:39:32 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem References: <199709060442.XAA02326 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"lkVjf.0.Xc4.0XJ4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10591 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: <..> > What about a charged body sitting still on the surface of the Earth? > Is it accelerating at 1g? If so, is it radiating? > > Struggling with Relativity without Approaching c! -- Scott Yes, GR is mostly attacked theory, because it is based on simple principles (easy to understand) and people love it the attractive discussion ambiance, a x-appeal. There is to much controversy on this law that "Accelerated charges radiates". I think the possibility that "the radiation caused by charge due acceleration" relation is incorrectly given by law or it is an approximation. This issue is major problem on EM theories. Examples: * hep-th/9707006 :Classical Electrodynamics: Problems of Radiation Reaction Author: Alexander A. Vlasov Abstract: There are known problems of Lorentz-Dirac equation for moving with acceleration charged particle in classical electrodynamics. The model of extended in one dimension particle is proposed and shown that electromagnetic self-interaction can lead ( with appropriate choice of retarded and advanced interactions) to zero change in particle momentum. The hypothesis is formulated: all relativistic internal forces of various nature can give zero change in particle momentum. * hep-th/9510051 On the necessity to reconsider the role of "action-at-a-distance" in the problem of the electro-magnetic field radiation produced by a charge moving with an acceleration along an axis Andrew E. Chubykalo * hep-th/9510052 Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: basis and application of separated potential's method Andrew E. Chubykalo, Roman Smirnov-Rueda * * * May theoretical discussions are not preferred subjects of vortex but, they can be oriented directly to the experimental basis. I would state also the experiments that I am conducting on bifilar coils are continuing and giving even more interesting results . Because lack of interest, I am not going to posting them here. So, people is most interested on "how GR to be falsified" than "how to excite a coil side way". Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 00:25:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:20:34 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 01:26:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thorium again Resent-Message-ID: <"EWt-j.0.sL3.1HG4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10590 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sounds like SMOT to me! :) On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: >>Barry, >> >> > Chris, you sound like you just fell off the turnip truck, as we >> > say out west. This is really just "De ja vu all over again", as we >> > also say. CETI has been selling cheap kits for many months now, >> > with no indications of any results pro or con. >> >>With tiresome legal strings and no money-back guarantee. That's the >>point, Barry. >> (any kits for that matter:) Both kits( CETI/SMOT ) appear to be very hard to get working (without knowing what your doing..) I'll take the easier one - the SMOT, I know what I'm doing and it is still hard!... I presume CETI is a 'bit more complicated (*KISS*)... (I do not envy anyon e in this arena but just want to say GO, GO, GO guys!) Complicity and Government GRANT Intervention (ADD) to the tiresome legal strings & 'Probably :)duh' the lack of a money back guarantee with CETI kits. Both Greg & they, I'm sure want to provide the best 'kit of the moment' as it goes out the door (persa y).. But as most agree here, nothing stands still. Yes, we all see this was step #1, step #2..etc.. But human nature wants/leads us to put a 'bow-on-the-top', so you (the kit buyer) will smile :) when you get it :) :) :) >>It IS different. This way if the cells are good - great. If not - we >>bury it. And nobody is poorer. humm, But, If I take my frozen steak out of the freezer and bury it where my dog can't find it, "nobody is richer", either. ALAS!! >> >>Anyway, I'm now off-line for a week. Maybe my temper will be sweeter >>on my return. >>And maybe you'll have commented on the Nes Scientist/P&F paper. >>Chris >> Have a GREAT retreat! We'll miss you - I'm not a huggy-buggy kind of guy, but *KISS* *KISS* anything you ponder on your mini-sebatical. :) best regards, -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 06:24:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:22:29 -0700 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: protech frii.com To: Hamdi Ucar Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 07:16:27 -0700 Organization: ProTech Subject: Re: GR problem Resent-Message-ID: <"i-2Dv2.0.Lw2.JaL4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10592 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 05-Sep-97, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >* * * >May theoretical discussions are not preferred subjects of vortex but, >they can be oriented directly to the experimental basis. I would state >also the experiments that I am conducting on bifilar coils are >continuing and giving even more interesting results. Because lack of >interest, I am not going to posting them here. So, people is most >interested on "how GR to be falsified" than "how to excite a coil side >way". Hamdi, I am interested in the reusults of your experiments. Are you going to post them on another list? Possibly you could Email them to me directly? Thank you. ____Ron X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 07:26:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:23:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:20:46 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: 72240.1256 compuserve.com, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp Subject: Re: Yomiuri article on NHE closing Resent-Message-ID: <"Fu7pK3.0.fc.BTM4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10595 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell's translation of selected portions of Hosaka's story said: "The NHE laboratory not only tested a cell from Prof. Pons, it tested other devices, including a Japanese-made one from IMRA Japan (Sapporo) that was said to have produced excess heat, and one from the U.S. SRI laboratory. The lab also tested devices desi gned in-house, but, in the final analysis, no excess heat was observed." What is known about the device from IMRA Japan (Sapporo) that did produce XSH? Why did the NHE lab choose not to follow up with that device? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 07:23:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:21:33 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:20:51 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: EM-gravity interaction Resent-Message-ID: <"qIzyp1.0.oS4.iRM4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10593 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Larry, You posted the following: "I gave a seminar on some of the modifications to the EM field that result from gravity here at GSFC and there were some experts on EM theory in the audience that totally refused to accept the results. The fact that the modifications were predicted by gen eral relativity and were needed to conserve energy seemed to have no effect of these individuals." What sorts of objections did the EM guys raise? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 07:25:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:21:06 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: VCockeram aol.com Subject: Re: Blacklightpower News Resent-Message-ID: <"iw2Uq1.0.Zb.5TM4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10594 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vince, Thanks for the update on the BlackLight Power website. Has there been anything else new on the site since May? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 07:38:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:35:22 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:35:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: GR or OU Resent-Message-ID: <"K4AU31.0._45.eeM4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10596 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:39 9/6/97 +0400, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >also the experiments that I am conducting on bifilar coils are >continuing and giving even more interesting results. Because lack of >interest, I am not going to posting them here. Hamdi, we are talking about GR because someone asked a specific question. If you have experimental results that indicate a potential for o-u behavior, please post them here. Sometimes such a post will arrive during an off-topic storm such as the Princess Diana arguments. Be patient and post again when things quiet down. We ARE interested in anomalous experimental results. Scott 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 Sat Sep 6 08:53:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:20:19 -0500 From: George Marklin Reply-To: marklin@flash.net Organization: Internet Physics Academy To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem References: <1F3EC13FFE hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> <3410CACF.715@flash.net> <3410D9C0.1B1A@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"ELFpp1.0.PS2.YmN4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10598 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > Huh? That is ridiculous. Bodies in gravitational orbits are > accelerated, and if they are charged they will radiate, ... This is not correct. Acceleration is a relative term. It depends on the frame of reference it is measured from. And all frames are not equivalent! It is only acceleration with respect to local inertial frames that leads to radiation. The body is accelerating with respect to the distant observers' frame, but that is not the frame that counts. If I viewed a stationary charge from a merry-go-round, I would also see it accelerating, but this frame is not the frame that counts eigther - and there would still be no radiation. The gravitationally orbitting body has no acceleration measured from any frame which is in free-fall at the location of the body, and these are the only frames that count. So there is no radiation. This preferred nature of local inertial frames is what leads some people to try to identify these frames with a physical ether, but it is far from clear how to do that because there are infinitely many of these frames, all moving with respect to each othe r. Dr. George Marklin marklin flash.net X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 09:00:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:27:59 -0500 From: George Marklin Reply-To: marklin@flash.net Organization: Internet Physics Academy To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem References: <199709060442.XAA02326 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"cDO_r1.0.Sf2.itN4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10599 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > What about a charged body sitting still on the surface of the Earth? Is it > accelerating at 1g? If so, is it radiating? Yes it is. It is accelerating with respect to a freely falling frame of reference so it will radiate. But a one g acceleration is very small and will not produce a *measureable* amount of radiation. George Marklin marklin flash.net X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 09:01:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: GR problem To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:47:27 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"f7Qw82.0.JJ2.kjN4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10597 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott wrote: > Barry Merriman wrote: > >Bodies in gravitational orbits are accelerated... > > Is it really accelerating, Barry? In orbit, the outward centrifugal force > is precisely balanced by the inward gravitational force resulting in ZERO > net force on the body. Thus, by definition, it is not accelerating...right? By Newton, each force is always countered by an equal and opposite force, so this approach can be confusing. If velocity is the change of distance over the change in time, then acceleration is the change in velocity over the change in time. Under this view of acceleration, orbiting bodies, and for that matter, any circular motion, involves acceleration. Again from Newton we know that objects tend to move in straight lines unless acted on by forces. So any rotating object has its various components (atoms, or smaller) constantly pulled from straight line flights into circular motions. Their velocities, a vector in a particular direction, change continuously over time, so they are accelerating continuously over time. > What about a charged body sitting still on the surface of the Earth? Is it > accelerating at 1g? If so, is it radiating? Since the dx/dt (the change in distance over the change in time, the velocity) is zero, the d2x/dt2 (did I get the notation right?) is also zero. No motion, no acceleration. However, since the Earth is rotating, the surface has a rotational velocity of about 1000 mph at the equator, a charged bodied will be experiencing an acceleration of that sort, except at the poles. -- - 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 Sep 6 09:46:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:44:21 -0700 X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 12:40:57 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Mysterious Tunnels Resent-Message-ID: <"GIzS73.0.Jd1.aXO4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10601 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:03 AM 8/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >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 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'." > Jim Soltis > Hi Jim, Vo; Can you keep Vortex advised if you, (or anyone else here,) receives more information about these experiments.? It sounds interesting. ie: What materials were used in these tunneling experiments? etc... In what journal/periodical was this published? Anyone? Thanks, Colin Quinney. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 09:45:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:42:07 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Thoughts on Light Lepton Behavior Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:41:29 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"Y0TRk3.0.mW1.UVO4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10600 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Several months ago I went to a water softener after the original one that I had, sat idle for 20 years. I noticed in My 3/4 bath that the electrical shock that I received after leaving the throne and turning on the faucet was no longer there. Mulling this over gives rise to some interesting speculation as to how Light Lepton (LL) pairs might behave in surface water that is acidic or alkaline. Or, are the pairs created in areas that tend to have lots of rainfall and are "acid soils" actually that way because of LLs produced in the atmosphere from sunlight? The oxygen end of a water molecule should attract a positive light and the positive "hydr ogen pole" of the molecule should attract the negative LL. However there shouldn't be any reaction between the LLs and the water molecule. Most of the water in the Southwest is alkaline which means a surplus of OH- ions that could react with LL+ leaving the LL- in the environment where it cannot react with an M+ alkaline (or other)metal ion because of the shielding by the electron cloud arou nd the M+ ion. On the other hand if the LL+ forms a neutral enity with the electron of the OH- releasing some 256 kev synchrotron UV radiation it will leave the reactive OH hydoxyls that can react, 2 OH = H2O + 1/2 O2. On the other hand, in acidic groundwater areas the protons are not shielded by an electron (as much) and can thus react with a LL- forming a hydrino and liberating 256 kev as synchrotron UV radiation. >From this scenario one can infer the role that the M+ of alkaline "salts" play as a carrier for the LL- species until a hydrogen atom exchanges an electron for an LL- or loses an electron enabling a reaction with the highly mobile LL- particle and hydri no formation. Lots of speculation room here, huh? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 09:59:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:52:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vorte x , John Schnurer Subject: Tracking ... Barkhausen Battery? Resent-Message-ID: <"oQhuu.0.p74.HkO4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10602 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo., With reference to B. Battery: What is the design of such a battery. John ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:47:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Richard Wayne Wall To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, rwall@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Barkhausen Battery??? BS wrote: snip > >The Barkhausen Effect Battery is discussed in an article on scalar >wave detectors, and can be found on Bill Beaty's web site, in the Not >Your Average Construction Projects section. I beleive that the title >is "Scalar Detector using the Barkhausen Effect". > >The Battery is a variation of the detector design. >There never had been a great deal of discussion of the Barkhausen >Effect battery on the list, well, not like SMOT or Newman, etc. For >some reason, it does not generate all that much interest. This may be >due to the fact that its only discussed as a sideline item to the >detector design, or it may be that I do not describe the device as a >practical power source, the output energy is quite small. > >But there is no input energy at all, and this is the most interesting >aspect of the device, with no energy input, and any output at all, >it's effiency is embarassing, as you need to divide by zero ((energy >out > (zero) / (energy in = zero )). snip Having examined and observed a working model of the Barkhausen Battery, I will attest that it works and continously and passively produces current. By anyone's standards, it is overunity and as above, over zero. There is no "programming" or priming with an outside power source. It functions totally passively. I have completed a thorough examination of this simple device and it functions as Mr. Shannon claims. There are a couple of reasons that it has not raised interest. The first is that it is confused with the Barkhausen Scalar Detector and in fact, is a first cousin to it. Most do not realize it is a coherer of energy and current producer. All be it, at this stage a small but steady and sustained current. Secondly, few have even attempted to construct it. Next, no one knows its mechanism of action. This is very important research because its power may be scaled up and enhanced once it has been investi gated. Finally, maybe Mr. Shannon will be so kind as to give some details on its construction, testing and results. The distinction between the Barkhausen Battery and Detector needs to made clear. And, possible mechanisms of action should be advanced. How much power does the prototype produce? I estimate it will power an electric wrist watch continuously. So, to all the O/U naysayers, here it is. Low power, yes, at this stage of developement. But, once it's built, investigated and engineered for higher power, no one will doubt the existance of "over unity" devices. RWW X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 10:31:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:28:40 -0700 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 22:09:41 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Summary of my current experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"U1Dam1.0.Zo2.6BP4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10603 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Ron, Scott, Dan and all Vo, Thank you for you interest. Currently I am looking for unusual behaviour of coils by their unconventional usages. I am focused originally on bifilar coils, still so, but current experiment apparently does not utilize the bifilar structure of the coil. What I am doing currently is exciting a coil by a weak magnetic coupling on frequency range of 15-100 MHz and oscillate it on its multiple resonance frequencies. As the coils are only suitable to operate conventionally below 1 MHz, driving them on frequen cies order of magnitude higher, gives unexpected results: 1) Coil behave as transmission lines a kind of LC resonance circuit at these frequency as a result of its inter-winding capacities. Q of the resonance is high. It needs to tune the frequency below 100 kHz resolution for maximum output at 42.2 MHz. 2) Nodes and auxiliary dipoles are generated along the coil according it resonance mode. 3) Magnetic flux is exiting radially from the coil on this internal dipole positions 4) Energy efficiency of the coil is better than 50%. Maybe it is close to unity, but I have not able to measure them correctly. (I am not excluding the OU possibility of course). 5) When coil are only coupled magnetically with no electrical connection, it can be thought as magnetic transmission line or magnetic flux impedance converter or xformer or a antenna. 6) A coil could be driven by side way as closing the exciting coil perpendicular to the resonator coil, looking on of its internal dipole radially. exciting coil | | (separation is 10 to 5 mm) ======================= a b resonator coil ======================= Freq=58.6MHz N---S S---------N N---S a,b are internal dipoles exciting coil | | (separation is 10 to 5 mm) ======================= N S S N resonator coil ======================= Freq=42.4MHz Note: normal axial coupling is normally used. ======================= __ resonator coil __ exciting coil ======================= Exciting coil is not inserted in to resonator coil and kept up to 20mm distance 7) Very strong magnetic flux generated around the coil, also large voltages may be present on leads of the coils and large potentials on the surrounding. A neon lamp can be lighten by simply closing to the coil. In this sense coils works like Tesla coils at high frequency. Again the DC power consumed by the hi-frequency generator is about 500mW So the total energy injected to resonating coil is less than 500mW. 8) As a result the coil emits strong EM waves as the input power is not dissipated thermally. 9) Displacement current play big role on these operating modes of the coils. When the large inter-winding capacitances, large induced voltages and frequency range 20 to 100 MHz is considered, it can be assumed the total of the displacement currents exceed s Amps. Specs: Resonator coil: 30 mm dia, 78mm len, wound as bifilar with 0.45mm wire no form inside, covered by packaging tape, all four lead of the coil are unconnected. Exciting coil: 20mm dia, 7mm len, 5 Turns with 0.60mm wire, winding are distanced by ~ 1mm. on a domestic plastic pipe. Oscillator build around one transistor, the exciting coil is collector circuit. loading scheme of the collector coil (exciting coil) influence the amplitude (greatly) and frequency (by %3) of the oscillator. Stick coil: 17mm dia, 210 mm len wound as bifilar with 0.40mm (not sure) on floor heating plastic pipe. (stick coil also resonate at this frequency and amplify or capture the field from resonator coil at 10 to 20 cm and light brightly the sense coil/LED p laced on one end) Sense coil: Single turn of 4cm dia. wire or two turns of 20mm wire attached directly to a high performance RED LED. Caution: I am experiencing some rheumatism like ache on finger or on hand when I touch the coils or immerse it to strong EM fields. Its endure about 30 minutes or more if I repeat these actions. As the frequency is high, nerves are not able to sense the e lectric currents directly. As the primary goal is not obtain OU from these experiments, not strong methods are used for power measurement and the circuit is not optimized for facilitating to measure the input and the output power. Magnetic flux shape on resonator coil at 58.5 MHz: SSS NNN ------- a ------------- b -------- /--------\\ //-------------\\ //---------\ // ------- \|/ ------------- \|/ -------- \\ || ||| ||| || \\ ========+========+========+========= // N \ - - - -//|\\ - - - - - - //|\\ - - - - / S N - - - - /S\ - - - - - - - /N\ - - - - - S A B N - - - - \S/ - - - - - - - \N/ - - - - - S N / - - - -\\|// - - - - - - \\|// - - - - \ S // ========+========+========+========= \\ || ||| ||| || \\ ------- /|\ ------------- /|\ -------- // \--------// \\-------------// \\---------/ ------- a ------------- b -------- SSS NNN || || sense coil A,B points to internal dipole (A-B) As I not experiencing on RF, I am not sure these results can be interpreted as "anomalous" for an scientist experienced on this field. (suggestions welcome) I suggest to carry this experiment on a good laboratory and obtain numeric figures rather than guessing (what I am doing now). Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 12:22:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:18:54 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:18:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Summary of Hamdi's current experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"JkL2r2.0.gq5.ToQ4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10604 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 22:09 9/6/97 +0400, Hamdi wrote: >1) Coil behave as transmission lines a kind of LC resonance circuit at >these frequency as a result of its inter-winding capacities. >coils works like Tesla coils at high frequency. I believe these two statements describe yr phenomena pretty well, Hamdi. At resonance a Tesla coil seconday is 1/4 wavelength long. The lower, grounded end is a V=0 node and the upper end is a voltage maxima. In your case, you are just exciting other p ossible resonances for such a structure. It's a nice experiment, especially the way you can excite certain modes from the side of the long coil. So far, I see nothing unexpected in your results. 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 Sat Sep 6 13:05:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:00:02 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Hamdi "Chaos" evidence of wave structure of matter; Resent-Message-ID: <"PQ9pq2.0.AU.MQR4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10605 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Doesn't this imply that neutrinos would also be affected by a magnetic >field? >Robin van Spaandonk Assuming that neutrinos exist as coherent structures, yes. They should be deflected by a changing magnetic field, but not by a magnetic field. You need a field gradient to split the neutron beam, and this should apply to neutrinos too. But as they are so weakly interacting, you could succeed and not know it on that experiment. In any case, what is important about that is that neutrinos would be like electrons, but with 90 and 270 degree phase angles, whereas electrons and positrons have 180 and 0 degree phase angles respectively (relative to spacetimes oscillations as the refer ence time keeper) It also means that neutrinos should annihilate one another, and so we might anticipate finding a reduced number from expectation if they were moving along parallel lines long enough to interact. ie, coming out of the sun where we do observe a major defic it (ie we observe about 1/3 of what we expect). You might also take a look at the periodic table of the isotopes with their neutron cross sections. You will notice that nuclei with odd numbers of neutrons are not as stable or common as nuclei with even numbers of neutrons. Also, you will notice that in general, nuclei with odd numbers of neutrons have a greater neutron cross section. These are tendencies, and not hard fast rules. But take note of tendencies, and the rules will show themselves eventually. I do think, though, that nuclei are made of three quarks, and that each quark is made of three muon resonances at three different phase angles. Such that a balanced nucleon will have 9 muons total, 2 at each phase angle of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees, and the ninth muon determines the kind of nucleon. 0 being a proton, 90 and 270 being what I call imaginary positive and negative, and 180 being a n anti proton. So to balance out a nucleus, you need to make a well pulsing motor and take care to balance out all of the resonant phase angles. As for QCD, I think there are four colors, not three. I use red, blue, green, and yellow. I use red for positive real, gre en for negative real, blue for positive imaginary, and yellow for negative imaginary. A nucleon, when you consider the geometry of wave interferences for three standing waves, winds up being a bit like an apple sectioned into 6 pieces. Each wedge is one of 4 colors, and opposing wedges are the same color. Which means, each quark winds up with three of the four colors, colors representing the phase angle relation of the standing waves resonances. >From a distance, each quark has one dominant color and two that cancel each other out due to 180 degree phase opposition. Thus, a nucleon winds up as well, with one dominant color out of the four. This is the gist of what I am studying. I am trying to see if I can arrange the nucleons in organized manners, paying attention to keeping the different phase angles of energy balanced, such that I can construct D, T, He3, He4, Li,... nuclei. This may a llow me to figure out what geometries nuclei take on. But of course, all of the above is built on top of assumption after assumptions about the structure of the standing waves that make up the nucleus, and I have no way of knowing if I am on the right track or not at this point. That nuclei are standing wav es I think I have very well established from the behaviors of stars, and from the stipulation of aether conservation in standing wave interactions. That neutrons have something near to or exactly like what we call charge I think is reasonably established by the neutron cross sections and behaviors of neutrons in a varying magnetic field beam (think of charge as being more of a quadrature kind of phen omena, where to date, we have only paid attention to the predominant two phase angles at 0 (positive) and 180 (negative) degrees. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 6 19:37:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 19:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:42:33 -0700 From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom gorge.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [off topic] A Mother References: <199709060455.VAA29092 mx1.eskimo.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"osPNH.0.yX.CBX4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10607 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >From NEWSWEEK, September 8, 1997: (referring to Dodi Fayed, Diana's "companion.") "...unlike many of the other men Diana has been linked with over the years, he was at least single." I submit that a life consisting of serial adultery, and/or attempted adultery, is largely meaningless, no matter how celebrated. Tom Miller X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 05:09:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:00:59 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Potential, Relativity and Mass. Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 12:00:23 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"GxnlF2.0.1v4.wTf4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10608 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, If, particle "radius" r = wavelength/2(pi)= hbar*c*alpha/w = k*q^2/w where w is energy (joules) and alpha is 0.00729729, k = 4(pi)*eo, and c is the velocity of light, and Potential V = q/8(pi)*eo*r, then as r gets smaller Potential V gets larger. However, the relativistic mass, Mrel = Mo[qV/(Mo*c^2) + 1] implying that there need only be ONE PAIR of particles created in Nature and no matter how small their initial "rest" energy-mass is, their mass will Increase Relativistically as they become bound , satisfying r = k*q^2/w? Does this mean that Creation-Big Bang was a low energy whisper that created electron-positron pairs (or lighter), and all the heat and noise came later as these fundamental particles became bound into protons, followed by Stellar processes building the he avier elements? SR sure does leave a lot of possibilities, doesn't it? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 05:23:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:12:13 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Arcing in the CG Cell Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 08:09:24 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"jlc-81.0.a75.Sef4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10609 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I had speculated that arcing occurs in the annular reaction zone in the CG cell. Valid objections have been raised, including the actual resistance as seen by the voltage and current measurements given in the protocol. Arcs are negative resistance phenome na and would have shown much lower ratios of voltage/current unless external current limiting is used. No such limiting is indicated in the protocol. The cell geometry is surely not accidental, but designed to contain a reaction between the electrolyte and zirconium electrodes. It produces an intense reaction zone, where the current density is high. Without specific dimensions, the actual density can't be calculated. There will be vigorous circulation of the electrolyte. The use of AC is curious. Normally, DC is used in an electrolytic cell to utilize the distinctly different processes at the anode and cathode. In the CG case, both are zirconium, and at 60 Hz there is ample time for reactions to occur at whichever surface is the cathode. In this case, use of AC is simply a convenience and rectification an unnecessary complication. The geometry of the cell is similar to some forms of gaseous rectifiers. If one electrode is a point and the other a plate, current flows much better when the point is the cathode. The mechanisms at work are different from the aqueous CG cell, so the anal ogy may not stretch that far. It would be interesting to know if the process works as well with stable, filtered DC, and if there is a preference as to which electrode is the cathode. In this vein, it is worth noting that stable, orderly zones may not produce the reactions sought. Jed has pointed out that the fatal error in much of the NHE work was a predisposition to room temperature, high stable environments thought to promote precis e calorimitry, which instead suppressed the sought-for reactions. My thought in suggesting arcing was a zone of intense gradients of electric field, hydrogen and oxygen ion concentrations, temperature, hydrodynamics, etc. Plasma, if it exists, is simply a rich source of free protons which are available for LENT reaction s. Joe Champion has noted that there are LENT reaction pathways that involve oxygen, also richly available in the reaction zone of the CG cell. One could speculate that AC would alternately provide O and H ions to a given volume of electrolyte faster than that volume would be removed by circulation. A test for this case would be a study of reaction rates as a function of the AC frequency. One could additionally speculate that cavitation occurs, but there is no direct evidence for this. Arata in his paper suggests the transient creation of zones within solid palladium wherein plasma conditions are created and which may provide the means of LENR and the production of He within the palladium crystals. The internal probes suggested by Rich might give interesting clues as to the nature of the internal processes. These will have to wait until more people have passed the Existence proof threshold and the resources of a laboratory with substantial staff and resources are used to study the phenomenon. The target now is more confirmations of the Existence of LENT, for which the kits are offered for sale. Existence does not depend on detailed understanding of the processes involved. Scale-up does not depend on detailed understanding of the processes invo lved, but can make the scale-up more cost-effective. Blue has objected to the Existence of LENT by citing problems of nucleon counts and energy balance in some reaction pathways. Aspden in his Research Note 14/97, available at his Web site, shows reaction pathways that account for observed Cu and Ti abundan ce ratios with mass-conversion energy release that is consistent with the experimental observations. I believe that Champion has proposed other reaction pathways. I hope that DoE will move forward with the CETI and CG cells. The radioactive waste disposal problem is so urgent and costly that deployment of even imperfect LENT cells should begin as soon as possible. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 06:37:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 06:28:13 -0700 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 07:32:08 -0500 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, wireless@rmii.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, dennis@wazoo.com, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, design73@aol.com, ceti@onramp.net Subject: Expert on CG Liversage report Resent-Message-ID: <"gddDA1.0.Z71.ilg4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10611 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 7, 1997 One "skilled in the art" commented on the Liversage report on the CG web site: {snip} > The Perkin Elmer/Sciex Elan 250 was the ICP/MS system used to perform > this > evaluation. The program used to generate the data is called total quant. The > total quant program performs a quantitative elemental and isotopic analysis of > approximately ninety five percent of the elements on the periodic table. In additi on, > if any non naturally occurring radioactive isotopes were synthesized by the > transmutation process, they may First problem: What is the background correction algorithm of "total quant"? My sources indicate that ICP/MS often displays pronounced tailing of mass peaks into adjacent 'bins'. It is probably a requirement to look at the actual spectra and determine that "total quant" has no algorithmic problems. > also be detected. The Cincinnati Group chose to use a solution > containing approximately 0.3 percent thorium nitrate plus a few drops of > hydrochloric acid in double distilled water as their test sample. The solution was > split. One portion was set aside, and the other portion was subjected to the > reaction process. In order to discriminate between the elements present in the > proc essed sample which are due to transmutation of thorium from those which may be > due to ablation, leaching, and/or possible transmutation of the materials used to > construct the reaction vessel, a blank was also prepared and subjected to the reaction > process. The preparation blank contained a few drops of hydrochloric acid in double > distilled water. The preparation blank was subjected to the same reaction parameters > as the test solution. Next problem: Assuming for a moment that transmutation does not occur, the appearance of Cu and Ti, and disappearance of Th is still noted. A possible mechanism would be Th ion displacement of prexisting Cu and Ti ions. Thus a good blank would have another heavy metal ion that might be expected to have similar chemistry (as Th). If Cu and Ti were found when using this other ion, I would suggest displacement as the source rather than transmutation. > Consequently, the only difference between the preparation blank run and the test > sample run was the presence of thorium nitrate in the test sample. If significant > transmutation of thorium is occurring in The Cincinnati Groups reaction vessel, > comparison of the total quant results obtained for the before processed and after > processed test solutions should show a substantial reduction in thorium > concentra tion. Comparison of the preparation blank data and the after processed test > solution should show a significant increase in concentration of one or more elements > in the after processed solution. Elements which are not detected in the preparation > blank at all may be observed in the after processed test solution. Finally, if > quantitative transmutation of thorium is occurring, the analytical evidence may also > include significant deviations from the natural isotopic abundance ratios for the > elements which are present in the after processed sample due to transmutation. The > isotopic ratios of elements in naturally occurring substances is considered to be a > constant, and well defined. If fission of thorium is oc! ! curring, we might expect random > fragmentation into lighter isotopes. Random fragmentation may yield altered isotopic > abundance ratios. Altered isotopic abundance ratios would be an additional significant > indication that transmutation has occurred. > All of this is more or less correct, except that it doesn't exclude the possibility of contamination (displacement), _if_ the 'abnormal' isotopic abundances found can be questioned. So the issue revolves around the analytical accuracy and precision of the ICP/MS work. > Comparison of the processed test solution with the unprocessed test > solution data showed that 80% of the thorium placed in the reaction cell had undergone > transmutation. Note: the correct unbiased way to phrase this is that the analysis showed an 80% decrease in Th concentration. It is a derived conclusion that transmutation is the cause. > Comparison of the cell blank data with the processed test > sample data indicated that significant quantities of titanium and copper had been > produced. The concentration of titanium in the processed sample was 10 times greater > than the copper concentration. In addition, significantly altered isotopic ratios were > observed for both elements. Copper has two isotopes at mass 63 and mass 65. The > natural abundance ratio of mass 65 to 63 is 0.45. The ratio observed in the processed > sample was 8.2. This represents an 1800 percent deviation from the natural abundance > ratio. Titanium has five isotopes. The isotope at mass 48 is, naturally, the most > abundant. Three of the four minor isotopes produced an isotopic ratio, with respect to > the mass 48 isotope, which was equivalent to the natural abundance ratio. However, the > mass 49 isotope produced a mass 49 to 48 ratio of 0.42. The natural abundan ce ratio is > 0.075. This represents a deviation from the natural abundance ratio of 560 percent. > OK, so there is the main isotope abundance claims so far. First I note that the data sheet put up on the Cincy Group's Web pages has no signal at mass 49 (that is "0" intensity). So the mass 49 to 48 ratio _there_ is zero, not .42. Who's got the beef (i.e. the real data)? Next, only mass 49 is tagged as out of line. The usual conclusion is an interference. What might it be? Well, we're dealing with water solutions here, let's subtract 17 AMUs (O + H). That leaves 32, and S-32 is 95% of natural abundance. What does mass 32 list in the posted analysis? "INDETERMINATE". Not 0. I wonder why "total quant" got confused? Baseline problems? Let's play the same game with the "Cu-65" peak. Subtract 17 and you get...48, the main Ti mass (~74%). If Ti _is_ present as it seems to be, hydroxylated Ti species are quite reasonable to expect. > To further substantiate the validity of the ICP/IMS data, a comparison > of the quantity of thorium which had been transmuted to the quantity of titanium and > copper which had been produced, was performed. 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 experimental > error. No basis for this is listed. Is it on an atom-for-atom basis? If so, it would not exclude displacement chemistry. You would expect 1-for-1 replacement roughly. If there is more to this calculation, we certainly need to see it... > > Scintillation counting was performed on the before processed and after > processed test solutions to verify the ICP/IMS results, which indicated that a > significant percentage of the thorium placed in the reaction vessel had been > transmuted into non-radioactive isotopes. All of the copper and titanium isotopes > observed in the after processed test solution ICP/MS data are non-radioactive. The > scintillation counter used for the analysis was a RM-60 Micro Roentgen Radiation > Monitor. The counter was connected to a Compudyne computer. Equivalent amounts of > before processed and after processed test solution were taken to dryness in plastic > weighing boats. The scintillation counter was placed at exactly the same height, > directly over the weighing boats, for both tests. The residues were then counted for > 90 minutes. The results obtained indicated that a 72 percent reduction of th orium had > occurred. Minor note: 72% here, 80% above, which is it? > After extraction of the processed sample, the reaction vessel was taken > apart and all of the pieces of the vessel were individually analyzed by a > scintillation counter to ensure that a complete extraction of the thorium had > occurred. All of the parts of the vessel produced count rates equivalent to n ormal > background count rates, which indicated that the thorium was completely extracted. > This might be conclusive if done correctly. But if we are seeing plating out or displacement chemistry, the site where that is occuring would have to be carefully checked. Was it? It seems unclear to me... > My conclusion is that the data generated by 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. All of the data > generated from both of the analytical techniques employed produced the anticipated > results. > > Robert R. Liversage, M.S. > Inorganic Section Manager > Data Chem Laboratories That's fine, but if you (Mr. Liversage) are going to write a letter purporting to defend your conclusions in an attempt to convince others (as this clearly is), you will have to offer up a _lot_ more of the details. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 06:02:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:53:19 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Potential, Relativity and Mass. Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 12:52:43 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"MrpF01.0.dO.-Eg4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10610 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Follow-up Thought, It has always been assumed that pair "annihilation" results in a pair of photons each with the "rest energy" of each of the particles and that the particles disappear. Might it be possible that the photons are the result of the energy given off as the particles of the pair become bound and undectable? And, if there are more particles involved in the binding process as in the case of the proton, the binding stops at the "relativistic rest mass" of the proton, ie., the sum of the relativistic masses of the three particles, "quarks" that it contains? Nature's "ZPE-Casimir Effect" in action, Hal? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 07:58:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:56:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:56:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Expert on CG Liversage report / general comments Resent-Message-ID: <"B6wk32.0.tb3.X2i4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10612 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Speaking from a great deal of experience with x-ray fluorescence, another spectroscopic analytical technique, I can say that the kinds of concerns raised by the ICP/MS expert are not unusual or surprising. In particular I have observed automated computer algorithms making ridiculous mistakes in analyzing unknown XRF spectra. It is amazing how much better the human mind is at pattern recognition than most computer algorithms. Of course, the human mind has to be trained first. In my opinion the use of any spectroscopic analytical instrument for the general analysis of unknown samples without the full concentration of an expert operator is a recipe for "error stew". This does not mean that these instruments cannot be operated properly by ordinary technicians. For routine analyses, where the sample matrix is reasonably well-behaved (e.g. QC analysis, blood analysis, wastewater analysis, etc.) and where the instrument has been properly setup and calibrated by an expert, these instruments form the backbone of today's analytical laboratory. But if you send one of these laboratories something unusual...unless they have a real expert on the premises...errors are likely to result. One recent example: I sent well-split samples of the reagent grade Li2SO4 used in the RIFEX kit to two different labs for Zn analysis. Both labs used ICP to analyze the stuff. Since the sample matrix was pure Li2SO4, the sample was relatively unusual. I told them what the matrix was before they performed the analysis. One of the labs is an old well-established outfit that has developed a reputation over several decades for accurate work. The other lab isn't so old and appears to exist primarily because of EPA-related work. The Aldrich lot analysis showed 4 ppm Zn. The old lab got 9 ppm Zn. The new lab got 51 ppm Zn. I told the new lab what the other two results were and asked them to repeat their analysis, they managed to come up with 31 ppm Zn the second time. P.S. This is just an anecdote I thought would be interesting...useful background info since we're studying analytical results now. I'm not qualified to evaluate the ICP/MS results on the CG experiment. 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 Sep 8 10:48:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:45:16 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:02:01 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Little says a lot re "error stew" Resent-Message-ID: <"kC3Ip2.0.fn6.gc35q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10636 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich - [snip] > Have you noticed, freethinkers, heretics and > infidels are rebuked, rejected, and pilloried? > Are you comfortable with that, really? Is that > any path for free men? No, it's time for a good, > long laugh, and at who else, but ourselves? [snip] That is either absolutely the most cynical piece of bunk, or perhaps simply the worst attempt at humor that I have ever seen pass across my computer screen. This even exceeds Dick Blue's puke-think. I'm sure Jed could write a book on the crippled mentalit y that could produce that kind of nonsense, and what sort of doom it portends for the human race that we find some among us applying that kind of reasoning to matters which have great importance to all of us and to future generations. After seeing this, I really think that your purpose here with posts like that and the DB posts is simply to screw with people's heads, enturbulate the debate and confuse the facts. If I wanted that, I could just go to spf. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 11:04:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Mysterious Tunnels Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:34:46 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"lsEM_3.0._s6.mhk4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10613 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Colin, > Can you keep Vortex advised if you, (or anyone else here,) receives more > information about these experiments.? It sounds interesting. > > ie: What materials were used in these tunneling experiments? etc... > > In what journal/periodical was this published? I believe a review article was published in Foundation Of Physics just recently. I scanned the article a few weeks ago at the library. I didn't understand it much, but it appeared that quite a number of researchers had acheived results along these lines , and not all of them used quantum tunneling, the article was written by a researcher who used some weird sort of EM wave I'd never heard of. Obviously I am well informed on this :-) This journal is the most farout of any of the mainline physics journals as far as I can tell (If it IS classified as a mainline physics journal) It published Woodwards experiments and regularly has articles about FTL, travel between parallel worlds, etc. I don't know eneough to know which approaches are valid but it makes interesting reading. The next time I am at the physics library I will take another look. Maybe they have a website? Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 11:36:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Reality Check Cc: puthoff aol.com Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:32:43 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"_4JD71.0.ML.zEl4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10614 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Does this make sense from a ZPE standpoint? Hal? 1, A Light Lepton (LL) particle pair is created through the expenditure of a few ev (more or less) of energy. 2, The Potential V for the pair to become a bound pair equal q/8(pi)eo*r. 3, The vacuum ZPE provides the binding energy w = q^2/4(pi)eo*r. 4, The binding force from the vacuum ZPE is F = q^2/4(pi)eo*r^2. 5, The constant q = CV/4*(pi)^2 = +/- 1.602E-19 coulombs. Then, when a proton or deuteron "absorbs" an LL- particle or an electron absorbs an LL+ particle the synchrotron radiation energy given off W = 0.66*q^2*a^2/4(pi)eo*c^2 with a relativistic factor; (1 - v^2/c^2)^-4,is extracted from the vacuum ZPE? And, the bound LL pairs or LL-proton/deuteron or LL-electron composites can effect transmutation reactions? Are the "near zero" rest mass neutrinos the LL bound pair? What a vacuum pump! IE on tap? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Oct 6 20:47:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:47:22 -0700 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 15:24:10 +1200 From: John Berry To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Where does the energy come from? References: <3CD10F5508 hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"zsss13.0._s6.83REq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11409 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The same question can be asked of one of Tesla's first patents (I think it may have been THE first) where a magnet is heated about critical temp (and losses all magnetic field) and a piece of soft iron is let to fall away until the magnet cools a bit and attracts it again. Jay Olson wrote: > OK, I've got a question on superconductors and where the energy comes > from. First we have a superconductor, say, one tenth of a degree > above the critical temperature. A magnet is sitting on this > superconductor. We then lower the temperature the requisite one > tenth of a degree and ZING!, the magnet jumps up due to the > diamagnetic properties of our superconductor. The question is, can I > say that I did only a small amount of work (lowering the temp. of the > superconductor) and got a bigger amount of work done on my magnet? > Or is crossing the critical temp. like a phase change where you need > more heat flow out of the object than just the heat capacity times > the change in temp. you want? > > JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 15:50:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 15:43:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:41:59 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Reality Check Resent-Message-ID: <"70Fr_1.0.9-5.duo4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10616 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/7/97 6:34:58 PM, Fred asked: <> snip The energetics and equations seem OK. The question, as always, is: will particles (or particle pairs) emerge if the energy etc is there? It depends, apparently, on the structure of the particles. Since we haven't even figured out why an electron-posit ron pair emerges at their particular set of quantum parameters (mass, charge, spin, lepton nr) it is difficult to know about other possibilities. Einstein said it best: "If only I could understand an electron." Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 20:33:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 20:31:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 22:15:41 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Mysterious Tunnels Resent-Message-ID: <"cJQU_1.0.B36.S6t4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10617 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:34 AM 9/7/97 -0700, Fred Epps wrote: >Hi Colin, >> >> ie: What materials were used in these tunneling experiments? etc... >> >> In what journal/periodical was this published? > >I believe a review article was published in Foundation Of Physics just >recently. I scanned the article a few weeks ago at the library. I didn't >understand it much, but it appeared that quite a number of researchers had >acheived results along these lines, and not all of them used quantum >tunneling, the article was written by a researcher who used some weird sort >of EM wave I'd never heard of. Obviously I am well informed on this :-) > Hi Fred, Now this sounds even *more* interesting, and has a flavor of mystery that I find appealing ;-) >This journal is the most farout of any of the mainline physics journals as >far as I can tell (If it IS classified as a mainline physics journal) It >published Woodwards experiments and regularly has articles about FTL, >travel between parallel worlds, etc. I don't know enough to know which >approaches are valid but it makes interesting reading. > >The next time I am at the physics library I will take another look. Maybe >they have a website? > >Fred No. Not according to my last Infoseek search. It's been a few years since I've done a library search at the university, but I thought that "Foundations" was peer reviewed, and many of the submitted articles were authored by recognizable mainstream physicists. It's a shame that some of those ideas do *seem* to be far out. ..To be fair though, it's probably to be expected when they are dealing with our physics' foundations.. ..at times, I guess, they (we) have to just step back a bit, and look very carefully at what's actually been built. ( Not that I ever understood QM anyway :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- You mentioned James Woodward. Did he not claim a reproducible 0.1 % reduction in the total weight of his setup, using powerful piezo drivers and some type of hi dielectric capacitors? ( See...I did *my* homework too ;-) "Mach's Principle and Weight Reduction: James F. Woodward, Foundations of Physics Letters 9, 247-293 (1996)." I haven't read his several papers yet, but thanks to Pete Skeggs, I recently became aware of his patent, #5280864 (on the IBM Patent Site), and a brief Review by John G. Cramer at: . If Woodward was getting a 0.1% reduction of weight at only 10 Khz, and the 'effect' varied with the frequency *squared*, or even possibly **cubed**, hopefully, someone is now trying to replicate it at a higher frequency. I wonder what the respective weig ht loss' would have been at ..say...25 Khz? Colin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 21:01:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 20:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 20:53:48 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gotta love academic research. References: <970825191422_100433.1541_BHG65-2 CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"MY4ic1.0.yZ6.WSt4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10618 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > [Martin Savior wrote] > > The whole modern Bio-tech industry rests on original pure academic > > research that discovered DNA. What company would have supported > > that research? Well, in part, although it rests more on the discovery of "genetic engineering", which I very vaguely recall was made circa 1970 when some group discovered how to do surgery on DNA by usurping the functions of existing bacteria and plasmids. Chris Tinsley wrote: > 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. The distinction between "proper work" and "actual work" that scientists do is largely meaningless in practice, though necessary for the bean-counters involved. All one can finally say is they are supported by such and such grants and they put out such and such work. > > > What individual would have had the resources and capability to do > > it themselves? > > Well, Crick and Watson did. Hardly...Watson was supported by a variety of fellowships and scholarships, and Crick was supported as a grad student, and both were at the Cavendish lab, which was undoubtedly supported by many government sources for its general operation. But that is ju st the very tip of the research ice berg underlying the discovery of DNA structure---Crick & Watson were building heavily on the work of Linus Pauling and also using the X-ray crystallography work of the woman at the other lab you mentioned (so the prior development of XRC must be considered a key factor in their discovery) Further, several of their key insights into the structure came from their discussiong with colleagues who were supported by god-knows-what. Finally, even after they had the structure specified, it was another mountain of research over the next decade to verify that this really was the structure, and to further decipher the actual genetic code. This is all described quite well in the entertaining books "The Double Helix", by watson, and "What Mad Persuit", by Crick. To cite Crick & Watson's as an example of two guys doing it on their own is a gross underestimate of what resources really contributed to their discovery and to subsequent verification and elaboration of it. I doubt private industry directly financed much of this work. Also, as they point out themselves in their books, if they had not figured it out themselves, it probably would have been only a few years til someone else did, since the time was quite ripe for the discovery. Peronally, while I think capitalistic private industry is a great model for efficient production, distribution and refinement of products, I don't think it is the right model to impose on all human activity, scientific research in particular. -- 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 Sep 7 22:14:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 22:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 23:15:57 -0500 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, design73@aol.com, g-miley uiuc.edu, dennis@wazoo.com, ceti@onramp.net, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, jaeger eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu Subject: Expert on Liversage CG report (retyped) Resent-Message-ID: <"dCYQn2.0.G61.dbu4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10619 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Expert on CG Liversage report Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 07:32:08 -0500 From: Rich Murray Organization:Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, storms@ix.netcom.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, wireless@rmii.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, dennis@wazoo.com, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, design73@aol.com, ceti@onramp.net Sept. 7, 1997 One "skilled in the art" commented on the Liversage report on the CG web site: {snip} > The Perkin Elmer/Sciex Elan 250 was the ICP/MS system used to perform > this > evaluation. The program used to generate the data is called >total quant. The total quant program performs a quantitative >elemental and isotopic analysis of approximately ninety five percent >of the elements on the periodic table. In addition , if any non >naturally occurring radioactive isotopes were synthesized by the >transmutation process, they may First problem: What is the background correction algorithm of "total quant"? My sources indicate that ICP/MS often displays pronounced tailing of mass peaks into adjacent 'bins'. It is probably a requirement to look at the actual spectra and determine that "total quant" has no algorithmic problems. > also be detected. The Cincinnati Group chose to use a solution > containing approximately 0.3 percent thorium nitrate plus a few drops >of hydrochloric acid in double distilled water as their test sample. >The solution was split. One portion was set aside, and the other >portion was subjected to the reaction proce ss. In order to >discriminate between the elements present in the processed sample >which are due to transmutation of thorium from those which may be >due to ablation, leaching, and/or possible transmutation of the >materials used to construct the rea ction vessel, a blank was also >prepared and subjected to the reaction process. The preparation blank >contained a few drops of hydrochloric acid in double distilled water. >The preparation blank was subjected to the same reaction parameters >as the test solution. Next problem: Assuming for a moment that transmutation does not occur, the appearance of Cu and Ti, and disappearance of Th is still noted. A possible mechanism would be Th ion displacement of prexisting Cu and Ti ions. Thus a good blank would have another heavy metal ion that might be expected to have similar chemistry (as Th). If Cu and Ti were found when using this other ion, I would suggest displacement as the source rather than transmutation. > Consequently, the only difference between the preparation blank run >and the test sample run was the presence of thorium nitrate in the >test sample. If significant transmutation of thorium is occurring in >The Cincinnati Groups reaction vessel, comp arison of the total quant >results obtained for the before processed and after processed test >solutions should show a substantial reduction in thorium >concentration. Comparison of the preparation blank data and the after >processed test solution sh ould show a significant increase in >concentration of one or more elements in the after processed solution. >Elements which are not detected in the preparation blank at all may be >observed in the after processed test solution. Finally, if quantitative >transmutation of thorium is occurring, the analytical evidence may >also include significant deviations from the natural isotopic abundance >ratios for the elements which are present in the after processed sample >due to tr! ! ansmutation. The isotopic ratios of elements in naturally >occurring substances is considered to be a constant, and well defined. >If fission of thorium is occurring, we might expect random >fragmentation into lighter isotopes. Random fragmentation may yi eld >altered isotopic abundance ratios. Altered isotopic abundance ratios >would be an additional significant indication that transmutation has >occurred. > All of this is more or less correct, except that it doesn't exclude the possibility of contamination (displacement), _if_ the 'abnormal' isotopic abundances found can be questioned. So the issue revolves around the analytical accuracy and precision of the ICP/MS work. >Comparison of the processed test solution with the unprocessed test >solution data showed that 80% of the thorium placed in the reaction >cell had undergone transmutation. Note: the correct unbiased way to phrase this is that the analysis showed an 80% decrease in Th concentration. It is a derived conclusion that transmutation is the cause. > Comparison of the cell blank data with the processed test > sample data indicated that significant quantities of titanium and >copper had been produced. The concentration of titanium in the >processed sample was 10 times greater than the copper concentration. In >addition, significantly altered isotopic ratios w ere >observed for both elements. Copper has two isotopes at mass 63 and mass >65. The natural abundance ratio of mass 65 to 63 is 0.45. The ratio >observed in the processed sample was 8.2. This represents an 1800 >percent deviation from the natural abundance ratio. Titanium has five >isotopes. The isotope at mass 48 is, naturally, the most > abundant. Three of the four minor isotopes produced an isotopic ratio, >with respect to the mass 48 isotope, which was equivalent to the >natural abundance ratio. However, the mass 49 isotope produced a mass >49 to 48 ratio of 0.42. The natural abundanc e ratio is 0.075. This >represents a deviation from the natural abundance ratio of 560 percent. > OK, so there is the main isotope abundance claims so far. First I note that the data sheet put up on the Cincy Group's Web pages has no signal at mass 49 (that is "0" intensity). So the mass 49 to 48 ratio _there_ is zero, not .42. Who's got the beef (i.e. the real data)? Next, only mass 49 is tagged as out of line. The usual conclusion is an interference. What might it be? Well, we're dealing with water solutions here, let's subtract 17 AMUs (O + H). That leaves 32, and S-32 is 95% of natural abundance. What does mass 32 list in the posted analysis? "INDETERMINATE". Not 0. I wonder why "total quant" got confused? Baseline problems? Let's play the same game with the "Cu-65" peak. Subtract 17 and you get...48, the main Ti mass (~74%). If Ti _is_ present as it seems to be, hydroxylated Ti species are quite reasonable to expect. > To further substantiate the validity of the ICP/IMS data, a comparison > of the quantity of thorium which had been transmuted to the quantity >of titanium and copper which had been produced, was performed. The >quantitative analysis of the data indicated that the amount of thorium >which had undergone transmutation was equi valent to the amount of >titanium plus copper which had been formed, within experimental error. No basis for this is listed. Is it on an atom-for-atom basis? If so, it would not exclude displacement chemistry. You would expect 1-for-1 replacement roughly. If there is more to this calculation, we certainly need to see it... > > Scintillation counting was performed on the before processed and after > processed test solutions to verify the ICP/IMS results, which >indicated that a significant percentage of the thorium placed in the >reaction vessel had been transmuted into non-radioactive isotopes. All >of the copper and titanium isotopes observed in the after processed >test solution ICP/MS data are non-radioactive. The scintillation >counter used for the analysis was a RM-60 Micro Roentgen Radiation >Monitor. The counter was connected to a Compudyne computer. Equivalent >amounts of before processed and after processed test solution were >taken to dryness in plastic weighing boats. The scintillation counter >was placed at exactly the same height, directly over the weighing >boats, for both tests. The residues were then counted for 90 minutes. >The r esults obtained indicated that a 72 percent reduction of thorium >had occurred. Minor note: 72% here, 80% above, which is it? > After extraction of the processed sample, the reaction vessel was >taken apart and all of the pieces of the vessel were individually >analyzed by a scintillation counter to ensure that a complete >extraction of the thorium had occurred. All of the parts of the vessel >produced count rates equivalent to normal background count rates, which >indicated that the thorium was completely extracted. > This might be conclusive if done correctly. But if we are seeing plating out or displacement chemistry, the site where that is occuring would have to be carefully checked. Was it? It seems unclear to me... >My conclusion is that the data generated by 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. All of the data generated from both of the analytical >techniques employed produced the anticipated res ults. > > Robert R. Liversage, M.S. > Inorganic Section Manager > Data Chem Laboratories That's fine, but if you (Mr. Liversage) are going to write a letter purporting to defend your conclusions in an attempt to convince others (as this clearly is), you will have to offer up a _lot_ more of the details. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 7 23:12:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 23:09:59 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 23:09:51 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CF & Lake Van Monster References: <970831105047_1260370059 emout10.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"afKp7.0.Pz.rQv4q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10620 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 Yes, it was there. As I said in my review of the program, the most interesting part of the show was the video of the purported lake monster. CETI's demo was, as we all know now, not in itself particularly convincing. Not to beat a dead horse, but "demonstrations" of radiation remediation have been given for at least a decade or more by a variety of groups (much related to Brown's gas, others related to Barker, etc). What is missing is any follow up that would demonstr ate that what is occuring in these demos is actually true remediation vs. the mundane alternatives. -- 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 Mon Sep 8 00:12:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 01:11:37 -0500 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu, dashj sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, wireless@rmii.com, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@onramp.net, JosephHRowe compuserve.com, ggmurray@uriacc.uri.edu, dnovak uriacc.uri.edu, jmyeo@juno.com, rollo@artvark.com, cmurray uh.edu, ctraison@msn.com, sarfatti@well.com, lucille@telis.org, key rt66.com, catala@scils.Rutgers.EDU, 72507.3443@compuserve.com, design73 aol.com, dennis@wazoo.com, zumm@flash.net, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, ghlin greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, davidk@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, rmills@blacklightpower.com, wrgood earthlink.net, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, perkins3 llnl.gov, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su, fawolf@ix.netcom.com Subject: Little says a lot re "error stew" Resent-Message-ID: <"n_lau.0.KQ3.OIw4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10621 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 7, 1997 Subject: Re: Thorium again Resent-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:25:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Little Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com At 01:41 AM 9/6/97 +0000, Barry Merriman wrote: >I will not be at all surprised if a year from now CG's results >are simply mired in controversy, and stay that way for an indefinite >time. I'm beginning to wonder if Infinite Energy refers not to how much we're going to get out of these phenomena but to how much we have to expend to find one that really works! Scott Subject: Expert on CG Liversage report / general comments Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:56:35 -0700 Resent-From: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:56:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Little Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com Speaking from a great deal of experience with x-ray fluorescence, another spectroscopic analytical technique, I can say that the kinds of concerns raised by the ICP/MS expert are not unusual or surprising. In particular I have observed automated computer algorithms making ridiculous mistakes in analyzing unknown XRF spectra. It is amazing how much better the human mind is at pattern recognition than most computer algorithms. Of course, the human mind has to be trained first. In my opinion the use of any spectroscopic analytical instrument for the general analysis of unknown samples without the full concentration of an expert operator is a recipe for "error stew". This does not mean that these instruments cannot be operated properly by ordinary technicians. For routine analyses, where the sample matrix is reasonably well-behaved (e.g. QC analysis, blood analysis, wastewater analysis, etc.) and where the instrument has been properly setup and calibrated by an expert, these instruments form the backbone of today's analytical laboratory. But if you send one of these laboratories something unusual...unless they have a real expert on the premises...errors are likely to result. One recent example: I sent well-split samples of the reagent grade Li2SO4 used in the RIFEX kit to two different labs for Zn analysis. Both labs used ICP to analyze the stuff. Since the sample matrix was pure Li2SO4, the sample was relatively unusual. I told them what the matrix was before they performed the analysis. One of the labs is an old well-established outfit that has developed a reputation over several decades for accurate work. The other lab isn't so old and appears to exist primarily because of EPA-related work. The Aldrich lot analysis showed 4 ppm Zn. The old lab got 9 ppm Zn. The new lab got 51 ppm Zn. I told the new lab what the other two results were and asked them to repeat their analysis, they managed to come up with 31 ppm Zn the second time. P.S. This is just an anecdote I thought would be interesting...useful background info since we're studying analytical results now. I'm not qualified to evaluate the ICP/MS results on the CG experiment. 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 Well, folks, perhaps Scott Little, who has been testing the CETI RIFEX kit since December, and the Ragland cell, and other systems, and is widely known to be the most careful and thorough of researchers, has said more than he wholly intended. As the clas sic Japanese haiku, recently expertly and eloquently translated by J.R., puts it inimitably: Ah so! I hear sound In morning dew drenched grass Of firecracker... Fzzzzzzzzzzzzz And this, like Chris Tinsley's undoubtedly frustrating labors over the Ragland cell, is becoming the characteristic pattern, well worth establishing, the collective voice of many sets of data. The more carefully the data is heard, rather than dictated to , the more the message is: EIGO, Energy In, Energy Out. Not: EGO, Energy Gloriously Overunity. Scott's second epistle recapitulates what we have learned from realms of data from Miley's and the Cincinnati Group's transmutation data. No reasonable evidence for transmutation exists, once allowance is made for the innumerable ways complicated and sub tle instrumentation can be wrong. You see, we can't even determine with those remarkable systems something as simple as 10 ppm Zn in pure Li2SO4. Prejudiced and desperate attempts to quickly survey complex unknown samples result in "data stew". We been served a lot of data stew, haven't we, folks? Don't taste so good no more, and it cold and old... So, it's time to realize, that careful investigation of the wonderful claims by Mizuno, Ohmori, etc., and by Dash and others of that brave band of modern alchemists, will result in the same conclusion. Could be, I'm wrong...who am I, a publicly proclaime d wanker?...but what do you think, really? The band is noisey, but it's marching in circles. The crowd is thinning. The dogs all get to barking at one tree or another, but there's never any coon up there. Hey, let's enjoy this, folks...the dithering senily and inevitable death of overunity, is the rebirth of, la-la, The Conservation of Energy! Like mistaken zebras, let us repent of our errors, and painting our black stripes white, and our white ones black, convert into Happy Skeptics, who enjoy tracing the extraordinary ways delusions of conclusions are collectively created and then, rather fie rcely defended. Let's do something truly extraordinary, learn from our own experience! Have you noticed, freethinkers, heretics and infidels are rebuked, rejected, and pilloried? Are you comfortable with that, really? Is that any path for free men? No, it's time for a good, long laugh, and at who else, but ourselves? I'm imagining the n ew title of our magazine: "Infinite Energy?" Thursday, I had a good chat with Christian at CETI, who told me that by showing their hundreds of watts excess energy system, they were "converting people one by one", and Friday, I talked with Dr. Daniel Cavicchio, who wants to head the New Energy Techno logies Investment Fund, who spend a day at CETI, and he said the device was producing three to four times excess energy. Now, folks, I want to admit to you straightout that I have no logic, evidence, or authority for this, except for this that just arise s, intuitively and subjectively, in the maelstrom of this wanker's soul, but I cannot buy it. It just ain't so. It's some sort of foolishness. There ain't no coon up that there tree. I feel some real trepidation when I read that BlackLight Power has raised $ 12 million since March selling stock. Because I've been "spamming" them for half a year, posting to them many items that both criticize and praise them, and all I ever got in ret urn is not mere silence, but to me something more sinister, always the exact same form letter, every single time: Subject: Re: Eighth Miley Critique: Summary of First and Fifth Date: Tue, 22 Jul 97 10:30:59 -0500 From: wrgood To: We want to acknowlege receiving your mail and assure you that it has been passed on to the appropriate person. Personal response time will vary depending on the request and avaliblity . We are sorry if this causes you any inconvenience. They have a very high fire wall, those folks...inside it, they're going to keep making mistakes, and those little mistakes will grow into big 'uns...I wouldn't trust them with a nickel of my money. What do you think, pard? As one, Rich "Wank" Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 04:48:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 12:27:00 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Summary of Hamdi's current experiments References: <199709061918.OAA10752 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"EsNCL2.0.BI7.TM-4q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10622 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > At 22:09 9/6/97 +0400, Hamdi wrote: > > >1) Coil behave as transmission lines a kind of LC resonance circuit > at these frequency as a result of its inter-winding capacitances. > > >coils works like Tesla coils at high frequency. > > I believe these two statements describe yr phenomena pretty well, > Hamdi. At resonance a Tesla coil seconday is 1/4 wavelength long. > The lower, grounded end is a V=0 node and the upper end is a voltage > maxima. In your case, you are just exciting other possible resonances > for such a structure. > > It's a nice experiment, especially the way you can excite certain > modes from the side of the long coil. > > So far, I see nothing unexpected in your results. > Thank you Scott, you pointed out the relation of the frequency with the coil length. I did not previously examined Tesla coils and did not know their properties. But this is quite different. The length of the coil is two order of magnitude of the Oscillat ion's wavelength. At last, I also able to resonate normal coils(not bifilar) in the same fashion, axially and side ways "T". What I am observed is unlikely to Tesla operation (as you described), internal poles are required as N-S-N, N-S-N-S or N-S-N-S-N. This is interesting because, it create some stress and strong magnetic and electric field gradients inside the coil. An other interesting property is when the original combined Bipeg coils (ATG site) resonated as N-S-N mode it forms tri-pole or two dipole magnetically and one dipole electrically because one half is wounded as CW and the other as CWW(counter-clock-wise): magnetic tri-pole .-------------.-------------. N S S N ============== ============== + - + - . ------------------------- . electric dipole I am curious what kind of shape and polarization of EM is radiated by such a configuration. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 07:17:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:08:37 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 09:54:16 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: CF & Lake Van Monster References: <970831105047_1260370059 emout10.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"LMQ2g.0.1s4.aR05q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10630 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:09 PM 9/7/97 -0700, Barry wrote: >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 > >Yes, it was there. As I said in my review of the program, the most >interesting part of the show was the video of the purported >lake monster. CETI's demo was, as we all know now, not in itself >particularly convincing. > > >Not to beat a dead horse, but "demonstrations" of radiation >remediation have been given for at least a decade or more >by a variety of groups (much related to Brown's gas, others >related to Barker, etc). What is missing is any follow up that >would demonstrate that what is occuring in these demos is >actually true remediation vs. the mundane alternatives. > >-- >Barry Merriman > What is needed -- and missing -- is a semiquantitative calibration of the purported system, with sufficient background as to show believable information. This is similar to what is required for the water vortex systems or any putative zpe or light-lepton system. (still waiting) Such calibrations DO exist for both nickel and palladium cf systems including as regards the generation of heat, helium 4, and tritium. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 08:00:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 09:54:31 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Baked Cathodes Resent-Message-ID: <"u8Vtj2.0.Jv4.U315q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10631 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:35 AM 7/28/97 -0400, Tom wrote: >In the debate between W. Good and Z. Shkedi in Fusion Technology, Vol. 30 >(September 1996), pp. 132-133, Shkedi wrote (p. 133) that his team at Bose >cleaned its cold-drawn nickel wire cathodes with acetone and methanol and >then baked the cathodes at 1100 degrees C for 2 hours. > >Good wrote (p. 132) in his "Comments on 'Calorimetry, Excess Heat, and >Faraday Efficiency in Ni-H20 Electrolytic Cells'" that such cleaning and >baking would leave an organic residue. > >Shkedi asked, "what organic residue can survive 1100 degrees C for 2 h as >postulated by Mr. Good?" > >Do we have any surface chemists on Vortex-L? Has anyone ever heard of an >organic residue that might survive such baking? > >Tom Stolper > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 05:07:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 05:06:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:04:13 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: chronos enter.net Subject: Vigier & Mills Resent-Message-ID: <"oxd-83.0.eP.ie-4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10623 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Bob, Thanks for the information about the symposium in honor of Jean-Pierre Vigier. Was anything said at the conference about Mills' hydrino hypothesis, which as you know also proposes new quantum states of hydrogen? Does Vigier's proposal as stated at the symposium involve ionized two-atom molecules of H or D rather than single atoms as in Mills' proposal? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 05:48:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 05:45:44 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Rich Murray Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:42:30 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"VW-BG1.0.LR1.sD_4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10624 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Rich, You said: ----------------- Now, folks, I want to admit to you straight-out that I have no logic, evidence, or authority for this, except for this that just arises, intuitively and subjectively, in the maelstrom of this wanker's soul, but I cannot buy it. It just ain't so. It's some sort of foolishness. There ain' t no coon up that there tree. I feel some real trepidation when I read that BlackLight Power has raised $ 12 million since March selling stock. Because I've been "spamming" them for half a year...... --------------- A year of your systematic spamming has failed to reform this arena and bring crystalline clarity to all the data and reports. Your assault on the ramparts of the centers doing actual work has been met with silence. How in the world do you conceive that BLP owes you any answer at all? I understood that one of the house rules of Vortex was an acceptance of the existence of anomalous energy phenomena along with careful examination of each claim. This also implies doing your homework. You seem no longer to agree to this outlook. Why are you still here? Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 06:24:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:20:25 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:20:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Little says a lot re "error stew" Resent-Message-ID: <"YmLaA3.0.Zp2.Nk_4q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10625 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:11 AM 9/8/97 -0500, Rich wrote: >Well, folks, perhaps Scott Little, who has been testing the CETI RIFEX >kit since December, and the Ragland cell, and other systems, and is >widely known to be the most careful and thorough of researchers... Let me be the first to deny this! I am an engineer trying to identify new phenomena to make practical energy sources. However, this position does make me rather cautious. For my purposes, it is necessary that the candidate phenomena actually work. >has said more than he wholly intended. Actually I said just what I intended...you implied the rest. I find your extrapolations not uncomfortable but, for now, I will remain in the trenches trying to verify some of the claims we are discussing. Don't stop, Rich. Your views should to be aired. I'm just setting a few points straight. 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 Sep 8 06:31:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.c om ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:28:30 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: web site Resent-Message-ID: <"_f80-.0.jg2.Rt_4q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10626 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 5, 9:28pm, lewis edward wrote: > I have new articles up on my web site. Most are about ball > lightning. One is about superconductivity. My apologies for having to ask, but the address is........? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 06:58:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:55:10 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:49:34 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Merriman on O-U verifications To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"IrQtW.0._G4.zE05q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10628 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: CETI has been selling cheap kits for many months now, with no indications of any results pro or con. The kits are expensive, especially compared to the buying power of the people who are interested and willing to test this sort of thing. As Chris pointed out the sales contract for the kits is terribly restrictive. Furthermore, the effect reportedly produ ced by the CETI cells is small and very difficult to measure, whereas the Cincinnati Group device reportedly produces a large, easily detected effect. You and Scott Little essentially had Ragland Triode kits, with no meaningful results. Our results are clear-cut and quite meaningful: the triode is not a panacea. It does not work as well as Ragland claimed; it may not work at all. I think we expressed that clearly in the I.E. article. If we had more research funding we would have tested at least two more Ragland cells by now, and we would have reached a definitive conclusion. Unfortunately Chris is busy with other experiments and we do not have enough computers, power supplies, or Soo to go around. Potapov and Griggs have been selling "working version" of their cavitation devices for several years now, with no definitive test results. This is totally incorrect! All tests of the Potapov device I know of have been definitely negative, and all five formal, documented of the Griggs test I have seen have been unequivocally positive. Griggs has only sold one machine specifically for the purp ose of outside scientific testing. He sold it to us. We have it, and if Gene ever has enough time and money he will test it. Joe Champion has been pushing his processes for nearly 10 years, with no definitive results. He sent me samples of the material, and the results were definitely negative. There was no way anyone could detect meaningful isotopic anomalies in the samples. The unprocessed ore had more apparent anomalies than the processed ore! Champion said these were real anomalies caused by blasting during mining. I pointed out that if blasting caused isotopic shifts, the isotope tables in textbooks and encyclopedias would be meaningless. Mizuno and others said that powdery material cannot be reliably analyzed with a SIMS machine, which I think is more likely. I agree its great that someone making an anomalous claim is willing to provide others with the information/hardware to test those claims. But, as the above examples show, there does not necessarily seems to come any satisfactory resolution from this process. Unfortunately, only a few people have ever been willing to provide others with sufficient information and hardware. Griggs, Ragland and the Cincinnati Group are the only ones that come to mind. The others have either refused or been unable to do this. I find it hard to get excited about---I will not be at all surprised if a year from now the CG's results are simply mired in controversy, and stay that way for an indefinite time. If that happens, it will be because there is so little funding and so few competent people in this field that even crucial experiments cannot be performed. Yet any one of these experiments -- Griggs, Ragland or the Cincinnati Group -- is far more importan t than all of the research being done in every department of the DoE. The results of the Griggs tests and the conventional Pd cold fusion experiments have a much higher S/N ratio than the experiments at, say, the PPPL, and they are infinitely more importa nt. Merriman has never suggested any reason to doubt these experiments, although he has had six year to search for a reason, and many months since I sent him the papers. His silence speaks louder than words. He pretends the results are "mired in controversy." What controversy? It is a lot of shouting, emotionalism and denial of plain facts. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 06:57:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:54:32 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:49:46 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Yomiuri article on NHE closing To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"BO5MF1.0.tF4.NE05q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10627 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Tom Stolper asks: What is known about the device from IMRA Japan (Sapporo) that did produce XSH? Why did the NHE lab choose not to follow up with that device? Researchers at the NHE reported that when the Kunimatsu's IMRA devices was moved into their flow calorimeter, it failed to produce excess heat. This was in the ICCF6 reports. I have heard informally from Storms that they tried the 'calorimeter in a calori meter' approach, in which the static calorimeter was surrounded by the cooling loops of a larger flow calorimeter. This also produced no heat, and furthermore, it may have revealed an error in Kunimatsu's calorimetry. I do not know the nature of the alleg ed error. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 07:03:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:59:58 -0700 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.200.226 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:59:45 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: EM-gravity interaction Resent-Message-ID: <"Nm5jP2.0.WW4.SJ05q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10629 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >"I gave a seminar on some of the modifications to the EM field that result >from gravity here at GSFC and there were some experts on EM theory in the >audience that totally refused to accept the results. The fact that the >modifications were predicted by general relativity and were needed to >conserve energy seemed to have no effect of these individuals." > >What sorts of objections did the EM guys raise? > >Tom Stolper The objection was to the acceleration E&M fields that results from a charged particle at rest in a gravitational field. By the equivalence principle such a charged particle should be the same as a particle accelerating through space and accelerating pa rticles generate a 1/r radiation field. It does seem hard to accept that a particle just sitting on a table top is generating a radiation field but Gen Rel gives this result and this radiation field is necessary to conserve energy. 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 Mon Sep 8 08:42:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:29:48 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rich Murray, re: language! Resent-Message-ID: <"v1BzR.0.Pc6.Rf15q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10633 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Mike Carrell wrote: > Dear Rich, > > You said: > ----------------- > Now, folks, I want to admit to you > straight-out that I have no logic, evidence, or authority for this, > except for this that just arises, intuitively and subjectively, in the > maelstrom of this wanker's soul, but I cannot buy it. It just ain't > so. It's some sort of foolishness. There ain't no coon up that there ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > tree. ~~~~ It's probably some twee little Americanism but it's a bit near the knuckle. And now a little progress. Concentrating on 'polymeric phospholipid vesicles' working with some guy in academia (Gawd bless 'em, you gotta love 'em). It's all very much up to me - I do the donkey work (or is that spade work?) and for a little bit of his time, he gives me leads to f ollow - absolutely priceless! When I have my decision tree and raise a little bit of money, I'll commision some lab space. I hope I can make it to philantrope status or wise old sage like these guys are. And now for a little rant. Mother Theresa 1/2 hour on R4. Told you so! Here is a lady who didn't have 15 million pounds in her account and 5 million raised recent by public appearances (is it libel? I'll run for cover) and was telling people to give to charity. What we have is a dumbing down phenomena from raising of people's living standards but not their intellectual level. It seems the wealthier people become, the more time they spend watching soaps or reading tabloids. Something to think about as we give 'em new energy technology. This leads nicely to liberalism (old style ya hear) and wealth creation. The modern economy and technological progress wasn't for the aristocrat - he's been wealthy since the year dot: why need running hot and cold water when you can have running slaves with buckets? In the past, the elite pursued elite activities and were highly cultured. We'll the common man is catching up with their living standards but not the culture or intellectual depth. Mother Theresa was a good woman but did she ever question why people were poor in India/Africa and elsewhere? It wasn't because nasty greedy capitalists kept them that way. No it's because of caste systems, supersititions, poor education. What old style liberalism did when our great forebearers questioned society's hierarchy, religious institions and the laws of nature was to give the common man a chance in life to pursue freedom and a better living standard. They created free ecomonics an d free society. So why mourn a monarchy, especially one as facile and lax as ours? A good monarchy can be a boon to freedom if its done right BUT otherwise it encourages nepotism and 'cronyism' and state funded protection rackets. Think of those moochers crying for more of your money: the arts and the perverted offerings they chuck out that insult your core values; the sciences - I believe that everything should have a use - even poetry - next time some bigwig holds you back and pa tronises you, think you pay his wages. You know the statists (the new aristocrats) were very clever when they created socialism. Like other insitutions that played on your fears and offered you no rational view of the world - only faith, they told you a lie and got rich with your money and dre ssed it up as liberalism. They scared the hell out of you that you couldn't make it without them and their pity for you. Well, PITY STINKS. Much better to face the World as a rational human being than with some parasitic monster, that thinks it's symbiotic, ready to devour you onc e you grow up and start fending for yourself. Sooner 'barren land', a few tools and a book than a U.N. food parcel and associated bureaucrat or crying princess. EOR (End-of-Rant) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 10:49:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:46:03 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Nucleate Boiling Phenomena and implications. Cc: little eden.com Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:49:21 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"RhVpN.0.F17.Od35q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10637 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, A saucepan with tapwater and a heating element, is an interesting way to observe the boiling phenomena. In a cold pan there are first formed small "static" bubbles that cling to the bottom of the pan in the area that is getting the hottest. As the water heats the bubbles break away from the bottom and rise and break at the surface. Nothing new there. :-) This "nucleate" boiling takes place at a heat input flux of about 3 watts/cm^2 with a delta t of 6 deg K to about 160 watts/cm^2 and a delta t of 30 K, at which time it goes into the "film" boiling mode. There has always been a bit of a head-scratcher regarding what causes the bubble nucleation site, especially after the water has been de-gased. Interesting similarity to microcavition-sonoluminescent bubble stuff, and a well explored avenue in power plant boiler design. However, Heat = nucleation site = LLs = hydrinos = bubbles? Never thought to look for hydrinos in water Heat Pipes. Lots of Hydrogen released in Water-Aluminum heat pipes even at 100 C after a few hundred hours. Seems that the water wants to keep reacting with the aluminum forming Al2O3 and H2. The water vapor in the heat pipes will actually compress the non-condensible gases (like H2) up at the cold-condensing end of the heat pipe. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 09:50:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:42:40 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Gotta love academic research. To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:40:54 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"ZciQx3.0.um1.zh25q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10635 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > Peronally, while I think capitalistic private industry is a great model > for efficient production, distribution and refinement of products, > I don't think it is the right model to impose on all human > activity, scientific research in particular. If this comment is directed at the taxation versus charity issue, then I find the concept of "imposing" freedom to be kind of humorous. -- - 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 Sep 8 17:14:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Physics of OAHSPE part 1 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 17:22:16 -0000 x-sender: mmcgill inet1.inetworld.net From: "J. Michael McGill" To: "vortex-L" Resent-Message-ID: <"1jNxR1.0.mh1.MK95q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10654 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi all A book I have called OAHSPE published in 1882 says this "There are two known things in the universe: ethe and corpor. The former is the solvent of the latter. For comparison, take a lump of table-salt, which, though white, is impervious to the sight of ma n. Cast it into water, and it is lost to sight; though it still existeth, the sight of man can see through it. Earth substance, as such is equally soluble in ethe. And the great etherean firmament is thus constituted; being a dense solution of corpor. In the main, etherea is transparent; but in some places translucent, and opaque. Here are iron, and copper, and granite, and water, and lead, and clay, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen, and various other kinds of corporeal substances, as known on eart h, and besides these, millions of things not known on the earth. And ethe holdeth them in solution; even after the manner that air holdeth the substance of clouds, which is water in solution. In the case of a vortex in etherea (that is after the manner of a whirlwind on earth), the corporeal solutions are propelled toward the centre thereof in greater density. When it is sufficiently dense to manifest light and shadow, it is called a comet, or nebula; when it is still more dense it is a planet. As previously stated, ethe holdeth corpor in solution, which is the condition of atmospherea and of the etherean regions beyond. When a portion of this solution is given a rotary motion it is called a vortex. The earth floateth in the midst of a vortex, the outer extremity of which is somewhat beyond the moon. The vortex is globular, corresponding to the form of the earth, with slight differences, which will be pointed out hereafter. The vortex turneth the ear th on its axis, with its own axial motion. Consequently the outer part of the vortex hath greater velocity than near the earth's surface, which hath an axial motion of one thousand miles an hour. The outer rim, forty-two thousand miles broad of the earth' s vortex, hath a revolution axially with the earth once a month. [The earth's vortex was discovered by space scientist beginning in 1958 and named the magnetosphere, the magnetosphere was not even theorized untill 1931, but OAHSPE described it in 1881]. The swiftest part of the earth's vortex is therefore about fifteen thousand miles this side of the orbit of the moon. From the swiftest part of the earth's vortex, its force is toward the earth's centre. And if there was no earth here at present, the vortex would make one presently. Things fall not to the earth because of gravity therein, but are driven toward the centre of the vortex, by the power of the vortex. The greater diameter of the vortex is east and west; the lesser diameter north and south, with an inclination and oscillation relatively like the earth. let me know what you think of the physics of OAHSPE part 1, I will send you part two later so the email is not too long. talk to you later Michael X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 09:48:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:40:30 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: <199709061918.OAA10752 natasha.eden.com> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:43:54 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Summary of Hamdi's current experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"8d_Ch.0.7w3.zf25q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10634 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: [snip] >At last, I also able to resonate normal coils(not bifilar) in the same >fashion, axially and side ways "T". [snip] This and other effects you describe seem to be internal resonances in the windings. Windings behave like slow transmission lines and exhibit resonances, not always harmonically relate, because the windings tend to be be dispersive. By the same token, t he modes' spatial structure can get complicated. Helical windings are used as slow wave structures, noteable in microwave travelling wave and backward wave tubes. They are also used as delay lines. In these applications one tries to minimize dispersion by designing the resonances to be far from the ope rating frequencies. 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 Sep 8 12:28:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:22:46 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) From: james cox Subject: antigravi ty and space drive newsletter To: vortex-L eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"snokh2.0.SQ3.4255q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10638 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This is to announce the creation of a new journal: ANTIGRAVITY NEWS and SPACE DRIVE TECHNOLOGY, by James E. Cox, B.S.Physics, 1973, with 20 years research and development experience in the defense industry relating to electric spacecraft propulsion, elect romagnetic railguns for "star wars", magnetohydrodynamic power generation and systems engineering of complex weapon systems. Also, in secret, a space drive investigator for some 37 years since the Dean Drive came out. This new journal was inspired by the Podletkenov and Schnurer experiments, so the premier issue is devoted to summarizing work to date in efforts to confirm his results, including my orignal work with spinning superconductors. This journal will put emphasis on experiments and engineering app lications of this new g-shielding effect; I am particularly interested in looking at conceptual designs on how to use it for lifting people and machines. Also, in this premier issue is a report on room temperature superconductor patent technology. A rep ort is given on other anomalous weightloss devices (reported in detail in the next issue). We are also interested in joining forces with our readers to design a SC gravity shielded vehicle for winning the "X-prize", $10,000,000 reward for taking three peo ple 62 miles into space! We would like to sponsor a contest of $$$$$ dollars to the first person to achieve 10%, 20%.....100% shielding coefficient in a graduated way. Finally, I ask: is it now time to organize the FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ANTIGRAV ITY RESEARCH, to be held in Atlanta, Georgia at the Ritz Carlton hotel in 1998. Please e-mail me your interest in participating in this endeavor! The premier issue is now available for $6.00 per sample copy, or $36 per year for bimonthly six issues paya ble to James E. Cox, enterprise, AGN, P.O. Box 655, Marietta, Ga. 30061-655. My e-mail address: antigravnews rocketmail, funds will support the journal and my original research endeavors. Thanks ågain for your support! _____________________________________________________________________ Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 12:48:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:33:14 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Horst, McKubre & Kafka goalpost list To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"3HWE_2.0.88.PI55q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10641 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Bob Horst writes: Since 1989, there have been many different criteria for deciding when a result constitutes proof of OU. The various goalpost positions I can remember are: 1. Experiment must have a good control. 2. Must be replicated 3. Must be replicated by a prestigious lab. 4. A paper must be published in a quality scientific journal. 5. Detailed construction plans must be published. 6. Detailed experimental results must be published. and more recently 7. The loop must be closed (perpetual motion device constructed). It seems pretty clear that 1-6 have been achieved in several different experiments . . . But 1-6 are clearly not enough for general acceptance, given that the controversy continues. So either a new goalpost has been erected between 6 and 7, or now it takes an engineering result to convince scientists to believe their own experiments. I believe that is the case. Historically, it has taken engineering results to convince scientists, and even commercial sales. Edison installed electric lights on Wall Street before the scientists came around. Let me expand this list, starting with suggestions from McKubre. He said: "People's attention needs to be grabbed by something that's simple, unarguable, concrete and rugged, and it has to be simple enough to explain it to the average person or average po litician. And it really has to be a lot more robust than anything that we have generated so far." In my I.E. review, I responded: [McKubre] is right. . . . That is a shame and it is unfair to McKubre and other cold fusion scientists. McKubre's experiment is unarguable. It should not have to be simple, concrete or rugged. These have never been held as standards for believability in science . . . . . . until now, anyway. So here are McKubre's additions: 7. The experiment must be easy to replicate. Anything that takes more than a week cannot be true. 8. The device must be "simple," whatever that means. I suppose it must resemble an LCD screen, a nicad battery, or a Tamagochi virtual pet: it must be an object that anyone could throw together out of raw materials. 9. The device must be rugged. I presume this means it should work even when a dead fly falls into the electrolyte and is galvanized to the cathode, as happened in a famous, often-cited negative experiment performed by Droege. It must work with any cathode material, even metal from the NHE or the NRL which fails all known suitability tests. 10. It must grab people's attention. This is tricky because no journal, magazine or newspaper will publish a word about it, and SRI will not issue a press release, paper or web site describing their experiments in layman's terms. The skeptics themselves generally add two requirements: 11. The effect must be perfectly consistent and controlled. When you input 1 watt and you get out anything from 300 to 1500 watts, that "proves" the effect is not real. By that standard you can prove firewood does not burn, since no two logs burn the same way or produce the same level of power. 12. There must a theory. It must be accepted by the authorities, and it must not contradict or call into question any aspect of any previous theory. It must explain all experimental results, including incorrect ones that have been retracted by the authors , like the early neutron findings. Finally, "skeptics" add an infinite series of straw-man requirements which can never be satisfied because they already have been. For example, Rich Murray demands that: 13. Cold fusion must not violate the First Law. As he puts it, "the dithering senily [sic] and inevitable death of overunity, is the rebirth of, la-la, The Conservation of Energy!" Since no cold fusion scientist claims that CF does violate the First Law, and since there is no evidence that it does, this requirement is, in a sense, impossible to meet. It is Kafkaesque. It reminds me of Soviet Gulag trials in which a person would be a ccused of blowing up a bridge. The bridge would be in plain view outside the window in fine condition, manifestly not blown up. The prisoner would be found guilt all the same. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 12:42:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:38:42 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:33:36 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: New I.E. web site To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"fU_kW.0.sN4.0H55q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10640 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex As Gene mentioned, Infinite Energy has a new web site, with handsome graphics and up-to-date information: www.infinte-energy.com Our previous web site was my home page with CompuServe: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell Since John Logajan and others have links to the old site, I will leave it in place indefinitely, with a link on the first page to the new site. I say "indefinitely," but CompuServe just announced they are going out of business, so it may not be long. CompuServe is being swallowed by AOL, which in turn is being obsoleted by Internet carriers, which will be swallowed by the phone companies, which w ill be bought up by AT&T and the Bell Companies, which will put us back to Square One. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 12:46:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:38:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Hamdi Ucar , Vo rtex-L Subject: RE: Summary of my current experiments Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:35:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"v-WAu1.0.e3.fG55q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10639 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Be careful about touching the equipment when it is operating. The frequencies involved are similar to those used in Diathermy machines, for treating muscular aches and pains. At high powers you may be cooking your fingers. Hank Scudder ---------- From: Hamdi Ucar To: vortex Subject: Summary of my current experiments Date: Saturday, September 06, 1997 11:09AM Dear Ron, Scott, Dan and all Vo, Thank you for you interest. Currently I am looking for unusual behaviour of coils by their unconventional usages. I am focused originally on bifilar coils, still so, but current experiment apparently does not utilize the bifilar structure of the coil. What I am doing currently is exciting a coil by a weak magnetic coupling on frequency range of 15-100 MHz and oscillate it on its multiple resonance frequencies. As the coils are only suitable to operate conventionally below 1 MHz, driving them on frequen cies order of magnitude higher, gives unexpected results: 1) Coil behave as transmission lines a kind of LC resonance circuit at these frequency as a result of its inter-winding capacities. Q of the resonance is high. It needs to tune the frequency below 100 kHz resolution for maximum output at 42.2 MHz. 2) Nodes and auxiliary dipoles are generated along the coil according it resonance mode. 3) Magnetic flux is exiting radially from the coil on this internal dipole positions 4) Energy efficiency of the coil is better than 50%. Maybe it is close to unity, but I have not able to measure them correctly. (I am not excluding the OU possibility of course). 5) When coil are only coupled magnetically with no electrical connection, it can be thought as magnetic transmission line or magnetic flux impedance converter or xformer or a antenna. 6) A coil could be driven by side way as closing the exciting coil perpendicular to the resonator coil, looking on of its internal dipole radially. exciting coil | | (separation is 10 to 5 mm) ======================= a b resonator coil ======================= Freq=58.6MHz N---S S---------N N---S a,b are internal dipoles exciting coil | | (separation is 10 to 5 mm) ======================= N S S N resonator coil ======================= Freq=42.4MHz Note: normal axial coupling is normally used. ======================= __ resonator coil __ exciting coil ======================= Exciting coil is not inserted in to resonator coil and kept up to 20mm distance 7) Very strong magnetic flux generated around the coil, also large voltages may be present on leads of the coils and large potentials on the surrounding. A neon lamp can be lighten by simply closing to the coil. In this sense coils works like Tesla coils at high frequency. Again the DC power consumed by the hi-frequency generator is about 500mW So the total energy injected to resonating coil is less than 500mW. 8) As a result the coil emits strong EM waves as the input power is not dissipated thermally. 9) Displacement current play big role on these operating modes of the coils. When the large inter-winding capacitances, large induced voltages and frequency range 20 to 100 MHz is considered, it can be assumed the total of the displacement currents exceed s Amps. Specs: Resonator coil: 30 mm dia, 78mm len, wound as bifilar with 0.45mm wire no form inside, covered by packaging tape, all four lead of the coil are unconnected. Exciting coil: 20mm dia, 7mm len, 5 Turns with 0.60mm wire, winding are distanced by ~ 1mm. on a domestic plastic pipe. Oscillator build around one transistor, the exciting coil is collector circuit. loading scheme of the collector coil (exciting coil) influence the amplitude (greatly) and frequency (by %3) of the oscillator. Stick coil: 17mm dia, 210 mm len wound as bifilar with 0.40mm (not sure) on floor heating plastic pipe. (stick coil also resonate at this frequency and amplify or capture the field from resonator coil at 10 to 20 cm and light brightly the sense coil/LED p laced on one end) Sense coil: Single turn of 4cm dia. wire or two turns of 20mm wire attached directly to a high performance RED LED. Caution: I am experiencing some rheumatism like ache on finger or on hand when I touch the coils or immerse it to strong EM fields. Its endure about 30 minutes or more if I repeat these actions. As the frequency is high, nerves are not able to sense the e lectric currents directly. As the primary goal is not obtain OU from these experiments, not strong methods are used for power measurement and the circuit is not optimized for facilitating to measure the input and the output power. Magnetic flux shape on resonator coil at 58.5 MHz: SSS NNN ------- a ------------- b -------- /--------\\ //-------------\\ //---------\ // ------- \|/ ------------- \|/ -------- \\ || ||| ||| || \\ ========+========+========+========= // N \ - - - -//|\\ - - - - - - //|\\ - - - - / S N - - - - /S\ - - - - - - - /N\ - - - - - S A B N - - - - \S/ - - - - - - - \N/ - - - - - S N / - - - -\\|// - - - - - - \\|// - - - - \ S // ========+========+========+========= \\ || ||| ||| || \\ ------- /|\ ------------- /|\ -------- // \--------// \\-------------// \\---------/ ------- a ------------- b -------- SSS NNN || || sense coil A,B points to internal dipole (A-B) As I not experiencing on RF, I am not sure these results can be interpreted as "anomalous" for an scientist experienced on this field. (suggestions welcome) I suggest to carry this experiment on a good laboratory and obtain numeric figures rather than guessing (what I am doing now). Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 13:34:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:28:14 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:23:40 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: McKubre's real attitude To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6AxI_.0.Oe6.Q_55q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10642 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I posted some inside jokes here. I hope I did not give the wrong impression about McKubre. I quoted his NPR statement about the need for "simple, unarguable, concrete and rugged" results, and I pretended that he expects success from cathodes with dead fli es plastered on them, or inflatable one-size-fits-all NHE cathodes. McKubre would laugh himself silly at these things. He meant electrochemistry, not Howdy Doody playschool science. I do find fault with McKubre and SRI on this point: 10. It must grab people's attention. This is tricky because no journal, magazine or newspaper will publish a word about it, and SRI will not issue a press release, paper or web site describing their experiments in layman's terms. This is a tragic lapse on their part. Tragic, but ya' gotta laugh. It's hysterical! I mean, Mike complains on NPR that nobody pays attention, right? But the only way you can find out about his work is to dig up a 1994 J. Electroanal. Chem. or fork over $200 for EPRI TR-104195. (Or buy issue #9! Read my article!) Peer reviewed journals are fine as far as they go, but what era are these people living in? The Internet and the World Wide Web have been on the front pages for years. Every can of soda pop and box of dog food has "www.something.com" wri tten on it. I offered to help set up a web site for SRI years ago. So they publish a 200 page book plus microfiche. Microfiche! I had to go to three libraries before I found a reader. SRI does great science and inept public relations. Like so many others in this field . . . sigh. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 13:58:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:37:18 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) F rom: "John E. Steck" Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:30:30 -0500 References: <199709081537_MC2-1FA9-4148 compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New I.E. web site Resent-Message-ID: <"qiIbG3.0.x87.y765q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10643 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 8, 2:40pm, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I say "indefinitely," but CompuServe just announced they are going out of > business, so it may not be long. CompuServe is being swallowed by AOL, which > in turn is being obsoleted by Internet carriers, which will be swallowed by > the phone companies, which will be bought up by AT&T and the Bell Companies, > which will put us back to Square One. Strength is irrelevent. Resistance is futile. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-Zm-Content-Name: borg.wav Content-Type: audio/basic ; name="borg.wav" X-Zm-Decoding-Hint: mimencode -b -u Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\BORG.WAV X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 14:49:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att .net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: An Electrodeless Discharge Experiment Cc: little@eden.com Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 21:39:46 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"tmVsH2.0.ta4.l475q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10646 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, A simple experiment is to put about 250 ml of water in a 500-1000 ml flat-bottom boiling flask and let it boil enough to expell most of the air and cap it tight. When the flask and the water that is left cool to room temperature the internal pressure will be at about 20 mm Hg. Now it can be placed in a microwave oven 2.45 (GigaHz)and there should be some plasma created. As an option argon gas can be let into the flask to increase the pressure. (a mixture of argon and nitrogen is put in most incandescent light bulbs to a pressur e of about 0.8 atm 610mm Hg) One might try setting the flask in bright sunlight for several hours and then trying the microwave while looking for flashes of a bluish-white light in the flask (if it is dark enough). Even just letting air back in to various pressures could be interestng since air is about 78% nitrogen and 1.0% Argon anyhow. All measures of safe practice should be employed. Light bulbs placed in a microwave oven will attain dazzling brightness and EXPLODE! However, since they have electrodes feeding into the bulbs, this is not a true electrodeless discharge arrangement. Good Luck. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 14:04:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT) From: olso3562@novell.uidaho.edu Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:02:29 -0800 Subject: Re: GR problem Priority: urgent Resent-Message-ID: <"YWkF-.0.cB3.TQ65q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10644 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > What about a charged body sitting still on the surface of the Earth? Is it > accelerating at 1g? If so, is it radiating? > > Scott I think this one is a bit simpler. The charged body may be radiating relative to another body freefalling through the gravitational field. But the body sitting on the gravity source cannot radiate away all of his energy because as long as he is sitting on the earth, he will have a constant force applied to him against gravity. In this situation, near objects in freefall may see radiation, but far objects outside the gravitational field will not (or the radiation will be so redshifted that it won't matter) . I can live with that. My problem is when the charged body is in orbit, the situation is reversed. It IS possible for the charged body to lose energy and fall to earth, but if he does, it should be true in all reference frames (I think) INCLUDING the reference frame of an obje ct in the same orbit who can detect no acceleration. This is where I get thrown. By the way, does anyone besides Barry think this type of question is out of line for vortex? If others belive that it is, I will immediately shut up. JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 15:25:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:16:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: web site Resent-Message-ID: <"EojFW3.0.xZ5.sW75q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10647 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, John E. Steck wrote: >> >>On Sep 5, 9:28pm, lewis edward wrote: >>> I have new articles up on my web site. Most are about ball >>> lightning. One is about superconductivity. >> >>My apologies for having to ask, but the address is........? >>-- >>John E. Steck Good question, I too went looking and thought I'd use lynx under unix and URL protocals: I went to his mailing address lewis3 ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (server) and thought I'd add a tidle search on lewis3 to find it.. 404 error said ux1.cso.uiuc.edu HAS BEEN CHANGED to: "http://www.staff.uiuc.edu" so, I went There & GOT HIT adding /~lewis3! to the above Neat page on PLASMA's (five (5)sections/links).. noted #2 was off-limits, so I sent him e-mail to the original address which he got, because he replied he didn't know what I was talking about (#2 off limits) as he had only two (2) Picture/gif) pages avail able.. Hummmmm.. e-mail OK page wrong.... humm he says e-mail has errors BUT Page OK!.. I guess, what are the odds?, there must be a "lewis edward AND an edward lewis" at www.staff.edu that don't know each other AND work in the same field uiuc.edu 'each' using LEWIS3 (one for mail and one for hmpg) ------ weird science(tist's) :) ------ I have sent him the above in a seperate e-mail, and maybe he is working on it now. My bottom line till THEY figure it out is: lewis edward e-mail = lewis3 ux1.cso.uiuc.edu WORKS ux1.cso.uiuc.edu =(now)= www.staff.uiuc.edu & edward lewis hmpg = www.staff.uiuc.edu/~lewis3 WORKS --edward lewis=nice page on Plasma (lightning, aether and beyond)-- clear as mud -ya? -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 16:01:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:51:52 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward X-Sender: lew is3 staff1.cso.uiuc.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: web site Resent-Message-ID: <"Lj0km1.0.Gc6.X785q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10649 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > I have new articles up on my web site. Most are about ball > lightning. One is about superconductivity. > > If you are interested in the topic of scientific revolutions, > paradigms, crisis periods, or economic depressions, you'll find an > abstract to a long book I have written. I am selling copies of this for > 35 dollars. > > If people have tried to email me and I haven't responded, please > try again. I realized that the email link on the web site didn't work. > > If atoms dissipate sufficiently, what should remain is a proton > or neutron or something smaller. But I don't think that the proton or > neutron was actually inside. > Last time I forgot to put the address: www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 16:19:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:13:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:53:33 -0500 (GMT) From: Carlos Henry Castano To: Carlos Henry Castano Cc: grupo de discusion Subject: Re: web site Resent-Message-ID: <"i1WSJ2.0.106.8Q85q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10652 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, John E. Steck wrote: > My apologies for having to ask, but the address is........? I think this is the home page of Lewis. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946/index.html Carlos Henry Casta~o Giraldo Ingeniero Quimico Laboratorio de Electroquimica Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin. [other E-mail (slow): chcastan hotmail.com] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 16:08:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:02:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:02:17 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward X-Sender: lewis3@st aff1.cso.uiuc.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: web site Resent-Message-ID: <"XLXXA2.0.ZM5._F85q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10651 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > > I have new articles up on my web site. Most are about ball > > lightning. One is about superconductivity. > Hi John Steck, The address is www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946 I am sorry that I didn't put it up before. Could you tell me what you think about it? If you think the price for the book is too high, maybe I can reduce it. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 16:03:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:04:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: your mail (fwd) & hmpg lewis3 Resent-Message-ID: <"8uq283.0.Tn6.OD85q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10650 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com AhhA! ok :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:48:11 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward To: Steve Ekwall Subject: Re: your mail Hi. I am sorry. You got the wrong web site address. I should have put it up. www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946 Sorry What do you think about that one? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 15:57:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:44:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: protech frii.com To: "fredrick.sparber" Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:36:07 -0700 Organization: ProTech Subject: Microwave experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"iGtD1.0.hM6._-75q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10648 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fredrick, I have been following your "light lepton" discussion with interest. Try this and see what you think. Get a wooden stick match and mount it in something non -conductive. I use a soft rubber draftsmans eraser or a piece of stryrafoam. Set the supported match stick in the center of your microwave and light. Shut the door and run the microwave on high (I use 30 sec.). Observer the plasmoids form at the base of the flame and drift around the oven enclosure. Do you think that the flame is forming light lepton pairs? It would be interesting to know the particle make up of the plasmoids. Let me know what you think. Can anyone else provide an explanation for this phenomena. ___Ron X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 03:39:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 03:39:33 -0700 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 19:59:46 -0400 From: HAMILTON LCIA.COM (DANNY HAMILTON) Reply-To: hamilton.lcia.com@eskimo.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: antigravity and space drive newsletter References: <19970908191859.27184.rocketmail send2.rocketmail.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"g0I1E3.0.Ym1.ZTI5q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10663 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wish you luck!! Just wanted to suggest you look at the cost savings associated with land transport of military vehicles like tanks. The Army publishes cost per mile numbers that are significant. Luck, Danny james cox wrote: > > This is to announce the creation of a new journal: ANTIGRAVITY NEWS X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 18:55:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:55:44 -0700 (PDT) From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: New I.E. web site To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 20:54:11 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"x_R6g.0.ni4.PoA5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10655 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Since John Logajan and others have links to the old site, ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not anymore. Updated just now. -- - 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 Sep 8 20:53:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 20:54:14 -0700 (PDT) From: VCockeram@aol.com Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:47:57 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: New I.E. web site Resent-Message-ID: <"8Czm-1.0.sI1.BXC5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10658 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 97-09-08 16:44:42 EDT, you write: << Strength is irrelevent. Resistance is futile. -- John E. Steck >> Borg.wav......John, I love it! BIG chuckle on that. Thanks Vince Las Vegas Nevada X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 22:16:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 22:15:13 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:21:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: New I.E. web site Resent-Message-ID: <"NwG7-1.0.Zl3.VjD5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10659 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 8 Sep 1997 VCockeram aol.com wrote: >><< Strength is irrelevent. Resistance is futile. >> >> -- >> John E. Steck >> >> >>Borg.wav......John, I love it! >>BIG chuckle on that. Thanks >> >>Vince >>Las Vegas Nevada >> AND "You WILL be _____oOOo_( 0 0 )_oOOo___assimilated o X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 8 23:24:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:24:28 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Exploding Rocks, Light Leptons and Hydrinos. Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 06:23:51 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"G2C2p.0.HJ7.RkE5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10661 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, A while back Dan Quickert mentioned that while on scout outings it was prudent not to use rocks from the creek for the campfire. Lets see, water in the rocks, a few hundred degrees C forms LLs, the water (Hydrogen) and alkali (potassium?) in the rocks forms Hydrinos liberating kilojoules, and "BOOM". :-) Wet bricks in a powerful microwave oven might do it too. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 03:46:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 03:46:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 03:46:22 -0700 X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman) Subject: ALERT Cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"BELK72.0.Qt1.7aI5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10664 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Listen up Bubbleheads, I just went to the Cincy Group Site check out their page to see what the price was for their cell. I have an external modem, and whenever I am online, I watch the lights to see when my computer is sending and receiving data. I have heard rumors from som e hacker friends that Netscape has a bug which will allow someone to read and write to your harddisk, and I like to monitor the lights of my modem to make sure that that is not happening. Well, I was waiting for the picture of the copper flake to come across, and I noticed that my send data light was constantly on. It is never on except to acknowledge packets when receiving data. I hit the stop button on the Netscape control bar, and not only did the light continue to be lit, but the receive light also stayed on for some seconds _after the picture stopped coming across_. I quickly went to another site, and it behaved normally again. I got offline immediately, and brought up filemanager to find that at least 4 files had been altered including my bookmark file and 3 new files had been added. At least that's what I've found so far. The 3 new files contained the text "AT&T Bell Labs" , "RSA Security,Inc." and "Netscape Version", along with a bunch of machine code. I don't know exactly what all this means, but I don't like it. Like I said earlier, I always monitor those lights, and this is the first time this has ever happened to me, and it just so happened to be on the Cincy Grp web site. Any ideas on what is going on here? -Knuke X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 04:11:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 04:11:49 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:11:13 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: barry math.ucla.edu Subject: Re: CF & Lake Van Monster Resent-Message-ID: <"6fe4y1.0.BR2.qxI5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10666 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry, You're right, there is a mention of the Lake Van monster in the transcript of the June 11, 1997, Good Morning America program. The Lake Van monster didn't rate a heading in the table of contents on the cover page of the transcript, or a separate heading in the transcript itself; but the monster is mentioned on p. 8, in the first "National News" segment. According to the transcript, the Lake Van monster video came at the end of that segment, after McVeigh, a brushfire in Riverside County, California, and a giant sinkhole in a city in Ukraine. I think that Park was stretching a point to say that the Lake Van monster bumped the story about CETI to the second hour. CETI got a lot more space as well as a heading in both the contents on the cover page and in the transcript itself. And by the way, the heading was "Patterson Power Cell." Good editorial judgement in my opinion. XSH is the main event. I share your skepticism about claims of radioactive remediation via transmutation; but I think that the XSH that Patterson and Crave ns have produced is real, as is the XSH produced by Mills and BlackLight Power. Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 04:12:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 04:11:56 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:11:17 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Rich Murray & BLP Resent-Message-ID: <"JYh0D1.0.GS2.wxI5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10667 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich, In your post of Sept. 8, 1997, you said that you had sent many messages to BlackLight Power over the past half year but had never gotten any response except for the same brief form letter. Your principal interest seems to be claims of transmutations and radioactive remediation. As far as I know, BLP has never had any interest in either transmutations or radioactive remediation. Why should they respond to messages about a subject that does n't interest them? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 05:47:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 05:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 06:41:15 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Rich Murray & BLP References: <970909071116_-666388592 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"LH3qo3.0.xR5.CDK5q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10668 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tom, I only sent BLP posts that were relevant to their claims, such as the Vigier "tight orbital" reports, or posts that discuss possible errors in experiments, which could be helpful in making their own experiments more right on. I was hoping to draw their team into dialogue with Vortex-L. Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 08:03:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 08:02:43 -0700 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 09:06:22 -0500 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ceti onramp.net, danyork@liadfw.net, sarfatti@well.com, JosephHRowe compuserve.com, ggmurray@uriacc.uri.edu, dnovak uriacc.uri.edu, rollo@artvark.com, lucille@telis.org, jmyeo juno.com, zumm@flash.net, cmurrayu@uh.edu, ctraison@msn.com, sethnet efn.org, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, dennis wazoo.com, ine@padrak.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, davidk@suba.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, yekim@physics.purdue.edu, jaeger eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, wireless@rmii.com, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, fawolf ix.netcom.com, catala@scils.Rutgers.EDU Subject: Re Champion and transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"_PgYI3.0.UC1.HKM5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10671 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 9, 1997 Dear all, On Sept. 4, Joe Champion, whose recent posts have made valuable contributions with frank discussions of his own hard-won expertise at making mistakes with mass spectrometer data in evaluating complex samples, gave us an unusually honest and thought-provok ing post: in brief, he is certain that his transmutation recipes work, and yet most scientists are unable to replicate or verify them. Moreover, replication is admittedly essential, if any theoretical explanation is to be achieved. To discuss the implications I see in his confession, I have to wear two hats. One is the kind of Scottish scientific practicality, exemplified by David Hume, that follows the commonsense protocols of hard evidence, one-line causality, linear external spa ce, single physical-only reality, awareness as a passive processor of data, consensual validation, careful complilation of reliable numerical data, weaving of mathematical models that generate testable numeric predictions. All these features of the scie ntific world view seem so obvious and so well proven, as to be deemed incontrovertible. These core principles are the very foundation of collective scientific reality. Yet they are false, one and all, radically, fundamentally false, in the face of the reality that is actually here. You see, all experience, including the experience you have this instance of these little marks on your monitor's screen, which are spontane ously, habitually translated into inaudible speech and sensed meaning complexes, necessarily exists only as events within awareness, along with whatever sounds and body sensations are momentarily experienced. The entire "external" can only be known as "i nternal" events in awareness. And awareness itself, although surely real this very moment, is a complete unknown. Awareness, for instance, has no color, not even black, white, or transparent. Likewise, no size, location in time or space, or dimension. Therefore, no boundary of any sort. Hence, awareness is unlimited, infinite, already, always. This is the other hat I wear, the hatless hat. Awareness explores awareness, directly. This leads inevitably to remarkably expanded states of awareness. Ordinary awareness is by its own intrinsic nature impossible to describe or to model. Even more so, so is expanded awareness. So, necessarily, th is can only be proven one by one, as each center of awareness engages in self-exploration, in self-expansion, perhaps with the teasing, inspiring, and pragmatic aid of teachings and teachers. The nature of this collaboration is well hinted at by a saying in Zen: When thieves meet one another at night, they recognize one another instantly. To use a word that is extremely repugnant to the scientific world game, awareness is magic. The reliable, sober certainties and uniformities of science and technology are grounded in a foundation that is ineluctably magic. This magic keeps popping up, b leeding through, like the random spots that are always flashing on the movie screen even during the most engrossing and convincing drama. There have been comments many times on Vortex-L about things that happen only once or only to one team. A common scientific legend is that some people by their very presence "hex" experiments or equipment: I'm saying that this is sometimes so. In terms of my own experience, I personally have many varieties of anomalous experience. To cite one catagory as an understandable example, since 1982 I have many times a year had precognive dreams about rather ordinary events of the next day or so. Why should you believe me? Far more likely, it is coincidence, delusion, dogmatism, or fraud. I have studied parapsycholgy for 32 years, and scanned every issue of "The Skeptical Inquirer" for 15 years, and I know of no scientific, consensual proof of a ny aspect of the paranormal. Yet, for me, there is nothing but the paranormal. I personally am unable to find any instance of the normal. This is the paradox. There is no such thing as evidence in a dream. And, appreciated from the foundation of awareness, there is nothing but dr eam, inexplicable events within awareness. Can't be described, measured, controlled, replicated, explained, or predicted, yet intimately "here". So, the normal is a simulation woven somehow out of the fabic of the nonnormal, the transnormal, the metanor mal. Therefore, the normal is in its very normality actually proof, when subtly appreciated, of the all-encompassing reality of the paranormal. This is the paradox. Many of you are baffled by this message. Some; upset-- for what is more threatening than to encounter a challenge to the entire structure of a deeply cherished world view? A few; reassured, curious, enticed, stimulated, teased, inspired. One or two; app reciative of an original experiment at teaching. I've gone thorough all these stages myself, many times, for 32 years. A substantial, beautiful, expensive, large house, home to many, built on sand, will crumble of its own weight. That is why the labors of parapsychologists, and the labors of the overunity community, always come to nothingness. The assumed foundations of the effort are inadequate, false. Without attention to the foundation of awareness, without access to the realities of expanded awareness, nothing enduring can be achieved. This is what is being inadvertently proved so far. You see, you can't be just a little bit pregnant. You can't just explore any little piece of awareness, of the infinite. To make any real progess, you have to resolve to explore all of it, on its own terms, as it is in itself, the entire infinity, becaus e it is one, it is entirely and intimately self-connected to every part of itself within itself, already, always. That is the logic of infinity: All of the above, none of the above, for all structures of thought both fail and, to a degree, succeed in exp ressing it. This is the paradox. As one, Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 07:40:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:23:17 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: web site Resent-Message-ID: <"7h8083.0.ko.DsL5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10669 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 8, 6:07pm, lewis edward wrote: > I am sorry that I didn't put it up before. Could you tell me what you > think about it? If you think the price for the book is too high, maybe I > can reduce it. I am assuming you refer to your short abstract: "The Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and the Past Periodic Depressions" http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS6.html Interesting socio-economic analysis, but not really my sandbox. This swerves headlong into the land of chaos theory and I consider myself more of a screw counter than an academic. My arm chair critique, what ever the worth, is the pattern seems generati onal to me. You may have already done this, but compare your cycle data to average life spans across the same time periods, economic achiever/benificiary/achiever/benificiary trends, and social conservative/liberal/conservative/liberal philosophy swings . The perceived patterns could be just the convergence of several cyclical elements (or lack of convergence). -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 07:57:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:57:20 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) F rom: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:56:56 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: May be of interest Resent-Message-ID: <"aqZ7e3.0.z_.FFM5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10670 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Looking for some information on magnetocaloric devices I ran across this site. I found some of the abstracts very interesting. Research of The Laboratory of Acoustics and Thermal Physics http://www.fys.kuleuven.ac.be/atf/publ96.html -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 09:35:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:17:40 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: IE arri ves! To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: 76570.2270 compuserve.com Cc: mica world.std.com Resent-Message-ID: <"BK69z3.0.5v3.qVN5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10673 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com September 9, 1997 Well! The very afternoon Monday after commenting to a friend about not yet receiving the latest IE, it arrived. About time. Funny the contents seems already familiar. Lots to read. I owe an apology to Cold Fusion Times. One time I declined subscription to its magazine/newsletter on the basis that I would be reading same news published in the IE. Wrong. I have found sufficient different news to justify subscibing to the magazine (kin da hefty rate though). And thanks for the complementary issue. I found out what Dieter Britz looks like among other things. -AK- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 09:35:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:21:23 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Magneticoloric Refrigeration Resent-Message-ID: <"EuS5Z2.0.Qw3.PWN5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10674 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Just got the new Popsci and they have a nice piece in there on a new magneticaloric refrigeration effort by Ames Labs and Astronautics Corp of America. Did several web searches to find more information, but the Popsci article is the most informative. Th eir site still has last months issue posted. Ames just had a generic press release, ACA's site did not even mention it. The hits got more vague from there. Didn't try the IBM server yet. Popular Science October 1997, page 41 Written by Mariette DiChristina Edited by William G. Phillips [the new system]... will take advantage of the magneticaloric effect. That's the property of certain materials that heat up when magnetized and cool when demagnetized. In an experimental version of the system tested for six months, gadolinium spheres were used to demonstrate the technology. At the same time, [Karl] Gschneidner [Ames Labs] and his colleagues discovered gadolinium-silicon-germanium alloy, a new material that doubled the performance of gadolinium, previously the best known magnetic refrigerant. While the alloy costs slightly more than the gadolinium, says Gschneidner, it improves efficiency by 25 percent- enabling magnetic cooling to significantly outpe rform conventional vapor-compression systems. The alloy can be "tuned" for different operating temperatures- a higher temperature for an air conditioner, a lower one for a freezer, for instance -by adjusting the ratio of silicon to germanium. The more g ermanium used, the lower the temperature. Gschneidner hopes to adapt the system for heating and cooling. There is a visual schematic of the setup, but no in depth information. Sorry, no scanner. Any vort insiders at the Ames facility? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 09:29:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:28:10 -0700 X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:27:57 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"Ae71h.0.Sb5.OaN5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10675 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael T Huffman (knuke aa.net) writes: >I just went to the Cincy Group Site [snip] >I got offline immediately, and brought up filemanager to find that at >least 4 files had been altered including my bookmark file and 3 new files >had been added. At least that's what I've found so far. The 3 new files >contained the text "AT&T Bell Labs", "RSA Security,Inc." and "Netscape >Version", along with a bunch of machine code. I don't know exactly what >all this means, but I don't like it. Like I said earlier, I always >monitor those lights, and this is the first time this has ever happened >to me, and it just so happened to be on the Cincy Grp web site. Any ideas >on what is going on here? -Knuke It sounds like your browser was automatically downloading some Java and/or Javascript software that was part of the Cincy-Group website. Check the settings of your browser and you will probably see that you have Java and/or Javascript enabled. As a test, you could, for example, change your browser options to disable Java and Javascript, and then revisit the Cincy site and watch you modem lights. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 09:46:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:44:48 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: Ba rry, Here's another one for you to debunk Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:45:44 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"sU3po3.0.yE6.-pN5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10677 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 JAA12754 Approximately three years ago a group in Utah came up with the concept that they could reclaim precious metals from mineral that appeared to be void of value by using lasers as an excitation source. During the past year they moved their operation from Utah to Texas. The facility is now located north of Dallas near the town of Sherman. They have two Ph.D.'s employed. Boyd Beck is their chemist and Bill Lawrence is their resident physicist. Bill is employed part time by the group, while maintaining a tenure at Snow University in Utah. Lawrence is a full time employee of the organizati on. Approximately three months ago they came to the realization that they were not reclaiming precious metals, but the mineral they were using acted as a catalyst for transmutation when excited by the laser. This is a "real" story about "real" researchers wh o have spent millions of dollars of "real" investors money who finally made the claim to me that they are walking in my footsteps. They have a facility with multiple lasers ranging from a few milli-watts to gigantic 1.5 kW system. You will find humor in the fact that they are having problem in the replication of transmutation. I suggest that they visit UCLA and they would get tota l replication . I hope to visit the facility next week and I will report on my observations. A foot note - about a month ago I reported that the University of Texas requested that White Laboratories in Utah replicate one of my transmutation experiments. It was this laser group who acted as the middle-person for the successful replication. 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 Sep 9 10:49:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:35:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject : Sorry about multiple posts Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:34:18 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"SOEN62.0.KY6.FZO5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10680 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I had a couple of power outages and when things finally stabilized everything replicated..... 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 Sep 9 09:51:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:41:18 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Summary of Hamdi's current experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"4uT5A.0.qR4.3lN5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10676 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Robert G. Flower wrote: >> Helical windings are also used in the Contrawound Toroidal Helical >> Antenna (CTHA), per URL: >> >> http://www.cira.wvu.edu/Current%20Proj/cur_proj.html#Antenna >> >> http://www.cira.wvu.edu/PDFs/white_papers.htm >> >> These antennas have two unusual features: opposed (ie, bucked) >> helical windings and toroidal geometry. The effect of both would be >> to enhance the radiation of electromagnetic *vector potential* from >> this antenna. This may account for its superior omni-directional >> radiation pattern. Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Thank you and to Schaffer for the valuable info. I read the above paper. >Impressive. No dipole, magnetic current concept is used. Also CW/CWW >windings neutralize the electric field as subtractive but left the >magnetic field additively. I suspect that many EM specialists will not >accept such a configuration theoretically for obtaining the observed >result. I checked it out. Typical self publishing on the internet---all advertising and no hard data. Can't see how the currents are fed and distributed into the windings. Author's word description of same is confused and unintelligible. Nice 3D plots might b e experimental data or theoretical computation or hopeful guestimation---they never say. There might be something useful on their antenna design, but one just can't know from this "white paper." (In the 1960's I worked on a ring radiator antenna for an aerospace company, so I am somewhat aware of the issues.) Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 10:21:24 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:07:40 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk@sunherald.infi.net To: freenrg-l eskimo.com CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: ALERT References: <199709091046.DAA08863 big.aa.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"LXObd3.0.ig5.cBO5q"@mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/588 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Michael T Huffman wrote: > > Listen up Bubbleheads, > > I just went to the Cincy Group Site check out their page to see what the > price was for their cell. I have an external modem, and whenever I am > online, I watch the lights to see when my computer is sending and receiving > data. I have heard rumors from some hacker friends that Netscape has a bug > which will allow someone to read and write to your harddisk, and I like to > monitor the lights of my modem to make sure that that is not happening. If they have good enough equipment and software, they can tap any system. > Well, I was waiting for the picture of the copper flake to come across, and > I noticed that my send data light was constantly on. It is never on except > to acknowledge packets when receiving data. I hit the stop button on the > Netscape control bar, and not only did the light continue to be lit, but the > receive light also stayed on for some seconds _after the picture stopped > coming across_. I quickly went to another site, and it behaved normally again. > I got offline immediately, and brought up filemanager to find that at > least 4 files had been altered including my bookmark file and 3 new files > had been added. At least that's what I've found so far. The 3 new files > contained the text "AT&T Bell Labs", "RSA Security,Inc." and "Netscape > Version", along with a bunch of machine code. Send me a copy of those files via email attatchment. I can read some of that stuff and tell you what it is. > I don't know exactly what all > this means, but I don't like it. Like I said earlier, I always monitor > those lights, and this is the first time this has ever happened to me, and > it just so happened to be on the Cincy Grp web site. Any ideas on what is > going on here? -Knuke I get anonymous emails all the time. Even the air force has hounded me on what I'm doing. I simply told them it was none of their buisness. As for the anonymous files you're getting, watch out. It could be one of the following: 1. Government seeing what you're up to 2. If you're working on invetions, it could be corporational espionage 3. Cyberpunks/Cyberterrorists/Hackers causing various mischief and mayhem 4. Others trying to steal you're info out of pure meaness. Or give you a virus. If you send those files, I can do a virus check, also I would recommned that you search for hidden files in you're hard drive, or ones that are being updated severely. Kyle Mcallister. stk sunherald.infi.net X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 12:09:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:09:01 -0700 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:14:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"EBqu11.0.vj4.BxP5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10681 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: >> >>Michael T Huffman wrote: >>> >>> Listen up Bubbleheads, >>> --snip-- >>> I got offline immediately, and brought up filemanager to find that at >>> least 4 files had been altered including my bookmark file and 3 new files >>> had been added. At least that's what I've found so far. The 3 new files >>> contained the text "AT&T Bell Labs", "RSA Security,Inc." and "Netscape >>> Version", along with a bunch of machine code. >>the following: >> >>1. Government seeing what you're up to >>2. If you're working on invetions, it could be corporational espionage >>3. Cyberpunks/Cyberterrorists/Hackers causing various mischief and >>mayhem >>4. Others trying to steal you're info out of pure meaness. Or give you a >>virus. >> >>If you send those files, I can do a virus check, also I would recommned >>that you search for hidden files in you're hard drive, or ones that are >>being updated severely. >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Kyle Mcallister. >>stk sunherald.infi.net >> >>updated severly Check path C:\windows for any files called *.SWP this can grow as large as 12 megabyte or more while online (emm386.swp is *NOT* part of ANY BROWSER) and needs to be erased and a clean version of your browser reinstalled. My obsevations have been this SWP files mirrors ever-keystroke your doing on-line and will be parsed at the recieving server for credit data and pass-words etc.. It's a real bear to kill. even a blank file emm386.swp set to system mode and READ only is still overwritten on PC's Macs seem to be safe (i guess fewer hackers using them) good luck. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 13:20:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:14:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"r97141.0.qq3.TqQ5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10682 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Kurt Johmann wrote: >>Michael T Huffman (knuke aa.net) writes: >> >>Check the settings of your browser and you will probably see that you >>have Java and/or Javascript enabled. >> >>As a test, you could, for example, change your browser options to disable >>Java and Javascript, and then revisit the Cincy site and watch you modem >>lights. >> >> I almost forgot, Last week I read an article in the paper that said that Netscape acknowleged this security breech and HAS FIXED IT! (in their newest version).. They gave credit to it's discovery to one of their youngest team members who found and isolated it. I went to www.microsoft.com to get a 'newest' version, and (sigh) it appears to be only for win95 and NT systems. I'm running win3.1 with browsers and on an older system. man I hate winDOZE.... It's like they finally (they SAY - until the next programmer changes a bit of code), Invented the screen door! and I'm setting here with a fly-swatter smacking all these flies (files). delete * delete ** delete ohhh two-fers.. I would love to hear the NAMES of other files you out there find that are part of this mess.. Thanks. If you have the C:\windows\emm386.swp file on your system. READ IT before you delete and you'll see ALL your private x-mas letters to mom and paths to areas you forgot about included.. Who the H*ll wants ALL this stuff anyway?? I Don't like it all, either ! One nice thing is I only run iexplorer or netscape when absolutly necassary... the old tried and true ascii that the net was first set up on is still the way to go. We used RFC### back then and NOT 'one company' controlling 'Software-features' they say y ou gotta have! What we need is one-good programmer to make one BIG Fly-swatter! [Off Topic] sorry for the band-width -=se=-- ps both iexplorer & netscape allow these 'cookies!' (script) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 13:52:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot .com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:40:14 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"nredw3.0.ci4.nIR5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10683 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 9, 3:17pm, Steve Ekwall wrote: > man I hate winDOZE.... It's like they finally (they SAY - until the next > programmer changes a bit of code), Invented the screen door! and I'm > setting here with a fly-swatter smacking all these flies (files). Strength is irrelevent. Resistance is futile. 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 14:31:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:31:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:41:30 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magneticoloric Refrigeration References: <9709091121.ZM8636 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZN00_.0.Fm1.e0S5q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10684 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John E. Steck wrote: > [Karl] Gschneidner [Ames Labs] and his colleagues discovered > gadolinium-silicon-germanium alloy, a new material that doubled the > performance of gadolinium, previously the best known magnetic > refrigerant. While the alloy costs slightly more than the gadolinium, > says Gschneidner, it improves efficiency by 25 percent- enabling > magnetic cooling to significantly outperform conventional > vapor-compression systems. The alloy can be "tuned" for > different operating temperatures- a higher temperature for an air > conditioner, a lower one for a freezer, for instance -by adjusting the > ratio of silicon to germanium. The more germanium used, the lower the > temperature. This remind me the Roswell material material having silicon and germanium isotopes. Anybody know the ratios of Si and Ge in that sample? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 15:27:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:26:54 -0700 Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:26:14 -0500 References: <9709091121.ZM8636 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> <3415B47A.DC7CA5A5 verisoft.com.tr> To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magneticoloric Refrigeration Resent-Message-ID: <"1Wqov3.0.LJ6.iqS5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10685 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 9, 4:32pm, Hamdi Ucar wrote: > This remind me the Roswell material material having silicon and > germanium isotopes. > Anybody know the ratios of Si and Ge in that sample? Ok. How about another free association- Viktor Schauberger. His vortex technology, which reportedly levitated a craft, had a byproduct- a cooling effect. IF the device existed AND part of the spoils of that war, it is very likely it would have been tes ted at Roswell. Perhaps the alloy is not that "new" after all. I'll let the conspiracy theorist have a go at that one. A site dedicated to Schauberger: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/evolving/water.htm -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 17:41:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:39:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Summary of Hamdi's current experiments Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"dL1lo1.0.Yt4.bXU5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10688 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 9 Sep 97 at 9:41, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > From: Schaffer gav.gat.com > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:41:18 -0800 >Robert G. Flower wrote: >> Helical windings are also used in the Contrawound Toroidal Helical >> Antenna (CTHA), per URL: >> >> http://www.cira.wvu.edu/Current%20Proj/cur_proj.html#Antenna >> >> http://www.cira.wvu.edu/PDFs/white_papers.htm > I checked it out. Typical self publishing on the internet---all > advertising and no hard data. Internet is irrelevant. Industrial and university research groups self-publish hundreds of "white papers" like this every year -- more on paper than internet. As a school, WVU should be applauded for investigating a non-conventional application of conve ntional EM theory. > Can't see how the currents are fed and > distributed into the windings. Author's word description of same is > confused and unintelligible. Nice 3D plots might be experimental data or > theoretical computation or hopeful guestimation---they never say. Specific names, phone ##'s, and e-mail addresses are provided. You can ask them directly. Also read their patents, which are listed on internet search engines. > There might be something useful on their antenna design, but one just can't > know from this "white paper." Wrong. This paper identifies the fundamental principles of EM theory which govern how antennae of the CTHA type will behave. In other words, it's a straightforward application of conventional EM theory to the (non-conventional) geometry they've devised. As to "useful" -- that is all in the eye of the "user". My point is not that CTHA is a good antenna for any particular purpose. I do suggest that certain features of its design (namely, contra-helical windings and toroidal geometry) are worth studying experimentally, since there is much less experience with th ese features than, say, dipole antennae. > (In the 1960's I worked on a ring radiator > antenna for an aerospace company, so I am somewhat aware of the issues.) There are vast differences in operating principle between ring radiator antennae and CTHA. Some of the engineering details (such as current feeds) might be similar for both types. Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================ Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates - Custom Software Development - - Quality Control Engineering - ============================================ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 17:40:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:40:15 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:43:50 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Summary of Hamdi's current experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"2Y8VI.0.Wg3.knU5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10689 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com 1. I might have been a bit brusque in some of my comments about the CTHA antenna. 2. However, Bob Flower wrote: >[snip] >Wrong. This paper identifies the fundamental principles of EM theory >which govern how antennae of the CTHA type will behave. In other >words, it's a straightforward application of conventional EM theory >to the (non-conventional) geometry they've devised. No. The white paper contains absolutely NOTHING about EM theory, fundamental or otherwise. That was big disappointment. 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 Sep 11 01:07:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 01:06:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Krakatoa-St. Helens, Hydrino Connection? Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:36:09 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"aKXDR.0.Vn.mPw5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10726 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Be it Hydrinos via Light Leptons or Fractional Orbits, it seems that a mix of hot magma, alkali (sodium or potassium) and the hydrogen from water and the right conditions is a potent mix. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 9 23:07:30 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:07:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:13:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"63i-k.0.5x7.CaZ5q" mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/607 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Jim Shaffer, Jr. wrote: >>I don't know how Windows 3.1 handles it, since I never used the stupid >>thing, but under Windows 95 a .SWP file is a swap file, produced by the >>virtual memory system. If you want to disable VM, so be it, but I'd >>like to see where you got the idea that somebody was uploading your >>swap file automatically. >>"I don't want the world -- I just want your half." >> --T.M.B.G. You can't have my half without a fight for it (you ,you democrate :) Jim, *I got the idea from watching my computer work. *I got the idea from having built my own systems and knowing what the bus-drivers do and the i/o ports do & the speeds they are running at do. *I got the idea, because I too am a RX TX modem led watcher from 1979 using 110/300 baud. *I got the idea because I've written hardware access code and KNOW what makes a drive light light-up and what makes an RX or TX modem light flash and HOW to turn them on and turn them OFF or LOOP 'em forever if you like. checksums, handshaking & protocal! *I got the idea because having started on front loading binary flip-switched 3 story computer at FSU.. taught me Tight Tight CODE is for the most part the best CODE (*Look Ma NO HOLES*) 64k <--READ "64K" is all that was needed to send our first astronaut around the earth. (admittadly that was the biggest & best we had then) BUT Shadow Memory and ROM memory extension are a playing field of mine, AND IF ANYONE messes with ONE BIT of it I want to know about it! (screw this 'vertural memory'stuff') if their g onna mess with my autoexec.bat and config.sys WITHOUT ASKING! GOOD CODE will make a ~TMP(swp) file if the data size requires, But GOOD CODE Also ERASES IT'S when it through..it doesn't take over 1/3 of the hard drive with names, numbers and data that I didn't ask it to AND STAY THERE! (emm386.swp) *I got this idea because this is still a small system, but a reliable workhorse for all my needs. I hit the NET with 20 meg FREE (enough for me for the last 4 years!) when I get back and clear My RFC "cache" (grrr) I better have 20 meg STILL FREE. When I see 6-7 Meg Free - something is new and I look for it. winDOZE3.1 Doesn't have a *.SWP (my system (sigh) couldn't have super-extended(vertual memory) or whatever you call it if it wanted to... The *ONLY* Time this file Appears is in cerfing the NET user either Iexplore or Netscape and only at certain servers. Time was roughly about the time of applets being introduced (cookies as it were) *None RFC approved I wish to add! (Yes, I have a 200mhz multi-Giga byte piece of cr*p at the office.. that won't even let you get OUT of winDOZE95 without tying n meg's of unrelated unnecessary files (in case you don't know how to find your editor without an ICON). Small (by todays standa rds) 40 Meg is 3,000 x times larger than that FSU system. and my first OSBORNE 64 <-- Read 64K <--- powerful enough to orbit a man. Using CP/M that's Pre-DOS for you newbies out there, YES there was Life Before MicroSoft! (screw DOS too while we're at it) CP/M Already HAD SHADOW MEMORY Capabilities for those of you that think vertual memory is the hottest thing now. We Wrote & peek'd and Poked EACH BYTE by hand. <--read BYTE not Block, not sector, not K, not meg, not Geg...etc.) I hand wrote a Zbbs Program with Bucky Carr that allowed this two disk (5 1/4) Osborne to be one of the first FREE BBS in Denver and It ran 24 hours a day with hundreds of users from 1979-1988 ONLY Going Down or getting stuck when the Power Co mpany lost it's lines! This system - lectronic ocksmith - we had names back then instead of just server ties, DID EXACTLY WHAT WHERE DOING HERE.. IT WAS E-MAIL -stacked sealed and delivered. (albeit one caller (phone line donated by me) at a time!) --All editing Bells & Whistles WS (WordStar) was 14K <--READ 14K --All Phone Answering Login and update user(s) Bye Program (Zbbs) was 4k <--READ 4K --All assymbly Programs to make this work ASM and data files was 35K <--READ 35K (but these files WERE REQUIRED (i guess if you cared who was calling your system & when) THAT IS ALL :) NOWDAYS you can't even turn your system ON unless you have MEGA_MEGA Memeory, AND Giga-Giga STORAGE FOR CRAP FILES I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ARE FOR OR WHAT THEY DO!! House-cleaning?? Do you Keep 'em? do you Delete 'em .. Where'd they even COME FROM?? It's gone sloppy, sloopy, Kludgy... H*ll, every program you get nowdays brings everyother program with it! *I got this idea because Because I KNOW what a MEGA-BYTE is and I'll NEVER WRITE that much in My Visit's to the WEB..But for SOME REASON, "THEY" want me to Receive MEGA Bytes of unsolicted stuff, AND NOW, Are wanting MY Directory/Files BACK! (READ--> not without a fight!) these are MY files! ----------------------------------- Jim, (sorry to rant & rave, BUT I do know what I'm Talking about!) as John E. Steck wrote: "Strength is irrelevent - Resistance is futile" I'll add I am being assimilated (begrudgingly so you kludgers!!) ----------------------------------- If you have the SPACE (mega-Giga-Zega) then you can ignore this. If you don't care who,what,when,where,why someone look at all your files to mom then you can ignore this. Netscape already said "opps" we found it, it's fixed (guilty as charged!), BUT you NOW NEED only the Biggest and Best system to run the FIX.. (sound familiar?) ----------------------------------- finally (yea right), I added some of the 'history' of systems as I know there are some vortexian or freenrg users out there that HAD or Still have a KAYPRO or OSBORNE or Teltax(?) Texcom(?) someone will remind me (pre-MSDOS). (it had a membrane keypad as I remember - ahead of it's Time!) Take half a mans system AND HE WILL NOTE IT! (my half Jim! :) Leave it there (for future exportation to parts unknown) containing info that is NOT related to anything except YOUR system, and I want to know WHY! --------- Watching my hd/Rx Tx lights since '79 Cleaning House (system) since day 1 -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 01:15:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 01:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Geothermal Infinite-Energy, Buried? Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:13:40 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"cl2yn2.0.yT1.0Ww5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10727 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, If the Mills' "Blacklight Power" Hydrino energy technique is "on-track", the introduction of water into hot granitic rock beneath the Earth's surface should act as a BLP-type "reactor" and become essentially an unlimited source of energy. The "test wells" drilled by D.O.E.-Los Alamos, near Los Alamos to a depth of 10,000 feet into "solid granite" at 500 degrees F were tested then shut down, why? Granite runs about 8% sodium-potassium oxides. :-) Might these geothermal tests have revealed the Mills-type ou effects decades ago, and are being kept under wraps? Personally, I see no great difference in the physics of the P&F "CF" and related ou effects and the claimed Hydrino effects. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 04:39:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:30:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:28:01 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: 76570.2270 compuserve.com Subject: IE Double Issue Resent-Message-ID: <"d-Sfc1.0.Gv4.EJe5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10694 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gene, Congratulations on the special double issue of Infinite Energy, No. 13 & No. 14. I spent a lot of time studying it. I found Peter Graneau's article reviewing the work done with water arc explosions especially interesting, because it's the first article I've read anywhere about those spectacular and puzzling experimental results. Your magazine deserves to be read by more people. Good luck in increasing its circulation. Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 04:28:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:28:43 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:28:08 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: chronos enter.net Subject: Re: Vigier & Mills Resent-Message-ID: <"AR9c53.0.aL7.fHe5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10692 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Bob, If Vigier said that he'd never heard of Mills, then he may have been suppressing the memory of having encountered Mills' hydrino hypothesis and the dihydrino (dideuterino) molecule that is a corollary. In Vigier's ICCF4 paper, he wrote that Mills had already suggested a subgroundstate H2 or D2 molecule based on a new model of orbital electrons described as charged spherical shells enclosing the nuclei. Vigier cited Mills, Good & Shaubach, "Dihydrino mo lecule identification," Fusion Technology (in press). Vigier dismissed Mills' model, alleging that it contradicted experimentally verified QM predicitions of point-like electron-electron scattering. See Jean-Pierre Vigier, "New Hydrogen (Deuterium) Bo hr Orbits in Quantum Chemistry and 'Cold Fusion' Processes," Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Vol. 4: Theory and Special Topics Papers, pp. 7-1 to 7-25, at p. 7-7. The Mills, Good & Shaubach paper was published in Fusion Technology 25 (January 1994), pp. 103-119. You wondered why Mills/BLP use single hydrogen atoms. As far as I know, it's because their reaction will only work with hydrogen and only with single atoms of hydrogen. I don't see anything unusual about drawing a distinction between reactions at the at omic level and reactions at the molecular level. You also mentioned that you had sent Vigier some material from the BLP website, as well as the URL of the BLP website and the address and phone number of BLP itself. It'll be interesting to see whether or not Vigier follows up on that. Tom Stolper P.S. Thanks for the information about Barut's 1964 book, reprinted by Dover in 1980. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 04:39:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:30:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:28:12 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: antigravnews rocketmail.com Subject: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"zY88K.0.lv4.PJe5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10695 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com James E. Cox, in the announcement of his newsletter, Antigravity News & Space Drive Technology, mentioned the Dean Drive of some thirty-seven years ago. I read a lot of sci-fi as a kid, including Astounding Science Fiction (later Analog Science Fiction), and remember being fascinated by the Dean Drive. Whatever happened to it? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 04:28:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:28:52 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:28:17 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: wharton climate.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: EM-gravity interaction Resent-Message-ID: <"MTX333.0.CM7.pHe5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10693 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Larry, It is astonishing that a particle just sitting on a table top generates a radiation field as if it were accelerating through space and that this result is a consequence of general relativity and required to conserve energy. I can see why the EM guys who heard your presentation had a hard accepting that. Is there any connection at all with Haus'es condition for nonradiation from an unaccelerated charge? Haus found that a charge moving at a constant velocity less than c doesn't radiate because it has no Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light, not because it isn't accelerated. See H. A. Haus, "On the radiation from point charges," Am. J. Phys. 54, 12 (December 1986), pp. 1126-1129. Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 06:16:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 06:16:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 06:17:07 -0700 (PDT) From: james cox Subject: ANTIGRA VITY NEWS and SPACE DRIVE TECHNOLOGY To: vortex-L eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"xUfIS.0.Fb2.jsf5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10699 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com TO WHOM IT CONCERNS: THANKS FOR THE MESSAGES SO FAR! Especially to Jerry Decker to help me get webbed on the Keelynet--this is a great honor and an important responsibility. I will be sending Jerry a copy of the premier issue this weekend care of Vanguard address. You can s can the cover into the Keelynet web if you wish--it has an informative drawing on a modular S.C. g-shield concept which should yield 100% coefficient--i.e., objects above it will float! If Podkletnov and Schnurer are correct, we could be building these d evices in short order! Now to some other questions being asked: I am not currently set up for Mastercharge but will work on it as soon as I get the permier issue in the mail this weekend. Its kind of a shoe-string operation now, but a labor of love! Fo r overseas mailing, please add $6.00; I believe this is what Hal Fox charges for NEN. Regarding the DEAN SYSTEM SPACE DRIVE: I have done an enormous amount of work on this device, especially model building and force transducer measurements, angular velo city meassurements, etc, as well as gyroscopic propulsion work. Let me say I have reasons to be enthusiastic about this field of endeavor and I will have a six part report on inertial propulsion research early next year in the ANTIGRAVITY NEWS and SPACE D RIVE TECHNOLOGY journal. Thanks to Bill Hamilton--I remember getting your material and resume years ago and appologies to you for my absence of reply--you are doing a great work in this elusive UFO field and I have followed your reports on the ART BELL show. MAYBE you can get me on his show, but I fear I will get too technical for his audience! Well, here's hope my endeavor literally and figuratively TAKES OFF! James E. Cox. _____________________________________________________________________ Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 06:43:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 06:34:19 -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, 10 Sep 1997 08:32:15 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"uopxz.0.Uq.O7g5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10700 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 10, 1:09am, Steve Ekwall wrote: > (Yes, I have a 200mhz multi-Giga byte piece of > cr*p at the office.. that won't even let you get OUT of winDOZE95 without > tying n meg's of unrelated unnecessary files (in case you don't know how > to find your editor without an ICON). Small (by todays standards) 40 Meg > is 3,000 x times larger than that FSU system. and my first OSBORNE 64 <-- > Read 64K <--- powerful enough to orbit a man. Steve- Always enjoy your posts. Granted, not the easiest reading at times, but as close as you can get to sharing thoughts in real time with someone else. You always seem to crack me up. Keep them coming. I stood on this same soapbox no to long ago and raised my clenched fist at the heavens and shook it with rage, but to no avail. Hang in there! Put down the high powered rifle and come down from the tower! (I remember when I could load my ENTIRE drafting program into a 2 Meg RAM drive, and still have 1 1/2 for cache. Sigh..... now you need 300 Meg just for the UNIX OS. Gotta love progress.) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 07:44:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:43:39 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:46:19 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com References: Resent-Message-ID: <"9vSHv1.0.k96.Q8h5q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10702 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:32 AM 9/10/97 -0500, John E. Steck wrote: > (I remember when I could load my ENTIRE drafting program into a 2 Meg RAM > drive, and still have 1 1/2 for cache. Sigh..... now you need 300 Meg just > for the UNIX OS. Gotta love progress.) I have three Amiga 1200's at home with respectively 10,6, and 2 Meg of memory, and the 2500/30 in my office has 5 Meg installed. (I have another, slower, 4 Meg sitting in a drawer--I have to set an extra wait state if I install it, so I have never bo thered to install it, or for that matter to get some that is faster.) Why the 10 Meg on one of the 1200's? Because I wanted to install and run lots of software originally written for Unix, and it is a lot easier not to fiddle with the assumptions of "free" virtual memory. I just hope Gateway gets off its duff about the migration path for the Amiga, and starts shipping Power PC based machines. ;-) 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 Sep 10 08:01:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:50:54 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive References: <970910072811_467875687 emout01.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"iIGCG3.0.iJ3.zFh5q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10703 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > I read a lot of sci-fi as a kid, including Astounding Science Fiction (later > Analog Science Fiction), and remember being fascinated by the Dean Drive. > Whatever happened to it? > Me too, Tom! I built a model of what I thought the drive was all about but it did not work. I know the drive received a lot of press after the Analog discussions - I think many experimenters tried it out. I think Dean tested his device on a bathroom-type scales and would get readings of reduced weight. The device was a strong mechanical oscillator and, I think, was way out of the scale's response zone for time-varying forces. I saw some articles showing tests of the drive mounted on suspended (good old pendulum!) platforms which probably showed that the drive didn't work. That was a great time! - I spent many hours trying to get around the conservation-of-momentum, but Nature ruled - and I failed. Too bad. I had visions of sitting on this garden-tractor-sized Dean-drive device with a 10 HP Briggs going at full throttle - lifting out of my back yard and headed for 10,000 feet where I would run out of air and have to descend to add oxygen tanks, etc. for the run to outer space! Sigh -------- Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 01:19:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 01:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Wrong Solar "Model"? Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:18:43 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"dFedH.0.9a1.wWw5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10728 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Is the 3.86E26 joule/sec energy radiation from the Sun (6.34 Kw/cm^2) representing the annihilation of 4.3 million tonnes of mass/second, at a temperature of 5780 K, might be all coming from the surface because of Hydrino reactions. Might explain the "missing neutrinos". "Cold Fusion" in Action? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 11:36:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:32:09 -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, 10 Sep 1997 12:55:44 -0500 References: <199709101536.KAA14175 me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nucleate Boiling Phenomena and implications. Resent-Message-ID: <"tg0K9.0.7v2.cUk5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10704 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 8, 3:49pm, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > This "nucleate" boiling takes place at a heat input flux of about > > 3 watts/cm^2 with a delta t of 6 deg K to about 160 watts/cm^2 and > > a delta t of 30 K, at which time it goes into the "film" boiling mode. > > > > There has always been a bit of a head-scratcher regarding what causes > > the bubble nucleation site, especially after the water has been > > de-gased. Though I knew right off, but took the time to check and get the terms straight. To paraphrase from "Heat Transfer in Condensation and Boiling" (c1992, ISBN 3-540-52203-4) no nucleation sites can form in a perfectly degassed, perfectly contained, and pure fluid unless subject to extream superheating or ionization (keep reading for w hy). Highly active centers catalyze and focus the transition of unstable superheated liquid into more stable vapor. The centers form at gas or vapor reminants or voids in the depressions in the container surface which can not be completely displaced by the fluid, (or at suspended particles in solution). No fluid is completely wetting, no container flawless. The bubble release is subject to adhesion forces and surface tension and is unable to completely detach from the container. The remenant left behind after bouyancy takes hold of the majority of the generated sphere becomes another nucleation site, hence the reason for the repeated and biased locations of state transition. This is classified as "hetrogeous nucleus formation". "Homogenous nucleus formation" happens when sites are formed by the natural fluctuating motions of the molecules (as in the above perfect state), but rarely can reform in the same location and then only in special cases. Typically, hetrogeneous dominates and causes homogeneous, but homogeneous rarely plays anything more than a sub-ordinate role. > > Interesting similarity to microcavition-sonoluminescent bubble stuff, > > and a well explored avenue in power plant boiler design. Apart from the water link, I don't follow the correlation. Are you talking about the nucleation site reasons? Can you elaborate? > > However, Heat = nucleation site = LLs = hydrinos = bubbles? > > > > Never thought to look for hydrinos in water Heat Pipes. Lots > > of Hydrogen released in Water-Aluminum heat pipes even at 100 C > > after a few hundred hours. Seems that the water wants to keep > > reacting with the aluminum forming Al2O3 and H2. The water vapor > > in the heat pipes will actually compress the non-condensible gases > > (like H2) up at the cold-condensing end of the heat pipe. Given that hypothesis, would not that restrict boiling to only hydrogen bearing solutions? There might definitely be more going on there than currently perceived, but aren't LLs or hydrinos a big jump in the logic seeing as H is not required for boiling? The nucleation sites are not that exotic; heat transfer, phase change, fluid dynamics, repeat. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 01:17:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 01:16:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Nucleate Boiling Phenomena and implications. Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:44:24 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"6czGg3.0.Bp1.DZw5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10729 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:55 PM 9/10/97 +0000, John E. Steck wrote: >On Sep 8, 3:49pm, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > > > Interesting similarity to microcavition-sonoluminescent bubble stuff, >> > and a well explored avenue in power plant boiler design. > >Apart from the water link, I don't follow the correlation. Are you talking >about the nucleation site reasons? Can you elaborate? Trying to break a buuble, John? :-) Ever hear of the of the Wilson Cloud Chamber or the "Bubble Chamber" used to detect "Charged Particles"? These create "Nucleation Sites" , do they not? A Simple matter of the water vapor (highly polar) essentially "hydrating" the charged particles, very fast too. Thus a visible track. If local heating creates the LL +/- pair then you are going to get a bubble started. > > > > However, Heat = nucleation site = LLs = hydrinos = bubbles? > > >Given that hypothesis, would not that restrict boiling to only >hydrogen bearing >solutions. No. But, you sure have to pour the heat flux to high thermal conductivity materials such as metals. And in metals like Tin and Gallium with an enormous liquid range (low vapor pressure)you would be hard put to see many bubbles below 2,000 C. :-) The bubble chambers use hydrocarbons like propane, which tend to be hydrogenous materials. :-) I suppose you could use SO2, or CO2, or LN2 or such, but hydrogenous liquids like pentane or kerosine are easier to work with. >There might definitely be more going on there than currently >perceived, Isn't that the point of advancing technology? >but aren't LLs or hydrinos a big jump in the logic seeing as H is >not required for boiling? Forget "logic" and run the experiments with a different "mindset". >The nucleation sites are not that exotic; heat >transfer, phase change, fluid dynamics, repeat. So does "Dogmatic" approaches to tunnel-vision science. :-) Regards, Frederick > >-- >John E. Steck >Prototype Tooling >Motorola Inc. > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 14:03:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:03:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:04:54 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com References: <19970906041202.AAB8190 HOME> Resent-Message-ID: <"aXnNz3.0.lc1.bim5q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10705 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:56 AM 9/6/97 -0500, Zack Widup wrote: >Actually, Hofstadter's brilliantly entertaining piece of work was partly >to demonstrate that we humans have a quality that computers will never >have. A computer can only do what it is programmed to do, but we can >"step outside" and solve a certain problem, or determine that it is >unsolvable, while the computer just keeps chugging away forever getting >nowhere [e.g., the "MIU Puzzle"]. Not true. If we can determine that a problem is unsolvable, so can a computer, but for the nastiest of cases, there is no hope. For example, suppose that P?=NP is undecidable.* Don't waste any time trying to determine that it is, because if it a pro of of the undecidability existed, then P?=NP is true. (Informally, there is a proof that if P/=NP then there exist problems in NP but not in P that are not NP-complete. But if P?=NP can be proven undecidable that set is empty. A formal proof runs sever al pages.) Now on to quantum computing, which may make P=NP irrelevant. QC is about as far from the other systems covered under the Church-Turning hypothesis as it is possible to get. In many cases you could use QC as an oracle to move problems between computabi lity classes. (For example, a quantum computer could be used to solve problems known to require NP-space in P-space.) But a quantum computer cannot solve undecidable problems either. These problems are not "unsolvable within our system of logic" they a re unsolvable with by mechanism or being in ANY system of logic. This is Godel's second and much more troubling proof. Of course, Godel's proof does admit of the possibility of inconsistant logic systems where such problems are simultaneously true and false. However, he also showed that, in such systems everything can be shown to be both true and false... * For those of you who haven't read GEB or studied computability theory, basically P is the set of problems that can be solved in a reasonable amount of time, and NP is the set of problems where a solution can be proved correct in a reasonable amount o f time. Are the two sets the same? There is a set of problems which are called NP-complete. If any of these problems are in P, then P=NP. Factoring numbers is obviously in NP, since multiplying the factors is an easy way to verify a correct factorization. But is it in P? Good question, which may be exactly as hard as P=NP to answer. 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 Sep 10 15:10:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:09:40 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:32:15 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server NeoTech , List Server Newman , List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes References: <199709101719_MC2-1FF3-AD9C compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"5Sx-z.0.bQ3.Xgn5q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10707 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Greg Watson writes: > > I wish to add a new section featuring sites offering real prize money > for the demonstration of a working Over Unity device to my sites link list. > > If you have such a site or know of one, please email me the address. > > Yeah, I know a site like that. It's the biggest in the world. It's called The > New York Stock Exchange. There's also AMEX, the Paris Bourse, the Tokyo > Exchange and a few thousand others. Anyone who comes up with a real, working > over unity device can make billions and billions of dollars at those places. > Play your cards right and you can be richer than Bill Gates in a few years. Bill can have it. Releasing my research info to you all is NOT the way to be a Gates. Not all of us are turned on by money. Its really not the ultimate goal it seems to be. Its not my driving force. Love, Lifestyle, Family & Friends. That's where it's all at. Unless the US Patent system is rubbish, there are already plenty of OU devices in existence. Check out my patent list. > The thing is, you have to *play your cards*. Don't hold them or hide'em, and > stop talking about them. Make your move. Show us your hand. Ship the product > already. The original SMOT kit offer only promished to deliver 4 linked ramps. To many that was enough to show OU. But to a FEW with loud voices (who seemed to have the greatest problems getting a simple "climb & drop" working) not so. THe amount of adjustment and fiddling was not good. > Look, Greg, please stop worrying about stuff like that. Any reward offered by > any organization will be microscopic compared to what you can earn with a real > o-u machines. You don't even need a patent. Heck, for that matter, if you ever > send Chris Tinsley a working machine, I'll send you $100,000 just to get the > ball rolling. I would advise you to stop screwing around looking for two-bit > rewards, and stop working on your web page too. Just ship out the gadget like > you promised to do months ago. What I had to ship months ago, Chris & Scott very firmly told the world was not OU. Is that REALLY what you wanted? I have worked VERY hard to reduce the variation in the system and design a unit with solid "Closed Loop" performance. Just screwing arou nd am I? > If it is real -- if it is anything like what > you have described -- I guarantee I'll have you rolling in money. Look Jed, with all respect, I don't know who you or anybody else on this list really are. I have been in business long enough to know NOT to depend on helping hands. You never know the real objectives. > Okay? NO! > - Jed Hi Jed, Check out my project schedule. I will ship the SMOT "Rollaround" kits as indicated. Note that I have now raised the delivered performance. They will do continual "Rollarounds" with NO ADJUSTMENTS. Chris's wife will not need to play. She can do so if she so wishes. No Black hats needed. I know why they work. I can design other system based on the "Effect". I will collect all the prize money I can get. No strings attached. I will go into mass production with a small plastic injected SMOT "Rollaround" unit. OU for the masses! I will go on an Australian, US & EEC tour to demonstrate the devices. Unlike many other devices which have not made the distance, this one will. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 15:31:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:53:15 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Dean Drive References: <970910072811_467875687 emout01.mail.aol.com> <3416B3CE.6E15@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"YIdPb1.0.LJ5.P_n5q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10708 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > > > > I read a lot of sci-fi as a kid, including Astounding Science Fiction (later > > Analog Science Fiction), and remember being fascinated by the Dean Drive. > > Whatever happened to it? > > > Me too, Tom! I built a model of what I thought the drive was all about > but it did not work. I know the drive received a lot of press after > the Analog discussions - I think many experimenters tried it out. Me too........... > I think Dean tested his device on a bathroom-type scales and would get > readings of reduced weight. Correct. I saw a TV show on which Dean showed the weight reduction going to ZERO. > The device was a strong mechanical > oscillator and, I think, was way out of the scale's response zone for > time-varying forces. I saw some articles showing tests of the drive > mounted on suspended (good old pendulum!) platforms which probably > showed that the drive didn't work. The pendulum showed the drive delivering a very definite movement away from a suspended plum bob. > That was a great time! - I spent many hours trying to get around the > conservation-of-momentum, but Nature ruled - and I failed. Too bad. > I had visions of sitting on this garden-tractor-sized Dean-drive device > with a 10 HP Briggs going at full throttle - lifting out of my back > yard and headed for 10,000 feet where I would run out of air and have > to descend to add oxygen tanks, etc. for the run to outer space! > > Sigh -------- Frank Stenger Hi Frank, Been there, done that. John Campbell & Analog. Good reading for a high school inventor. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 20:59:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Dean T. Miller" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:59:22 (-050 Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"WA4KS.0.PR2.dps5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10723 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:59:30 -0400 > From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> >Please note that Gates did not have > a patent for this or any subsequent product. In a fast-moving, high technology > patents are of marginal value. The SMOT, if it works, will be the fastest > moving technology in history. The only way you can make money is to ride the > tiger and stay ahead of the competition, which is what Gates did. Umm, a little off. Gates owned the copyright on DOS for the 8088, which he bought cheap from Seattle Computers (I've forgotten the exact name). He licensed the copyright to IBM for their new computer in 1981, after the CP/M people stood up the IBM rep for a meeting. Gates has vigorously persued copyright infractions since that time. -- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 16:15:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:14:53 -0700 X-Sender: g-miley@staff.uiuc.edu Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:18:03 -0500 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, Richard Thomas Murray From: "George H. miley" Subject: Murray's "miley Critique" # 8 Cc: g-miley uiuc.edu Resent-Message-ID: <"uA-yO2.0.xh6.ido5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10710 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In his eighth "Miley Critique," Murray brings out several important new issues that I wish to address. First he questions the sampling technique for bead analysis. In the initial experiments, I took beads from the top of the bed due to the accessibility of lower layers. By the time of ICCF-6 I had developed a technique to sample the distribution as a fun ction of bed height. This involved sample lots of roughly a hundred beads, each lot being taken from a different height. Variations for the "9 NAA elements" were less than 30%, and generally less that 10%. No trends indicating significant element migrati on as a function of height were found. Thus, I do not believe that migration of elements during the runs play a significant role in the results. (More recently we have also used ICP-MS analysis of lots from different heights and found similar results.) Second, Murray questions whether the SIMS measurements are representative since they may be focused on local spots on the "lips" of volcanoes, etc. such as observed by Mizuno, Ohmori, and Dash. An important distinction between the present thin-film electrolysis and the solid electrodes that other researchers have used is the lack of observable surface disruptions like the volcanoes, pits, etc. with t he thin films. The SEM photograph of a surface shown in the Texas AM paper is typical. As seen in that photo, the surface is roughened, but not locally ruptured by the formation of new structures. SIMS scans across a bead surface do show some gentile var iations in element concentration (probably due to locations where bead surfaces touch and due to uneven flow patterns), but no local " hot spots" or "volcanoes" appear. My guess is that pressure buildup due to absorbed H/D plus any product gases causes d isruptions in the case of solid electrodes, whereas gas diffusion prevents excessive buildup with the thin films. This phenomena clearly needs more study, but again does not seen to play a key role in the thin-film experiments and their analyses. The long table of isotope yields repeated by Murray in critique # 8 is interesting, but again fails to account properly the use of SIMS vs. NAA for isotopic ratios. Since this issue was addressed in my earlier response to critique #7, I will not elaborate here. I am pleased, however, that despite these continued differences in interpretation, Murray now acknowledges that some of the isotope shifts formerly questioned may be valid. I only want to repeat one of my earlier comments here - it is not necessay to prove all 70+ isotopes observed have anomalous shifts -- if only one element exhibits a significant "yield" and an anomalous isotope ratio, that data alone provides a strong case that chemically assisted transmutations can occur - which is the fundamental issue the experiment was designed to study. As stated before, both Cu and Ag plus several other elements clearly seem fall into this category for the Ni run (#8). Other researchers have measured "transmutated" isotopes and anomalous isotope ratios, but I seem to be the first to attempt measurement of quantitative yield and production rate values. I believe this data will be very valuable for theorists wishing to un derstand the phenomena. If impurities are responsible, then isotope transport and diffusion rates in the electrolyte and films must be consistent with the measured yield/rate data -- but, according to my estimates of these rates, there are large discrepan cies vs the data. On the other hand, if nuclear reactions are occurring, among other things, the corresponding energy balances must agree with the observed excess heat. As noted in the papers, the balance, found by taking the product yields times their bi nding energies less the same for the reactants (Ni and p for Run #8, with conservation of nucleons assumed), does give reasonable agreement. This observation is not proof of one interpretation vs. another, but it does provide added "feasibility" to the da ta interpretation that low energy nuclear reactions were indeed occurring. The key issues that could change this conclusion are, in my opinion, the discovery of a yet unidentified impurity source or of a systematic error in the analyses of the isotopes. Ultimately, these issues will be further checked by others who try to duplicate the experiments. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 16:15:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:15:26 -0700 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:20:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: JD cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"OHIu03.0.oj6.Ceo5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10711 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, JD wrote: >>>someone will remind me (pre-MSDOS). >>>(it had a membrane keypad as I remember - ahead of it's Time!) >>>--------- >> >>It was the Timex/Sinclair Z80, I believe. It came with about 2k onboard, >>and had keys for peek and poke, along with some strange little box-drawing >>characters. >> >>(cassette drive optional) >> >>JD >> Yes! :) Thank you! I went from Binary Programming TO Z80 (power-punching Shadow-memory) ASM programming (how could I forget (duh.. time flies and things seem to be going the wrong direction for me.) Thanks again, (I knew it was a "T", but Dared NOT Say Tandy *.* :) -=se=- P.S. 80% (most) home/commercial alarm systems still use the Z80 for it's no-nonsense straight foward approach.. UL Listed since day one too! X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 16:28:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:28:16 -0700 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:28:06 -0400 (EDT) From: lewis edward X-Sender: lewis3@ staff2.cso.uiuc.edu To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pics on home page there Resent-Message-ID: <"OjTnj3.0.Go7.Eqo5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10713 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Steve Ekwall wrote me about trouble he had viewing pictures 1-4 on my article, ELEWIS8.html on my web site www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4946 Are other people having trouble downloading the pictures too? They are long 700K or more articles, but he seems to be saying that Explorer doesn't download the pictures. > Your home page at www.geocities.com/capcanaveral/lab/4946 points to it's > second link as ELEWIS8.HTML this works OK :) and continues with the > plasmoid burn marks being viewed under x400 magnifcation, BUT IT DOESN'T > FIND YOUR PICTURE under align="left" > alt=[uncooked glass nickel bead]!!!!!! The picture isn't shown or > downloadable under EITHER Lynx or Iexplore Browser..(sigh).. > And Check or change the Path for browsers, so MicroSoft and Netscape can > find them....:) > off > on this tangent (sorry!).. But the rest of your page comes through GREAT!! > > If I can help you more let me know, If I'm the only one that has trouble > then throw this message away! :) > ----- > I'm only sending this as I thought it would be nice to see the tunneling > or > 'ditches' made by plasma scratches under magnification WHILE READING the > text that was connected to it!! ALL IN ALL .. IT's "ALL THERE" (but it's > not too easy to get now. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 18:47:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:46:51 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:23:44 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Pat.5280864 and Relativity and Gravity-Antigravity thread Resent-Message-ID: <"WnhXe1.0.Ow5.9sq5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10715 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Pat. 5280864 (Woodward, Method for transiently altering the mass ...) seems very realistic, logical and easy to build and operate, even to test it. All you need a 100W audio power amplifier (Stereo preferred *), and few electronic components. For maximizi ng the effect you may need a MW oven. Also the design can customized adding a resonating Tesla coil*. After reading, please revisit the "Relativity and Gravity-Antigravity" thread on july about UFO propulsion system ideas and observed UFO MW radiation. (*) these are my contributions. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 20:27:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:24:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:54:41 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Florescent tube inside coil Resent-Message-ID: <"_0lvi1.0.i83.NHs5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10721 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo, A 15 mm diameter miniature florescent tube inside a resonator coil is lighting. It is also lighting more brightly at the outside. As the HV, HF is present on coil, this can not be assumed extraordinary, but I just thought that a coil look like a Faraday c age at two dimension. If so, no electric field should be inside a coil. But the experiment show that is not a good approximation. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 19:44:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:47:41 -0500 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch Subject: Elements in some stainless steels; ThO? Resent-Message-ID: <"HEMkI.0.Ke6.jir5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10716 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi all, I lifted this from a lecture: http://ttb.eng.wayne.edu/~grimm/ME518/Lect11Out.html#Stainless Stainless Steels Progression of use Vanadium steel 302 stainless - stronger and more corrosion resistant 316 - addition of molybdenum to improve corrosion resistance in salt water 316L - reduced carbon content from 0.08 wt% to 0.03 wt% to further improve corrosion resistance in chloride solutions Chromium is a major component of stainless steels Chromium alloys can be passivated to give excellent corrosion resistance Oxidizes to form transparent film on surface of material, sealing surface and preventing other oxidants from reaching the metal Minimum effective concentration for this effect is 11 wt% Today most commonly used stainless steels for implant are 316 and 316L Austentitic category - contain fcc iron Not hardenable by heat treatment, but can be hardened by cold working Non-magnetic Contain iron, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, manganese, silicon, carbon, phosphorous, and sulfur Last four elements are trace elements, with a maximum concentration of 0.75 wt% each So, there is plenty of data in the CG runs # 2 and # 3 for all these trace elements, except for C, which has the clear-cut datum of zero. Could it have been oxidized to CO [amu 28] and CO2 [amu 44]? This supports the interpretation that stainless steel was heavily involved in the electrolysis. Also, if thorium was oxidized to ThO [amu 248], it would have been missed by the ICP/MS data, which ends at 245. Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 20:47:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:50:58 -0500 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, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom vxcern.cern.ch, g-miley@uiuc.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, halfox slkc.uswest.net, biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr Subject: [Fwd: Re: Elements in some stainless steels; ThO?] Resent-Message-ID: <"Q5eFr.0.Xx1.mds5q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10722 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept.10,1997 Yeah, Joe, but what if the zirconium disk was simply loosely slung on the stainless steel rod, held in place by the teflon cylinders? Then there would be electrolytic processes and perhaps arcing between the rod and disk, and possible deposition of thor ium in the gap region. Were the disk and rod, if loose, then separated for the radiation measurements? Also, if the gasket material was permeable enough to soak up some electrolyte, then it would have become a zone of reaction and deposition, especially if used for many runs... were the gaskets checked for radiation? The silence from the Cincinnati Group is becoming deafening, as many good questions have been aired by the community of concerned critics. Rich Murray Received: from mail.goodnet.com (mail.goodnet.com [207.98.129.2]) by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA28416 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 99.goodnet.com (99.goodnet.com [207.204.154.99] (may be forged)) by mail.goodnet.com (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA01296 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:46:17 -0700 (MST) Received: by 99.goodnet.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCBE22.53324460 99.goodnet.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:47:09 -0700 Message-ID: <01BCBE22.53324460@99.goodnet.com> From: Joe Champion To: "'rmforall@earthlink.net'" Subject: RE: Elements in some stainl ess steels; ThO? Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:47:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BCBE22.53430D40" Rich you are a fast study but you forgot something! The weld and component of the welding apparatus to join the plate to the rod. Food for thought and keep challenging without pushing! 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............ -----Original Message----- From: Rich Murray [SMTP:rmforall earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 6:48 PM To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com; rbrtbass@pahrump.com; cincygrp@ix.netcom.com; halfox@slkc.uswest.net; storms@ix.netcom.com; g-miley@uiuc.edu; biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr; rdeagleton csupomona.edu; blue@pilot.msu.edu; jonesse@astro.byu.edu; drom@vxcern.cern.ch Subject: Elements in some stainless steels; ThO? Hi all, I lifted this from a lecture: http://ttb.eng.wayne.edu/~grimm/ME518/Lect11Out.html#Stainless Stainless Steels Progression of use Vanadium steel 302 stainless - stronger and more corrosion resistant 316 - addition of molybdenum to improve corrosion resistance in salt water 316L - reduced carbon content from 0.08 wt% to 0.03 wt% to further improve corrosion resistance in chloride solutions Chromium is a major component of stainless steels Chromium alloys can be passivated to give excellent corrosion resistance Oxidizes to form transparent film on surface of material, sealing surface and preventing other oxidants from reaching the metal Minimum effective concentration for this effect is 11 wt% Today most commonly used stainless steels for implant are 316 and 316L Austentitic category - contain fcc iron Not hardenable by heat treatment, but can be hardened by cold working Non-magnetic Contain iron, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, manganese, silicon, carbon, phosphorous, and sulfur Last four elements are trace elements, with a maximum concentration of 0.75 wt% each So, there is plenty of data in the CG runs # 2 and # 3 for all these trace elements, except for C, which has the clear-cut datum of zero. Could it have been oxidized to CO [amu 28] and CO2 [amu 44]? This supports the interpretation that stainless steel was heavily involved in the electrolysis. Also, if thorium was oxidized to ThO [amu 248], it would have been missed by the ICP/MS data, which ends at 245. Rich Murray Content-Type: application/ms-tnef xŸ>" X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 20:03:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:02:09 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes Resent-Message-ID: <"WoEnH2.0.x8.e-r5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10718 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:32 AM 9/11/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: >Unless the US Patent system is rubbish, there are already plenty of OU >devices in existence. Greg, you share what appears to be a common misconception among persons living outside the US. A device does NOT have to actually work in order for a US Patent to be issued on it. All that is required is that the inventor claim unique properties for the device. The US Patent office now makes no attempt to verify the inventor's claims. Since we're all still driving gasoline powered cars and there is no imminently viable alternative on the horizon it is a reasonably safe bet that ALL the extant US patents for o-u devices are bullshit. 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 Sep 10 19:57:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:56:53 -0700 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:02:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: freenrg-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"KYeUJ.0.OJ1.qtr5q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10717 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 Jiyani aol.com wrote: >> >>Yep and the Chinese had an abacus too but that does not seem to be too >>germaine to todays work, does it? >> >> Yep and lightning NEVER strikes twice in the SAME place.."Just ask the Empire State Building!" Now I know I have 2-3 slide - rules around here somehere, unless their batteries failed.. (hummmmm... looking, looking..) yep i agree in progress, but looking before you leap is cool too! :) I used to think throwing an M-80 at a herd of cows was 'way-cool' on the 4th of July,,, till I had to go round 'em all up.. july 5,6..(1)7th good luck on all your projects! -=se=- ps admittedly this IS/HAS gone WAY {off topic}, so /I'll back off and let the obvious settle in the saw-dust..(it'll hold/survive:) all kneal to bill gates and everybody buy a mainframe + T* connection$$$ but, i still predict we will get smaller hand-held (Dick Tracy Style) watches and THEY will have the memory & speed requirements they thrust at US, or finally WE just won't/CAN'T PLAY ball. :) -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 20:10:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:11:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: [off-topic] Cold Fusion Software Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 03:03:47 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"vvotC3.0.ER.R5s5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10719 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greetings Vo, I was pleasantly surprised to see in a MicroWarehouse catalog a Web applications development software package called Cold Fusion (version 3, no less). To me, this means that an established marketing firm went with a name that would have been a pejorative not too long ago. Such firms obviously chose product names very carefully for specific markets. In this case, the market is intelligent, upwardly mobile open-minded individuals involved with developing web sites, entrepreneurs. The image is of somethi ng that is new, sexy and worth making an investment ($999). Could it be that the truth is finding a way out in spite of the dominant media? Ed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 10 21:40:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:44:21 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: Vortex-L eskimo.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, blue@pilot.msu.edu, jonesse astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, storms ix.netcom.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton csupomona.com, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, design73@aol.com, dennis wazoo.com, ceti@onramp.net, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, wireless rmii.com, perkin3@llnl.gov Subject: [Fwd: Eighth Miley Critique: Summary of First and Fifth] Resent-Message-ID: <"TJE3x2.0.ml3.wPt5q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10724 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept.10, 1997 Dear all, Since Dr. Miley has just posted on Vortex-L a good rejoiner to this Critique, I make bold to repost it for the convenience of those who hadn't seen it, or lost it in the mists of recent time, along with his reply. Miley makes a convincing case that there is not much deposition from layer to layer of beads, and his data is not from obvious local reaction spots. Looking over the tabulated data in my Critique just now, I have to agree that the data for Ag is, on the face of it, anomalous, uncluttered by neighboring elements, and substantial enough to be the focus of attempts at replication. I still am hoping to have the complete before and after data for the other five runs, to do the same kind of tabulated analysis. At least, what is the before and after data for Ag in these runs? Was this specific configuration, run # 8, run again? Also, if new sets of 10 b eads were taken from the before and after beads of Run # 8, and analyzed in the same way, then that would be another way to check the analysis-- but expensive. It may be a very cogent suggestion that outgassing in solid electrodes produces the noticable "volcanos" imaged by other researchers. Rich Murray, rmforall earthlink.net Here is Miley's post: Subject: Murray's "Miley Critique" # 8 Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:14:53 -0700 Resent-From: Vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:18:03 -0500 From: "George H. Miley" Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com To: vortex-L eskimo.com, Richard Thomas Murray CC: g-miley uiuc.edu In his eighth "Miley Critique," Murray brings out several important new issues that I wish to address. First he questions the sampling technique for bead analysis. In the initial experiments, I took beads from the top of the bed due to the accessibility of lower layers. By the time of ICCF-6 I had developed a technique to sample the distribution as a func tion of bed height. This involved sample lots of roughly a hundred beads, each lot being taken from a different height. Variations for the "9 NAA elements" were less than 30%, and generally less that 10%. No trends indicating significant element migratio n as a function of height were found. Thus, I do not believe that migration of elements during the runs play a significant role in the results. (More recently we have also used ICP-MS analysis of lots from different heights and found similar results.) Second, Murray questions whether the SIMS measurements are representative since they may be focused on local spots on the "lips" of volcanoes, etc. such as observed by Mizuno, Ohmori, and Dash. An important distinction between the present thin-film elect rolysis and the solid electrodes that other researchers have used is the lack of observable surface disruptions like the volcanoes, pits, etc. with the thin films. The SEM photograph of a surface shown in the Texas AM paper is typical. As seen in that ph oto, the surface is roughened, but not locally ruptured by the formation of new structures. SIMS scans across a bead surface do show some gentle variations in element concentration (probably due to locations where bead surfaces touch and due to uneven flo w patterns), but no local "hot spots" or "volcanoes" appear. My guess is that pressure buildup due to absorbed H/D plus any product gases causes disruptions in the case of solid electrodes, whereas gas diffusion prevents excessive buildup with the thin f ilms. This phenomena clearly needs more study, but again does not seen to play a key role in the thin-film experiments and their analyses. The long table of isotope yields repeated by Murray in critique # 8 is interesting, but again fails to account properly the use of SIMS vs. NAA for isotopic ratios. Since this issue was addressed in my earlier response to critique #7, I will not elaborate here. I am pleased, however, that despite these continued differences in interpretation, Murray now acknowledges that some of the isotope shifts formerly questioned may be valid. I only want to repeat one of my earlier comments here-- it is not necessay to prove all 70+ isotopes observed have anomalous shifts-- if only one element exhibits a significant "yield" and an anomalous isotope ratio, that data alone provides a strong case that chemically assisted transmutations can occur-- which is the fundament al issue the experiment was designed to study. As stated before, both Cu and Ag plus several other elements clearly seem fall into this category for the Ni run (#8). Other researchers have measured "transmuted" isotopes and anomalous isotope ratios, but I seem to be the first to attempt measurement of quantitative yield and production rate values. I believe this data will be very valuable for theorists wishing to unde rstand the phenomena. If impurities are responsible, then isotope transport and diffusion rates in the electrolyte and films must be consistent with the measured yield/rate data-- but, according to my estimates of these rates, there are large discrepancie s vs the data. On the other hand, if nuclear reactions are occurring, among other things, the corresponding energy balances must agree with the observed excess heat. As noted in the papers, the balance, found by taking the product yields times their bindi ng energies less the same for the reactants (Ni and p for Run #8, with conservation of nucleons assumed), does give reasonable agreement. This observation is not proof of one interpretation vs. another, but it does provide added "feasibility" to the data interpretation that low energy nuclear reactions were indeed occurring. The key issues that could change this conclusion are, in my opinio n, the discovery of a yet unidentified impurity source or of a systematic error in the analyses of the isotopes. Ultimately, these issues will be further checked by others who try to duplicate the experiments. Received: from iceland.it.earthlink.net (iceland-c.it.earthlink.net [204.119.177.28]) by belize.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA12781; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LOCALNAME (1Cust109.Max2.Albuquerque.NM.MS.UU.NET [153.34.14.109]) by iceland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA00769; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33D448C9.54B2 earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:44:41 -0700 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-L eskimo.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, 76570.2270 compuserve.com, kirk.shanahan@srs.gov, bssimon helix.ucsd.edu, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, wireless rmii.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mizuno athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@onramp.net, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, dennis wazoo.com, ine@padrak.com, little@eden.com, peter itim.org.soroscj.ro, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, britz@kemi.aau.dk, mcfee xdiv.lanl.gov, bockris@chemvx.chem.tamu.edu, ghlin greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp, david@iceland.it.earthlink.net, k@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, rmills blacklightpower.com, wrgood@earthlink.net, yekim physics.perdue.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, tchubb@aol.com, perkins3 llnl.gov, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com Subject: Eighth Miley Critique: Summary of First and Fifth Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit B.S. in history and physics, M.I.T., 1964, M.A. in psychology, Boston U. Graduate School, 1967. My life has been devoted to a private exploration of expanded states of consciousness. For the past eight years, I have supported myself as a home hospice worker. Maintaining a keen interest in science, I have perused every issue of Scientific American, Science, Physics Today, and Speptical Inquirer. I've followed the cold fusion field closely for eight years, subscribed to Vortex-L discussion group since January, 1996, and attended the September Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Con ference. Some critical posts on Vortex-L led me to examine Miley's first two Preprints carefully. I found plenty of nits to pick, got on my high horse, and sent a long, detailed, rude post to Vortex-L early in December. Being a little tenacious at time s, I've written a total of seven Miley Critiques. This one I will call for convenience, the Eighth Critique. Responding to Miley's post of July 20, I have given up some skeptical claims, and added more analysis of the data. I will take the space here to reiterate my after/before ratios in my First Miley Critique, [posted Dec 7, 1996, on George H. Miley, "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis," "Infinite Energy" magazine, # 9, July-Augus t, 1996] calculated from his own data in Table 3 in his First Preprint, based on NAA analysis, given accuracy by him of +- 2 to 4 % in his July 20 post: [I have arranged the data by element, in order, and calculated the ratio, after/before. When helpful, I added natural abundance, the estimated SIMS count from a double-scale zerox of Fig. 3b., and possible same-mass interferences. Fig. 3b is labeled, "T ypical low resolution SIMS scan after the run (average of microspheres in 3 layers in the cell).] I have added for the less common isotopes a second line with three abundance ratios, compared to the most common isotope: official, before, and after, along with the percentage change from official. #atoms per microsphere ratio, after/before before after 23-V50 3.54E10 70.1E10 19.8 23-Cr50? 399r 407r = + 2 % 408r = + 2 % 23-V51 1.44E13 28.6E13 19.9 24-Cr50 omitted, 4.4%, SIMS=~500, 23-V50? 24-Cr52 5.63E14 1070E14 190. 24-Cr53 6.27E13 1360E13 217. 8.82r 8.98r = + 2 % 7.87r = - 11 % 24-Cr54 1.53E13 255E15 167. 35.4r 36.8r = + 4 % 42.0r = + 20 % 26-Fe54 2.82E15 17.8E15 6.31 15.2r 15.2r = 0 % 15.2r = 0 % 26-Fe56 4.29E16 27.0E16 6.29 26-Fe57 1.01E15 14.1E15 14.0 42.5r 42.5r = 0 % 19.2r = - 55 % 26-Fe58 omitted, 0.28 %, SIMS=~1000, 28-Ni58? 27-Co59 1.23E14 19.9E14 16.2 100% 29-Cu63 3.57E15 116E15 32.5 29-Cu65 1.54E15 49.7E15 32.3 2.24r 2.30r = + 2.6 % 2.33r = 4.2 % 30-Zn64 1.42E15 16.7E15 11.8 28-Ni64? 30-Zn66 7.82E14 92.2E14 11.8 1.74r 1.82r = + 6.2 % 1.81r = + 4.1 % 30-Zn67 1.14E14 21.6E14 19.0 4.1%, SIMS=~10 11.9r 12.5r = + 7.4 % 7.73r = - 35 % 30-Zn68 5.08E14 130E14 25.6 18.8%, SIMS=~11 2.64r 2.80r = + 5.9 % 1.29r = -51 % 30-Zn70 1.64E13 124E13 75.6 0.6%, SIMS=~1, 32-Ge70? 81r 86.6r = +6.9 % 13.5r = - 83 % 47-Ag107 7.32E15 76.1E15 10.4 47-Ag109 6.68E15 61.4E15 9.2 1.07r 1.10r = +3 % 1.24r = + 17 % Of these 7 NAA elements, the V pair is typical, with after/before ratios astonishingly close at 19.8 and 19.9, giving absolutely no hint of changes in isotopic abundances, but suggesting strongly a 20-fold transfer of metal from one measured set of ten be ads to another within the cell. This is obviously the same for Cu, while there is provocative data for Cr, Ag, and the specific isotopes: Fe57, Zn67, Zn68, and Zn70, considering the +- 2 to 4 % precision of NAA, given by Miley in his July 20 post. The m ost out-of-line isotope is 30-Zn70, with ratio 75.6, has only 0.6 % natural abundance, making its measurement more susceptible to dust contamination, and, shall we say, random glitches, as well possible interferences from 32-Ge70. Also, the SIMS count for 30-Zn-70 in Fig. 3b is about 1. The remarkably close match of some of the isotope pairs for V, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Ag is surprising and gratifying, and gives us more faith in the NAA measurements. The before isotopic ratio changes, compared to official values, range from 0 to + 7.4 %, largely confirming Miley's estimates in his post of July 20. The after ratios, compared to official values, range from 0 to + 20 to - 83 %. This data does not sugge st isotopic shifts for V and Cu, but provides grounds for spirited debate about Cr, Fe, Zn, and Ag. Table 4a in First Preprint shows that the cells contain l91 micrograms V in the two Ti electrodes: if 1 % somehow dissolved out, then that would roughly equal the 1.52 micrograms of V that Miley measured as added to the beads. At any rate, there seems to be no evidence of isotope shift for V. If we had the specific before and after data for the other five runs, then more of this simple analysis could be done. Zn-68, with an estimated SIMS count of ~11, was listed as enhanced 15.84 % in First Preprint. Here is Miley's data from Table 3 for three isotopes of Si, a non-NAA element, so the data is from SIMS only: Atoms per microsphere Mass No. Fresh Reacted After/Before SIMS counts, from Fig. 3b 28 8.14E+16 3.02E+17 3.7 ~300 29 0 2.04E+16 ? ~ 30 30 0 1.02E+16 ? ~ 10 Again, the poverty of raw data precludes any claims about isotopic shifts, especially to four-digit accuracy! Miley's Table 3 claims Si 30 has a +14.66 % shift, based on a raw data SIMS count of about 10. Presumably, Fig. 3b presents Miley's best raw da ta-- why else would he publish it? By the way, why is the after data for Si 29 twice that for Si 30 ? My first five Miley Critiques present plenty of data from Miley's first two Preprints that show massive transfer of Ni from some beads to other beads within the thousand beads in a cell. So, since much of the Ni is dissolved from some beads and redeposit ed on other beads, any trace elements will be liberated and redeposited, perhaps as concentrated spots, which would then be likely to be noticed and measured by the micron-scale SIMS scans on the few spots on the about 10 or so beads selected for study ou t of the thousand in a cell. Only a thorough, detailed, exact, expensive inventory of cell contents and products, including gunk, gases, and grit, could determine if transmutation or transfer is the model to be applied to the data. Since SIMS on before beads would be on smooth, unremarkable locations of pure metal, while SIMS on after beads would presumably be on interesting, noticable specific reaction sites, like the pits, bubbles, and volcanos imaged by Mizuno, Ohmori, and Dash, then it is conceivable that 18-Kev oxygen ion bombardment on such concentrations of impurities or products, vaporizing them, could produce even more nuclear transmutations, if they are already possible under the very mild conditions of electrolysis. I will provide by email or mail copies of my Critiques. Rich Murray Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 rmforall earthlink.net 505-986-9103 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 03:02:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 03:01:56 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 05:01:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: g-miley@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu To: blue pilot.msu.edu, vortex-L@eskimo.com From: "George H. Miley" Subject: Blue's verdict for the Miley experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"Ka8fg3.0.LJ.J6y5q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10730 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Richard: In your Vortex posting on Friday Sept 5, you state: "Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have detected neutron emission in their first experiments. They made a serious and obvious blunder which was quickly pointed out to them. That should have been the end of that! More recently George Miley made a number of significant and obvious errors in his report of 'massive nuclear transmutations.' These were called to his attention by Rich Murray and I. There simply is no question that the Miley claim that silicon and tita nium were detected with unnatural abundance ratios is correct. His data clearly show them present with natural abundances. Miley acknowledged 'typographical' errors in his report, but has never done anything to clear up these questions." I can't speak for Pons and Fleischmann, nor do I need to. However, I want to respond again to your comments about my work. You seem to think that if you say the same thing over and over, it will become true, or at least people will begin to believe it. A year ago you claimed the silicon and titanium isotope ratio identification represented "significant and obvious" errors in my paper. I responded saying that there are several ways to interpret these two particular isotope measurements due to overlap issu es, but that I stuck by my identification which used a logical method for prorating intensities from high resolution scans.(You now say that there is "simply no question" but that this is an obvious error --- I guess not so in your mind!!) I then went on to stress that I had examined over 50 isotopes in this run and that the thrust of the paper was based on the overall isotope trends plus, and most importantly, the measured increases in masses of key elements. I stated that the conclusions of the paper rested on the latter points and NOT SOLELY on the analysis of the two elements - silicon and titanium - which I did not even take time to discuss in the text. Fur ther I stated, and repeat now, that the key issues in the experiment are whether unidentified impurity sources caused the element mass increases observed and/or some unidentified systematic error came into the measurements. If errors in those areas are f ound, by myself or by others, that will indeed be "significant". You evidently did not like this answer and decided that you would become a one man "judge and jury", declaring that silicon/titanium ratio analysis is in error-- hence that I made "significant and obvious" errors, so the experiment is invalid!! (Your note brings R. Murray into this "jud ging" contest. However, his arguments in the series of Murray critiques are much more broad ranging than titanium/silicon. And, as I pointed out in an earlier posting, many of his points were based on a misunderstanding of how the ratio measurements were actually done. Other of his points provide food for thought, and I've commented on them. You also bring up my early comment about typographical errors out of context. The point was simply that copies of a preprint of the Texas AM paper were reproduced by some people before I had time to make final corrections for the final proceedings version.) All of the above is old history. What happened next was that when you did not accept my response about the silicon/titanium isotope issue, you initiated a series of postings on sci.fusion, vortex, etc. (not sent directly to me) citing me as a leading ex ample of a "pseudo scientist" and my work as a leading example of "bad science" on the basis that you had found "significant errors" and that, in my response to you, I had "tried to avoid the issues you raised"!!!! I did not respond to these postings (bro ught to my attention by friends) since I simply did not want to get into a name calling contest. That gets neither of us, or the scientific field, anywhere. At least the recent vortex posting avoids the name calling, but it still maintains the position that YOU are the judge of "significant errors", independent of my response. When the "judge" completely ignores the response, what more can the person on trial do, but ask for a new judge?? Hopefully you will at least stop posting this "well worn" note about "significant errors", saying that the whole experiment is "bad science". Saying it over and over - claiming that there is "simply no question about it" - doesn't make it true, even though you seem to think so. The ultimate verdict must wait for more experiments by others. ------------------------- George H. Miley University of Illinois Fusion Studies Lab - 100 NEL 103 S. Goodwin Ave. Urbana, Il 61801 USA ------------------------ Vox: 217-3333772 Fax: 217-3332906 e-mail: g-miley uiuc.edu X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 04:04:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Murray & Stainless Steel Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:57:03 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"1a6k52.0.gC5.p1z5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10731 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich posted data about stainless steel: >Chromium is a major component of stainless steels >Oxidizes to form transparent film on surface of material, >sealing surface and preventing other oxidants from reaching the metal Which is why it is "stainless" >Contain iron, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, manganese, >silicon, carbon, phosphorous, and sulfur >Last four elements are trace elements, with a maximum >concentration of 0.75 wt% each >So, there is plenty of data in the CG runs # 2 and # 3 for all these >trace elements, except for C, which has the clear-cut datum of zero. >This supports the interpretation that stainless steel was heavily involved in >the electrolysis. Except that the cell construction isolates the stainless steel surfaces from the electrolyte, which sees only plastic (Teflon and the end gasket material, probably also Teflon) and zirconium. Rich has said he does not trust gaskets after the Challanger disaster. The cases are not comparable. In the Challanger disaster the gasket materials are exposed to the hot gases of the rocket motors and were used initial temperatures outside their design range, as demonstrated by Feynman and a glass of ice water. In the CG case, the O-rings sit in grooves machined in the outside of the zirconium cylinder and seal between the cylinder and the end plates. The zirconium cylinder is clamped against a solid disc of plastic, probably Teflon, with only a central hole for the stainless steel rod to pass through. This rod is also sheathed by Teflon tubes, held in compression by the screws which clamp the whole assembly together. The internal temperature reaches somewhat above boiling. This is well within the performance range of Teflon, which does not melt or decompose at these temperatures. In his reply to Champion, Rich conjectures that the zirconium disc makes loose contact with the support rod and that the gasket materials can soak up elecrtrolyte. Given the evident thought invested in the construction of the cell, it is likely that a goo d contact is made between the rod and disc. Teflon is one of the more impermeable plastics. As for silence from CG, this may not imply guilt, but only the irrelevance of questions. There is **no logical support** for the notion advanced bye Rich (or by Blue) that the stainless steel contaminates the results of the CG tests. Miley has provided a reasoned response to Rich's cirtique #8. Rich has conceded that a good case was made. This is the second time that Rich's ctritiques, full of barbed questions, have been shown to be the result of incomplete understanding of Miley's wo rk which was in fact competent, knowledgeable, and thorough. I hope that Rich will take a dose of humility from this and not assume because he can imagine some mistakes that these actually occurred, or that the actual workers owe him -- or us -- detailed answers to such conjectures. Mike Carrell Also, if thorium was oxidized to ThO [amu 248], it would have been missed by the ICP/MS data, which ends at 245. Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 06:38:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:39:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:32:17 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Over unity prizes To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"aagqD2.0.6B1.mH_5q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10732 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Scott Little writes: Since we're all still driving gasoline powered cars and there is no imminently viable alternative on the horizon it is a reasonably safe bet that ALL the extant US patents for o-u devices are bullshit. I do not think you can draw that conclusion. Electric cars definitely work, and they have some major advantages over gasoline. They are more fuel efficient, cheaper to run, and they do not pollute as much. (Many people do not realize they save energy. Sou rce: Hydrogen Program Plan, U.S. DoE.) But you cannot buy one easily because of technical limitations, problems with batteries, and high cost. It is conceivable that some o-u technologies work but the inventors do not have enough money to scale them up. T hat would be the inventor's fault, of course. Anyone who has a real o-u technology could instantly secure hundreds of millions of dollars of investment capital simply by demonstrating the machine to investors and the public. There are many potential excess energy technologies which cannot be brought to market effectively. (They are not "o-u," strictly speaking -- just energy.) They range from conventional things that all of us agree are real, like improved solar collectors, t o cold fusion at CETI, which I am sure is real but others may doubt. Dean Miller pointed out that: Gates owned the copyright on DOS for the 8088, which he bought cheap from Seattle Computers (I've forgotten the exact name). He licensed the copyright to IBM for their new computer in 1981, after the CP/M people stood up the IBM rep for a meeting. Gates has vigorously pursued copyright infractions since that time. That was QDOS from Seattle Computer Products in 1981. (See Cringley, "Accidental Empires," p. 132) Yes, but a copyright is nothing like a patent. It does not give you as much protection. For example, in the early '80 Microsoft sold a BASIC compiler which I was forced to use extensively, due to circumstances beyond my control. Around 1985, I think it was, Borland came out with a BASIC compiler that was source compatible with Microsoft's, including all of the bells & whistles that Microsoft added to standard Dartmouth BASIC. It was remarkably compatible, and as I recall it compi led and ran two or three times faster. If you were to bring out a "source compatible" automobile, copier or food processor that looked and worked *exactly* like a competing product, you would be sued, but in software that is allowed. In computer hardware IBM never filed for patents for the basic PC design, so it has been cloned by thousands of companies. Apple patented the Mac, so there are only a few licensed clone makers. In recent years, court decisions have allowed some types of software patents, but this has had little effect on the industry. There have also been endless inconclusive battles over "look and feel," but there were no such fights during the first five years of the microcomputer software development, when Gates became rich and took a commanding lead. He, of course, took BASIC directly from a public domain standard, and he borrowed Windows from the Apple, which took it from Xerox. Greg should be sure to copyright the SMOT name, documentation, packaging and so on. People make a fortune overnight selling "the original" Pet Rock or Tamagochi even though a rock is a rock and any toy maker could clone a Tamagochi. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 08:39:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:37:47 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Subject: The Energy Amplifier. Resent-Message-ID: <"JOgvp.0.Sd6.G316q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10734 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Everyone, Just to let you know all is not lost if CF isn't workable and/or transmutation of Nuclear waste by chemical induced processes is incorrect. There now exist several groups around the world investigating Energy Generation and Nuclear Waste transmuation using conventional nuclear physics. The concept is based on a subcritical assembly of Thorium seeded with with either reprocessed waste from Light Water Reactors or enriched Uranium. The assembly is irradiated with a 1 - 3 Billion electron Volt proton beam of about 10 - 100 mA. Each proton liberates about 100 neutrons depending on the beam energy. These neutrons are not strongly moderated but instead are used to induce fissions in the fissile material and in addition breeds fissile 233U from the 232Th. The process uses Natural Thorium which is about 10 times more abundant than Uranium in the Earth's crust. There is enough Thorium on the Earth to provide all Man's energy needs for a time far longer than Man has been on the planet. The process does not produce Trans-Uranics - all such are consumed by fissions. The resultant radioactive waste has an unsafe period similar to magnetic fusion. In addition the long-lived Trans-Uranics produced by Light Water Reactors, which are the longest lived component of the waste from those reactors can be burned as fission fuel in the devices. The technology to make these devices is a straight-forward extrapolation of existing accelerator technology. The best known of these approaches is called the "Energy Amplifier" and is Championed by Nobel Prize winner and former CERN Director Carlo Rubbia. You can get a brief introduction to these device by looking at: http://www.cern.ch/PSdoc/ppc/ppc960315.html However there are other approaches being persued by American and Russian groups too. The technology is inherently far safer than LWR and produces no Greenhouse gasses. Whether it wins in a race with Solar, in the event the other Energy schemes discussed here do not work out is an open question. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 07:50:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:50:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:51:52 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Florescent tube inside coil Resent-Message-ID: <"JE6tq1.0.WM4.CK06q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10733 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote >A 15 mm diameter miniature florescent tube inside a resonator coil is >lighting. It is also lighting more brightly at the outside. As the HV, >HF is present on coil, this can not be assumed extraordinary, but I just >thought that a coil look like a Faraday cage at two dimension. If so, no >electric field should be inside a coil. But the experiment show that is >not a good approximation. You just made an inductive discharge. Indeed, nothing extraordinary. 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 Sep 11 08:57:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:58:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Over unity prizes Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:56:14 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"K_Roo3.0.u5.HK16q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10735 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:32 PM 9/11/97 +0000, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >Scott Little writes: > > Since we're all still driving gasoline powered cars and there is no > imminently viable alternative on the horizon it is a reasonably safe bet > that ALL the extant US patents for o-u devices are bullshit. > >I do not think you can draw that conclusion. Electric cars definitely work, >and they have some major advantages over gasoline. They are more fuel >efficient, cheaper to run, and they do not pollute as much. Unless you get the electricity from Nuclear, Hydropower, Wind, Geothermal, Solar, or Biomass. (Bullshit is Biomass, too)as opposed to Coal-Fired power plants you are just moving the pollution out to the country instead of downtown Podunk. The "greenhouse effect" or the ozone layer could care less. On top of that if you consider the generation and transmission losses, plus battery charging loss, it's not anything to write home about. State-of-the-art batteries can muster about 14 watt-hours/pound. A gallon of gasoline has the potential of about 8 KILOWATT-HOURS/pound with the best "ou" devices that you could dream up. Or, you can go Fuel Cells with on-board steam reforming of methanol or coal and you still will generate 44 pounds of Carbon Dioxide for every 12 pounds of Carbon in the fuel consumed. >(Many people do not realize they save energy. Source: Hydrogen Program Plan, >U.S. DoE.) I wouldn't put that much stock in what the, "Department Of Everything." puts out in a "we need more money, report". :-) > >It is conceivable that some o-u technologies work but the inventors do >not have enough money to scale them up. That would be the >inventor's fault, of course. > I would be willing to bet that a SMOT or any other such OU device will NEVER run a small irrigation pump on a tube-well in a "developing country" where a peasant is struggling to stay alive. Yet 10 pounds of BULLSHIT in a simple methane generator or septi c tank will run a small lawnmower engine that was discarded in Atlanta. >Anyone who has a real o-u technology could >instantly secure hundreds of millions of dollars of investment capital simply >by demonstrating the machine to investors and the public. SURE WOULD. :-) Regards, Frederick > >- Jed > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 09:43:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:43:25 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Geothermal Infinite-Energy, Buried? Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:39:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"97VGL2.0.r_4.h-16q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10736 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick Stated: >The "test wells" drilled by D.O.E.-Los Alamos, near Los Alamos >to a depth of 10,000 feet into "solid granite" at 500 degrees F >were tested then shut down, why? >Granite runs about 8% sodium-potassium oxides. :-) >Might these geothermal tests have revealed the Mills-type ou effects >decades ago, and are being kept under wraps? >Personally, I see no great difference in the physics of the P&F "CF" >and related ou effects and the claimed Hydrino effects. You are correct in your final statement for the similarity is -- none of these devises produce excess energy in the form of a nuclear event. I will concur that heat has been observed from select experiments by competent researchers. However, this does not imply heat from a nuclear event! Within the Vortex group, qualified people such as Scott Little have attempted to observe any potential a nomaly. They would be happy with anomalous heat, the detection of new radioactive isotopes, or the observation of new elements. Replication of this event is extremely difficult. Although, when one has the opportunity to see grams of new elements being formed in less than two hours and observes no anomalous heat one must question the veracity of heat associated with CF or low ener gy nuclear transmutation. This brings us back to the starting point - How does one observe heat from an aqueous cold fusion cell? The answer to this is extremely easy. In a low energy nuclear event, you form several products. Let's take an assumption that your aqueous cell is producing Na and Ca from the mysterious low energy nuclear reaction. Let's take another step into the unknown and say that during the formation of these elements there was a mass balance. This is to say, that no excess energies would be present from the low energy nuclear event. Now what do we have? 1) An aqueous cell that has produced Na and Ca with no nuclear generated heat. 2) We have two new elements that will immediately react with the electrolyte forming their respected oxide compounds. 3) We have two new elements that produce several hundred kJ/mole of heat from this classic chemical reaction! Now you have a cell that produces transmutation and heat in the form of a classical chemical reaction. The reality is - when it works its not very productive. If you are producing new elements that produce heat through their formation you cannot claim nuclear energy! Furthermore, if you want to incorporate such a devise in a commercial sense, you must have a replication of transmutation and a way to continuous ly clean your electrolyte of the new elements produced. As I told the CETI boys two years ago, what they have is great and will produce chemical energy, but it is far from "clean!" 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 Thu Sep 11 10:24:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:24:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:27:12 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Florescent tube inside coil References: Resent-Message-ID: <"ARhLd.0.w97.xa26q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10737 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > > > But the experiment show that is not a good approximation. > You just made an inductive discharge. Indeed, nothing extraordinary. Thank you, I intended to say the 2D Faraday caging is not a good approximation. So the tube may still be lighted by the electric field. I don't know how is the inductive discharge occurs. Is it as the charge carriers gain kinetic energy by try to build back-EMF ? If it is the inductive discharge, it will be still little extraordinary, because I did not expected such thing. Indeed, the lighting fl. tube on such configuration is already complex phenomena. For example when the tube is closed the coil, the light intensity drop, so there is an optimum distance for tube light well (is about 5 cm). Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 11:05:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:51:42 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Electric vehicle efficiency & pollution To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"xrz-p.0.yD5.kB36q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10739 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I wrote that electric vehicles are more fuel efficient, cheaper to run, and they do not pollute as much. The irrepressible Frederick J. Sparber Questions My Authority on this issue. He should know better. I am surrounded by stacks of books and about this subject, and I just bought the Encyclopedia Britannica CD-ROM, which is the best thing since sliced bread. He writes: Unless you get the electricity from Nuclear, Hydropower, Wind, Geothermal, Solar, or Biomass. (Bullshit is Biomass, too)as opposed to Coal-Fired power plants you are just moving the pollution out to the country instead of downtown Podunk. About a third of our electricity does come from these sources, so right off the bat an "average" electric vehicle is a third less polluting. In the State of Washington they would run on hydro power. But this is incorrect for several other reasons. First, as I said, electric cars are more efficient. They get better mileage. A gasoline automobile extracts 11% of the potential energy from crude oil. An electric car extracts 20% of the energy from "fossil fuels averaged." The biggest savings are in the conversion from thermal energy to rotary power. Steam turbines are 36% efficient on average, automobile IC engines are only 15% efficient. Other savings come from economies of scale. Second, power plants generate "point source pollution." That is, pollution originating at one spot on the map. It is far easier to control than dispersed pollution from millions of individual automobiles. Economy of scale also comes into play: it is cheap er to build one scrubber for one chimney than a million scrubbers for a million tail pipes. Also, the equipment is under the control of trained engineers, as opposed to ignorant drivers who do not bother to change the oil. And if it does pollute (or if it blows up) you know who to sue. Electric cars are particularly efficient during initial acceleration, at low speeds, and when stopped in traffic. In other words, they are perfect for stop-and-go city driving. When you stop, they stop. They do not idle at red lights. The "greenhouse effect" or the ozone layer could care less. Greenhouse gases from transportation could be reduced by half to two-thirds with conventional electric vehicles. On top of that if you consider the generation and transmission losses, plus battery charging loss, it's not anything to write home about. Naturally, I took this into account. Battery charging efficiency (from delivered electricity to battery storage) is 70% efficient. Power train transmission (from rotary power to the wheels) is about 85% efficient for both ICE and electric cars. State-of-the-art batteries can muster about 14 watt-hours/pound. A gallon of gasoline has the potential of about 8 KILOWATT-HOURS/pound with the best "ou" devices that you could dream up. This is irrelevant. It is true that batteries are heavy and they have low energy density, but this has little impact on efficiency. Unfortunately, it does severely limit range, and it makes electric cars impractical because batteries take a long time to r echarge. Toyota recently began selling hybrid gasoline - electric cars that go a long way to ameliorating this problem. They work somewhat like diesel - electric locomotives, which are the second most efficient means of transportation (after electric trai ns). The Toyota cars are expected to get 66 miles per gallon, and to reduce CO2 by 50% and carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides by 90%. (Source: New York Times, March 26, 1997.) My information comes from Hydrogen Program Plan, U.S. DoE. Fred remarks: I wouldn't put that much stock in what the, "Department Of Everything." puts out in a "we need more money, report". :-) I would. The original sources are EPRI, PG&E and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Furthermore, any reference book on energy will have similar statistics. In matters relating to conventional, non-controversial energy, I have always found the DoE to be an imp eccable source of information. I would be willing to bet that a SMOT or any other such OU device will NEVER run a small irrigation pump on a tube-well in a "developing country" where a peasant is struggling to stay alive. I cannot imagine why you come to this conclusion. If the SMOT works it seemly likely that it can be scaled up economically. In that case there will be no reason why it should not be used as widely as ICE and electricity are today. Third world struggling peasants depend upon motorbikes and electric lights just as much as I depend on my car. Yet 10 pounds of BULLSHIT in a simple methane generator or septic tank will run a small lawnmower engine that was discarded in Atlanta. I am entirely in favor of developing bio-mass energy sources. However, they do suffer from problems and limitations: They cause significant pollution. Small ones used in close proximity to living quarters and water supplies are extremely unhygienic, and they stink. People deserve a better quality of life. The fuel supply is limited, and very bulky. There is no way they could supply a large percent of energy to a third world city like Calcutta or Beijing without severe disruption and pollution. The generators are bulky too. You could never run a motorbike or a hearing aid on bio-mass fuel. Most of the purported o-u devices are reasonably compact, energy dense, and they could be scaled up or down for application you like. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 10:59:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:58:55 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: RE: Geothermal Infinite-Energy, Buried? Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:58:08 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"f4MAh3.0.oa1.S536q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10738 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:39 PM 9/11/97 +0000, Joe Champion wrote: > >Frederick Stated: > >>Personally, I see no great difference in the physics of the P&F "CF" >>and related ou effects and the claimed Hydrino effects. > > >You are correct in your final statement for the similarity is -- none of these devises produce excess energy in the form of a nuclear event. I won't buy that, Joe. When you disrupt a nucleus with a Light Lepton (LL) uptake, it is possible that enormous amounts of energy is carried away by neutrinos which are undetectable, enough in fact to carry away tens of Mev/neutrino and the Relativistic E nergy of the LLs. An LL could stay in the mix and having a rest energy of a few ev or less and going relativistic even at a few ev, Mrel = Mo[qV/(Mo*c^2)+1] then say, it has a relativistic mass-energy of an electron 9.1E-31 kg-0.51 Mev, then on collision with an electron i t gives up 1/2 of its energy to the electron and it's Mrel drops to 1/2Me, meanwhile the collision electron collides with another electron giving up Ee/2 and so on for the electron-electron collisions. But the Mrel = Ee/2 LL collides with another electron and now drops to Ee/4-Mrel = Me/4 and that collision electron collides with another electron and so on until the energy is dissipated as heat with no detectable "nuclear event". A purist would argue that there should be some "gammas" given off, but these could be in the low kev range or less. Also there with the neutrinos and LLs carrying of this nuclear event energy there could be many "almost thermal" or readilly thermalized ne utrons given off and with the favorable neutron capture cross section these could be absorbed. But, where are the capture gammas? Unless things are agitated enough in the nucleus for "side reactions" with "thermal neutrons". > >This brings us back to the starting point - How does one observe heat from an >aqueous cold fusion cell? > A calorimeter, perhaps? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 11:28:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:27:36 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:30:23 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Electric vehicle efficiency & pollution Resent-Message-ID: <"u8EIK1.0.GO3.MW36q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10741 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:51 PM 9/11/97 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >I wrote that electric vehicles are more fuel efficient, cheaper to run, and >they do not pollute as much. The irrepressible Frederick J. Sparber Questions >My Authority on this issue. He should know better. I am surrounded by stacks >of books and about this subject, and I just bought the Encyclopedia Britannica >CD-ROM, which is the best thing since sliced bread. He writes: Actually, the best source of power for automobiles, and certainly the most non-polluting, won a zero emission auto race years ago. Ford bought the rights, and I optimistically keep expecting them to market such a car. What does it use for fuel? Liquid Nitrogen. It might not be too popular in this part of the country, but in Florida, California, Latin America, etc. it should sell great. (Air conditioning, not heat, is a byproduct of engine operation. A heater would have to run off the generator.) An LN2 moter is small, cheap, very clean, and very long lasting. Just don't put any LOx in it if you run out of LN2. Incidently, one of the reasons it is so efficient is that LN2 can be (and is) preferentially produced in cold climates, and can be shipped by tanker. Another production trick is to locate in desert environments and radiate heat to deep space. In eit her case some of the power contained in the LN2 is effectively free. 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 Sep 11 12:00:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:00:00 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Electric vehicle efficiency & pollution Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:59:08 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"QmW_l3.0.S35.k-36q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10742 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Jed wrote: >The irrepressible Frederick J. Sparber Questions My Authority on >this issue. He should know better. He does now, Jed. :-) Great Essay on the subject. >And I just bought the Encyclopedia Britannica CD-ROM, which is >the best thing since sliced bread. I'm going to have use my reading glasses when I use my Brittanica CD-ROM, so I can stay a step ahead of your wrath. On the other hand you seem to be more coherent when your blood pressure is up by your I.Q. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 11:10:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:09:52 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com References: Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:13:21 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Florescent tube inside coil Resent-Message-ID: <"IGOB_1.0.WR2.lF36q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10740 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Hamdi Ucar wrote: >[snip] >I don't know how is the inductive discharge occurs. Is it as the charge >carriers gain kinetic energy by try to build back-EMF ? No. An inductive discharge in low pressure gas, such as inside a fluorescent light tube, is driven by the electric field induced by time-varying magnetic field. A related discharge is the capacitively coupled discharge, in which electric field surrounding th e source object (plate, point, coil, etc.) drives the discharge. In either case, electrons gain kinetic energy in the oscillating electric field and produce additional ion-electron pairs by collisional ionization of some of the background gas. 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 Sep 11 13:10:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:42:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood To: @minnie.ni c.kingston.ibm.com:vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"dlgGX.0.i42.N156q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10744 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > either. These problems are not "unsolvable within our system of logic" > they are unsolvable with by mechanism or being in ANY system of logic. > This is Godel's second and much more troubling proof. Of course, Godel's > proof does admit of the possibility of inconsistant logic systems where > such problems are simultaneously true and false. However, he also showed > that, in such systems everything can be shown to be both true and false... In order for Godel to construct a proof, he had to *assume* and use some system of logic, didn't he? Anyway, Ed's original question was whether we might be being fooled by thinking our logic is the only possible form of logic, just as at one time we were fooled by thinking Euclidean geometry was the only possible form of logic. I think that's a good ques tion. Our logic is based on inference, which is analogous to causality in physics. Todd Heywood X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 12:49:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:48:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood To: @minnie.ni c.kingston.ibm.com:vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"-5NLp.0.AN1.Zj46q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10743 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Oops...middling correction to make here... On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > either. These problems are not "unsolvable within our system of logic" > they are unsolvable with by mechanism or being in ANY system of logic. > This is Godel's second and much more troubling proof. Of course, Godel's > proof does admit of the possibility of inconsistant logic systems where > such problems are simultaneously true and false. However, he also showed > that, in such systems everything can be shown to be both true and false... In order for Godel to construct a proof, he had to *assume* and use some system of logic, didn't he? Anyway, Ed's original question was whether we might be being fooled by thinking our logic is the only possible form of logic, just as at one time we were fooled by thinking Euclidean geometry was the only possible form of logic. I think that's a good ques tion. Our logic is based on ^^^^^ (should be "geometry") inference, which is analogous to causality in physics. Todd Heywood X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 15:01:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:00:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:23:17 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes References: <199709110302.WAA12188 natasha.eden.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Gf8F41.0.Qo5.7e66q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10745 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > > At 07:32 AM 9/11/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: > > >Unless the US Patent system is rubbish, there are already plenty of OU > >devices in existence. > > Greg, you share what appears to be a common misconception among persons > living outside the US. A device does NOT have to actually work in order for > a US Patent to be issued on it. All that is required is that the inventor > claim unique properties for the device. The US Patent office now makes no > attempt to verify the inventor's claims. > > Since we're all still driving gasoline powered cars and there is no > imminently viable alternative on the horizon it is a reasonably safe bet > that ALL the extant US patents for o-u devices are bullshit. > > Scott Little Hi Scott, IS the cost of a patent also ZERO in the US?. Seems lots of folks are spending $10,000+ on nothing. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 16:16:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:13:59 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 19:14:49 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes References: <199709110302.WAA12188 natasha.eden.com> <3418684D.7019F0D5@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"FrnST.0.Bk1.ri76q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10746 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > IS the cost of a patent also ZERO in the US?. > > Seems lots of folks are spending $10,000+ on nothing. > Greg, Scott can speak for himself, but I don't read his remarks as saying that a US patent was not worth the money for many ideas that DO work. All he said was that a US patent no longer proves an idea valid. For all you guys out there who wish to elevate a US patent beyond this reality - good reading! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 16:34:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:32:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes Cc: List Server Freenrg Resent-Message-ID: <"ZLDPV3.0.5f1.-_76q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10747 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:23 9/12/97 +0930, Greg Watson wrote: >IS the cost of a patent also ZERO in the US?. > >Seems lots of folks are spending $10,000+ on nothing. Bingo! Well, I guess it depends on how you define "lots of folks". If only 1% of the US Patents are just ego trips for some delusional inventor, that makes over 50,000 worthless patents. Is that a lot? Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 11 19:46:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 19:46:30 -0700 (PDT) From: John Logajan Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:44:59 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"tBp6R.0.811.2qA6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10748 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > Greg Watson wrote: > >IS the cost of a patent also ZERO in the US?. > >Seems lots of folks are spending $10,000+ on nothing. > > Bingo! Well, I guess it depends on how you define "lots of folks". If only > 1% of the US Patents are just ego trips for some delusional inventor, that > makes over 50,000 worthless patents. Is that a lot? If you think you have an original idea that people would actually pay you money for, you should probably consider getting a patent. However, there are far more patents issued than patents sold for profit. On the other hand, there are lots of ideas (products) that make people lots of money that have no patent protection. Most of my adult life has been in working for companies that have no major patent protection for their products. I wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to get a patent, because it is still sort of an ego boost. But one should always weigh the cost of obtaining one with the realistic potential of recovering the cost in future sales. I can't verify that the Patent Office no longer attempts to bother with checking whether an applicant's ideas really work or not, but there have been lots of patents issued that describe machines that are doubtful. -- - 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 Sep 11 22:52:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:52:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:56:35 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Tour of Moller International Resent-Message-ID: <"fGJZn1.0.rd3.CYD6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10749 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://hera.csus.edu/me/moller.html Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="moller.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="moller.html" Content-Base: "http://hera.csus.edu/me/moller.html" Tour of Moller International

Tour of Moller International

The section was treated to an exceptional tour of Moller International, birthplace of the "Skycar." According to our host, Dr. Ren Tubergen, this was the first public tour of Moller's facility in several years. Over 35 people, including employee families, attended.

Moller International was started in the early 1960's by Paul Moller with a dream of making vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) a reality. Over the years, Moller International has been involved in producing a wide variety of products, including exhaust attenuation, continuously variable torque converters, rotary engines, and aerospace robots. However, Moller International has always had its focus on the skies.

A major component in producing Mo ller's key product, the Skycar, are rotary engines. Moller has acquired several unique and specialized manufacturing machines to produce and hone rotary engine cylinders and has produced prototype rotary engines in its Skycar research. In conjunction with UC Davis, Moller is also involved in research and development of nickel-alloy coatings for use in rotary engines.

The tour continued with Dr. Tubergen presnting Moller's hybrid electric vehicle. This vehicle utilizes a Honda converted to use a roatry auxiliary power unit (APU) to power a motor-generator for charging batteries mounted in the rear of the vehicle. Dr. Tubergen discussed several production obstacles including battery output and mounting space within the vehicle.

The tour culminated in a close-up look at the Skycar, a 390 mph, rotary engine equipped aircraft. Control of the aircraft is to be accomp lished by differential engine speed of the 4 engines (two rotors per engine) to be installed. VTOL characteristics are to be controlled by sliding vane structures installed in the engine ducting. Moller currently does not have rotary engines of large en ough horsepower to power the current version of the Skycar, but development continues. It was fascinating viewing the varioius models used in the development of the Skycar showing the evolution of the concept.

For further information, visit Moller International's web site at http://www.moller.com/~mi/.

--Attilio Zasso, Vice-Chair

X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 03:01:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Over unity Prizes & Patents Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:56:45 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"hcdXB.0.u-2.bBH6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10750 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I spent my working life with RCA, which regarded patents as an asset, and derived substantial income (around $100 million/yr) from licensing its pool of patents on color television and related technologies. They encouraged technical staff to disclose and had a staff of attorneys who were active in filing. There was a bonus of a few hundred dollars when a patent was filed. I accumulated a small portfolio -- about 20 -- of mostly vanity patents. I have a friend, however, whose name is on the patents for the technology that puts the color and stereo hi-fi signals on all the VHS tape in the world. Those patents yielded over $4 0 million in royalties to RCA. A patent is a license to sue. An undefended patent may be of marginal commercial value. General Electric, which bought RCA for $6 billion of petty cash, has a different attitude toward patents, which are obtained only as necessary, and without the relatively generous bonus that RCA had. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 03:49:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 03:48:57 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Lead-Gold Transmutation Calculations Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:48:18 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"GZrD12.0.Zc3.NuH6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10751 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, Going by the crude "Model" of 5A-Z "sub-units" in any atom, a rough cut at transmutation of 82Pb-207 into 79Au-197 based on transmutation based on either a bound Light Lepton (LL +/-)pair or a Hydrino. For 82Pb-207; 5A-Z = 953 units 2A pos = 414 2A-Z neg = 332 A-Z neutrinos = 125 Z electrons = 82 For 79Au-197; 5A-Z = 906 units 2A pos = 394 2A-Z neg = 315 A-Z neutrinos = 118 Z electrons = 79 So there is a "loss" of 953 - 906 units = 47, presumably as a complete atom or several light atoms with a combined total of 47 units that should account for the "nuclear event" energy involved. Assuming that the 3 electrons "left over" is the Z of the light atom/atoms; 5A-3 = 47 thus 5A = 47+3 = 50 then A must equal 50/5 =10 Therefore the companion "daughter" to the 79Au-197 is 3Li-10 ? :-) With the LL bound neutral pair or the Hydrino bound pair going into the lead to form a composite entity that adds two units for the LL bound pair, then an "up unit" and a "down unit" must be worked into the calculations. Or, 5A-Z plus Z = 5A units added to the lead for the hydrino "catalyst-activator" uptake. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 03:52:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 03:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:51:33 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: NHE-S RI To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"3JZ2K3.0.Zl3.dyH6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10752 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com September 11, 1997 It was announced that funding for MITI's NHE program was being cut off as of the fiscal year March 1998. Doesn't this also mean that whatever cold fusion research funding going to SRI from Japan is also being cut off? Funny how the media treats the MITI funding cut off as if the whole of Japan (1/2 the population of U.S.) has rejected cf research and allegedly finally joined with the rest of the world. Overblown, sensationalized, ignorant, and a disservice to the publi c and the rest of the cf research still going strong and ever deeply. -AK- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 05:10:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: The Energy Amplifier and The CG Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:09:36 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"gT92R.0.B85.o5J6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10753 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu 11 sep 97 Martin Sevior wrote: >The concept is based on a subcritical assembly of Thorium seeded >with either reprocessed waste from Light Water Reactors or enriched >Uranium. >The assembly is irradiated with a 1 - 3 Billion electron volt proton >beam of about 10 - 100 mA. >Each proton liberates about 100 neutrons depending on the beam energy. This tends to explain that the "excess neutrons" (47?)from the CG Thorium transmutation reactions are not too difficult to extract from from the Thorium, doesn't it? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 07:20:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:20:00 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:23:41 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, wireless rmii.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, bssimon helix.ucla.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su Subject: Shared forum for critiques Resent-Message-ID: <"ZzCrl3.0.EQ2.F-K6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10756 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear all, Reviewing the contents of my hard drive, I find much valuable critical work from the last 18 months, by many participants, in which many issues are aired, and specific points are shared, that would enable new researchers in the field to avoid all kinds of pitfalls and know of experts who could offer guidance. This is, of course, mostly buried in the voluminous monthly archives of Vortex-L. Perhaps John Logajan or others could set up a web site, where this body of critical posts can be readil y accessed and searched. Also, much of this material could be summarized as a regular feature in "Infinite Energy". Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 06:31:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:31:02 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:30:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Energy Amplifier and The CG Resent-Message-ID: <"IUtEO3.0.3R.LGK6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10755 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > >Each proton liberates about 100 neutrons depending on the beam energy. > > This tends to explain that the "excess neutrons" (47?)from the CG > Thorium transmutation reactions are not too difficult to extract from > from the Thorium, doesn't it? :-) > The 100 neutrons is the average neutron yield following a high energy proton - target interaction. The kinetic energy of the proton is distributed amongst a number of different target nuclei. On average, 100 neutrons of 0 - 10 MeV kinetic energy are relea sed per initial, incident proton. This would happen as a cascade of interactions. But just to make it clear nothing unusual (to a Nuclear Physicist!) is happening, each neutron is bound by about 8 MeV so throwing 1000 MeV into collection of nuclei is more than enough to liberate 100 or so neutrons. Of course the consequence of the above is a number of (short-lived!) radioactive nuclei that are conspicuously absent from CG or CETI systems. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 10:00:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:00:26 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: The Energy Amplifier and The CG Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:02:30 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"P9M6H3.0.d64.cKN6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10757 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:30 PM 9/12/97 +0000, Martin Sevior wrote: > >The 100 neutrons is the average neutron yield following a high energy >proton-target interaction. The kinetic energy of the proton is >distributed amongst a number of different target nuclei. On average, >100 neutrons of 0 - 10 MeV kinetic energy are released per initial, >incident proton. Lets see, 1 to 3 Bev protons at 10 to 100 mA,= 10 to 300 Megawatts input to get a potential yield of Gigawatts worth of "secondary" reactions. Not bad for a sledge-hammer, but why not use the Thorium as a "Breeder" fuel in U235 Fission Reactors, n + Th-232 + beta decay steps ----> U-233, then n + U233 (527 barns) = Fission + 2.52 neutrons? Seems a lot easier than the equipment for 1 to 3 Gev Proton Accelerators that need a one to two order of magnitude improvement in proton current capability to get to the "goal". >This would happen as >a cascade of interactions. But just to make it clear nothing unusual >(to a Nuclear Physicist!) is happening, Cook-Book, for even a freshman science-engineering major, these days. >each neutron is bound by about 8 MeV so throwing 1000 MeV into >collection of nuclei is more than enough to liberate 100 or so neutrons. I should hope so, but why not pry the Thorium nucleus apart with a CG "toothpick" instead of "Big Project" Sledge-Hammer? :-) > >Of course the consequence of the above is a number of (short-lived!) >radioactive nuclei that are conspicuously absent from CG or CETI systems. I vote for the "CG or CETI systems" that don't need Nuclear Physicist overhead. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 10:23:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:23:29 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:22:31 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Energy Amplifier and The CG Resent-Message-ID: <"33hEQ3.0.li6.DgN6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10758 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > > Not bad for a sledge-hammer, but why not use the Thorium as a "Breeder" > fuel in U235 Fission Reactors, n + Th-232 + beta decay steps ----> U-233, > then n + U233 (527 barns) = Fission + 2.52 neutrons? > Yeah but the devil is in the details. A reactor has to have k == 1 otherwise things go wrong fast. The constraint on the energy Amplifier is far less. Also the a reactor with slow neutrons will produce a lot of trans-Uranic "waste". The supplied neutron flux from the proton beam in the EA will happily transmute all long lived Actinides to fissionable states then eat up. Reactors end up being poissoned b y their own fission products before this can happen. It all comes down needed k==1 of a reactor and k about 0.95 for the Amplifier. > Seems a lot easier than the equipment for 1 to 3 Gev Proton Accelerators > that need a one to two order of magnitude improvement in proton current > capability to get to the "goal". > No problem! Just ask Carlo. For a measly $100 million he'll build one for you. > > > I should hope so, but why not pry the Thorium nucleus apart with a CG > "toothpick" instead of "Big Project" Sledge-Hammer? :-) > Of course, but do they actually work? Carlo Rubia's costing is 2 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity for the EA!! In any case the CG people claim no energy from Thorium. They destroy it without generating any energy. What a waste of 200 MeV per nucleus! > > > >Of course the consequence of the above is a number of (short-lived!) > >radioactive nuclei that are conspicuously absent from CG or CETI systems. > > I vote for the "CG or CETI systems" that don't need Nuclear Physicist > overhead. :-) > No even worse, they need people who'll Howl At The Moon :-). Cheers Martin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 11:03:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:02:26 -0700 From: John Logajan Subject: Re: Shared forum for critiques To: rmforall@earthlink. net Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:01:55 -0500 (CDT) Cc: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, wireless rmii.com, halfox@slkc.uswest.net, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, bssimon helix.ucla.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su Resent-Message-ID: <"OfJgJ.0.d42.hEO6q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10759 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich Murray wrote: > Perhaps John Logajan or others could set up a web site, where this body > of critical posts can be readily accessed and searched. Actually, changes in policy at my ISP mean that I will soon be charged for web transfer bandwidth beyond certain limits. I've been informed that I am currently beyond the limits. Therefore I will have to pare down the web site rather than adding new stuff to it. I can provide links to other sites, as they take the least amount of space. In any event, my previous policy was not to publish theory papers or theoretical musing unless there were experimental results and apparatus to show. This was based on the not so astute observation that theoreticians would quickly fill my disk storage sp ace and then some. -- - 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 Sep 12 12:27:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:25:13 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:05:27 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: eprints: New interesting papers Resent-Message-ID: <"NdP2y.0.1N.NSP6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10760 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com hep-ph/9709296 Fixed points and vacuum energy of dynamically broken gauge theories Authors: A. A. Natale, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9709296 hep-ph/9709294 The Free Energy in Scalar Electrodynamics at High Temperature Authors: J. O. Andersen Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9709294 hep-ph/9709269 A New Signature of Dark Matter Authors: Afsar Abbas Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9709269 (Special for Frederic Sparbar) hep-ph/9709212 Perspectives in High Energy Physics Author: G. Rajasekaran Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9709212 physics/9709012 Alternative method of generation of Cerenkov radiation or shock wave Author: Amit Halder Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9709012 Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 16:01:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:02:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:55:05 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: An example of what is wrong Resent-Message-ID: <"ZFtyu3.0.IZ.GeS6q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10764 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:49 PM 9/12/97 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >At 16:24 9/12/97 -0400, Jed wrote: > >>This experiment began on 23 April 1993 >>No significant excess power was observed until 7 May 1993 >>The >average excess power was about 50 mW until 20 June 1993 >>Excess power peaks as large as 250 mW were observed later in this experiment. > ^^^^^ >Wow...maybe I should just wait longer! Actually, if the correct parameters are not followed, then the wait might extend to much longer times. Time is not the most important parameter. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 14:21:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:21:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:24:36 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: An example of what is wrong To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"f-F341.0.9z7.59R6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10762 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I am working on this magnificent report from Mel Miles, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, 98 pages. We will publish extracts from it the next issue of I.E. Here are some paragraphs that really hit me hard. This is symptomatic of all that has gone wrong with the field of cold fusion. From page 28: OTHER CATHODE MATERIALS PRODUCING EXCESS HEAT Despite the many failures, several new experiments produced measurable amounts of excess enthalpy. The most notable examples involved cathode materials loaned to us by Martin Fleischmann of IMRA Europe, Valbonne, France. Two experiments involving palladiu m rods of different diameters (1 and 2 mm) were set up in cells C and D. Measurable amounts of excess heat were observed for both cells, and the larger diameter rod produced the larger amount of excess power. The excess power results for the 2-mm Pd rod a re shown in Figure 17. This experiment began on 23 April 1993 with the current held at 50 mA until 1 May 1993. No significant excess power was observed until 7 May 1993. The average excess power was about 50 mW until 20 June 1993. Excess power peaks as large as 250 mW were obse rved later in this experiment. The cell voltage became very high (21 V) near the end of this experiment, producing high-cell temperatures (88 C) and less accurate calorimetry. The decline in excess power early in July may simply be due to operating outsid e the calibration range for this calorimeter. A smaller excess power effect was observed for the 1-mm-diameter palladium used in cell C. A following experiment in H2O-LiOH in cell C using the same 1-mm-palladium cathode did not produce any significant exc ess power. Electrolysis gas samples were collected in metal flasks for helium analysis for each of these experiments, and results will be discussed in a later section. Another sample provided to us by Martin Fleischmann was a Pd-Ce alloy material. This experiment began on 15 February 1994, and the onset of excess power production was observed on 4 March 1994. The excess power versus time for the Pd-Ce cathode is display ed in Figure 18. The excess power levels for this cell reached values as high as 350 mW. The excess power production for Pd-Ce in cell C remained for over 100 days of electrolysis. Gas samples were again collected in metal flasks for helium analysis. A re peated run with the Pd-Ce cathode in cell C again showed excess power levels up to 150 mW. . . . Some questions: Why was this palladium "loaned"? If it was loaned, was it given back, and if so what was the final disposition of the sample? Why hasn't Fleischmann given or sold large amounts of this palladium to other researchers? Has IMRA or Johnson-Matthey (J-M) prev ented sales? This is symptomatic of the lack of cooperating and the irrational refusal to share information that has crippled the field, and it threatens to kill it. Everyone knows that the cathode material is the key to cold fusion. Yet there is no shari ng of information and no sales of sample materials to developers, as there would be in any normal high-tech field. When Intel develops a new chip, they do not sit on it. They sample it to potential customers. I will ask Mel what "loaned" means. I have heard from a reliable source that the palladium used in the IMRA France lab comes from J-M and gets sent back to J-M for analysis, which is, as my source puts it, "a crazy way to do research." Fleischmann himself told me that his samples work. He said: "When people use their own palladium, it doesn't work. When Uncle Martin sends them palladium, it works. Why? Because I am lazy. Because I never set out to reinvent the wheel. When I got into thi s business I went straight to Johnson-Matthey, the world's experts, and asked them to give me the best material for this purpose." They gave him the special palladium they have been using in their Milton Roy filters for decades. Martin described a long li st of specifications for this material. For some inexplicable reason, he asked me not the repeat the specifications, so I am honor bound not to report them. That is indescribably frustrating! As Chris and I wrote in our Ragland article, Martin says we can order some of this special palladium from J-M. I can't tell you about it, but I could buy some and mail you a sample. I have heard that even if you get a piece, and you subject it to a mass spec and other forms of analysis, you still would not know how t o fabricate a similar piece. I would buy some but unfortunately, the minimum order is 2 kilograms for $33,000, which we could not possibly afford. Apparently, J-M does not have any in stock, and they feel no need to whip up a batch and sell it as "cold fusion cathode material." Why n ot?!? Perhaps they don't give a damn about cold fusion. Maybe they do not believe cold fusion exists, despite the flow of used cathodes they have been supposedly supplying and getting back from IMRA. I am sure those used cathodes have many peculiar unnatu ral isotopes. I suppose J-M knows that; I doubt they drop the used cathodes back in the hopper and sell the metal for catalytic converters. I wonder about all this. What on earth could be happening? Who is in the know? Who can tell us anything? I guess we 'll never find out. The answer is wrapped up under layer after layer of politics, denial, camouflage, double-talk, and confusion. I expect IMRA and J-M share the responsibility for this miasma. Much as I admire them, I expect Martin Fleischmann and Stan P ons also share the blame. Martin had the authority to "lend" samples. Why didn't he lend more? Why didn't he follow up vigorously to make sure the samples were used correctly, and the results published? - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 15:50:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:49:57 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:49:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: An example of what is wrong Resent-Message-ID: <"PTzHx1.0.OB4.JSS6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10763 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 16:24 9/12/97 -0400, Jed wrote: >This experiment began on 23 April 1993 >No significant excess power was observed until 7 May 1993 >The >average excess power was about 50 mW until 20 June 1993 >Excess power peaks as large as 250 mW were observed later in this experiment. ^^^^^ Wow...maybe I should just wait longer! 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 Sep 12 16:41:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:47:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: CU physicist honored Resent-Message-ID: <"zr4041.0.dy1.aDT6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10765 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rocky Mt News (local) pg 44a artical..*Table-Top* CU PHYSICIST RECEIVES HONOR FROM UNIVERSITY ------- By Bill Scanion ~rmn-staff writer~ ------- The physicist who cooled atoms to the lowest temperature ever recorded was named a distinguished professor by the University of Colorado Board of Regents on Thursday. Carl Wieman, professor of physics at CU-Boulder, has been called "the leading atomic physicist in the United States today" by colleague Daniel Kleppner of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he sent shock waves through the world of physics by creating the world's first BOSE-EINSTEIN condensation -- a feat first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1924. Wieman does most of his work on a table top. He pioneered the use of $200 diode lasers, showing they could replace the $150,000 lasers others were using. Wieman, with Eric Cornell of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Boulder labs used laser beams to trap and cool rubidium atoms to the point where they briefly behaved as a single atom in a new state of matter. The pair won the prestigious Fritz London Award. Five previous winners of the London prize have gone on to win the Nobel Prize in physics. CU-Boulder Chancellor Richard L. Byyny said Wieman "has achieved some of the most important advances in physics during the past 25 years." end article.. -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 16:57:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:57:26 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:56:45 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com, noever@webtv.net, herman@college.antioch.edu, GeorgeHM aol.com Subject: Need superconductor Resent-Message-ID: <"w-IAV.0.9k7.aRT6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10766 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I need a bar of ceramic superconductor about 5 to 8 inches long one inch in diameter or a ceramic disk 5 inches in diameter or greater. I need this for my energy experiments. Where can you get such stuff? Will I have to press it myself? How much pres sure is required for pressing? Tell me what you can. I got the cryogenic equipment I needed just this week now I need the ceramic superconductor. A one inch disk will not do, I've already tried that. I plan to build the rest of what I need myself. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic aol.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 17:49:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:49:09 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:44:46 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: FZNIDARSI C aol.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, noever@webtv.net, GeorgeHM@aol.com Subject: Re: Need superconductor Resent-Message-ID: <"O0_p-2.0.h62.4CU6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10767 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Go to J. R. Gains at Superconductive Components, Columbus, Ohio. Good man. Good stuff. JHS On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > I need a bar of ceramic superconductor about 5 to 8 inches long one inch in > diameter or a ceramic disk 5 inches in diameter or greater. I need this for > my energy experiments. Where can you get such stuff? Will I have to press > it myself? How much pressure is required for pressing? Tell me what you > can. I got the cryogenic equipment I needed just this week now I need the > ceramic superconductor. A one inch disk will not do, I've already tried > that. I plan to build the rest of what I need myself. > > Frank Znidarsic > fznidarsic aol.com > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 18:12:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:12:12 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:11:34 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cold Fusion software Resent-Message-ID: <"JnnwV3.0.Oh3.fXU6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10768 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ed Wall wrote: "I was pleasantly surprised to see in a MicroWarehouse catalog a Web applications development software package called Cold Fusion (version 3, no less)." Ed concluded, "The image is of something that is new, sexy and worth making an investment ($999). Co uld it be that the truth is finding a way out in spite of the dominant media?" Could be. It does sound as if the company thought that there was a lot of sympathetic interest in cold fusion out there. It'd be interesting to know how successful their advertising pitch was. Does anyone know? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 19:25:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:25:43 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:25:07 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: An example of what is wrong Resent-Message-ID: <"9ULFB3.0.DV6.ccV6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10769 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/12/97 10:51:43 PM, you wrote: <> Or maybe they should check if their calibration is deteriorating! Hal X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 19:48:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:49:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subjec t: Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Forum Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:37:18 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"NnXeM1.0.8n.KzV6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10770 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 TAA22157 Vortexer's Today, I started a Low Energy Transmutation forum. The purpose is not to undermine the integrity of Vortex, but to allow for specific discussions on transmutation. It is a thread driven (not email) system and anyone can start a thread on any topic regar ding transmutation. Unlike a newsgroup, the threads are organized by topic and there is a search engine for those wanting to look up a specific topic. I hope that Bill does not take offense of my posting this on Vortex. I was unable to contact him direct, but after talking with a couple of members of the forum, I decided to release this information. The Internet is a powerful tool and we as researchers, technicians, experimenters, students and silent observers should apply it to the highest degree possible. It is my plan to have two addition channels available for the discussion of transmutation. O ne will be an audio forum, where multiple people can communicate and share computer data without telephones and fax's. The final program will be a completely integrated visual and audio forum where interested parties in transmutation can have full video conference capabilities. To visit the forum simply go to: http://www.transmutation.com and click on the forum. 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............ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 20:14:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:13:26 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:16:18 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: The Energy Amplifier. Resent-Message-ID: <"hME29.0.me7.LJW6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10771 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:37 PM 9/11/97 +0200, Martin Sevior wrote: >The concept is based on a subcritical assembly of Thorium seeded with with >either reprocessed waste from Light Water Reactors or enriched Uranium. The >assembly is irradiated with a 1 - 3 Billion electron Volt proton beam of about >10 - 100 mA. Each proton liberates about 100 neutrons depending on the beam >energy. These neutrons are not strongly moderated but instead are used to >induce fissions in the fissile material and in addition breeds fissile 233U >from the 232Th. > >The process uses Natural Thorium which is about 10 times more abundant than >Uranium in the Earth's crust. There is enough Thorium on the Earth to provide >all Man's energy needs for a time far longer than Man has been on the planet. > >The process does not produce Trans-Uranics - all such are consumed by >fissions. The resultant radioactive waste has an unsafe period similar to >magnetic fusion. Rubbia's process works, but there is a MUCH simpler approach, called the Molten Salt Reactor. An MSR consists of a mix of salts containing Th232, and either U235 or Pu239 to start. Pump the salts through a graphite moderator, and you reach criticality . The Thorium absorbs neutrons and becomes U233, which eventually becomes the only fissile species in the reactor. These reactors are inherently safe--a core meltdown is how you start the thing, and if the container cracks, you wind up with a pile of salt crystals on the floor. The only operating nuclear reactor ever flown in an aircraft was an MSR. Why aren't all nuclear reactors MSRs? Simple nasty answer they are breeder reactors with cheap fuel. But take Pu239 and U235 to start, and produce U233 which CAN'T be used in bombs. (Actually, an MSR can produce enough excess U233 over its lifetime t o fuel another MSR, but a 20 to 30 year breeding cycle isn't real exciting. What is, and what the opponents of MSR's don't want known, is that an MSR is a great disposal for high-level nuclear waste, or for that matter bomb grade plutonium.) If any of the atoms for peace stuff was real, we would be building MSRs in North Korea right now. 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 Sep 12 22:10:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:25:23 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: An example of what is wrong To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"8WETj2.0.lp3.W1Y6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10777 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Hal Puthoff writes: Or maybe they [Miles et al] should check if their calibration is deteriorating! They did, of course. Many times, before and after the runs. This is clearly described in their papers. I hope that was a humorous comment from Hal. I would hate to think that he & Scott are trying to run a cold fusion experiment without first carefully reading and rereading every paper written by Miles, Storms, McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann and the other l eading researchers. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 20:28:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:26:43 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:29:38 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"Fdboe2.0.t1.nVW6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10772 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I said: > These problems are not "unsolvable within our system of logic" > they are unsolvable with by mechanism or being in ANY system of logic. (Should have been "by any mechanism or being..." At 03:48 PM 9/11/97 -0400, Todd Heywood wrote: >In order for Godel to construct a proof, he had to *assume* and use some >system of logic, didn't he? You have to read the book (or Godel's original papers) to understand. What he showed was that inside any "sufficiently complex" system of logic (and that isn't very complex), you can embed logic statements (theorem) as Godel numbers. So any system which allows addition and multiplication and tests for equality of integers is subject to his proof. 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 Sep 12 20:36:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:35:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Energy Amplifier. Resent-Message-ID: <"mpcC41.0.Yg1.ifW6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10773 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Rubbia's process works, but there is a MUCH simpler approach, called the > Molten Salt Reactor. An MSR consists of a mix of salts containing Th232, > and either U235 or Pu239 to start. Pump the salts through a graphite > moderator, and you reach criticality. The Thorium absorbs neutrons and > becomes U233, which eventually becomes the only fissile species in the > reactor. > The MSR sounds like it uses thermal neutrons. All such reactors have the problem of being poissoned by their fission products after having created long lived trans-Uranics. Also having a pool of molten salt on the floor of a containment building doesn't s ound inherently safe! The Energy Amplifier is truely inherently safe. Turn off the beam and the heat stops. The quantity of radioactive waste is advertised to be comparable to Magnet Fusion. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 12 20:44:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:44:19 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:43:37 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970910151841.AAA1089 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"6o6QL2.0.pQ.ImW6q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10775 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:18:43 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >To Vortex, > >Is the 3.86E26 joule/sec energy radiation from the Sun (6.34 Kw/cm^2) >representing the annihilation of 4.3 million tonnes of mass/second, >at a temperature of 5780 K, might be all coming from the surface >because of Hydrino reactions. > >Might explain the "missing neutrinos". "Cold Fusion" in Action? :-) > >Regards, Frederick > Mills himself has already pointed to hydrino reactions as an explanation of the "missing" neutrinos. 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 Fri Sep 12 20:44:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:45:34 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray & Stainless Steel Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:43:38 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970911110641945.AAA211 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"2isOQ2.0.wp1.NnW6q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10774 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:57:03 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: [snip] >Except that the cell construction isolates the stainless steel surfaces >from the electrolyte, which sees only plastic (Teflon and the end gasket >material, probably also Teflon) and zirconium. Having finally received my copy of IE, I am now in a somewhat better position to comment on this. From the diagram on page 17, it would appear that there is no seal between the zirconium washer in the middle, and the end of the teflon insulator that appea rs designed to isolate the stainless steel rod. IMO, this leaves room for the solution to enter teflon tube, eroding the stainless steel rod. This would appear evident from run #2, (No Th present), where huge quantities of Fe are detected (along with numerous other elements likely to be present in the stainless steel). The space between the end of the teflon tube, and the zirconium washer may w ell increase as the cell heats up (I suspect that the cell in it's entirety, being metal, would expand more than the teflon "insulator" tubes). Therefore I would find a rerun of the experiment more interesting, if the stainless steel support rod, were replaced with one of zirconium. This would also make it much simpler to interpret the contents of run #3, as this currently also appears severely contaminated with elements from the stainless steel (Note however that there are also elements in run #3, that do not appear to that extent i n run #2, hence are likely true nuclear products. e.g. Ti). [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 Fri Sep 12 21:34:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:34:23 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:33:42 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"EJ9yj.0.5v1.EVX6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10776 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:43 AM 9/13/97 +0000, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:18:43 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>To Vortex, >> >>Is the 3.86E26 joule/sec energy radiation from the Sun (6.34 Kw/cm^2) >>representing the annihilation of 4.3 million tonnes of mass/second, >>at a temperature of 5780 K, all coming from the surface because of >>Hydrino reactions? >> >>Might explain the "missing neutrinos". "Cold Fusion" in Action? :-) >> >>Regards, Frederick >> >Mills himself has already pointed to hydrino reactions as an >explanation of the "missing" neutrinos. > Right. But the temperature 5780 K or about 0.5 ev is just about right for producing the proposed Light Lepton (LL +/-)pairs as opposed to Mills' "Fractional Electron Orbits". In either case the "Hydrino" should be formed, with the same UV energy release. However, the positive LL can "bind" to an electron to make another small neutral particle with the same UV energy release that Mills proposes for the fractional orbit Hydrino. The "Electrino" (about the size, and 1.5 times the rest mass of the electron). Both the "Electrino" and the Hydrino thus formed could effect transmution reactions and possibly since both are neutral carry off large amounts of energy without detection with standard equipment. Sure may be a full spectrum of "Dark Matter" particles around, neutrinos, hydrinos and electrinos, of various mass . :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 13 00:23:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:24:28 -0700 (PDT) From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:25:16 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? References: <19970913043340.AAA7080 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"wawnL2.0.8R5.f-Z6q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10778 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I thought that scattering experiments had shown that the electron is pointlike thus making Mill's theory that requires a finite radius for the e to be unlikely. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 13 02:44:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:44:30 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Murray & Stainless Steel Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:41:34 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"e4UeS.0.M5.y1c6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10779 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin takes issue with my view of the isolation of the stainless steel rod: > On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:57:03 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: > [snip] > >Except that the cell construction isolates the stainless steel surfaces > >from the electrolyte, which sees only plastic (Teflon and the end gasket > >material, probably also Teflon) and zirconium. > > Having finally received my copy of IE, I am now in a somewhat better > position to comment on this. From the diagram on page 17, it would > appear that there is no seal between the zirconium washer in the > middle, and the end of the teflon insulator that appears designed to > isolate the stainless steel rod. IMO, this leaves room for the > solution to enter teflon tube, eroding the stainless steel rod. In bold type on Page 17 of IE, just above the page number is the statement: "Teflon sleeve is slightly longer than SS rod -- for tight sealing of the rod when bolts are tightened." The straightforward interpretation of this is that a) the illustration is not scaled, b) each Teflong sleeve segment is longer than the SS rod segment it sheaths, c) that a seal is formed between each sleeve and the zirconium disc and the end gaskets or S S end caps, depending on details not shown. This implies as a practical matter that the electrolyte does not get to the SS rod during the operation of the cell and any presence of Fe, Cr, Ni, etc. in the post-processing assay did not come from the rod or end caps. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 13 04:38:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:38:41 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:25:07 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"Zovwy2.0.JM2.0jd6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10781 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:25 AM 9/13/97 +0000, ehammond pacbell wrote: > >I thought that scattering experiments had shown that the electron is >pointlike thus making Mill's theory that requires a finite radius for >the e to be unlikely. > First of all the "radius" of a "particle" is inversely proportional to it's mass/energy; R = wavelength/2(pi)= k*q^2/w or hbar*c*alpha/w where w is it's rest energy (joules). This makes the "classical radius* of the electron (2.81E-15 meters) or 2.81 Fermi about 612 times the "radius" of the proton if you accept that the proton is made up of three "subunits" of 312 Mev each, thus making the "radius" of the proton/deuteron abou t 4.6E-18 meters or so. Going by this the proton/deuteron is much more "pointlike" than the comparatively Huge (but light)Electron. Tends to run counter to conventional wisdom doesn't it? :-) That's the nice thing about theories that are unsubstantiated speculation or questionable interpretation of experimental data. The laws of Nature are Not determined by popular vote. Will we ever really understand how things are? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 13 03:56:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:56:09 -0700 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 13:40:53 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: CETI's progress Resent-Message-ID: <"Bdb_13.0.Tk1.85d6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10780 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vortexies, It seems CETI is in full progress; at their website they have published Late Breaking News..On September 30, 1997 CETI will receive its 14-th patent titled :"System with Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and Reducing Radioactivity of a Radio active Material by Electrolysis" It will be US Patent 5,672,259.. A short and optimistic FAQ is also published. Interesting! 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 Sat Sep 13 09:27:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:27:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:25:36 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: An example of what is wrong Resent-Message-ID: <"to7t_2.0.Zt6.sxh6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10783 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/13/97 5:12:09 AM, you wrote: <> Yes, it was just a Friday afternoon joke! I have great respect for their work, and it was meant to be a msg to Scott only as an inside joke concerning other experiments. Hal X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 13 16:11:52 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:11:31 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman mail.earthlink.net (Unverified) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:15:45 -0600 To: freenrg-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: INVENTORS OPPOSE BILL TO CHANGE PATENT LAWS Resent-Message-ID: <"6U1mL3.0.OF7.Ysn6q"@mx1> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: freenrg-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/710 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com INVENTORS OPPOSE BILL TO CHANGE PATENT LAWS And more from Michael Kiser --- Evan: Thanks for the note regarding the Nobel winners opposing S. 507. I thought you might like to post these famous inventors who are also opposed to the House version of the bill: Pioneer Inventors Oppose H.R. 400 (House companion Bill to S. 507): The following pioneer American inventors, all members of The National Inventors Hall of Fame, oppose H.R. 400 because of the serious damage that certain of its provisions will inflict on independent and small organization inventors. Dr. Forrest M. Bird, inventor of the respirator and neo-natal respirator Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, inventor of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Dr. Graham J. Durant, co-inventor of Tagamet (anti-ulcer compounds) Prof. Jay W. Forrester, inventor of magnetic core RAM memory Dr. Wilson Greatbatch, inventor of the cardiac pacemaker Dr. James Hillier, inventor of electron microscope lens magnification Dr. Stephanie L. Kwolek, inventor of Kevlar (bullet-proof vest material, etc.) Dr. Robert H. Rines, inventor of high-resolution scanning radar and sonar ___________________________________ Posted by: Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Newman/index.html "I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 13 18:41:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:40:39 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: XS heat? Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:40:04 GMT Organization: Improving Resent-Message-ID: <"oRmZF2.0.8K4.M2q6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10786 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Has anyone checked to see whether XS heat events occur at the same date and time all over the world? 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 Sep 13 18:41:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:40:35 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Room temp superconductor recipe Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:40:08 GMT Organization: Improving Resent-Message-ID: <"ZCbnS1.0.pJ4.H2q6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10785 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Take 99.999% pure Bi.(zone refining?) Melt. Add 1 atom of Cd for every 100 atoms Bi. Cool as slowly as possible, such that large single crystals form. While still hot (just below melting point), measure resistance of a single crystal, across its shortest dimension. If this works, please let me know. :) 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 Sep 13 21:24:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 21:23:07 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Murray & Stainless Steel Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 02:10:00 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970913094714494.AAA207 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"7arTG3.0.661.dQs6q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10787 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:41:34 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: >Robin takes issue with my view of the isolation of the stainless steel rod: [snip] >> Having finally received my copy of IE, I am now in a somewhat better >> position to comment on this. From the diagram on page 17, it would >> appear that there is no seal between the zirconium washer in the >> middle, and the end of the teflon insulator that appears designed to >> isolate the stainless steel rod. IMO, this leaves room for the >> solution to enter teflon tube, eroding the stainless steel rod. > >In bold type on Page 17 of IE, just above the page number is the statement: > > >"Teflon sleeve is slightly longer than SS rod -- for tight sealing of the >rod when bolts are tightened." > >The straightforward interpretation of this is that a) the illustration is >not scaled, b) each Teflong sleeve segment is longer than the SS rod >segment it sheaths, c) that a seal is formed between each sleeve and the >zirconium disc and the end gaskets or SS end caps, depending on details not >shown. This implies as a practical matter that the electrolyte does not get >to the SS rod during the operation of the cell and any presence of Fe, Cr, >Ni, etc. in the post-processing assay did not come from the rod or end >caps. > >Mike Carrell > However, this still doesn't take two important facts into account, both of which you snipped from my reply. 1) Everything expands when heated. This could at least in theory open a gap between either the sleeve and the washer, or the sleeve and the end gasket, due to differences in expansion coefficients. 2) Run number 2, purportedly done as a control, shows such large amounts of iron in solution, that it results in a numerical overflow in the display function of the computer program producing the report (i.e. "OVERRANGE" in Total Intensity column). Both of these facts combined, provide IMO sufficient reason to redo the experiment with zirconium rods ISO stainless steel. This would appear to be the simplest way of deciding the matter. Ideally the end plates should also be zirconium, as there is necessarily a hole in the end gasket, where the stainless rod passes through to the end plate. However, I suspect that if the end plates contribute anything at all, it will only be a tiny percen tage of that contributed by the rods, so that replacement of the rods alone should contribute far and away the largest improvement in signal/noise ratio. Please note that I do think this experiment shows very interesting results, however an improvement in SN ratio wouldn't go astray. 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 Sun Sep 14 02:10:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 02:10:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Hydrino and Light Lepton Capture "Model". Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 03:53:33 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"xqYjy3.0.MV2.cdw6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10788 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, The "Model" for the nucleus of any atom says that it contains 5A - 2Z "units" in addition to Z external electrons: 2A positive or "up" units 2A - Z negative or "down" units A - Z spin 1/2 neutrinos If the Model is viewed such that each "unit" has a "radius" r = kq^2/w, a clockwise (positive charge), spin mvr for the positive units, a counter-clockwise (negative charge), spin mvr for the negative units, and the units are stacked side-by-side like rot ating "flywheels", then in electron capture the larger "radius" lower energy electron is taken into the nuclear group and literally shrunk by gaining energy/mass (relativistic) and angular velocity v (.xxxx*c)but,losing radius r r = kq^2/w. This conserves spin angular momentum mvr for the absorbed "particle" as well as the "particles" in the nucleus that are sharing relativistic energy/mass and thus changing radius (increasing)concurrently. Conceivably this change could be shared by all of the "units" in a nucleus with a resulting mass increase equal to or less than the rest mass of the particle absorbed (if radiation is given off during the uptake of the particle). Thus, along with +/- Beta, and Alpha Particle decay, and Electron capture the nucleus should be able to "Absorb" Light Leptons (LLs +/- bound or unbound), Hydrinos, Electrinos, or Neutrinos, and become a composite entity and decay or transmute according t o what the laws of physics dictates. If the "Lights" (bound or unbound) or Hydrinos are are taken up long enough to disrupt the nucleus and then expelled carrying off the Lions Share of energy involved in the "transmutations", they may not be detected with ordinary neutron detectors or such. Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 13 06:48:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 06:47:58 -0700 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:28:49 +1200 From: John Berry To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cold Fusion software References: <970912082355_1556913010 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"sfoHO2.0.A_5.Ccf6q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10782 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com A recent letterman had at the start of the show "David letterman , the farther of cold fusion". Or somthing to the effect. Tstolper aol.com wrote: > Ed Wall wrote: > > "I was pleasantly surprised to see in a MicroWarehouse catalog a Web > applications development software package called Cold Fusion (version 3, no > less)." Ed concluded, "The image is of something that is new, sexy and worth > making an investment ($999). Could it be that the truth is finding a way out > in spite of the dominant media?" > > Could be. It does sound as if the company thought that there was a lot of > sympathetic interest in cold fusion out there. It'd be interesting to know > how successful their advertising pitch was. Does anyone know? > > Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 04:55:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 04:54:54 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Athermal CF-Transmutation Reactions & Particle Pairs. Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:54:15 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"R4svN2.0.ul5.D2z6q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10789 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, It Might be possible that when a nucleus "absorbs" a Light Lepton bound pair, or a Hydrino, or a bound Electrino pair, that other Neutral(Two-Particle)bound pairs come out of the excited nucleus along with the absorbed "Catalytic Bound Pair" carrying larg e amounts of nuclear mass/energy completely UNDECTABLE with existing particle detection equipment. Going by the nucleus having 5A - 2Z internal "units" plus Z external electrons, then taking up a bound LL pair, Hydrino, or Electrino and doing the arithmetic, there is room for Speculation that the discrepancy concerning Heat and Radiation in the reactio ns is because of the ejection of high kinetic energy-low mass (2 particle) bound pairs in addition to the "catalyst" pairs. For instance 90Th-232 (plus a bound catalytic pair); 5A - 2Z = 1160 - 180 = 980 units, plus the pair. If the 90 (Z) external electrons are divided equally as three 30Zn-65 atoms then three 30Zn-65 atoms should give a total of 3*(5A - 2Z) for 30Zn-65 = 3 * 265 = 795 units leaving 980 - 795 = 185 units unaccounted for. >From an energy standpoint the rest energy of 90Th-232 is about 232*936E6 ev = 2.17E11/(5A - 2Z) = 222 Mev/unit. According to this, the 185 missing units at 222 Mev each are carrying away about 185*222 Mev = 4.1E10 ev or the equivalent of about 44 protons or neutrons of energy/mass in 92 undetectable bound pairs? No wonder the Universe is full of "Dark Matter". :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 05:47:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 05:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 07:47:11 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Athermal CF-Transmutation Reactions & Particle Pairs. Resent-Message-ID: <"daifd2.0.9e4.Mpz6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10790 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:54 9/14/97 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: >....there is room for Speculation that.... ^^^^^^^^^^^ Fred, I would just go all the way to "SPECULATION".... Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 06:19:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 06:19:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Athermal CF-Transmutation Reactions & Particle Pairs. Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:18:59 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"0bh9L1.0.F65.fH-6q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10791 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:47 PM 9/14/97 +0000, Scott wrote: >At 11:54 9/14/97 +0000, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >>....there is room for Speculation that.... > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >Fred, I would just go all the way to "SPECULATION".... I agree, Scott. But, they tell me that there are, "WEAKLY INTERACTING MASSIVE PARTICLES", ie., "WIMPs" out there, Que No? :-) Regards, Frederick > >Scott > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 07:53:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 07:53:00 -0700 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:49:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Expansion.and heating.....Re: Murray & Stainless Steel Resent-Message-ID: <"4mgMD1.0.b11.Af_6q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10792 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Not all materials expand when heated. Water goes through and expansion-contraction when cooled. Rubber shinks when warmed. Just a few examples. Nature is a wondrous realm.... and absolute statements and broad generalizations do NOT fit all aspects of Nature... This is one of the main reasons I personally like all aspects of the sciences, there is always a new treasure or surprise or challenge or puzzle..... just around the corner .... and if I don't watch where I am going it is often right ahead. One of my jobs is to not stumble on the unexpected, but to try to use it, even if I cannot explain it, or save it for another use or marvel at its being there. J X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 08:41:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 08:41:38 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Murray & Stainless Steel Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:38:31 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"S0WsR3.0.oX2.lM07q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10793 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Continuing the discussion, Robin points out: > However, this still doesn't take two important facts into account, > both of which you snipped from my reply. > > 1) Everything expands when heated. This could at least in theory open > a gap between either the sleeve and the washer, or the sleeve and the > end gasket, due to differences in expansion coefficients. My 1946 edition of the Chemical Rubber Handbook does not have coefficient of expansion figures for Teflon. However, consider the following: The internal pressure of the cell reaches 4 atm., inferred from steam tables and measurement of temperature on the outside of the zirconium cylinder. At that pressure, steam will spurt out of any leaks. Without explicit dimensions, we don't know what fits into what. A reasonable assumption from good engineering practice is that the SS rod passes through larger holes in the end caps and does not contact the end caps. While the whole cell will reach substantially the same temperature during operation, the c lamping rods will be marginally cooler -- they certainly won't be hotter -- than the rest of the cell. If the initial dimensions are correctly chosen, no leakage should occur. No leakage is reported, nor is the specific absence of leakage reported. If there were substantial leakage, the contents of the cell would boil away and the reported shell temperature of 235-270 F would not be reached. > 2) Run number 2, purportedly done as a control, shows such large > amounts of iron in solution, that it results in a numerical overflow > in the display function of the computer program producing the report > (i.e. "OVERRANGE" in Total Intensity column). > > Both of these facts combined, provide IMO sufficient reason to redo > the experiment with zirconium rods ISO stainless steel. This would > appear to be the simplest way of deciding the matter. > Ideally the end plates should also be zirconium, as there is > necessarily a hole in the end gasket, where the stainless rod passes > through to the end plate. However, I suspect that if the end plates > contribute anything at all, it will only be a tiny percentage of that > contributed by the rods, so that replacement of the rods alone should > contribute far and away the largest improvement in signal/noise ratio. > > Please note that I do think this experiment shows very interesting > results, however an improvement in SN ratio wouldn't go astray. These second comments put me to scrutinizing the tables much more carefully than I had before, and found much that puzzles me. Since my understanding of the measurement process is very limited, I'm not going to pontificate about it. I agree that the data is tantalizing, and improvements in the S/N ratio would be welcome. A couple of interesting items: Scan 2, the cell blank was processed in the cell. Not just Fe, but lots of other elements appear. From where? There seems to be some uncertainty in assignment of mass numbers to elements. The starting point was dilute hydrochloric acid, which saw Zr and T eflon. N, O, and F were not measured; if there were decomposition of the Teflon, F should be released. There is evidence from other sources of the existence of LENR and LENT. Since we know almost nothing about the rules governing these processes, one can conjecture that more than one process is at work here. Transmutation of Th is only one of possibly many. Fe shows up in the copper flake. Fe has been reported as appearing in several arcing experiments involving C and water. Not much C present here, but Fe is also the least-energy nucleus. Liversage reports: "After processing the cell blank and thorium test samples, the cell contents were extracted with a 5% nitric acid/5% hydrochloric acid leaching solution". Does this imply that the cell and components -- including the SS rod -- were wash ed with this solution? My preceding analysis suggests that the SS rod is effectively protected during cell operation, but if it is washed in an acid solution afterwards, then there is a pathway for the constiuents of SS to show up in the ICP/MS analysis. Such would not invalida te the measurements pertaining to the thorium transmutation. Any help from the experts? Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 08:48:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 08:48:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Expansion.and heating.....Re: Murray & Stainless Steel Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:47:32 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"uUmGk.0.jK.xS07q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10794 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:49 PM 9/14/97 +0000, John S. wrote: > > > Not all materials expand when heated. Water goes through and >expansion-contraction when cooled. Rubber shinks when warmed. Just a >few examples. > > Nature is a wondrous realm.... and absolute statements and broad >generalizations do NOT fit all aspects of Nature... This is one of the >main reasons I personally like all aspects of the sciences, there is >always a new treasure or surprise or challenge or puzzle..... just around >the corner .... and if I don't watch where I am going it is often right >ahead. > One of my jobs is to not stumble on the unexpected, but to try to >use it, even if I cannot explain it, or save it for another use or marvel >at its being there. > > > J > You are a poet, John. You made my day. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 11:34:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:43:36 -0700 From: tom gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom gorge.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Low Energy Nuclear Transformation Forum. References: <199709140431.VAA06511 mx2.eskimo.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"rQiLs.0.eK4.wu27q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10795 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Joe Champion wrote: > To visit the forum simply go to: http://www.transmutation.com and click on the forum. > > Respectfully, Well, I did, and it killed Netscape3.10 AND MS-DOS TWICE!! Mabe someone who can contact Joe off the web could get him to fix it. Tom Miller X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 11:55:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:55:30 -0700 From: Joe Champion To: "'tom@gorge.net'" , "vortex-l eskimo.com" Subject: RE: Low Energy Nuclear Transformation Forum. Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:49:03 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"wUuCk2.0.pF1.XC37q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10796 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 LAA22734 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Miller [SMTP:tom gorge.net] Joe Champion wrote: > To visit the forum simply go to: http://www.transmutation.com and click on the forum. > > Respectfully, Well, I did, and it killed Netscape3.10 AND MS-DOS TWICE!! Mabe someone who can contact Joe off the web could get him to fix it. Tom Miller Tom, sorry about the problem. This is a new program developed by Microsoft FrontPage 98. It uses colorful applets buttons which I have since found out are not compatible with several browsers. I just removed them and hopefully everything should work OK. Joe Champion X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 13:06:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:05:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: "vo rtex-l eskimo.com" Subject: RE: Low Energy Nuclear Transformation Forum. Resent-Message-ID: <"0mwQT1.0.kk6.vE47q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10797 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > Well, I did, and it killed Netscape3.10 AND MS-DOS TWICE!! > > Mabe someone who can contact Joe off the web could get him to fix it. > > Tom Miller > > Tom, sorry about the problem. This is a new program developed by Microsoft FrontPage 98. It uses colorful applets buttons which I have since found out are not compatible with several browsers. > > I just removed them and hopefully everything should work OK. > Typical Microsoft. HTML is an International Standard. They hope that if enough people use their products incompatible features they will set a standard and everyone will use it. Thus wiping out their opposition. In almost every other industry giving away products as a loss-leader (ala' Internet Explorer) would result in a criminal investigation. Resist the Evil Empire at every opportunity. It may be futile but at least we'll keep them honest. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 14 18:46:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:05:52 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: List Server Freenrg CC: List Server NeoTech , List Server Newman , List Server Vortex Subject: Smith/Caduceus Coil Article Up Resent-Message-ID: <"TdoEQ.0.-k2.pC97q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10798 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi All, Thanks to Fred Epps, I have posted a paper on the Smith/Caduceus Coil. It's in the Papers Section. Can be accessed directly from the Home Page. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 15 07:25:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:08:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: WIMP Detector? Cc: rl_brodzinski pnl.gov Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:36:53 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"fnZ1o3.0.GU2.u5K7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10800 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, According to my Oracle, the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle, WIMP should have an energy/mass of about 444 Mev (8E-28 Kg) a "radius" of 3.25E-18 meters and no net spin and no net charge. Possibly a nuclear magnetic moment of a fraction of a magneton (p lus). Any suggestions on how to isolate one? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 15 06:29:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 06:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:21:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood To: @minnie.ni c.kingston.ibm.com:vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Re: "schrodinger's cat" solved? Resent-Message-ID: <"0peXO1.0.U41.VPJ7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10799 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > I said: > > > These problems are not "unsolvable within our system of logic" > > they are unsolvable with by mechanism or being in ANY system of logic. > (Should have been "by any mechanism or being..." > > At 03:48 PM 9/11/97 -0400, Todd Heywood wrote: > > >In order for Godel to construct a proof, he had to *assume* and use some > >system of logic, didn't he? > > You have to read the book (or Godel's original papers) to understand. > What he showed was that inside any "sufficiently complex" system of logic > (and that isn't very complex), you can embed logic statements (theorem) as > Godel numbers. > So any system which allows addition and multiplication and tests for > equality of integers is subject to his proof. I was trying to suggest that there might be an outside to this box. Logic is founded on the modus ponens: "If A implies B, and A is true, then B is true." Even Godel assumes this. There was an outside to the box of Euclidean geometry. Modus ponens is akin to causality in physics. There are non-causal phenomena in physics, e.g. "spooky" action at a distance. So it isn't inconceivable that there might be another kind of logic. Todd Heywood X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 15 08:35:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 08:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:23:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: WIMP Detector? Resent-Message-ID: <"k8WEf3.0.Jo4.CCL7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10801 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > To Vortex, > > According to my Oracle, the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle, WIMP > should have an energy/mass of about 444 Mev (8E-28 Kg) a "radius" of > 3.25E-18 meters and no net spin and no net charge. Possibly a nuclear > magnetic moment of a fraction of a magneton (plus). > There is an "Industry" in Physics research devoted to looking for various kinds of WIMPS. The current best hope is to cool a large collection of superconditing granules to less than 4 K then look for the temperature rise due to a WIMP bouncing off a nucle us. All these experiments have to be run deep underground. Martin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 15 08:40:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 08:35:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:23:42 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: [WA-A-A-Y OFF TOPIC] Urrph! To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"gN0fT.0.uf5.hML7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10802 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex >From "The Big Change," by Frederick Lewis Allen, (Harper and Row, 1952): . . . be assured that there was nothing casual about a fashionable dinner at the turn of the century. The internal capacity of the prosperous of those days was prodigious. Seven or eight courses were likely to be served, with a variety of wines. In my lif e of Pierpont Morgan I printed the menu of a dinner enjoyed by the members of the Zodiac Club, a private dining club in New York. It is a little hard today to be sure, from that menu, which dishes were served as alternate choices and which constituted separate courses for all, but it appears to have been a ten-course feast: oysters, soup hors d'oeuvres, soft clams, saddle and rack o f lamb, terrapin canvasback ducks, a sweet, cheese, and fruit the dinner being preceded by sherry (instead of cocktails), accompanied successively by Rhine wine, Chateau-Latour, champagne, and Clos-Vougeot, and washed down with cognac (along with the coff ee). It is difficult to imagine hunger being any more thoroughly assuaged; in fact, from the perspective of the nineteen-fifties it is difficult to understand how the diners could have faced the canvasback ducks with anything but dogged resolution. . . . Randolph Guggenheimer . . . gave a dinner for forty ladies and gentlemen at the old Waldorf-Astoria on February 11, 1899. His guests found the Myrtle Room of the Waldorf transformed into a garden, with roses, hyacinths, and tulips in bloom, and wit h hedges of fir. Nightingales, blackbirds, and canaries sang in the greenery. (It had been something of a trick to induce the zoo authorities to loan some nightingales for the affair.) The table was set in an arbor with a vine-covered trellis overhead and with green turf underfoot. The menus were painted in gold on scraped and polished coconuts; there were fans for the ladies on which the wine list had been painted. As favors there were beautifully engrossed vinaigrettes for the ladies, and jeweled matchb oxes for the gentlemen. To provide music, six Neapolitans in native garb played guitars. And the dinner, which was served on gold plates, went as follows: Buffet Russe Cocktails Small Blue Point Oysters Lemardelais a la Princesse Amontillado Pasado Green Turtle Soup Bolivar Basket of Lobster Columbine of Chicken, California Style Roast Mountain Sheep, with Puree of Chestnuts ( the sheep having been brought to New York by fast express in small, portable refrigerators) Jelly Brussels Sprouts Saute New Asparagus, Cream Sauce and Vinaigrette Mumm's Extra Dry and Moet & Chandon Brut Diamond Back Terrapin Ruddy Duck (likewise rushed by express in small refrigerators ) Orange and Grapefruit Salad Fresh Strawberries Blue Raspberries Vanilla Mousse Bonbons, Coffee, Fruit What did the evening's pleasure cost? Ten thousand dollars -- $250 a head. . . . (That would be approximately $3,000 today. The image of some turn-of-the-century plutocrat facing down a canvasback duck breaks me up!) - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 15 13:03:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:58:38 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:01:30 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: The Energy Amplifier. Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com References: <3.0.1.32.19970912231618.009f29b0 spectre.mitre.org> Resent-Message-ID: <"z-G6z1.0.4O1.jDP7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10803 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:35 AM 9/13/97 +0200, Martin Sevior wrote: >The MSR sounds like it uses thermal neutrons. All such reactors have the >problem of being poissoned by their fission products after having created long >lived trans-Uranics. All such reactors? As I stated in an MSR breeder reactor, the fissionable product is U233. If you don't add any U238, you won't get any Plutonium. The advantages of an MSR are that the fusion product mix contains fewer reaction poisons, even though the starting nuclei have fewer neutrons. (Many of the aggressive poisons go though beta decay then neutron capture, and most of the serious poisons are not soluable in the salt.) Also fewer of the neutrons initially produced thermal neutrons. > Also having a pool of molten salt on the floor of a >containment building doesn't sound inherently safe! The Energy Amplifier is >truely inherently safe. Turn off the beam and the heat stops. The quantity of >radioactive waste is advertised to be comparable to Magnet Fusion. In an MSR, you remove the moderator and the reaction stops. Most MSR designs circulate the salt through the core--where it reacts--then into heat exchangers--where it doesn't--several times per minute. If you do it right--use helium or some other gas instead of water in the primary heat exchanger, then there is no water in the containment to dissolve that hypothetical spilled salt. And it does get spilled, but it isn't a major problem. Remember since the salt is a liquid, imiscible reaction product s can be removed easily, and reprocessing isn't something you do after several years, you constantly remove salt from the loop, refine out the fission products, and reinsert it. None of this soak for years treatment of spent fuel. And no transuranics, if you didn't put any (or any U238) in to begin with. 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 Mon Sep 15 20:48:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:18:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ewall-rsg@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Ed Wall Subject: Re: Cold Fusion software Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:17:31 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"FCQ-32.0.cV5.1gV7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10804 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:28 PM 9/13/97 John Berry wrote: >A recent letterman had at the start of the show "David letterman , the farther of >cold fusion". > >Or somthing to the effect. > Was that 'father of cold fusion' or 'father of con fusion'? Ed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 15 22:09:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:45:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:42:25 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: NHE/SRI Resent-Message-ID: <"NgJq72.0.KV.SxW7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10805 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Akira Kawasaki writes: >>It was announced that funding for MITI's NHE program was being cut off as of the fiscal year March 1998. Doesn't this also mean that whatever cold fusion research funding going to SRI from Japan is also being cut off?<< Yes. >>Funny how the media treats the MITI funding cut off as if the whole of Japan (1/2 the population of U.S.) has rejected cf research and allegedly finally joined with the rest of the world.<< I think that there really is no news, as there was never any approved plan to have funding beyond FY97 anyway. But of course this only applies to government funding, and there is no restriction upon private research. I know that several corporat ions are funding research in FY98. So, for better or worse, CF research in Japan will continue for at least another year. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 01:00:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:51:16 -0700 From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:53:25 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: WIMP Detector? References: Resent-Message-ID: <"RG5jD1.0.JK6.pfZ7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10807 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Reich already detected the WIMP in the T-T0 experiment in 1950. See Orgone Biophysical Lab site for more details. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 01:09:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:56:24 -0700 From: ehammond@pacbell.net Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:58:33 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? References: <19970913112505.AAA3592 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"PN6s-1.0.wT6.dkZ7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10808 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com What is the electron made of? X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 01:59:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:53:34 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:52:58 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"ytRks3.0.wQ.Daa7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10810 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:58 AM 9/16/97 +0000, ehammond pacbell wrote: >What is the electron made of? > "Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice", like Electromagnetic Energy. :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 03:55:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:50:04 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Hydrino, Electrino, and WIMP Detector? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:48:58 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"6G5fR1.0.w73.RHc7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10811 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, A "Cylindrical Magnetron" arrangement where in a hard vacuum of 1.0E-14 Torr (more or less)electrons are circling at 10 kv or at about 6.0E7 meters/second if there are more "strange neutral particles"(SNPs)than the 3.5E8 residual gas molecules for the ele ctrons to collide and scatter from, there might be at least a rough indication of their presence in the vacuum chamber placed close to CF-Transmutation Cells. The electrons can be made to "orbit" a thin axial electrode by creating a weak axial magnetic field by fitting a "solenoid" around the cylindrical chamber, thus balancing the "swarm" of electrons orbiting the axial electrode and detecting the electrons sc attered out of the swarm with either an electrometer or a phosphor-photomultiplier- detector set-up. With an electron Mean Free Path of about 5.0E9 meters for the residual gas at E-14 Torr and about 5.0E13 meters for a comparable number of "SNPs" you're gonna need a lot of them to be able to detect them. Then again, with the quantity of SNPs that should be coming out of the CF-Transmutation Cells, Who Knows? :-) Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 04:21:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:10:48 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Murray & Stainless Steel Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:07:41 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"yQ4iG1.0.Xg3.tac7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10812 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This discussion is rapidly converging, but I have a quibble or two. Robin says: > I wasn't actually referring to external leakage, but rather internal, > between central rod and contents. and > I obviously guessed wrongly about the expansion coefficients. However > the actual figures do present another problem. The coefficient of PTFE > (Teflon) is about 7 times as large as that of the steel. This means > that in fact the Teflon isn't going to have anywhere to go as it tries > to expand (particularly as it is already quite a tight fit, as pointed > out previously by Mike). This may have led to cracks occurring in the > teflon sleeve which would have allowed the acid solution to contact > the SS rod. As the cell cooled down again, and the teflon shrank, such > cracks might well close up again, becoming almost invisible without > careful scrutiny. > I therefore respectfully suggest to the CG, that they examine the > teflon sleeves carefully for signs of microscopic cracking, as well as > taking into account of course, the pathway proposed by Mike above. Teflon will flow under pressure, and is not likely to crack. What happens is a function of the initial dimensions chosen. I see no reason why they cannot be chosen so that the seals internal and external will remain intact throughout the thermal cycle. Liversage has posted a reply to Blue's comments which showed up this morning. I will craft a question to Liversage about this issue. I'm fundamentally satisfied that Liversage's work is adequate for the purpose intended, to focus attention on the CG proce ss as worthy of careful study and replication, and not arbitrary dismissal. Note that Miley's staff confirmed the essential finding, transmutation of Th, as reported on page 22 of IE 13/14. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 06:00:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 05:53:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:51:53 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? References: <19970913112505.AAA3592 LOCALNAME> <341E3C29.6F5E@pacbell.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"xBmuY1.0.cy6.v4e7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10813 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > What is the electron made of? Paper-clips and bubblegum wrappers :) -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 08:14:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:15:10 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: NHE/SRI To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"pINKV3.0.K15.Yof7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10814 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Elliot Kennel writes: I think that there really is no news, as there was never any approved plan to have funding beyond FY97 anyway. This certainly puts as happy face on it! I wish I had the knack for such positive thinking. I would say there really is news -- big news. It goes like this: MITI established an ambitious program four years ago, with a series of milestones and goals. Despite spending $20 million and repeating some experiments more than fifty times, they did not achieve a single one of those goals. They did not reach any one of the milestones. In 1989 and 1990, a few hundred experienced electrochemists replicated the Pons-Fleischmann effect after about six months of hard work in most cases. Most of them worked on a shoestring. Success rates generally ranged from 10% to 50%. Mil es, for example, got 28 out of 94 cells to work. The MITI program has hundreds of times more money, far better equipment, and more staff than most other projects. It probably has more money than all other researchers in Japan and the U.S. combined. Yet it has not been able to replicate the effect even once. The reasons it failed are blindingly obvious to anyone who has read the literature. During the NHE ICCF6 presentations, I jotted down a list of a dozen gross errors and references to the literature where these errors are explained. I published the list an d reported here many times; I will not reiterate it. Nobody at the NHE has ever addressed my list or denied that they are making these errors. Ikegami commented during ICCF6 that they are working "vigorously" to correct these errors, four years after the program began. I asked why they did not start correcting them earlier. He did not respond. Storms recently examined samples of the NHE cathode material, and he reported that it was totally unsuited to these experiments. It did not meet any of the parameters described in the literature: it loaded unevenly and sluggishly, the surface was contamin ated, and the metal showed signs of weakness (potential cracks) and uneven construction (folds and so on). Everyone knows that cathode material is the key to cold fusion. Yet the NHE paid no attention to it. They never bothered to perform the tests recomm ended by Fleischmann and Cravens four years ago. (Or if they did, they did not discuss it in their papers and they did an inept job, because Storms spotted the problems easily.) So there was never the slightest chance that the experiments would succeed, e ven if the NHE had not made all the other errors I described. If the NHE had achieved success with one or two positive experiments like the 28 reported by Miles, I have no doubt the funding would have been extended. That is what the leaders of the NHE pro gram and many others in Japan told me. I consider that news. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 08:34:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:05:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:03:32 -0400 (EDT) To: ehammond pacbell.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Resent-Message-ID: <"fHAqL1.0.Fh5.E1g7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10815 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/16/97 11:53:09 AM, ehammond pacbell.net wrote: <> If I were to guess, I would say a vortex pattern in the ZPE; i.e., pure EM fields. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 14:11:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:51:30 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? References: <19970916085256.AAA23169 LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"t9BNJ3.0.hF3.r-k7q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10824 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I know it is my turn (after Ross Teissen), but forgive me this time for this short comment: What is more strange is the quantization of the electric charge (same strength for e and p). Existance of 1/3 charges does not violate this quantization mechanism. (On a recent paper, they say finally able directly to detect it. Go to http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1997/physnews.335.htm) ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > What is the electron made of? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 14:57:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:05:41 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Re: What is the Electron made of? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:04:57 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"FOYeq2.0.Px7.pfi7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10818 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 12:36 AM 9/17/97 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Hal's suggestion seems perhaps reaching. > > Electromagnetic (EM) fields will create >matter if the energy is sufficient, and if momentum is >conserved. Yes, and if you hit the "resonance points" above and conceivably below the 1.02 Mev photon energy required to create an Electron-Positron Pair pair production should occur. For instance above 1.02 Mev at N*Me/alpha (where alpha is the Fine Structure Const ant, 0.00729729)and Me is the rest mass of the electron the Pion is created. Same thing for many of the particles created in High Energy Physics. By the same token if Nature is more consistent than we are there should be "resonance points" at photon energies of, N*1.02E6*alpha where light electrons-positrons are created all the way out into the Infrared photon wavelengths. If you care to try it, try N*7444 ev, N*54.4 ev, and N*0.40 ev. :-) And lots of luck in observing them, especially around stripped Hydrogen. >During such pair production EM >will create pairs of electrons and positrons (and an >antineutrino accounting for their angle not being quite 180 degrees.) >This does not occur for EM energies below about 2 MeV at any reasonable level, >and it occurs proportional to the atomic density of the >mass the EM interacts with for EM energies above ~2 MeV. Room for a wager here, especially when the photon wavelength gets close to either atomic/molecular spacing and the photon "collides/interacts" with a molecular group. >[The theoretical minimum energy is less, but Compton scattering > still occurs at those energies.] Compton-Raman Scattering occurs out to RADIO FREQUENCIES, but you would be hard put to see particles with a "radius" R = kq^2/w that is bigger than a shoebox. > > Therefore, if the math is to remain correct, and methinks it will, > May I Kindly suggest; Elementary Modern Physics, Wiedner & Sells, and pay close attention to R.P. Feynman's "diagrams". :-) Regards, Frederick > > Hope that helps. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 11:46:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:43:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:43:22 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Resent-Message-ID: <"drKxB1.0.rX1.HDj7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10820 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > At 11:03 AM 9/16/97 -0400, Hal Puthoff wrote: >> >>In a message dated 9/16/97 11:53:09 AM, ehammond pacbell.net wrote: >> >><> >> >>If I were to guess, I would say a vortex pattern in the ZPE; i.e., pure EM >>fields. >> >>Hal Puthoff > Electromagnetic (EM) fields will create >matter if the energy is sufficient, and if momentum is >conserved. During such pair production EM >will create pairs of electrons and positrons (and an >antineutrino accounting for their angle not being quite 180 degrees.) >This does not occur for EM energies below about 2 MeV at any reasonable level, >and it occurs proportional to the atomic density of the >mass the EM interacts with for EM energies above ~2 MeV. >[The theoretical minimum energy is less, but Compton scattering > still occurs at those energies.] > > Therefore, if the math is to remain correct, and methinks it will, > > we have > > > EM -> e- + [positron] + [antineutrino] > > > so, to write the equation one gets > > > e- = EM - [positron] - [antineutrino] > > > and not > > e- = EM(vortex, ala ZPE) > > which would be an unbalanced equation. > > An alternative explanation against >e- = EM(vortex, ala ZPE) > is the matter of charge, and the tautology issue. When you say that you have a particle with a force field, you have described nothing of the structure of that entity. When you describe the electron as a vortex, you begin to give it some structure. When you analyze the things we know, you come to find that the structure cannot be just a single, simple vortex, and that there must be something more deep to ZPE such that one winds up with the derivations we know and love in QM. consider that ZPE is a quadrature vibrational lattice. Then if you are to wind up with a maintenance of the surrounding spacetime (another name for ZPE IMO), you must maintain the local intensity of vibrations at all phase angles involved. In the 1870's, Thomson and Bjerknes showed us how to work with phase opposition to derive Maxwells equations. I use, 0 degrees for positive EM charge and 180 degrees for negative such as electrons. This is the phase angle of the EM field vibrations rela tive to the spacetime manifold vibrations. It allows for 90 and 270 degrees vibrations as well, and these are what we know as "neutral" particles. When you focus a bunch of "ZPE" energy, you are focusing the entire spacetime manifold in a convergent amplification of the local pressure of the aether we live in and are made of. To get rid of the excess aether density, it is possible to form localized resonances, or, standing waves, or solitons (all different descriptions of the same geometry). These are spherical resonances with a vibrational frequency for the fundamental EM field energy driving the resonance at E45 Hz, the Planck scale. The reason you form two particles, is because you must maintain a balance of the ZPE that remains and so you must for a resonance at 0 and at 180 degrees. This same phase angle momentum conservation is found in the nucleus if you consider nucleons to be formed from 9 muons, at phase angles of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees. Two of each of those resonances, and the final 9th resonance at one of the four phase angles. 0 being a proton, 180 being an anti-proton, and 90 and 270 being neutrons. Each quark thu s has 3 muons at three of the four resonant angles. So each quark has two muon resonances that cancel each other out due to phase opposition, and a third resonance which gives you the net charge for that quark. When you combine three quarks, again you find that two of the quarks will be in phase opposition, and the third will have a net charge. From far away from the nucleus, we will only detect that 9th net charge to be the charge of the particle. Neutrons ar e known to split into two beams when you shoot them through a changing magnetic field, similar to how positive and negative charge curves in different directions through a magnetic field. In any case, ZPE is IMO a reasonable manner of thinking of the spacetime wave energy. What must be added is the coupling of spacetime and of matter, such that both are similar sorts of vibrations where we must account for the momentum at the various phas e angles. > Zero point energy is generally taken to be >the half point (quantum wise) vibrational energy of >a lattice ( 1/2 hbar omega ), and that which >remains at absolute zero temperature. Absolute zero simply means that the centers of adjacent standing waves are not precessing, ie moving, relative to one another. It does not mean that the aether quit vibrating, or that spacetime is frozen. Spacetime is still vibrating intensely, the ZPE if you choose to call it that is still intensely vibrating, etc. Particles and spacetime are nothing but coupled oscillations, IMO. There is >no matter in free space, and therefore, it would seem >there would be no zero point energy without matter. Not true. Aether fills the universe like an ocean, not like an empty vacuum. ZPE is the energy of vibration of the aether itself, which is massive in every sense. But I must say that because of todays bizarre notion that mass is not conserved, and that mass is a property of particles that can come to a rest, ie rest mass, that what I am saying here will be confusing. What I am saying is that the quantum vacuum is composed of a substantive aether, and that particles are resonances in and of that aether such that they have resonantly **amplified*** the aether density locally. What we call "mass" is a measure of the mass in the region of the particle such as the electron or proton, *minus* the mass of the empty vacuum had that particle not been there. It is like gage pressure in working with gasses and the atmospheric pressure. You work in gage pressure because it is easy to discuss the pressure in your scuba tanks from the base line where you call atmospheric pressure, 0 gage pressure. So, calling t he vacuum truly empty and not massive, is misleading, IMO. >Furthermore, the purported arguments about ZPE being in >vacuum generally ignore causality (special relativity) >and matters of absolute value used to derive them >in the absence of matter. > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) And QM and GR and SR all ignore, in general, the substantive nature of the vacuum. If you work with the notions as I outlined them, then you come to the conclusion immediately that when you induce a nuclear reaction such as fusion where mass is lost, that the mass must have become a part of the ambient ocean of aether. Therefore, when you ignite fusion reactions in a star, you would thus expect a flow of aether out of and away from the core of the star, directed along the line of least resistance to the flow. That line is along the axis, and so you should expect that newborn stars would emit jets of cold matter which was swept up by the flow of aether, and then the entire star ought to eventually come to a rolling boil of aether flowing out of all lattitudes o f the star. When you read up on stellar behavior, you find out that this is exactly what occurs. First you get jets out of the poles (T-tauri stars) Then you finally get the "mud" of the star to begin blurping like in mud pots at Yellowstone. (Flare Stars which evolve from T-tauri) Then you see a few different kinds of percolator kinds of oscillations. And then finally you get onto the main sequence. Even there, in our own sun, you see that the pitch of the acoustic oscillations vary on the 11 year solar cycle, you see sun spots (aether vent tunnels), you see flares (aether spouts), you see coronal mas s ejections (huge aether bursts that blast out of the entire solar surface simultaneously due to a rapid increase in reactivity internally in the core), and the corona (ions heated due to the sudden drop in pressure of the aether as it exits the surface o f the sun and suddenly expands, accelerating the ions **inertially**. Note that the inertial nature has been monitored, and cannot be explained easily by magnetic field interactions. Thus, if you study the vibrational structures, it **IS** possible to figure out certain geometries that satisfy what we know about QM, mathematically, and yet as well satisfy what we know about physical models and fluid mechanical systems. The thing you need to do to accomplish this is to realize that the universe is not an empty vacuum, and that it is indeed, an ocean of aether. Therefore, we are all but a bunch of waves, comfined together because our wave energy is in phase and frequency match with it self, locally, and interferes with waves arriving from far away. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 13:07:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:50:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:11:01 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Changing Cell Constant joke To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"r-bcq1.0.Va4.LCk7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10821 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Hal Puthoff joked about changing cell constants. He was kidding, but as Miles points out, N. Lewis of CalTech actually *did* claim his cell constant changes! By 26%! If his calorimeter could do that, the discovery would be even more mind boggling than col d fusion. "Skeptics" frequently toss off flippant claims for unprecedented events. They do not follow up with a serious investigation, which proves they are kidding. The Lewis story is explained in the Miles paper "Calorimetric Principles and Problems . . ." (J. Physical Chem, 1994). That paper, by the way, should be required reading for anyone who wants to comment on cold fusion. Ideally we would give a short quiz on it at the ICCF meetings and on s.p.f. Anyone who cannot answer 3 out of 5 questions woul d be tarred and feathered. We want to enforce a little discipline . . . a modicum of rigor. I think I'll put the Lewis story in a breezy sidebar in my upcoming I.E. article on Miles, for comic relief. Here is a quick summary for people who like bizarre tales from the fringes of science. Miles established his own Cell Constant with the usual methods of calibration: Pd electrolysis with H2O; electrolysis with non-working Pd, and heating with a 20 ohm resistor. He measured the Cell Constants in four cells, each calibrated six times from 198 9 through 1992. The Constants were 0.139 watts/deg C +/- 0.003; 0.143 +/- 0.004; 0.135 +/- 0.003 and 0.136 +/- 0.004. That, by golly, is rock-solid proof of stable calorimetry. Only 0.004 degrees difference in three years! Anyway, as he tells the story . . . In striking contrast to the stability of calorimeter cell constants in our experiments, as shown in Table 1, Lewis et al. report heat-transfer coefficients that range from 12.6 C/W in H2O to 15.9 deg C/W after 115 h of D2O electrolysis. This 26% increase in heating coefficients, based on our experience, is highly unusual. Closer examination, however, shows that Lewis et al. erroneously define the heating coefficient as h = Delta T/PT where the total power (PT) is the sum of the electrolysis power and the resistor power. According to the Newton law of cooling, the temperature difference, Delta T, defines the total output power from the cell to its surroundings; thus any power (PX) must be included in defining the total power. This neglect of PX by Lewis et al. in the equation defining h would lead to an increase in the heating coefficient as the excess power increases. . . . Table 2 presents an analysis of the results reported by Lewis et al. when a constant heating coefficient of 14.0 deg C/W is assumed based upon the observation that there is rarely any excess power during the early stages of Pd/D2O electrolysis. Initially, there is no excess power. However, as electrolysis continues an excess power effect develops that becomes as large as 0.076 W after 161 h of Pd/D2O + LiOD electrolysis. . . . Experiments reported by Lewis et al. in H2O-LiOH suggest smaller heating coefficients (12.6, 11.7 and 13.1 deg C/W) for their calorimetric cell that would yield even larger excess power effects. In other words, when the experiment began, at a time when you would expect no excess heat, Lewis input 0.464 watts and the Delta T was 6.5 deg C. So we assume the cell constant was 14.0 deg per watt. A week later Lewis input 0.595 watts. The Delta T shoul d have been 8.4 deg C, but it was up to 9.4 deg C, so there must have been 0.07 watts of excess heat. Lewis said there was no excess, which can only mean that the cell constant had mysteriously moved up to 15.8 deg per watt. Naturally, Lewis never gave a reason for this. He never said it was caused by thermocouple drift or lower electrolyte level or some other gross error. It would have to be a gross error to cause such a large change. Lewis will not even admit he claims the Constant changed. Nature asked him whether they should publish a critique by Noninski & Noninski explaining his mistake. (Nature allows "skeptics" to accept or and reject publication of letters criticizing their work.) In a muddled letter to Nature Editor Lindley, Lewis explained: While it is true that our open system measurements were not sensitive to any current-density independent excess heat (as clearly stated in our original *Nature* manuscript), Pons and Fleischmann clearly stated in their work that they only observed current-density dependent excess heat. Our original experiments would have readily detected this heat; we clearly did not see such excesses . . . N&N have now also proceeded to invent a new hypothetical type of heat which they claim could have been missed in our experiments, and which was not reported by Pons and Fleischmann in their experiments. . . . Actually, N&N and Miles claim the heat was missed in his equations, not his experiments. It shows up in the experiments clear as a bell. I gather Lewis means that if the excess had been exactly proportional to current density alone, and completely control led by it, then he would have detected the heat, so he doesn't have to worry about apparent changes in Cell Constant, apparent violations of Newton's Law of Cooling, and Stuff Like That, which he thinks are part of "a new hypothetical type of heat." To m y knowledge, he has never addressed the issue and never attempted to explain exactly why the temperature was 1 degree hotter than it should have been. Instead he brags that he proved cold fusion does not exist, and he goes around saying that cold fusion s cientists do sloppy work. Lewis erased the heat by making a simple error in algebra. That's pretty stupid, but some people feel it is not the dumbest mistake in the history of cold fusion. R. H. Wilson et al. at General Electric performed a double subtraction. They end up predicti ng that ordinary electrolysis will swallow up heat to produce continuous anomalous "excess cold." Apparently they never bothered to graph their equations. Fleischmann did, and he showed the graph during his MIT lecture. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 13:46:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:42:34 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:32:51 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Miles "loan" Pd disposition To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"LM3x52.0.RL7.tyk7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10823 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex The other day I wondered why the IMRA palladium was "loaned" by Fleischmann to Miles. And "If it was loaned, was it given back, and if so what was the final disposition of the sample?" I asked Mel Miles these questions. Here is what he told me: "Officially they gave it to us as a loan. Martin told us it was palladium silver, later we found out it was palladium cerium. The analysis was done as NRL, where most of our cathodes wound up. That's probably where the cathodes are now. If he wanted them back, he could get them, but he never asked. I guess it was just called a loan." Martin loaned him four cathodes, which all produced excess heat. The most important lesson from Miles' work is that cold fusion produces helium in the effluent gas in amounts proportional to excess heat, at levels roughly commensurate with hot fusion. The second most important lesson is that cathode material is critica l. This is no surprise to anyone familiar with the literature, but the trend is particularly clear in the Miles data. See Table 10 in NAWCWPNS TP 8302, "Summary of Palladium Materials Tested for Excess Power" which lists: Source Success Ratio (excess heat / total tests) NRL Pd-B alloy 7/8 Johnson-Matthey (J-M) Pd 13/24 J-M from P&F 4/4 NRL Pd 1/2 Tanaka Pd (sheet) 1/3 NRL Pd (another batch) 0/4 NRL Pd-Ag 0/3 IMRA Japan Pd-Ag 0/2 WESTGO Pd 0/6 Pd/Cu 0/2 John Dash Pd (sheet) 0/2 Co-deposition (1992) 2/34 Total: 28/94 Most of the samples produced 1 to 2 watts per cubic centimeter. One of the J-M samples produced 15 watts/cm^3, and one of the J-M from P&F samples produced 14 watts/cm^3. These results were seen in 1994. Contrary to the claims of Jones and others, Miles o bserved his highest levels of heat in the middle and latter stages of his research project, when he used improved, more sensitive calorimeters. The heat producing J-M wire was tested again in the improved China Lake calorimeter developed by Kendall Johnso n, and again by Wilfred Hansen at Utah State University. Excess heat was confirmed in these tests. As Storms and others have said, a good piece of palladium is rugged and can be re-used. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 13:47:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:42:07 -0700 From: olso3562@novell.uidaho.edu Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:41:37 -0800 Subject: Re: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Priority: normal References: <970916105937_-964008828 emout18.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Ra4NA2.0.6J7.Tyk7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10822 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > ><> > Therefore, if the math is to remain correct, and methinks it will, > we have > EM -> e- + [positron] + [antineutrino] > Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) I don't think that particular equation will work, since you have to conserve lepton number. A photon has a lepton number of zero, so the right side of your equation must have a total lepton number of zero. Electron has L# of 1, positron has L# of -1, and antineutrino has L# of -1. It doesn't work out. Perhaps both a neutrino and an antineutrino are created? BTW, do neutrinos annihilate in nature? What is released when/if they do? JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 18:22:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:16:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:21:20 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Two Blue posts re Miley response Resent-Message-ID: <"uTjZO.0._F.3-o7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10827 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Re: Blue / Judge and Jury Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:40:45 GMT From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion I called attention to errors in the first presentation of George Miley's "transmutation" data as they appeared in Infinite Energy. Prof. Miley now responds, asserting that I hold myself to be the sole judge and jury. That is certainly not the case. I have invited (and still invite) everyone to examine these data. I did receive from several other people confirmation that my reading of the Miley SIMS data appears to be the correct one. Miley responds by saying that "I stuck by my identification which used a logical method for prorating intensities from high resolution scans." If that is the only further clarification he has to offer I must say that my evaluation of the Miley results st ill stands! With respect to the silicon isotopes I truly doubt that scans at higher resolution can add further information since the resolution of interferring peaks is not the problem. If Prof. Miley has better data on the silicon than what I have seen I would glad ly correct my asssertions regarding errors in the Miley results. In fact it seems clear to me that the error to which I refer has little to do with any "logical method for prorating intensites". It simply makes no sense to assert that the silicon content of unreacted beads is "unnatural" but is then converted back to the natural abundances by the reaction process. That is, however, what Miley is now still defending. The identification of the mass 50 peak is, possibly, an issue that could be cleared up by high resolution scans. If Miley has such data perhaps he could present it and blow my critical comments away. He has not, however, yet done so. Again I express doubt that such data does actually exist. If Miley had taken the time to obtain high resolution scans of the mass 50 peak and had actually given consideration to the question of what portion of that peak should be assigned to titanium as opposed to chromium, why did he not see fit to comment of t he experimental difficulty or significance of making the assignment as 100% titanium as he did? The fact that, as he now admits, that he did not discuss either silicon or titanium in the text indicates to me that we are dealing with a case of oversight. Miley appears to not have taken note of these data as being particularly questionable. He still seems to be saying that, to his mind, the silicon and titanium data are not especially significant. I would suggest the opposite position has some merit if we are to evaluate objectively Miley's "logical method for prorating intensities." Since the construction of the reaction cell used by Miley exposes the electrolyte to massive ammounts of silicon an d titanium I fail to see how one can avoid the assumption that significant ammounts of those materials could be transfered to the reacted beads. Surely then we could logically expect to find silicon and titanium with close to natural abundance ratios in the reacted beads. I would suggest then that the reported abundance ratios for silicon and titanium can serve as a "blank" to test the quality of the Miley protocol for determing abundance ratios. Here we have a clear case were the abundance ratios should have been natural, but are reported as being unnatural -- in fact as deviating most dramatically from the natural values. It is perhaps worth noting that if the mass 50 peak is simply omitted from the data set as a case where interferences make the assignment uncertain then the other isotopes of titanium and chromium fit the natural abundance pattern. So are we to accept Pr of. Miley's assertion that there is some unrevealed data and an unspecified logic which justify his claim that titanium and chromium isotopes both appear to be unnatural. I would say the most neutral position in this debate is to omit the data I called into question from the discussion. I can accept that. Of course I will then note that chromium, one of the more abundant elements in the mass spectrum, does appear to be "natural", and by inference, is a sign of contamination rather than production via transmutation. I will retract my rather unkind remarks about Prof. Miley's role in the absurd claims regarding nuclear transmutations if and when he gives me some evidence that he does, in fact, follow a "logical method". Dick Blue Subject: New selection rule needed Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:30:20 GMT From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion The claims for massive nuclear transmutations being circulated by Prof. George Miley, the Cincinnati Group, Joe Champion, and others appear to be based on data that possibly contains evidence of either a profound significance or of total absurdity. Eithe r way I don't think these claims should be treated as the routine results of experimentation. It is the assertion that all the reaction products are formed as stable nuclei in their ground state that I wish to examine further. When you consider the scale of disruption of nuclear bonds that must occur for the nuclear transmutations to produce the yields as claimed something quit remarkable must be occuring. In general any sort of multiparticle rearrangement process can be expected to involve some statistical distribution among the various outcomes allowed within whatever constraints that apply. One way to express the constraints is in terms of selection rules. The process, for example, must conserve the number of nucleons, the total charge, total angular momentum, etc. When none of the known selection rules appears to provide an explanation for the claimed final states that are so profoundly restricted it seems appropriate to suggest that we must be observing the consequences of some new or unexpected selection rule. I believe I do know what selection rule actually accounts for the results as claimed, but I will withhold my candidate to see if anyone else will take the bait. I issue this challange to George Miley, for example, or to anyone who holds the view that Miley's interpretation of his data is correct. Suggest a NEW SELECTION RULE which can account for the lack of any subsequent decays in the products of the claimed " massive nuclear transmutations." To appreciate the nature of the problem I pose I suggest you consider the following: Let us just say there is a reaction process that produces both 63Cu and 65Cu as well as a host of other isotopes. In all the rearranging of nucleons that is required to form these two specific final states there are clearly other possible final states that are arbitraily close to these is some sense, for example, the groundstate of 64Cu. Yet Miley's data indicates a rather remarkable absence of this particular final state in the mix of products -- a fact that cries out for an explanation. What makes 64Cu so different from its sister isotopes to suppress its production by many orders of magnitude relative to the prefered masses of 63 and 65? It's that selection rule we seek. Before you answer that the 64Cu is excluded simply because it's unstable, think again. Who knows that it's unstable and how do they know? Since I know of a selection rule, familiar to all of us, that can account for the observed outcome to +/- a few perc ent there is little justification for dreaming up a Maxwell's Demon who sits on the nuclei with his little blue book of nuclear isotopes to tell what is allowed and what is not. Now that I have your attention, George Miley, why don't you apply your logic to this aspect of the problem you raise? Dick Blue X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 10:00:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:33:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:36:23 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Resent-Message-ID: <"nXPYz.0.3n1.nJh7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10816 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:03 AM 9/16/97 -0400, Hal Puthoff wrote: > >In a message dated 9/16/97 11:53:09 AM, ehammond pacbell.net wrote: > ><> > >If I were to guess, I would say a vortex pattern in the ZPE; i.e., pure EM >fields. > >Hal Puthoff > > > Hal's suggestion seems perhaps reaching. Electromagnetic (EM) fields will create matter if the energy is sufficient, and if momentum is conserved. During such pair production EM will create pairs of electrons and positrons (and an antineutrino accounting for their angle not being quite 180 d egrees.) This does not occur for EM energies below about 2 MeV at any reasonable level, and it occurs proportional to the atomic density of the mass the EM interacts with for EM energies above ~2 MeV. [The theoretical minimum energy is less, but Compton scattering still occurs at those energies.] Therefore, if the math is to remain correct, and methinks it will, we have EM -> e- + [positron] + [antineutrino] so, to write the equation one gets e- = EM - [positron] - [antineutrino] and not e- = EM(vortex, ala ZPE) which would be an unbalanced equation. An alternative explanation against e- = EM(vortex, ala ZPE) is the matter of charge, and the tautology issue. Zero point energy is generally taken to be the half point (quantum wise) vibrational energy of a lattice ( 1/2 hbar omega ), and that which remains at absolute zero temperature. There is no matter in free space, and therefore, it would seem th ere would be no zero point energy without matter. Furthermore, the purported arguments about ZPE being in vacuum generally ignore causality (special relativity) and matters of absolute value used to derive them in the absence of matter. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 18:08:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:04:02 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: NHE/SRI Resent-Message-ID: <"v779w3.0.l85.Xoo7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10826 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I agree with Jed that many of the hoped for results in the NHE program were not achieved. I also understand that Jed believes that I am incompetent, and that the rest of the lab is also incompetent, so there is no need to repeat this over and ove r again. You are welcome to your opinion, after all. On the other hand, it is not true that we have no positive results. We have up achieved up to 40% reproducibility in detecting excess heat using isoperibolic calorimetry, the same method used by Ponns and Fleischmann, Storms and others. The problem is that we don't believe our own results! It is particularly disconcerting when you put the isoperibolic calorimeter inside a water mass flow calorimeter, and the former registers excess heat when the Pd-D reaches the gamma phase at D /Pd > 0.85 and the latter does not even though it is quite sensitive enought to see it. I don't believe that our data disproves the existence of excess heat, but it does call into question the validity of isoperibolic calorimetry for electrolytic cells. To put this into Jed-like terms, there are holes in the data big enough to drive a truck through. Not to mention the problems with boiling isoperibolic calorimetry, which adds another level of complexity and with which we are also able to achieve 100% reproducibility of excess heat using Pons and Fleischmann's own ICARUS-2 boiling c alorimetry cells (we use their cell, their palladium, their calorimeter). Unfortunately, here again we are quite sure that our positive results are due to flaws in the calorimetry, rather than to real excess heat. This does not disprove that P & F ever obtained excess heat; but it does show it is possible (in fact unavoidable) to achieve positive results using boiling calorimetry. But it was clearly an artifact due to a design flaw in the measurement syste m. When the artifact is removed, our reproducibility factor drops to zero percent. For those reasons, I'm waiting for a good experiment which can produce excess heat in a high quality water mass flow calorimeter (secret recipees for excess heat do not count, nor do demonstration devices which can only be tested at the facilities of the inventor). When that experiment exists, then the ability to replicate a cold fusion experiment will really be tested. I hope that Jed's beliefs will soon be proven correct, and that a robust experiment will soon be produced to demolish the concerns of those who aren't sure (like me). But until then, I'm staying undecided. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 19:25:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Blue notes Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:14:47 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"DRAYu.0.kO.Ltp7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10829 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich has imported some detailed comments by Dick Blue concerning Miley's data and the Cg data. I have several times called attention to Harold Aspden's Research Notes on the CG cell. It is available on his Web site at http://www.energyscience.co.uk/notes/notes.html. The abstract Is: ---------- 14/97: Cincinnati Disclosure. This Research Note shows why it is that titanium and copper are created in the process developed by the Cincinnati Group for deactivating radioactive thorium in an electrolytic cell which converts thorium into these base meta ls in an hour even though its half-life is commensurate with the age of the universe. ---------- The full text of the note is detailed, specific and numerical. It exists in the context of Aspden's larger work. It accounts for the observed results, and the absence of massive energy release. We see here in vortex demands for analysis and theory. Well, go visit the URL and do some homework. No, Aspden's work is not conventional physics. Blue has in mind some reaction pathways. As we may not be in Kansas anymore, Aspden's pages are worth a visit and his text worth study. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 11:20:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:17:45 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:21:00 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Re: What is the Electron made of? Resent-Message-ID: <"o-wLQ3.0.PZ.7ri7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10819 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 06:04 PM 9/16/97 +0000, Frederick wrote: >At 12:36 AM 9/17/97 +0000, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> >> Hal's suggestion seems perhaps reaching. >> >> Electromagnetic (EM) fields will create >>matter if the energy is sufficient, and if momentum is >>conserved. > >Yes, and if you hit the "resonance points" above and conceivably below >the 1.02 Mev photon energy required to create an Electron-Positron Pair >pair production should occur. For instance above 1.02 Mev at N*Me/alpha >(where alpha is the Fine Structure Constant, 0.00729729)and Me is the >rest mass of the electron the Pion is created. Same thing for many of >the particles created in High Energy Physics. There is no pair production below the energy required for the two rest masses. If you have evidence, please present it. And furthermore, these concepts are well understood including even to the point of predicting triplet production. ======================================================= > >By the same token if Nature is more consistent than we are there >should be "resonance points" at photon energies of, N*1.02E6*alpha >where light electrons-positrons are created all the way out into the >Infrared photon wavelengths. > >If you care to try it, try N*7444 ev, N*54.4 ev, and N*0.40 ev. :-) > >And lots of luck in observing them, especially around stripped Hydrogen. > I seriously doubt infrared creates electron-positron pairs. In fact, again these matters are well known, and involve E = mc2, and the four-vector, etc. ======================================================= >>During such pair production EM >>will create pairs of electrons and positrons (and an >>antineutrino accounting for their angle not being quite 180 degrees.) > > >>This does not occur for EM energies below about 2 MeV at any reasonable level, >>and it occurs proportional to the atomic density of the >>mass the EM interacts with for EM energies above ~2 MeV. > >Room for a wager here, especially when the photon wavelength gets close >to either atomic/molecular spacing and the photon "collides/interacts" >with a molecular group. > Wager indeed. ;-)X The field of the interaction of high energetic penetrating ionizing radiation with matter is well known and characterized. ======================================================= >>[The theoretical minimum energy is less, but Compton scattering >> still occurs at those energies.] > >Compton-Raman Scattering occurs out to RADIO FREQUENCIES, but you would >be hard put to see particles with a "radius" R = kq^2/w that is >bigger than a shoebox. >> Photoelectric absorption takes over below 200 keV. The pair production takes over above 2 MeV. Try, The Physics of Radiology, Harold Johns, etc, Thomas Pub (1974) Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 20:06:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:53:55 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Changing Cell Constant joke To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"a5Iyx.0.sh1.WWq7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10831 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: Actually, Hal is correct, in that the "constant" is not. There IS a small, and measurable, change of the heat transfer relation of any non-isothermal calorimeter with temperature and so it is not a "constant". This is reasonable because the means of heat transfer includes conduction, convection, and radiation, and the latter is quite T-sensitive (as the fourth power). Right? Yes, of course. These are covered in the Miles paper "Calorimetric Principles and Problems . . ." A key point in the Miles paper is that these changes become severe at low power, less than 0.5 watts, with his calorimeter. 1. MELICH, M., W.N. HANSEN, 1993, "Some Lessons from 3 Years . . . 2. Swartz, M., 1994, "A Method To Improve Algorithms Used To Detect . . . 3. Swartz, M., 1993, "Some Lessons from the Optical Examination of the PFC Good papers all. Recommended. 4. Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Bouyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 5. Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. These two are imaginary. Schwarz reported here that he has never tested them in a physical experiment, as opposed to a "thought experiment" or computer simulation. To be precise: the effects may be real but they are too small to be measured with ordinary equipment in ordinary operating domains. This can be seen in the calibration data from any flow calorimeter, even the ultra- high quality ones from SRI. There is noise in the data of course, and these effects may explain some of it, but the noise is insig nificant compared to the CF signal we are searching for. The Swartz sideways hypothesis reminds me of Kennel's statement: This does not disprove that P & F ever obtained excess heat; but it does show it is possible (in fact unavoidable) to achieve positive results using boiling calorimetry. If this were true you could not run a blank experiment with Pt. If Swartz was right, flow calorimeters would show puzzling artifactual heat during calibration at a significant level . . . but of course they do not. That was established around 1900, when t hey were invented. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 20:37:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:31:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:54:11 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: NHE/SRI To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"u4vnG3.0.L36.8yq7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10834 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Elliot Kennel writes: I also understand that Jed believes that I am incompetent, and that the rest of the lab is also incompetent . . . This is utterly false! I have no idea whether Kennel is incompetent or not. His work is in nuclear physics, which is over my head. I have never commented on it and I know nothing about it. Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated that the NHE lab's ability to build hardware is superb, like SRI's. I have said that *some aspects* of the work done by *some people* at the NHE is incompetent. Specifically, the management, the materials science and the electrochemistry. Of course I am not the only person who says this. I am quoting experts like Storms, Ikegami, Fleischmann, McKubre Mizuno, Bockris etc, and I am quoting their reasons. You are welcome to your opinion, after all. You mean I am welcome to the opinions of Storms, Ikegami et al. Yes, I am. The NHE management would have been welcome to them five years ago. On the other hand, it is not true that we have no positive results. We have up achieved up to 40% reproducibility in detecting excess heat using isoperibolic calorimetry, the same method used by Ponns [sic] and Fleischmann, Storms and others. . . . So I have heard. This claim has been made repeatedly, but I have not seen reports describing this claim. Pons and Fleischmann, Storms and the others disagree. They say the NHE is working in different domains and the problems it has discovered, like unboil ed water leaving the cell and room temperature changes cannot explain the data. Since the NHE experiments have not been described I cannot comment on them beyond this, but I know there have been many instances in the past where people claimed they were re producing an effect but it turned out they had made gigantic changes to the experiment. An example is the S. Jones reproduction of the Ni CF experiments at a power level a thousand times lower than anyone else, in a domain where such calorimetry could nev er work. The problem is that we don't believe our own results! Not surprising. Nobody else does either. It is particularly disconcerting when you put the isoperibolic calorimeter inside a water mass flow calorimeter, and the former registers excess heat when the Pd-D reaches the gamma phase at D/Pd > 0.85 and the latter does not even though it is quite sensitive enough to see it. At what power levels? How is the loading measured? I have heard this many times. Too many times. I have decided to ignore it until proper details are released. I am even-handed, I ignore many positive claims for the same reason. To put this into Jed-like terms, there are holes in the data big enough to drive a truck through. Not to mention the problems with boiling isoperibolic calorimetry, which adds another level of complexity and with which we are also able to achieve 100% reproducibility of excess heat using Pons and Fleischmann's own ICARUS-2 boiling calorimetry cells (we use their cell, their palladium, their calorimeter). Unfortunately, here again we are quite sure that our positive results are due to flaws in the calorimetry, rather than to real excess heat. . . . So you say, but details remain forever secret. Whereas the French AEC, which also reproduced the effect, answers my questions in detail. They told me, for example, how they confirmed that droplets do not leave the test tube. (They use Kleenex tissue. I to ld them that method is inadequate, to say the least. I think they used another method as well, but it is not clear to me yet.) I believe these statements about supposed "holes" are a political ploy designed to spread doubts, rumors and disinformation about Pons and Fleischmann. I do not think the NHE, or anyone else, has any valid reason to doubt the boil-off calorimetry, which i s anything but complex. Extreme "skeptics" like Britz have tested boil off electrochemical calorimetry and reported that it works. That is, it shows a balance of zero with no excess heat, just as it does in null CF experiments with Pt or dead Pd. I find t he NHE a highly political and thoroughly untrustworthy organization, and I will not begin to take these statements seriously until they are backed up by properly written scientific reports. These reports must be distributed and commented upon by the peopl e whose work they challenge: Storms, Fleischmann and the others. I will not hold my breath waiting for this. This does not disprove that P & F ever obtained excess heat; but it does show it is possible (in fact unavoidable) to achieve positive results using boiling calorimetry. In other words, the blank experiments and the many failed Pd experiments reported by P&F, the AEC and Britz could not have happened. Or they did not happen. Which is it, one wonders. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 20:07:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:05:06 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:01:06 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"OWSNi3.0.df4.WZq7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10832 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo., A brief report from the gravity lab: Gravity Society US The first reproducible Gravity Modificatio, or GM, outside of the brilliant work by Eugene Podkletnov was realized last Thursday. Due to need to file patent application exact details of the actual GM device are withheld. We are trying to raise the fund s for the application filing fees by license or sale of percentage of patent-to-be. We do have a provisional patent application on file. 1] A 1" sintered YBCO disk from Superconductive Components of Columbus, Ohio, was used. 2] Time variant fields were generated and applied to the bottom face of the disk. 3] The assembly was suspended by thread from a wood balance beam as in earlier experiments. BEAM: a] The beam is 60 inches and a pivot hole withing 1% of the balance point is drilled in the middle. b] A smooth steel pin is the pivot and this passes through a simple stirrup. The purpose of the beam is to divorce the the experimental GM Assembly, or GMA, from the scale. c] The GM suspension point is 11 inches from end of beam. d] At the other end of the beam a cotton string is used to fasten a counterweight on a tether so that it rests on the pan of a digital scale. This is as in previous work. e] Several hundred runs have been executed on similar set up so we are reasonably comfortable with the set up. f] The principle is simple. The counter weight is a little heavier than the GMA and anything likely to be added to the GMA. If for some reason the GMA becomes lighter, the scale then shows increased weight due to its being at the other end of the beam. SCALE: Ohaus 300 gram standard lab scale. 4] The assembly is suspended in liquid nitrogen for the entire run. 5] We take a page from Fred Rounds. Please see his paper at the Gravity Society site www.gravity.org 6] Podkletnov teaches there is a column of effect the diameter of the SC, superconductor, from it going upward. Fred Rounds put a proof or test mass in its path and the SC and the test mass are fastened to the same container. If this is done, and there is a column, and it goes upward then container, test mass and SC all become lighter. 7] We do the same and place the test mass on the SC suspended by threads. If there is column and if it is going up, and if there is GM or modification of reduced 'weight' then mass becomes lighter and so thereby does the whole suspended composite. 8] Typical Preliminary Runs: Test mass, 22.7 grams, 4 US quarters, reduction of 0.4 to 0.6 grams during 12 sequential runs. Test mass, 44.54 grams, 8 US quarters, reduction 0.9 to 1.1 grams. 9] Roughly 2% and effect scales with weight. 10] Effect manifests within 5 to 10 seconds on application of control fields. On removal of control fields effect diminished by roughly 50%. Return to baseling in 30 to 100 seconds. 11] Pattern of item [10] is same in all runs. JHS X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 15:11:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:00:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:57:34 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"u_Tpq2.0.IY.oB58q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10855 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hal - > I would still worry about an attenuated version > of the two forms of friction, even in water. As anyone who has oomphed their way across the water in a dinghy can tell you, your worry is fully justified. Add to the previous frictional methods the fact that you can surf your own wake a little bit by rocking forwards and backwards, throwing your mom entum forward when you feel the wave from the backward step beginning to travel under the boat. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 15:13:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:04:12 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:01:29 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Baser beam Bose Condensate remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"paq7G3.0.xe5.RF58q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10856 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed - > The Baser is a particle-beam laser consisting of > (steady now) Bose-Einstein condensates. . . . Sounds like a photon torpedo to me. Raise shields... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 19:54:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:50:34 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-L eskimo.com Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:08:49 -0500 Subject: req. contact inro for ICCF3, ICCF4, ICCF5, and ICCF6 Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"6tWD5.0.rD4.vLq7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10830 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Does anyone have handy a list of *detailed* contact info for ordering the proceedings of ICCF3, ICCF4, ICCF5, and ICCF6? The Reference Page of Cold Fusion Times at http://world.std.com/~mica/cftrefs.html has some helpful addresses for ICCF4 and ICCF5, but I'm looking for more details and more conferences. Does anyone know the specifics of price, shipping costs, exact mail addresses, phone/fax numbers, and (ideally) e-mail addresses for contacting these sources? A colleague at an engineering library with a budget *surplus* is interested in ordering these proceedings. I'll compile any useful info I receive and re-post to VORTEX, for future reference. Many thanks in advance! Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================= Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates > Scientific Software & Instrumentation < > Quality Control Engineering < ============================================= X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 21:28:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:29:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Resent-Message-ID: <"v_BTt1.0.mO4.Wjr7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10835 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com eou/o917.txt On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu wrote: -snip- >>> ><> >> >>Electron has L# of 1, positron has L# of -1, and antineutrino has L# >>of -1. It doesn't work out. Perhaps both a neutrino and an >>antineutrino are created? BTW, do neutrinos annihilate in nature? >>What is released when/if they do? >> >>JAY OLSON >> Great Question! but I (lately) would think not..they would.should create even SMALLER (aether) spin-OFFS (upon meeting each other). I say lately as I've been (trying like crazy) to follow ROSS TESSIEN's post's on this. "He'd be the one to ask," but I would think, depending on the spin and direction of these 'neutral' particals - collision would just produce a rare (if any possible) perfect 'null' bounce off each other (like two bubbles meeting and seperating) or (as is most probably the case), hit NOT PERFECTLY and produce smaller spinning (+-)(lr) aether. --I see it as two (neutral) baseballs approaching each other... what are the chances they would meet so 'exactly' as to touch and neither affects the other(?) -- (bound neutrinos(?) maybe (neat thought!)) but on any spinning(moving) object, ODDS are this will leave something spinning somewhere. (what that something is yet to be called 'by modern' terms I don't know, but by Ross's terms - more aether) Nothing lost & nothing gained. -- again Good Question, (pondering, pondering,pondering :) -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 02:41:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:39:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:39:14 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Big new from J Resent-Message-ID: <"MeGK_3.0.Oh7.SLw7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10837 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Congratulations! This is from Gravity Shielding Web Site (http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/schnurer.html): "The big news is new results from John Schnurer. He has obtained positive results (2% weight reduction) using a new experiment design based on that of Fred Rounds." hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 14:47:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:42:26 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 05:45:37 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Changing Cell Constant joke Resent-Message-ID: <"b9ski3.0.3M3.0rl7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10825 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:11 PM 9/16/97 -0400, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >Hal Puthoff joked about changing cell constants. He was kidding, but as Miles >points out, N. Lewis of CalTech actually *did* claim his cell constant >changes! By 26%! If his calorimeter could do that, the discovery would be even >more mind boggling than cold fusion. "Skeptics" frequently toss off flippant >claims for unprecedented events. They do not follow up with a serious >investigation, which proves they are kidding. The Lewis story is explained in >the Miles paper "Calorimetric Principles and Problems . . ." (J. Physical >Chem, 1994). That paper, by the way, should be required reading for anyone who >wants to comment on cold fusion. Ideally we would give a short quiz on it at >the ICCF meetings and on s.p.f. Anyone who cannot answer 3 out of 5 questions >would be tarred and feathered. We want to enforce a little discipline . . . a >modicum of rigor. ----- zip >Lewis erased the heat by making a simple error in algebra. That's pretty >stupid, but some people feel it is not the dumbest mistake in the history of >cold fusion. R. H. Wilson et al. at General Electric performed a double >subtraction. They end up predicting that ordinary electrolysis will swallow up >heat to produce continuous anomalous "excess cold." Apparently they never >bothered to graph their equations. Fleischmann did, and he showed the graph >during his MIT lecture. > >- Jed > > This might draw a few flames, but science is more interesting, again. Actually, Hal is correct, in that the "constant" is not. There IS a small, and measurable, change of the heat transfer relation of any non-isothermal calorimeter with temperature and so it is not a "constant". This is reasonable because the means of heat transfer includes conduction, convection, and radiation, and the latter is quite T-sensitive (as the fourth power). Right? There are also time-variant terms due to creation of a gas phase which has altered thermal conduction, and differences in the sweep of heat out with the electrolysis gas. These small changes in the "constant" should NOT be confused with errors in calculations based upon those who dont do controls, or check boundary conditions, or miscalculate, or add in incorrect terms, etc. etc., as there have been many errors made in cf history. Some refs of some of the errors include: 1. MELICH, M., W.N. HANSEN, 1993, "Some Lessons from 3 Years of Electrochemical Calorimetry", Proceedings of the "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion" Maui, sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research. 2. Swartz, M., 1994, "A Method To Improve Algorithms Used To Detect Steady State Excess Enthalpy", Transactions of Fusion Technology, 26, 156-159. 3. Swartz, M., 1993, "Some Lessons from the Optical Examination of the PFC Phase-II Calorimetric Curve", Vol. 2, Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", 19-1, op. cit. 4. Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Bouyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. 5. Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. 6. Swartz, M.R., 1996, "Definitions of Power Amplification Factor", J New Energy, 2, 54-59. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 18:53:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:45:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:48:32 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NHE/SRI Resent-Message-ID: <"25BCy1.0.Df6.oOp7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10828 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:04 AM 9/17/97 +0900, Elliot Kennel wrote: > The problem is that we don't believe our own results! It is >particularly disconcerting when you put the isoperibolic calorimeter inside >a water mass flow calorimeter, and the former registers excess heat when the >Pd-D reaches the gamma phase at D/Pd > 0.85 and the latter does not even >though it is quite sensitive enought to see it. Elliot, Is that vertical or horizontal flow calorimetry? ------------------------------------------------------ > I don't believe that our data disproves the existence of excess >heat, but it does call into question the validity of isoperibolic >calorimetry for electrolytic cells. Have you published this? put it into peer-review? It does not seem correct? Every other type introduces additional terms, and therefore greater opportunity for problems, errors, and noise. Please explain, or give a pointer. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------ > Unfortunately, here again we are quite sure that our positive >results are due to flaws in the calorimetry, rather than to real excess heat. Could you please be more specific about the flaws? Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 03:12:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 03:10:17 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 05:09:40 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Disposition of the NHE body To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"SfPOL2.0.3l.8ow7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10838 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com September 17, 1997 There has been no news or discussions that I am aware of, of the future disposition of the facilities and the the accumulated experimental records of the NHE project. An excellent CF oriented laboratory was built from the ground up. I would say a sizeable portion of the claimed $20 million spent has been in the physical plant itself. There has been no national accounting that I am aware of. Much custom built equiptment . In use only four years. MITI is hardly the appropriate organization to retain the records or the facilities. At the same time, I do not believe the whole thing is being dumped as surplus or sold to private entities. Speculating, I would like to believe the NHE ball of wax is going to be transferred to a closeby national university. Sort of like an inter-departmental transfer. Makes sense to me. If it is the Sapporo University (one of the old Imperial [now 'National'] University system which includes Tokyo and Kyoto University among others), then NHE may be alive and well albeit now in academic gowns and another name. And I believe Sapporo U. is an activity center in the cf field and the institution is nationally funded. A wonderful (planned?) opportunity for them. If MITI does this, it would be consistant with their past actions of initiating a direction of interest for Japan and then letting others take off with it. So the NHE closedown may be in name only. -AK- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 20:26:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:17:36 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:20:46 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Changing Cell Constant joke Resent-Message-ID: <"j4BsI3.0.n75.Flq7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10833 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:53 PM 9/16/97 -0400, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex >4. Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a >Bouyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. > >5. Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric >Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. > >These two are imaginary. Schwarz reported here that he has never tested them >in a physical experiment, as opposed to a "thought experiment" or computer >simulation. These two are reports, and are not imaginary, nor are the matter and issues discussed within them. They involve calibration which corrects pseudo-"kilowatt" outputs semiquantitatively to perhaps the ~watt level. Also, FYI, I have not discussed my research here, Jed. Furthermore, the Bernard instability is well-known despite your statements that it is not important. In fact, for small delta-T, it can be significant. =================================================== > To be precise: the effects may be real but they are too small to >be measured with ordinary equipment in ordinary operating domains. Jed, you are precise (reproducible), but this requires accuracy. To be accurate, the effects are real, and their magnitude, and the sensitivity of equipment determines if they are detectible, and important. =================================================== >This can >be seen in the calibration data from any flow calorimeter, even the ultra- >high quality ones from SRI. There is noise in the data of course, and these >effects may explain some of it, but the noise is insignificant compared to the >CF signal we are searching for. Noise should be measured. At least you are speaking about it. Now how about some numbers. And if you use flow calorimetry be sure to include the noise from the Bernard instability, the flow pumps, the additional heaters, and the estimates of error made from non-in-line real time flow measurements. Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 04:09:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:06:41 -0700 (PDT) From: chronos@enter.net (Robert G. Flower) To: vortex Subject: (fwd) New CERN preprint on transmutations in palladium Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:25:14 GMT Organization: Applied Science Associates Resent-Message-ID: <"TKptK3.0.3p5.-cx7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10839 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 EAA13856 Report title: "Unexpected Elements from Saturated Palladium" Report date: 28 April 1997 The URL (below) is broken into 2 lines, which must be combined into one. On 15 Sep 1997 03:40:55 GMT, in sci.physics.fusion "Lou Pagnucco" wrote: >Just a quick question from an interested layman - > >Has anyone read the recently posted CERN preprint on evidence of >transmutations >in paladium at the URL given below? > >http://preprints.cern.ch/cgi-bin/send_tiff_frame.sh.cgi?/archive/electronic/ >scan/9709/SCAN-9709020.tif > >If so, is the methodology sound? >-- >Regards, >L. Pagnucco X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 07:28:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:21:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:18:12 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Changing Cell Constant joke To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"04gCL.0._y.3U-7q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10840 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: These two are reports, and are not imaginary, nor are the matter and issues discussed within them. They involve calibration which corrects pseudo-"kilowatt" outputs semiquantitatively to perhaps the ~watt level. Also, FYI, I have not discussed my research here, Jed. Furthermore, the Bernard instability is well-known despite your statements that it is not important. In fact, for small delta-T, it can be significant. Oh give us a break, Mitch! That is *really* annoying! "A small Delta-T"? How small?!? Under what conditions? At what flow rate? What are you talking about? Take a typical small experiment: power is between 1 and 20 watts, the flow rate is 30 to 60 ml per minute, and mixing is ensured with in-line beads and a Venturi. Tell us how much noise this Bernard instability would produce under these circumstances. How about a large scale experiment where the power is 1000 watts, the flow rate is a liter per minute, and mixing is ensured by taking samples and stirring them with end of thermometer. Every expert I asked, including McKubre and Mike Schaffer here on Vortex , has said that the Bernard Instabilities you cite cannot possibly cause measurable, significant noise in the normal operating modes and domains used in flow calorimetry. Show us the "small delta-T" and the calibration data that shows this spurious pseudo-"kilowatt" power with watt level input. Tell us *exactly* what the flow rate is. While you are at it, tell us who saw this happen, when, where, on what date, and where it was published. If you are not willing to do that than please stop making these unfounded assertions. You make these cryptic statements. You refuse to quantify them or describe them in terms of an actual experiment in the real world. You will not give us hard data. And you expect us to take you seriously? You are no better than the NHE scientists, who hav e been spreading baseless rumors about "giant holes" in the Pons and Fleischmann calorimetry for years. I first heard that b.s. from Okamoto at ICCF4, as I recall. I have been waiting ever since for the details. But of course they will never tell us what they are talking about. They will not publish. They'll spread allegations via e-mail and whispering campaigns at conferences until MITI puts them out of their misery. They are trying to shift attention from their own failure by spreading nonsense about other people's work. I suppose you must be doing the same thing with these claims about converting watts to kilowatts by accident. Since both you and the NHE refuse to quantify or test your ideas, or even clearly s tate them in public, I suspect you are both playing politics. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 09:34:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:23:26 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Sci. Am. on electric vehicles To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"008pH.0.0o1.4F08q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10845 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex The latest issue of Scientific American is devoted to transportation technologies. It includes a good article on hybrid electric automobiles, a subject I raised here. The article shows why they are more energy efficient and less polluting than ICE-only au tomobiles, and more practical than pure electric ones. This technology is long overdue, I think. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 09:00:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:50:48 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Re: Wrong Solar "Model"? Resent-Message-ID: <"xmwVb.0.dT.Xn_7q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10842 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >eou/o917.txt >On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 olso3562 novell.uidaho.edu wrote: >-snip- > >>> ><> > >> > >>Electron has L# of 1, positron has L# of -1, and antineutrino has L# > >>of -1. It doesn't work out. Perhaps both a neutrino and an > >>antineutrino are created? BTW, do neutrinos annihilate in nature? > >>What is released when/if they do? > >> > >>JAY OLSON > >> >Great Question! but I (lately) would think not..they would.should create >even SMALLER (aether) spin-OFFS (upon meeting each other). I say lately >as I've been (trying like crazy) to follow ROSS TESSIEN's post's on this. > "He'd be the one to ask," but I would think, depending on the spin and >direction of these 'neutral' particals - collision would just produce a >rare (if any possible) perfect 'null' bounce Nice supposition, but I don't think so. Working with the notion of standing waves is wierd. You cannot work with "particle" like collisions at the fundamental level because there aren't any. What there are, are regions of aether that have convergent resonances, spherical is the least complex to try to describe here. Protons are beyond any verbal notion save to describe the phase angles, but that will give you no notion of the donut shaped toroidal structure. Actually, I think in Hawking's new version of "A Breif History of Time", there is a n illustration of Feynman at a black board with a toroid that is a bit like the general structure of the proton, based on my model. But what you must realize is that the waves are traveling outward and inward at c, so in a couple of seconds, you see how large the extent of each electron and or positron standing wave is. ie, in any event it is going to be very much larger than the siz e of the particle. Now notice something very important about that. That wave structure is nothing more or less than the "field" of the "particle". But it is really just one structure as far as nature is concerned. Another thing about waves that becomes apparent is that when you talk about colliding them, this is sort of non sensical. How do you collide two structures that are already inside of one another? As an example, I am way over here, you are way over there , we are both composed of standing waves, therefore we are both wave structures too. Therefore in the past 10 seconds, my wave energy has diverged by 1.86M miles and altered the course of other wave energy converging into me. The same has happened for y ou and your wave energy. But notice that my wave energy is altering the course of waves out in space in the identical volumes as are your waves wave energy. So, you and I are actually inside of one another if we consider the waves and the wave convergences to all be part and par cel with our structure. So in the wave approach, there is never any true collision like what you are thinking. While in the particle approach we are only ever concerned with where the center of convergence of the wave structure is headed, and ignore the greater extent. So instead, we invent the notion that matter is unpredictable and uncertain in its behavior. This QM invention is extremely useful for predicting what we will observe. But it has no place in a "fundamental theory" where we purport to be describing the f undamental nature of the universe. It is a statistical tool to analyze experiments, and not a description of what really took place. Understanding the wave nature allows you to think about neutrinos in a different manner. They can be "massive" in the sense that they confine aether to a greater density in their standing wave. Now I don't for certain know if this is what happens, becau se the wave energy could lose coherency and dissipate into the background thermal motions of the aether ocean we live in. But, I think that neutrinos are just like electrons and positrons, muon neutrinos just like muon and anti muons, and tauon neutrinos are just like tauons and anti tauons. The **only** difference in their internal structure being the phase angle they vibr ate at relative to spacetime. Neutral particles have a net zero, or a net vibration at either 90 or 270 degrees. ie, no net vibration, or if there is a net vibration, it is at the orthogonal phase relationship. Any single neutrino would have a net vibration at one of those angles. Therefore, neutrinos are "charged" as far as other neutrinos are concerned, and they must emit gammas just like electron positron pair annihilation. Gammas being a photon which has a geometry a bit like a smoke ring. The difference between a photon wave structure and particle standing wave structures being that with particles, the pressure and density, ie the intensity of the focusing of the wave ene rgy into the interior of the convergence is so great that it induces the change of aether state to the condensate form. It is this non linearity which allows the particle to exist indefinitely because this is why the wave energy converges in the first pl ace. All you are really dealing with is refraction in three dimensions in a wave structure. ie, like on the ocean which would be two dimensions where an island alters the wave propogation characteristics and induces a refractive convergence of the waves towar d the island, and where on the ocean you have a choppy bunch of waves all over the place. the waves that are moving through such a structure are refracted globally by the island, and locally by the individual wave crests. The individual refractions are what allows a global standing wave structure to manifest, ie spacetime. And spacetime is what allows particles to exist via converging phase and frequency timed waves into the spherical resonance. So, I think you should expect that where the density of neutrinos is really large, that they should encounter one another and annihilate, emitting gammas just like their "real" counterparts. And, heavier neutrinos like muon ought to decay along lines similar to muon and anti muon decays, thus you wind up with heavier neutrinos changing to lighter neutrino forms. Now, go check out the sun, you will find that about 1/3 of the expected neutrinos are observed. I haven't spent a lot of time on this particular subject, but that is what I think is going on based on what time I have spent. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 09:25:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:17:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:16:11 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"29qxW3.0.YZ1.9A08q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10843 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Being able to make a replica of the Dean Drive move across a table was explained as due to the difference between sliding and static friction, if memory serves. It seemed to me back then that a better test of the Dean Drive would have been to attach one to a battery, put the combination in a tub in a swimming pool, turn the drive on, and see if the tub moved. Did anyone ever try that? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 09:31:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:18:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:17:06 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Laureates' Letter Resent-Message-ID: <"ZBPJi.0.wd1.MB08q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10844 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Has anyone seen the full text of the open letter by the Nobel laureates (26 at last count?), from several different fields, opposing the patent reform bill already passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and now being considered by the U.S. Senate? If so, would someone please post a copy to Vortex-L? The letter seems to be a public document that the signers want to see disseminated as widely as possible. Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 06:58:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:30:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:33:11 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"CKHy_.0.J42.8qI8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10879 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin - > I believe US quarters contain some nickel. There > could therefore be a complex magnetic rather > than gravitational effect. I suggest therefore > that the test mass itself also be made of wood or > plastic. Maybe John can fill us in on the details of the experiments where other targets were used, but I'm split over this. On the one hand, I'd want to try faux superconductor replacements, strong magnets in place of quarters, and of course different target mate rials. On the other, this whole thing, quarters, SC, coils and all, is one bundle suspended together - what sort of "complex magnetic" effect could make the whole package lose a gram when the quarters are there, but little or nothing when they aren't? I t hink that might be asking too much from ordinary pocket change. Maybe magnetic fields from the suspended apparatus are grabbing onto some external magnetic material accidently left in close to the experiment, or perhaps the earth's field. Human error is a lways a possibility. Maybe there are fields acting on the current carrying litz wire feeding the coils - but again, why would that be dependent on how many quarters you have? John, you used alternatives to quarters in some runs, didn't you? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 10:49:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:44:09 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive References: <970917121327_-29099117 emout08.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"4hwHk3.0.hD5.oQ18q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10846 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tstolper aol.com wrote: > > Being able to make a replica of the Dean Drive move across a table was > explained as due to the difference between sliding and static friction, if > memory serves. > > It seemed to me back then that a better test of the Dean Drive would have > been to attach one to a battery, put the combination in a tub in a swimming > pool, turn the drive on, and see if the tub moved. Did anyone ever try that? This would be a good test method, Tom! I mounted my old Dean-drive model on good ball bearings and got zero NET movement. Another good test would to use a suspended platform and look for NET deflection from the null position - taking care to calibrate said null position with rotors properly positioned for the specific design. I remember old photos in a magazine (can't remember mag!) of such suspended tests. If the drive had really worked, I think NASA would be all over the idea. I know I would! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 11:02:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:47:08 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"LAf-d3.0.XQ5.LV18q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10847 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/17/97 4:31:26 PM, Tom Stoler wrote: <> A fellow by the name of Cook came close with a similar drive that he has powering a boat across a swimming pool. I would still worry about an attenuated version of the two forms of friction, even in water. It is now agreed that the best test for such de vices is to suspend them from the ceiling and see if they hang at an angle because of the generated thrust. That's the acid test. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 10:55:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:48:19 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:49:12 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sci. Am. on electric vehicles References: <199709171026_MC2-20D3-11D9 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"qRhTC2.0.0m5.XV18q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10848 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > The latest issue of Scientific American is devoted to transportation > technologies. It includes a good article on hybrid electric automobiles, This technology is long overdue, I think. > Yes! Good article, Jed. Hey Scott - what are your words of wisdom on the flywheel system outlined in the article? Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 11:21:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:11:41 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client mothost.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:06:24 -0500 References: <19970910194422.AAA10033 LOCALNAME> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Nucleate Boiling Phenomena and implications. Resent-Message-ID: <"FsCi6.0.eF7.Rr18q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10849 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 11, 3:17am, Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > >Apart from the water link, I don't follow the correlation. Are you talking > >about the nucleation site reasons? Can you elaborate? > > Trying to break a buuble, John? :-) Ever hear of the of the > Wilson Cloud Chamber or the "Bubble Chamber" used to detect > "Charged Particles"? No. My apologies if I should have. My background is mechanical systems not energy systems. 8^) > These create "Nucleation Sites" , do they not? A Simple matter of > the water vapor (highly polar) essentially "hydrating" the charged > particles, very fast too. Thus a visible track. > > If local heating creates the LL +/- pair then you are going to get > a bubble started. I would be interesting in reading up on this technology a little. I think our conversation may be a bit more productive once I do. Any sugestions? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 11:49:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:46:08 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:43:32 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Changing Cell Constant joke To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"mDd851.0.Rd1.kL28q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10850 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: Well, generally we try to make delta-T's more than 20-30C, and in fact, often keep it about as high as 60C. Your delta-T are a few degrees. Is that not correct? Yes. So are McKubre's, Storms and most others in the literature. Yet during calibration they see no gross distortions or unexplained noise. Therefore your hypothesis is wrong. Furthermore, the delta-T of the Bernard instabilities is on the order of a degree. Is that not correct? No, it cannot be correct! If it were true, the calibrations at SRI would show massive unexplained noise of 4.2 watts. Yet their noise level is hundreds of times smaller. If these instabilities could produce 1 degree C errors with ordinary flow rates, flow calorimetry would not have been invented. It would not work. I must say thank you, though. At last you have laid your cards on the table. As I requested, you have quantified your hypothesis and given us many actual experiments we can refer to. You assert, for example, that with McKubre's 60 ml minute flow, during calibration and at any other time he should see random fluctuations as large a s 1 deg C. Ri-i-i-ght, sure! I hope that Elliot Kennel will also open up, and he too will give us quantitative reasons to back up his assertions. He can make any boil off control experiment "invariably" show false 300% excess heat. Perhaps he will show that two-thirds of the water le aves in droplets? For years people at the NHE and Okamoto have been hinting, winking and nudging me, and saying "we can disprove Pons and Fleischmann any old time, trust us, we know what's wrong." Their project leader Asami bragged about that in the Yomiu ri, Japan's largest newspaper. For three years I have waited to hear what kind of b.s. they have in mind. Maybe we'll get lucky and they will tell us. As I understand your expt you did not measure, real-time inline flow, but disassembled the flow path, and without the resistive load, measured the flow into a container for a limited time period. Is that not correct? Or did you measure in-line flow during the entire experiment? . . . This is NOT to say there is not excess heat, but -- again -- 500 milliwatts of real excess is more important than a "kilowatt" of magnified uncalibrated result. As I understand your English (barely), this cryptic statement is a re-hash of the "interrupted flow" hypothesis. This is an attempt to explain away the PowerGen demonstration results. According to this hypothesis, the flow rate changed radically when the cooling water was diverted into a cup, and then it changed back when the loop was reconnected to the pump reservoir. As I have pointed out dozens of times -- and as Mitch knows as well as I do -- this is nonsense, for the following reasons: 1. To make 500 milliwatts look like 1000 watts, the flow rate would have to change from 1 liter per minute to a half-milliliter. In other words, it would change from a glass of water every 15 seconds to one small drop of water. Yet anyone observing the ex periment could see that the water continued to flow rapidly. Anyone could see and hear it splash back into the pump reservoir, and see bubbles move rapidly through the tubes. A sane person can tell the difference between water pouring into a plastic cylin der at the rate of a glassful every 10 seconds and water dripping in at one drop per 10 seconds. Anyone who would dispute this assertion is out of touch with everyday reality. I will grant that the flow rate might hypothetically have changed, but not by a factor of 2000! 2. However, I do not have to grant any such thing, because the temperature of the outlet flow did not change measurably when the path was interrupted and reestablished. Therefore the flow rate could have changed much. Obviously, if you momentarily change a flow from 0.5 ml (or even 500 ml) to 1 liter, and then you change it back, the outlet thermocouples would show sudden fluctuations. They did not. They would disagree with the external sample temperature, which was large enough to drain the cell several times over, and cool it down the Delta T from 17 deg C to a tiny fraction of 1 degree. They did not. 3. Actually, the calorimeter could not detect 0.5 watts at any flow rate, under any conditions. When power levels 0.5 milliwatts were run in the dummy cell and in the real cell during the 20 minutes before the excess heat it turned on, no heat was detecte d. Actually, as I recall, it came out as "anomalous cold." The fluid entering the cell was warmed up by the pump and the aux heater. It cooled off a bit between the inlet and the outlet. A half-watt of electrolysis could never have warmed it up enough to detect with such crude instruments. The cell was not insulated and there was plenty of thin tubing between the cell and the outlet thermocouples. At a flow rate of 0.5 ml per minute, the water would have been room temperature by the time it reached the ou tlet thermocouple, not 17 degrees hotter than the inlet. 4. I gather you are suggesting that the heat was about a half-watt. If you are asserting that the excess was really 800 watts instead of 1000 or 1300 watts, I can't argue and I couldn't care less. Neither could Cravens. 5. The experiment was performed previously and subsequently with extensive flow metering, which showed no significant fluctuations. It was also calibrated. Actually, Jed, I published the hard data, and it went through peer review. Did you check out the equations? Were some dimensionally incorrect, Jed? If your hypothesis predicts noise levels of 1 degree in the flow calorimeters at SRI, the NHE, Los Alamos, Chris Tinsley's dining room or anywhere else then it is wrong. Extravagantly wrong! You have proved once again that just about anything can get thro ugh peer review. Nate Lewis got a paper through peer review in which he ignored a 1 degree C temperature elevation in an isoperibolic calorimeter. You have achieved a similar accomplishment by inventing a 1 deg C temperature in flow calorimeters. His real 1 deg C temperature lingered for weeks, while he ignored it. Your 1 deg C has not never been seen in the 97 year history of flow calorimeters . . . On balance, I would say your mistake is worse than his. To answer your question, no I did not check the equations. I am incapable of doing that. My mathematical abilities has regressed back to about seventh grade. However, I am capable of seeing the difference between a cup of water and a drop of water, and I know from looking at the data from many flow calorimeters that they do not suffer from mysterious 1 deg C fluctuations during calibration with joule heaters, or at any other time. Experience in the real world teaches me that your hypothesis must be wrong. BTW, if you want to be taken seriously and/or if you want to improve your papers though (often harsh) criticism, Jed, you might try the channels directly through the physics or electrochemical communities. God forbid I should ever be taken seriously by the physics community or any other branch of establishment science. I would never submit my ideas for "peer review" with people like Lewis, Lindley, Morrison or Hoffman. If they approved I would assume I made a mistake. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 12:02:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:50:57 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Baser beam Bose Condensate remediation To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"cwB4b1.0.9q.KT28q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10851 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex There is a confused article in the Atlanta Constitution today, September 17, 1997. It is about remediating nuclear waste with something called a "Baser" which produces Bose condensates. That's Greek to me. Anyway, it would appear that people have come up with a conventional science method of large scale transmutation. Here are a few quotes from the article: BEYOND LASERS, American brainpower fuels energy advances, by Mona Charen What is the greatest environmental hazard we face? Arguably, it is nuclear waste. . . . Wouldn't it be wonderful if nuclear waste could be denuked? Enter human ingenuity. Toiling at a company called American Technologies Group, together with the California Institute of Technology, a team of scientists led by Dr. Shui-Yin Lo is working on an invention called the Baser. The Baser may solve the problem of nuclear waste entirely -- while creating new, clean energy in the process. The Baser is a particle-beam laser consisting of (steady now) Bose-Einstein condensates. . . . . . . Lohas patented the process, to create a beam out of particles of Bose-Einstein condensates that could make lasers look crude and weak by comparison. The Baser beam has the power to transform radioactive wastes into non-nuclear, benign materials. In the process, heat will be created that can be used for other purposes. It could be the start of a new era. . . . X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 12:26:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:23:14 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:20:17 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"byEw12.0.-t3.Wu28q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10852 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Frank, Harold, and Tom, > > memory serves. > > > > It seemed to me back then that a better test of the Dean Drive would have > > been to attach one to a battery, put the combination in a tub in a swimming > > pool, turn the drive on, and see if the tub moved. Did anyone ever try that? > > This would be a good test method, Tom! I mounted my old Dean-drive > model on good ball bearings and got zero NET movement. > > Another good test would to use a suspended platform and look for NET > deflection from the null position - taking care to calibrate said null > position with rotors properly positioned for the specific design. > I remember old photos in a magazine (can't remember mag!) of such > suspended tests. If the drive had really worked, I think NASA would be > all over the idea. I know I would! The Thornson EZKL drive was shown on videotape to meet both of those tests. Of course it is possible that the tape was faked but there are also independent affidavits. Half of the Thornson drive was replicated in Tom Valone's lab and performed as described by the inventor. As well, computer simulations based on the Newtonian e quations of motion predict the precise behavior seen! Here is a quote from Tom's report: TESTS BY THORNSON For the past ten years, Mr. Thornson has tested various models and recently released a videotape of the following tests (Thornson, 1990). 1) In 1983, a 17 pound two wheel bench model on a plastic float propelled itself across the surface of water. 2) In 1989, suspended 15 feet by a wire the mass of the model moved to one side only away from its center offset point and maintained its position. The model did not swing to the opposite side. 3) In 1989, a 60 pound prototype with 4 lb planet masses operated at 30 RPM with a 40 W. motor and a 12 volt battery demonstrated a motive force that propelled a 12 foot boat with a gross weight of 320 pounds at 14 ft/minute. This test was conducted by AJP Engineering services with a written report submitted by Arthur Pankratz, P. Eng. proving "the Thornson Drive provides motive power." There are several more along these lines, as well as descriptions of notarized endorements by: Ian Merta Ph.D. (Fellow of the Institute Of Diagnostic Engineers) Ronald Rice, Ph.D., P.E (Professor of civil engineering, University Of Toronto) And others. Of course none of this proves anything. Videos can be faked and professors can be bamboozled but it at least points to an interesting area of investigation. The Thorson drive patent can be seen at http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4631971 You will see if you look at the patent that it is considerably simpler than the Dean drive. If anyone is interested in the 15 pages I have on this drive I can scan and send them next week. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 18:04:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:56:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:49:48 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Baser beam Bose Condensate remediation References: <970917173551.ZM12431@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"xSQV_2.0.PS7.9n78q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10866 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Is it the atom laser? >> 01/27/97 MIT physicists demonstrate first atom laser CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--MIT physicists have created the first atom laser, a device that is analogous to an optical laser but emits atoms instead of light. The resulting beam of atoms can be focused to a pinpoint or made to travel large distances with minimal spreading. In addition, the atoms have the remarkable property of being coherent--they "march in lockstep" to form a single giant matter wave. The atom laser was a long-sought goal in physics, but there were many doubts whether it could be realized. Early one morning last November, however, MIT physicists led by Assistant Professor Wolfgang Ketterle cheered as they successfully completed an experiment that demonstrated the atom laser. When a regular pattern of dark and bright lines appeared on their computer screen, they knew that they had directly observed the matter waves they hoped they had created. The new laser, which will be reported in the January 31 issue of Science with an accompanying paper in the January 27 issue of Physical Review Letters, could have a variety of applications in fundamental research and in industry. "Today, if you have a demanding job for light, you use an optical laser. In the future, if there is a demanding job for atoms, you may be able to use an atom laser," said Professor Ketterle, who holds appointments in the Department of Physics and the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE). << Or this one? cond-mat/9709038 From: Markus Holzmann Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:54:36 +0200 (MET DST) Shaping an ultracold atomic soliton in a travelling wave laser beam Authors: Markus Holzmann, Juergen Audretsch Comments: 5 pages, Latex, to published in Europhys. Lett An ultracold wave packet of bosonic atoms loaded into a travelling laser wave may form a many-atom soliton.This is disturbed by a homogeneous force field, for example by the inevitable gravitation. The wave packet is accelerated and therefore the laser fr equency appears to be chirped in the rest frame of the atoms. We derive the effective nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation. It shows a time dependent nonlinearity coefficient which amounts to a damping or antidamping, respectively. The accelerated packet solu tion remains a soliton which changes its shape adiabatically. Similarly, an active shaping can be obtained in the force-free case by chirping the laser frequency thus representing a way of coherent control of the soliton form. The experimental consequence s are discussed. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 14:37:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:21:37 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive References: <199709171923.MAA16526 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"ac2u11.0.3V6.Dd48q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10853 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > (snip) > 2) In 1989, suspended 15 feet by a wire the mass of the model moved to one > side only away from its center offset point and maintained its position. > The model did not swing to the opposite side. > Hi Fred. This is all it takes! Where the hell is the inventor? The next step is to enclose the drive in a box, cover the box with grounded aluminum foil (ground through the suspension wires) and make sure the rig is a few feet from any feromagnetic crap. This takes care of aerodynamic thrust and the electromagnetic force. If the damn thing still works -- THE INVENTOR SHOULD SHOW IT TO NASA (GET THE LOCAL CONGRESS PERSON TO PUT ON PRESSURE IF REGUIRED). If the inventor can't do this, then he deserves a six-page tirade from Jed on the stupidity of some inventors! H ell, set one up as an "art" mobile in Times Square if necessary! Do something to get attention! NASA's ion thrusters put out millipounds of thrust - it doesn't take much to drive a starship - but, it does take REAL thrust! Any reactionless drive would probably be a cousin to a gravity modification concept and might have some OU implications too! Waiting for the inventor to make some waves --- Frank Stenger P.S. Thanks for the info, Fred! X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 14:56:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:52:35 -0700 X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:52:17 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: Changing Cell Constant joke Resent-Message-ID: <"oBlpL.0.Xz4.Y458q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10854 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz writes: >At 10:18 AM 9/17/97 -0400, Jed wrote: [snip] >>Under what conditions? At what flow rate? What are you talking about? > >As I understand your expt you did not measure, real-time inline flow, >but disassembled the flow path, and without the resistive load, measured >the flow into a container for a limited time period. Is that not correct? >Or did you measure in-line flow during the entire experiment? and correct >for the upward Bernard instability? Boy, does this bring back the memories: On the old SPF forum, Mitchell Jones, who has been long-gone, led the charge in debunking Jed's outrageous 1.5-kilowatt-excess claim for the PowerGen demo which took place, if I am not mistaken, almost two years ago. The big problem for Jed, at that time, was that the experimental evidence accumulated by Mitchell Jones and others was *against* Jed, and in favor of there having been a sizable resistance-load in the flow circuit which Jed had bypassed by breaking the ci rcuit to measure the flow-rate. By the end of the debate, even the TBs, like myself, had sided with the experimental evidence and rejected Jed's excess-power claim as grossly inflated due to incompetence on his part. Instead of admitting his mistake, Jed has always denied it, and he still denies it as his response to Swartz shows. To me, Jed's denial that he made a mistake -- in spite of the evidence, which IMO was overwhelming -- is a good example of one of the differences between someone with proper credentials (for example, Swartz: PhD, MD), and someone with improper credentials (for example, Jed: undergrad degree in basket-weaving from Podunk U?): A big part in gaining proper credentials of the physical-science PhD kind, is that the recipient learns that he is fallible, and that he must accept and respond to reasoned and/or evidence-backed criticism not with ego-driven denial a-la Jed, but instead with either corrections on his part if the objections hold, or a refutation of the objections by a similarly reasoned and/or evidence-backed refutation of those objections. Kurt Johmann -- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 15:31:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:27:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:26:56 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Changing Cell Constant joke Resent-Message-ID: <"3dDVA3.0.JW7.Qb58q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10857 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Kurt Johmann wrote: > > Boy, does this bring back the memories: > > On the old SPF forum, Mitchell Jones, who has been long-gone, led the > charge in debunking Jed's outrageous 1.5-kilowatt-excess claim for the > PowerGen demo which took place, if I am not mistaken, almost two years > ago. > Yeah it brings back memories for me too! BUT you have to crazy to believe Mitchel Jones over Jed. To be kind to Mitchel Jones would be to call him ego-centric and incompetent. (Jed is merely ego-centric :-)!) Mitchel Jones completely ignored the cooling c apabilities of the system. I showed that with some simple assumptions the PowerGen demo could happily put out 400 watts in a steady state (no rising temperature). I looked into this in some detail and talked with Cravens about what happened. Cravens was a ctually a bit annoyed that Jed said the device puts out 1 Kilowatt. What happened was that the system did put out about 1 kilowatt during Jed's measurements. As soon as Cravens found out the power output he immediately moved to reduce the power. No doubt that the temperature of the whole container was rising during Jed's measurements. The next day the system was operating at about 400 watts - as it was designed to do. The outcome of the Powergen debacle was that the crazy skeptics convinced themselves that Mitchel Jones had proven Jed couldn't have measured 1 kilowatt output. None of them actually did anything themselves and Jones apperatus was NOTHING like the Cravens device. Furthermore there is plenty of evidence to suggest than the device was producing 1 Kilowatt, which was over the design tolerence of the cooling system (as witness Cravens rushing to turn the thing down.) So the Powergen demo has become an Urban M yth. Morrison dismisses it saying "until it was proven that the device would have melted if it was actually putting out 1 kilowatt". By who? Jeeze! You'd think that a 400 watt device would be hard to ignore and it would! CETI have since stopped doing thin gs like this for their own inscrutable reasons and have instead asked people to try to look for evidence of transmutations. To me 400 watts of heat would be far more convincing that they've got some interesting technology. Now Jed wasn't the only one to see the device. Frank Z and many others including Professor Miley were there too. We've never heard other accounts and probably never will. It's all so frustrating! Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 15:38:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:36:12 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:35:51 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Baser beam Bose Condensate remediation Resent-Message-ID: <"Plmc32.0.O_7.Qj58q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10858 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > The Baser is a particle-beam laser consisting of > > (steady now) Bose-Einstein condensates. . . . Did a good search on various keywords and turned up the company (ATG), and nothing else. There is a brief mention of the Baser program and Dr. Lo on their site, but no press releases of any advancements in that program. Last update on the press release page was yesterday so I would assume it is up to date. Is it possible this article is not revealing a discovery, but discussing an outline of the program objectives? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 16:03:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:59:20 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:04:14 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"sNoee.0.pA1.7368q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10859 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Frank, > > 2) In 1989, suspended 15 feet by a wire the mass of the model moved to one > > side only away from its center offset point and maintained its position. > > The model did not swing to the opposite side. > > > > Hi Fred. This is all it takes! Where the hell is the inventor? I don't know, he put out his videotape in 1990 and there is also a dossier available from P.A.C.E at http://energie.keng.de/~pace/index.htm which I have not seen. the inventors address is given as: B.R. Thornson Fortune Ventures 122 Quail Ridge #414 Winnipeg, Manitoba R2Y 2E9 > > > Any reactionless drive would probably be a cousin to a gravity > modification concept and might have some OU implications too! It seems like what all of the devices, including the Woodward patent, have in common, is what was called in the Analog articles, "jerk", or acceleration of acceleration. I have suggested on the list previously that time/gravity effects might result even from the simple case of an accelerating rotating disc. > > > P.S. Thanks for the info, Fred! No problem, its an interesting device, Tom Valone calls it "todays most successful Inertial Propulsion drive". I always wondered why nobody had ever mentioned it before on the lists-- of course I wonder about that for a LOT of things :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 16:39:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:17:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [off topic] FIREBALL Resent-Message-ID: <"2VS0d2.0.su2.nF68q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10860 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com eou/o917.txt On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 NASANews hq.nasa.gov wrote: >>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:50:33 -0400 (EDT) >>From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov >>To: undisclosed-recipients: ; >>Subject: Hubble Stays on Trail of Fading Gamma-Ray Burst Fireball, Results Point to Extragalactic Origin >> >>Don Savage >>Headquarters, Washington, DC September 16, 1997 >>(Phone: 202/358-1547) >> >>Tammy Jones >>Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD >>(Phone: 301/286-5566) >> >>Ray Villard >>Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD >>(Phone: 410/338-4514) >> >> >>RELEASE: 97-201 >> >>HUBBLE STAYS ON TRAIL OF FADING GAMMA-RAY BURST FIREBALL, >>RESULTS POINT TO EXTRAGALACTIC ORIGIN >> >> New Hubble Space Telescope observations of the ever- >>fading fireball from one of the universe's most mysterious >>phenomena -- a gamma-ray burst -- is reinforcing the emerging >>view that these titanic explosions happen far away in other >>galaxies, and so are among the most spectacularly energetic >>events in the universe. >> >> The most recent finding from observations with Hubble's >>Imaging Spectrograph made on Sept. 5 -- nearly six months >>after the blast -- is being reported today at the Fourth >>Huntsville Symposium on Gamma Ray Bursts, at NASA's Marshall >>Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL. >> >> "Hubble is the only telescope capable of continuing to >>watch the aftermath of this explosion, because it has faded >>to 1/500th its brightness when first discovered by >>ground-based telescopes last March," says Andrew Fruchter of >>the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, MD. >>"These observations provide an unprecedented opportunity to >>better understand the catastrophe behind such incredible >>outbursts." >> >>Hubble's key findings: >> >>1. The continued visibility of the burst, and the rate >>of its decline over time, support theories that produce the >>light from a gamma-ray burst in a "relativistic" fireball >>(expanding at nearly the speed of light) located at >>extragalactic distances. A burst in our galaxy, at the >>observed brightness, would have been slowed by the >>interstellar medium within the first few weeks and faded from >>sight by now. >> >>2. The observations contradict earlier claims, by some >>astronomers, that the gamma-ray burst is moving against the >>sky background (this offset is called proper motion). Had >>proper motion been detected, the gamma-ray burst would have >>had to be no farther than about 30,000 light years, or about >>the distance to the center of the galaxy. >> >>3. The fuzzy companion object in which the fireball is >>embedded -- as first confirmed by Hubble in March 26 >>observations -- has not noticeably faded. This means it is >>not a relatively nearby nebula produced by the explosion, but >>in all likelihood a host galaxy. >> >>4. Since the burst did not occur at the center of the >>host galaxy, but near its edge, the gamma-ray burst >>phenomenon is not related to activity in the nucleus of a >>galaxy. The Hubble observations support the "fireball" model >>for a gamma-ray burst. >> >> "These observations are consistent with colliding >>neutron stars creating the fireball, but do not require it. >>The cause of that fireball is still not determined. Though >>colliding neutron stars is one theoretical means of producing >>such a fireball, it is not the only one," says Fruchter. >> >> Hubble observations over the past six months show the >>fireball is fading at a constant rate, as predicted by >>theory. Eventually, gas plowed in front of the stellar tidal >>wave should build up enough resistance to bring the fireball >>to a halt -- like snow piling up in front of a plow -- and >>it should blink out. The fact that that hasn't happened yet, >>however, offers more clues to solving the gamma-ray burst >>mystery. >> >> If the burst had happened nearby, the resulting >>fireball should have had only enough energy to propel it into >>space for a month or so before "hitting the wall" of >>accumulated gas and dying out. The fact that this fireball >>has expanded to gargantuan size, sweeping out a bubble of >>space one light-year across, means the explosion was truly >>titanic and, to match the observed brightness, must have >>happened at the vast distances of galaxies. >> >> When Hubble first observed the fireball on March 27 >>(several weeks after the initial discovery), it was at 26th >>magnitude. The magnitude scale is used to measure the >>brightness of objects in space. The lower the magnitude, the >>brighter the object. The unaided eye can detect objects of >>the 6th magnitude. >> >> By the Sept. 5 observation it had faded to one-fifth >>that brightness to 27.7 magnitude (approximately 1/500,000 >>the brightness of the faintest star). The suspected host >>galaxy has remained at approximately 25th magnitude. >> >> Only Hubble has the resolution and contrast capability >>to still distinguish the fading fireball from the now- >>brighter host galaxy. The researchers hope for follow-up >>observations to continue keeping track of the burst's optical >>counterpart until it fades away. >> >> The Space Telescope Science Institute is operated by >>the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, >>Inc. (AURA) for NASA, under contract with the Goddard Space >>Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. The Hubble Space Telescope is >>a project of international cooperation between NASA and the >>European Space Agency (ESA). >> >> - end - >> >>EDITOR'S NOTE: Images to accompany this release are >>available electronically through the World Wide Web through >>links at http://www.stsci.edu or directly at URL: >> >>http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/30.html >> >>and via links at URLs: >> >>http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/Latest.html or >>http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/Pictures.html. >>http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR.html >> >>Image files also may be accessed via anonymous ftp from >>oposite.stsci.edu >>in /pubinfo: gif/grb0228b.gif (GIF) and jpeg/grb0228b.jpg >>(JPEG). >> >> X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 10:58:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:55:34 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:42:41 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"09TqV2.0.Ln.LiM8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10889 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dan - > Now make the T's joint a pivot, or replace the > vertical bar with a cord. In this case, no matter > where the mass is in the box, the T's leg will > hang vertically. So...I was right? I was assuming a flexible piece of line, like a rope. If something causes the supporting line to settle to a position off-vertical while it hangs (and isn't being acted on by magnets, isn't ejecting mass, etc.), then the thing at the end of the rope is generating a reactionless force, right? Wouldn't any bona-fide demonstration like that be verification of something extraordinary? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 17:02:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:36:32 -0700 (PDT) From: John Logajan Subject: Re: Dean Drive To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:35:10 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"p3Lak.0.1c3.zb68q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10861 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Francis Stenger wrote: > Fred Epps wrote: > > 2) In 1989, suspended 15 feet by a wire the mass of the model moved to one > > side only away from its center offset point and maintained its position. > > The model did not swing to the opposite side. > > Hi Fred. This is all it takes! Where the hell is the inventor? Careful -- it has to swing past what is obviously its maximum possible center of gravity. If I take a cigar box with a one kilo lead ball in it, moving the ball inside unseen to observers on the outside, will swing the box CG over a wide range (never outside the dimensions of the box, of course.) So you need more than just an offset from its static position, you actually need to know something about the potential displacement of the CG, which depends on the specific geometry of the device. -- - 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 Sep 17 17:06:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:40:51 -0700 (PDT) From: John Logajan Subject: Re: Baser beam Bose Condensate remediation To: v ortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:39:37 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"qg_ko1.0.xj3.0g68q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10862 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed wrote: > BEYOND LASERS, American brainpower fuels energy advances, by Mona Charen Mona Charen is a political columnist -- has demonstrated no previous expertise in physics, and therefore her report is likely nothing more that a reiteration of a press release from the company in question. -- - 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 Sep 18 19:41:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:14:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:59:28 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"RkCBv2.0.6g.Q0U8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10911 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Martin - > This sounds like the SC is included in the weight > of the object. If this is the case the explanation > is simple. Your SC is repelling some of the > magnetic field thus lightening the load. This points up some apparent confusion here, some of which is probably mine, but... My understanding of Schnurer's setup here is that the coils, the SC, and the target masses (quarters) are *all* stuck together in one package. The whole thing is weighed together while under LN2. He's not just weighing the quarters, and not just weighing the quarters and SC over some fixed coils. The thing that bothers me the most is those wires carrying current while connected to the hanging assembly. They have magnetic fields around them which may interact with the coils and SC fields, and they might tend to flex and move during current pulses. But why then would there be such a difference in force between runs with and without target masses? I think John pretty much nulls out their potential effect. Do the quarters somehow change the induction in the area above the SC so much that it increases or dramatically changes the geometry of the the push-off the hanging assembly might get against the litz wires' fields? That doesn't make sense to me, but I admit the question may need to be cleared by further refinements or versions of the experiment. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 08:56:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:48:10 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:51:23 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Changing Cell Constant joke Resent-Message-ID: <"vxPCE3.0.AO6.vk_7q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10841 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:18 AM 9/17/97 -0400, Jed wrote: >Mitchell Swartz writes: > > These two are reports, and are not imaginary, nor are the matter and > issues discussed within them. They involve calibration which corrects > pseudo-"kilowatt" outputs semiquantitatively to perhaps the ~watt level. > > Also, FYI, I have not discussed my research here, Jed. Furthermore, > the Bernard instability is well-known despite your statements that it is not > important. In fact, for small delta-T, it can be significant. > >Oh give us a break, Mitch! That is *really* annoying! "A small Delta-T"? How >small?!? Well, generally we try to make delta-T's more than 20-30C, and in fact, often keep it about as high as 60C. Your delta-T are a few degrees. Is that not correct? ------------ Furthermore, the delta-T of the Bernard instabilities is on the order of a degree. Is that not correct? >Under what conditions? At what flow rate? What are you talking about? As I understand your expt you did not measure, real-time inline flow, but disassembled the flow path, and without the resistive load, measured the flow into a container for a limited time period. Is that not correct? Or did you measure in-line flow during the entire experiment? and correct for the upward Bernard instability? ------------ Please also tell us again why the "kilowatts" disappear when the flow becomes horizontal as has been purportedly reported? This is NOT to say there is not excess heat, but -- again -- 500 milliwatts of real excess is more important than a "kilowatt" of magnified uncalibrated result. ------------ >You make these cryptic statements. You refuse to quantify them or describe >them in terms of an actual experiment in the real world. You will not give us >hard data. Actually, Jed, I published the hard data, and it went through peer review. Did you check out the equations? Were some dimensionally incorrect, Jed? Please let me know. Did you try correcting your signal based upon the additional transport factor? What did you get? Did your data go through peer review, Jed? Please let me know where your purported kilowatt data was published? Did you submit it to Fusion Technology? BTW, if you want to be taken seriously and/or if you want to improve your papers though (often harsh) criticism, Jed, you might try the channels directly through the physics or electrochemical communities. It would be good to see your experimental writeups go through scientific review, and then correction of the critical comments from the skeptics so that it appears in a serious scientific forum. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 17:04:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:55:34 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:55:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"onPH83.0.Gu3.qt68q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10863 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >If anyone is interested in the 15 pages I have >on this drive I can scan and send them next week. Hi Fred, I'd very much like that information. Have looked at the patent. The thing that interests me about this is that one component of the mechanical action that he's getting is very much like something I thought up a year or so ago. It's rather simple mechanically, *far* simpler than Thorsens, so it may not work. I was not able to do more than a crude physical mockup of the device so couldn't really test it beyond seeing that it has rather unusual momentum characteristics (including, as you mentioned as the 'common thread', intense changes in accelleration of its parts). Someday I'd like to see that idea built, it's too simple to not try. Anyway, if you could send the Thorsen info, assuming it's more than what's in the patent, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 17:57:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Baser beam Bose Condensate remediation Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:14:19 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"iqU5H2.0.5D5.1M78q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10864 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Inasmuch as recent widely spread feature stories about a Bose-Einstein condensate actually being created and verified were in a cryostat, I think we are some distance from anyone creating a Baser. Nice, high-concept physics, jobs for Tokomak layoffs, gove rnment grants. As usual, no media hype for the CETI and CG demonstrations, or even Joe Champion's oh-by-the-way been there, done that. Mike Carrell . X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 18:24:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:54:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:47:05 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"-dZ_m3.0.r46.ek78q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10865 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Dan, Yes, it is much more than in the patent..I will send it next week. It is copyrighted material or it would go to a site... sorry, no time to discuss the specifics of your post right now, but it is an interest of mine. Fred > > I'd very much like that information. Have looked at the patent. > Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 19:27:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:22:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:23:04 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive References: <199709172335.SAA15678 mirage.skypoint.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"zherB2.0.a95.V198q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10867 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: > > Careful -- it has to swing past what is obviously its maximum possible > center of gravity. > > If I take a cigar box with a one kilo lead ball in it, moving the ball > inside unseen to observers on the outside, will swing the box CG over > a wide range (never outside the dimensions of the box, of course.) > Yes - I'm with you, John! That's why I specified that the true null position must be determined as per the specific device design. I was not trying to prevent fraud in a blind test of a "black box" demo - but your point is a good one. Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 20:08:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:39:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:38:43 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: NHE/SRI, calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"vwXwJ3.0.nS2.pH98q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10868 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote... >>So I have heard. This claim has been made repeatedly, but I have not seen reports describing this claim. Pons and Fleischmann, Storms and the others disagree. They say the NHE is working in different domains and the problems it has discovered, like unbo iled water leaving the cell and room temperature changes cannot explain the data... Well, I have often been admonished to read the literature, so I will return the same admonition. Please check out: ICCF-6, H. Kamimura et al., "Excess Heat in Fuel Cell Type Cells from Pure Pd Cathodes Annealed at High Temperatures." It shows 4 excess heat results from 9 different cells, and loading ranging from 0.80 to 0.89. There is other more recent data which hasn't been published, but which follows the same trend. We do get excess heat results 40% of the time in this series of experiments. We also get high loading consistently. If you plot the excess heat versus loading, our plot looks like McKubre's plot, which looks like Kunimatsu's (IMRA Japan). Moreover, IMRA Japan's results were published in ICCF-3: K Kunimatsu et al, "Deuterium Loading Ratio and Excess Heat Genertion during Electrolysis of Heavy Water by a Palladium Cathode in a Closed Cell..." p. 31. Good reproducibility was claimed. The same experiment was repeated in a water mass flow calorimeter 26 times at IMRA Japan with no results: ICCF-6, T. Nakata et al., "Excess Heat Measurement at High Cathode Loading by Deuterium During Electrolysis of Heavy Water Using Pd Cathode," p.121. In other words, same experiment, same experimenters, same loading, but different calorimeter and no excess heat. To me it is very significant that this occurred, and I applaud the IMRA-Japan people for having the courage to publish their results. BTW, f or some reason this experiment has been attributed to us, and it has been critically stated that researchers should only do an experiment about seven times before giving up. This is nonsense. It is highly significant that the experiment works in one type of calorimeter but not in another. Both IMRA Japan and NHE Lab get similar results, BTW. As far as calorimetry is concerned, a critique was published of the Pons-Fleischmann method in ICCF-5: T. Saito et al., "Studies on the Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetry with ICARUS-1." This paper indicates that a disagreement exists with the Pons-Fleischmann model. Note especially that Saito et al observed that, using the PF model, the imaginary radiative heat transfer coefficient, k_R1 was observed to be larger than the real r adiative heat transfer coefficient k_R2, which is a physical impossibility. This results in errors of some 20% in estimating excess heat. Moreover, common sense ought to tell us that the use of a calibration cathode is a dubious procedure in a thermally active cell, in which heat can be generated not only at the cathode but also at the anode (both of which are excellent chemical cat alysts, by the way) and the electrolyte. The calibration cathode has no gamma phase, so why should it be expected to accurately model what happens in this unique phase of the Pd-D system? Anyway, if I may be permitted to make an unscientific characteriz atiion, isoperibolic calorimetry is the pits for this problem. Both Icarus-1 and Icarus-2 boiling cells were supplied by Pons and Fleischmann and extensively tested here. We used their cells, their palladium, their instrumentation (of course they may have used different stuff for their experiments). In the case of boiling cells, we were able to verify that the electrolyte is entrained in the vapor column by measuring the pH of the condensate. Whenever excess heat was calculated, it was always due to overestimating the vapor mass transport. This is not to say that P&F did not have valid results. It may be that their equipment generates nuclear excess heat in France and false positives in Japan. All we can say is that our results, using their equipment, was susceptible to false positives, an d for that reason we are not convinced by the data set which now exists. I might also remark that the reason for inventing a new type of calorimetry for ICARUS-9 (which unfortunately has not been tested outside of IMRA Europe to my knowledge) eludes me. Why not use water mass flow calorimetry, especially since the powe r level is so high? The business of judging the excess heat by measuring the radial temperature gradient and the height at which the electrolyte condenses in a thermal syphon seems obtuse at best. To me it is not credible to invent a new method of calor imetry and then immediately use it to claim proof of an anomaly. Anyway, for these reasons I believe that excess heat is at best elusive, and I'm no longer convinced that it exists at all. Mr. Rothwell claims to have some easy solutions, and I hope that he will soon convince some reliable laboratories to put t hem to the test. They might even work. But my view is that these laboratories also will become scapegoats when unambiguous results are not quickly obtained. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 20:25:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:22:49 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:22:34 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: marklin@flash.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate References: <1F3EC13FFE hawthorn.csrv.uidaho.edu> <3410CACF.715@flash.net> <3410D9C0.1B1A@math.ucla.edu> <341174B3.2138@flash.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"-vOd43.0.Un1.8w98q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eski mo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10869 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com George Marklin wrote: > > Barry Merriman wrote: > > > Huh? That is ridiculous. Bodies in gravitational orbits are > > accelerated, and if they are charged they will radiate, ... > > This is not correct. No, it is correct...it will radiate > Acceleration is a relative term. It is > only acceleration with respect to local inertial frames that > leads to radiation. What you say here is true, when properly interpreted... > > The gravitationally orbitting body has no acceleration > measured from any frame which is in free-fall at the > location of the body, and these are the only frames that > count. So there is no radiation. This is false. To determine if the moving charge is "accelerated", you must observe it from a nearby---but not identical!---free-falling reference frame. The acceleration of a single particle in free fall is not a well defined concept in GR. What does mat ter is whether two nearby particles undergoing free fall accelerate relative to eachother. Such relative acceleration detects the local curvature of spacetime (the "gravitational field", if you like) and if this relative acceleration is present, then a gi ven observer undergoing free fall will see that a nearby charge also in free fall is "accelerating" and does radiate. This radiation will further create a reaction force on the charge, causing it to deviate from free-fall (i.e. its world line will separate from the spacetime geodesic it was following). Of course, whenever a charge does deviate from free fall (which is well defined in GR), we can also be sure that it will radiate. E.g., a "charge at rest on the (nonrotating) Earth" will radiate, very weekly, as you said. Similarly if you go kick a free-f alling charge off its orbit, it will surely radiate. But the point of the previous paragraph is that "gravitational acceleration" will also cause a charge to radiate, though one has to be more careful in interpreting the phrase in "gravitational acceleration" to mean that nearby free-falling particles are o bserved to accelerate relative to eachother, as above. If you think intuitively about why accelerated charges radiate (e.g., if a charge at rest suddenly moves to the right 1 meter, it must propagate out a new static coulomb field whose center of origin is one meter to the right, and this propagating field di scontinuity is precisely the radiation field), it is reasonably intuitively clear that if you are in a free falling orbit about a massive body, and there is a charge near you also in free fall, the relative acceleration of your two orbits will lead you to perceive a radiation field comeing from the charge. By the way, just to be sure about the above---since GR is only a subject I have studied in grad school, not one I have worked in---I verified the above with an astrophysicist colleague of mine, who confirmed and clarified the above interpretation. > Dr. George Marklin > marklin flash.net So, Dr. Marklin, if you wish to further debate whether a charge in a gravitational orbit around a massive body (i.e. a case where geodesics do undergo relative acceleration) does not radiate, I would appreciate you supplying a a precise reference to the l iterature addressing this point. My own perusal of Wheeler, et al, for example, seems to agree with the above, though it does not devote a great deal of discussion to the point. Until I see a literature reference to the contrary, I'm satisfied with my professional colleagues reply, which seems to agree with what I have read and my own general understanding. Also, I think this exchange reinforces my comment about why general physics questions should be asked in problem specific news groups---people on this group frequently will (a) not have sufficient expertise to answer, but will (b) think they know the answ er. -- 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 Wed Sep 17 21:13:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:47:17 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: NHE/SRI Resent-Message-ID: <"A6aXf.0.tS4.1IA8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10870 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz wrote: >>Is that vertical or horizontal flow calorimetry?<< Horizontal. >>Have you published this?<< The double calorimeter experiment has not yet been published. I gave some references in my earlier post to Jed Rothwell's questions, as well as some of the details of the calorimetry. Those references indicate that the phenomenon of excess heat in isope ribolic calorimeters and no excess heat in water mass flow calorimeters has been testified to many times by IMRA-Japan as well as by us. >>Every other type introduces additional terms, and therefore greater opportunity for problems, errors, and noise. Please explain, or give a pointer. Thanks.<< I agree with you that all calorimetry has problems and pitfalls. For other systems the isoperibolic method may in fact be the preferred choice. But for electrolytic cells, isoperibolic calorimetry in particular seems to yield false positives at high loading (corresponding to higher open circuit voltage). BTW, although I am not a calorimetry specialist myself, I very much appreciate your own work in calorimetry and your efforts to promote good technique in the community. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 17 22:49:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:47:50 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Modification Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:47:28 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"Cwo8b2.0.rb.52C8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10872 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:01:06 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: [snip] > Test mass, 22.7 grams, 4 US quarters, reduction of 0.4 to >0.6 grams during 12 sequential runs. > Test mass, 44.54 grams, 8 US quarters, reduction 0.9 to >1.1 grams. > [snip] John, I believe US quarters contain some nickel. There could therefore be a complex magnetic rather than gravitational effect. I suggest therefore that the test mass itself also be made of wood or plastic. 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 Wed Sep 17 22:49:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:47:58 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Changing Cell Constant joke Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:47:31 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"xkTGI2.0.Uc.D2C8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10873 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:26:56 +0200 (MET DST), Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] >thing down.) So the Powergen demo has become an Urban Myth. Morrison dismisses >it saying "until it was proven that the device would have melted if it was >actually putting out 1 kilowatt". By who? Jeeze! You'd think that a 400 watt >device would be hard to ignore and it would! CETI have since stopped doing >things like this for their own inscrutable reasons and have instead asked >people to try to look for evidence of transmutations. To me 400 watts of heat >would be far more convincing that they've got some interesting technology. > >Now Jed wasn't the only one to see the device. Frank Z and many others >including Professor Miley were there too. We've never heard other accounts >and probably never will. It's all so frustrating! > >Martin Sevior > If I am not mistaken, I seem to remember an aside from Jed at one point, to the effect that someone at CETI had said that the cell (not sure exactly which one) "ate nickel". If the reactions are primarily transmutation reactions, and the actual excess hea t per reaction is "only" a few keV or less (Joe Champion), then it wouldn't really surprise me if they did "eat nickel". With this as a starting point, one can understand that CETI may have a problem producing a high output water heater, that didn't requi re constant replacement of the "beads/granuals" (or whatever). If said "fuel" is furthermore difficult (expensive?) to manufacture, then a high output water heater might end up not being all that economical (and/or maintenance free). This might explain the current apparent emphasis on a low excess energy water heater (20-50% excess), and remediation. 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 Wed Sep 17 22:09:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:07:35 -0700 From: "Stephan Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:07:17 -0800 Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"JpkQi1.0.Q57.MSB8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10871 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com snip great GR writings >I verified the above with an astrophysicist colleague > of mine, who confirmed and clarified the above interpretation. > > Barry Merriman Thanks for clearing that up -- I should have realized that the whole basis for "observing" black holes was radiation from ions in freefall orbit (more or less) in the intense gravity field outside the event horizon. JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 00:35:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:19:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [off topic] Martian Magnetic Field (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"JBFC.0.mW2.4JD8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10874 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:54:32 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: ekwall2 diac.com Subject: Mars Global Surveyor Tetects Martian Magnetic Field as Aerobraking Begins Douglas Isbell Headquarters, Washington, DC. Sept. 17, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1753) Diane Ainsworth Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) Bill Steigerwald Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD (Phone: 301/286-7277) RELEASE: 97-204 MARS GLOBAL SURVEYOR DETECTS MARTIAN MAGNETIC FIELD AS AEROBRAKING BEGINS Scientists have confirmed the existence of a planet-wide magnetic field at Mars using an instrument on-board NASA's Mars Global Surveyor orbiter, as the spacecraft began to circle and study the planet from a highly elliptical orbit. "Mars Global Surveyor has been in orbit for only a few days, yet it already has returned an important discovery about the Red Planet," said Vice President Al Gore. "This is another example of how NASA's commitment to faster, better, cheaper Mars exp loration that began with Mars Pathfinder is going to help answer many fundamental questions about the history and environment of our neighboring planet, and the lessons it may hold for a better understanding of life on Earth." The spacecraft's magnetometer, which began making measurements of Mars' magnetic field after its capture into orbit on Sept. 11, detected the magnetic field on Sept. 15. The existence of a planetary magnetic field has important implications for the g eological history of Mars and for the possible development and continued existence of life on Mars. "Preliminary evidence of a stronger than expected magnetic field of planetary origin was collected and is now under detailed study," said Dr. Mario H. Acuna, principal investigator for the magnetometer/electron reflectrometer instrument at NASA's Go ddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. "This was the first opportunity in the mission to collect close-in magnetic field data. Much more additional data will be collected in upcoming orbits during the aerobraking phase of the mission to further charac terize the strength and geometry of the field. The current observations suggest a field with a polarity similar to that of Earth's and opposite that of Jupiter, with a maximum strength not exceeding 1/800ths of the magnetic field at the Earth's surface." This result is the first conclusive evidence of a magnetic field at Mars. "More distant observations obtained previously by the Russian missions Mars 2,3 and 5 and Phobos 1 and 2 were inconclusive regarding the presence or absence of a magnetic field of internal origin," said Acuna. The magnetic field has important implications for the evolution of Mars. Planets like Earth, Jupiter and Saturn generate their magnetic fields by means of a dynamo made up of moving molten metal at the core. This metal is a very good conductor of ele ctricity, and the rotation of the planet creates electrical currents deep within the planet that give rise to the magnetic field. A molten interior suggests the existence of internal heat sources, which could give rise to volcanoes and a flowing crust res ponsible for moving continents over geologic time periods. "A magnetic field shields a planet from fast-moving, electrically charged particles from the Sun which may affect its atmosphere, as well as from cosmic rays, which are an impediment to life," Acuna said. "If Mars had a more active dynamo in its past , as we suspect from the existence of ancient volcanoes there, then it may have had a thicker atmosphere and liquid water on its surface." It is not known whether the current weaker field now results from a less active dynamo, or if the dynamo is now extinct and what the scientists are observing is really a remnant of an ancient magnetic field still detectable in the Martian crust. "Whether this weak magnetic field implies that we are observing a fossil crustal magnetic field associated with a now extinct dynamo or merely a weak but active dynamo similar to that of Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune remains to be seen," Acuna said. Mars Global Surveyor's magnetometer discovered the outermost boundary of the Martian magnetic field -- known as the bow shock -- during the inbound leg of its second orbit around the planet, and again on the outbound leg. The discovery came just before Mars Global Surveyor began its first aerobraking maneuver to lower and circularize its orbit around Mars, said Glenn Cunningham, Mars Global Surveyor project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA. "This first 'step down' into the upper atmosphere was performed in two stages," Cunningham said. "On Sept. 16, during the farthest point in the spacecraft's orbit, called the apoapsis, the spacecraft fired its main engine for 6.5 seconds, slowing Glo bal Surveyor's velocity by 9.8 miles per hour (4.41 meters per second). This maneuver lowered the spacecraft's orbit from 163 miles (263 kilometers) to 93 miles (150 kilometers) above the surface of the planet. At its closest approach to Mars this morning, known as the periapsis, the spacecraft dipped into the upper fringes of the Martian atmosphere for 27 seconds, allowing the drag on its solar panels to begin the long aerobraking process of circularizing its orbit." Mars Global Surveyor will continue aerobraking through the Martian atmosphere for the next four months, until its orbit has been circularized and it is flying about 234 miles (378 kilometers) above the Martian surface. All systems and science instru ments onboard the spacecraft continue to perform normally after six days in orbit around the red planet. Additional information about the magnetic field discovery and the Mars Global Surveyor mission is available on the World Wide Web by accessing the JPL home page at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov or at the Goddard Space Flight Center magnetometer site at: http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov Meanwhile, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has continued monitoring the atmospheric conditions on Mars to help planning for the Mars Global Surveyor aerobraking activity. The latest HST Mars image, taken Sept. 12 with the Wide Field Planetary Ca mera 2 under the direction of Phil James of the University of Toledo and Steve Lee of the University of Colorado, is available on the Internet at the following URLs: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/gif/mars0609.gif (GIF), http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/jpeg/mars0609.jpg (JPEG) and via links in: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/31.html Mars Global Surveyor is the first mission in a sustained program of robotic Mars exploration, known as the Mars Surveyor Program. The mission is managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, DC. JPL's indus trial partner is Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, CO, which developed and operates the spacecraft. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. -end- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 12:36:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:06:27 -0400 From: Gene <76570.2270 compuserve.com> Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Specs -- Life of their own To: VORTEX Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"reqjV1.0.8t6.3pN8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10898 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: How spec's live forever! By Professor Tom O'Hare / Germanic Languages / University of Texas at Austin The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates. Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts. So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Thus, we have the answer to the original questions. The United State standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot. Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back-ends of two war horses. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 06:19:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:14:13 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:10:14 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Re: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"YaldM.0.OS4.aaI8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10877 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Robin, What you say about magnetic effect may be true. Q: What would it be? You cannot pick up a quarter with a magnet. We will be running non metallics too. J On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:01:06 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: > [snip] > > Test mass, 22.7 grams, 4 US quarters, reduction of 0.4 to > >0.6 grams during 12 sequential runs. > > Test mass, 44.54 grams, 8 US quarters, reduction 0.9 to > >1.1 grams. > > > [snip] > John, > > I believe US quarters contain some nickel. There could therefore be a > complex magnetic rather than gravitational effect. I suggest therefore > that the test mass itself also be made of wood or plastic. > > > 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 Thu Sep 18 06:39:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:30:50 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:27:12 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"CSLrJ2.0.zD5.9qI8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10878 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 09:10 AM 9/18/97 -0400, John wrote: > > Dear Robin, > > What you say about magnetic effect may be true. Q: What would >it be? You cannot pick up a quarter with a magnet. AC magnetic fields repel conductors due to induced eddy currents. >We will be running non metallics too. Good. That's the test. 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 Sep 18 07:18:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:39:07 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"6Zhsc3.0.9Q2.20J8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10880 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Scott, The quarters rest on the SC.... there is masking tape between. If the quarters are repulsed .... how does this "lighten" the whole thing? Remember: The whole set up, quaters, SC and so on are suspended from one point .... we do not weigh the items separately. J On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Scott Little wrote: > At 09:10 AM 9/18/97 -0400, John wrote: > > > > Dear Robin, > > > > What you say about magnetic effect may be true. Q: What would > >it be? You cannot pick up a quarter with a magnet. > > AC magnetic fields repel conductors due to induced eddy currents. > > >We will be running non metallics too. > > Good. That's the test. > > 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 Sep 18 06:54:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:48:44 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:47:59 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"dAnPx.0.Ft5.w4J8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10881 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > What you say about magnetic effect may be true. Q: What would > it be? You cannot pick up a quarter with a magnet. We will be running > non metallics too. > Is your test weight also in the liquid nitrogen bath? If so you may have a problem of extra bubbles forming on the test weight while the field is activated. This would also make your scale read lighter. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 07:23:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:18:58 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:17:52 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Cc: John Schnurer Subject: Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"0LIaZ1.0.IH7.GXJ8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10882 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Dear Scott, > > The quarters rest on the SC.... there is masking tape between. > If the quarters are repulsed .... how does this "lighten" the whole thing? > Remember: The whole set up, quaters, SC and so on are suspended > from one point .... we do not weigh the items separately. > This sounds like the SC is included in the weight of the object. If this is the case the explanation is simple. Your SC is repelling some of the magnetic field thus lightening the load. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 02:05:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:52:58 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:50:17 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"AgaOb1.0.Xf4.frZ8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10920 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick - > Aha! A simple rule of mechanics. "The Sum of > the forces in a closed system is equal to Zero > (Fx + Fy + Fz = 0)." The Earth levarage point > for suspending the "box" completes the equation. > It WILL NOT work in space. [snip] What won't work? The whole point I was on about was to find a simple way to test reputed "inertial drives" in case one does work. I thought maybe any deflection of the string would be good, but John Logajan pointed out the gyro situation which could 'fake ' that case and provide no real thrust. But say you had a promising gravity or inertial or something shield, and you mount it sideways. It moves the string over a little bit, but the imaginary vertical plumbline from the connection point above (not the other end on the device) still falls acros s part of the mechanism. Not that that rules out anoomalous force, but it doesn't necessarily prove it either. But if the apparatus can swing itself out and stay put with it's entire geometric area out to the side of the plumblline, then...see? Such a giz mo *would* work in space as a thruster. I think. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 02:41:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:33:11 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:30:31 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"9qQzJ.0.tc5.MRa8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10921 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Schnurer wrote about the litz wires: [snip] > They do not visibly move even under magnification ... Plus, even if it was a problem, why would it happen only when you put test masses in? More mass should make it harder for flexing wires to move the beam, not easier resulting apparent larger effect as would be the case here. I guess then that's ruled out too. I would still love to see null runs with a dummy SC, and/or a strong magnet there, just on general principles. But this sounds pretty good, John. I hope this is as duplicable by others as it seems to be for you now. Anybody out there trying or planning to try this yet? My back's against the wall with work just now, but if I can get clear soon, I'd be willing to take another look with this or a similar setup. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 03:03:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:39:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:35:54 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"YB3U13.0.wM.pWa8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10922 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Steve - > A few years back there were guys running ALL > OVER the place measuring gravity (atop 1000' > ft antenna towers , over hills and dales.. etc..) I remember that. They thought for a few minutes that the g readings in deep shafts or towers were not quite right. There were Popular Science articles and everything. The Lockheed stepped in and hushed it all up. ;) They still have a big problem pinning down big G though, according to a fairly recent article in "Discover". - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 09:23:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:10:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:10:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: szdanq@peseta.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com From: Dan Quickert Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"onyfc1.0.gX6.z9L8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10883 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rick, >Unless I've misunderstood the claim, I think the device causes the line it >hangs from to stay continuously at an angle off the vertical. Am I wrong to >think that it is in fact an anomaly if it's hanging at an angle even to a >small extent representing a distance smaller than the bounds of the "box"? Depends on how you hang it. Say you have a rigid structure in the shape of a "T". Hanging the "T" upside down on a pivot, its leg would point straight down. Now attach a box to the bottom section, being sure to keep its mass balanced. Put a mass in the center of the box. Everything still hangs vertical. But if you shift the mass to one side, there will be a deflection. Now make the T's joint a pivot, or replace the vertical bar with a cord. In this case, no matter where the mass is in the box, the T's leg will hang vertically. Dan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 09:32:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:28:58 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:24:55 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: In bath... no bubblesRe: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"-jOLO2.0.Ag.8RL8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10884 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Test is in bath .... no bubbles on test weight. I value everyone's comments about possible artifacts .... especially the ones we have not thought of ourselves. Please remember I have been doing this for nearly a year and am the LAST one to want to have some artifact sneak up on me a bite me. The initial tests were run in air, no nitrogen bath except for chilling.... then fished out .... but they do not stay cold for long. The bath does at least two things .... we can run longer and the temperature is stable. On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Martin Sevior wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > > > What you say about magnetic effect may be true. Q: What would > > it be? You cannot pick up a quarter with a magnet. We will be running > > non metallics too. > > > > Is your test weight also in the liquid nitrogen bath? If so you may have a > problem of extra bubbles forming on the test weight while the field is > activated. This would also make your scale read lighter. > > Martin Sevior > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 10:09:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:29:22 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"EouHs1.0.fl.4XL8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10885 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Confused: On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Martin Sevior wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Scott, > > > > The quarters rest on the SC.... there is masking tape between. > > If the quarters are repulsed .... how does this "lighten" the whole thing? > > Remember: The whole set up, quaters, SC and so on are suspended > > from one point .... we do not weigh the items separately. > > > This sounds like the SC is included in the weight of the object. If this is the case the explanation is simple. --------------------------------------- This sounds interesting .... how would repelling the magnetic field lighten the load .... remember EVERYTHING is fastened together .... SC, field device, target .... the whole thing.... Your SC is repelling some of the magnetic field thus lightening the load. Martin Sevior > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 10:29:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:42:50 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Please one step further on GM Resent-Message-ID: <"JxnxA.0.tb1.RtL8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10887 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear John and Vo, Again, the gravity modification experiment(s) and the discussion is running around the validity of the effect and the validity of experiment. This context is pushed by the pressure of the effect is controversial to common physics understanding. But, if we want to investigate the phenomenon deeply (understanding the nature of this modification) instead of validation issues, we can advance on step further. There are many questions about the phenomenon which can only answered by the experiment. John succeed the most important point, the repeatability. Then he also succeed an other extraordinary issue, the versatility. SC discs he uses are commercial product! This was nearly impossible task on a experiment revealing such a radical phenomenon. Until he secure his work with patents, he is only person able to conduct the experiment. Ask him right questions (e.g. dependence of height) but not validating issues. Note: My suggestions and some of questions are on "Re: NASA 's gravity-shielding publication.." Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:57:32 -0700 (PDT Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 11:07:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:56:57 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:37:35 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Off topic: Something unusual on Mars image Resent-Message-ID: <"vMNbQ.0.1w.djM8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10890 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Go to http://mars.sgi.com/default.html (Sol 73, 17 Sep 1997), look at northview_left.jpg or northview_right.jpg (stereoscopic images). On upper left corner about 1/4 down from top, and 1/7 from left on left image and and very close to edge on right image there is a black elipse or circular trace. There is also gray line trace on the sand descending close to this circle. As this artifact is present on both images and taken separately by different cameras, are not defects. Even a trapizodal trace can be seen below the circle. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 11:08:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:52:40 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:48:36 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Thank you Please one step further on GM Resent-Message-ID: <"Lvd0p3.0.kA.afM8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10888 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Hamdi and Vo., Thank you for your letter. Many have and will in the future suggest possible artifact. I have been trying to respond to some of these. I think for now I will, for a period "collect suggested artifacts" . I have been doing this for nearly a year and with no support and it is expensive in both time and money. I will in all likelyhood focus on two issues in the near term; 1] Keeping extant set up intact to be able to demonstrate it the the appropriate "black box" or "eunich" and so thereby hopefully establish the first steps in securing enough funds to go the next steps in patent and development. 2] Performing two or three follow on experiments ... some of which people has asked about for a while ... following is what was on the immediate program, what was done and what is planned. a] reproducibility ..... done, the first steps anyway b] run new set up in air ..... this will only stay chilled for maybe 30 seconds but it should help to 'cast out some artifacts' c] have the liq. N in little cup and hang it too along with the whole rig on the beam. d] turn it on its side and see if it makes 'thrust' Item [d] is an important first step in what I feel will be the most promising intitial application, which is satellite station keeping we estimate a 1,700 gram target will yield 1/2 thrust, in pulses with a set up not too much different from the present one. The total cost of such an instrument should not exceed the cost of an equivalent hydrazine rocket. Once the patent stuff is out of the way we will also be making and selling the demonstration kits. SO: We might make a commercial go of it and we can let everyone else work with it too. It is to our advantage to have as many people working on it as is possible so that real applications emerge. In any event if you have read Fred Rounds' paper [at www.gravity.org] you will see the grand idea he had, from which we took a page, gratefully, of tying everything together so as to reduce anomalies. When the target and the entrire SC, fields' set up and so on are all one piece .... and. if as Podkletnov teaches there is a column, and if the column makes the target 'lighter' the the whole thing is "bootstrapped" up. That is the idea and so far it i s what we are doing and it is working. Hamdi, Thanks again, John On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Hamdi Ucar wrote: > Dear John and Vo, > > Again, the gravity modification experiment(s) and the discussion is > running around the validity of the effect and the validity of > experiment. This context is pushed by the pressure of the effect is > controversial to common physics understanding. But, if we want to > investigate the phenomenon deeply (understanding the nature of this > modification) instead of validation issues, we can advance on step > further. There are many questions about the phenomenon which can only > answered by the experiment. John succeed the most important point, the > repeatability. Then he also succeed an other extraordinary issue, the > versatility. SC discs he uses are commercial product! This was nearly > impossible task on a experiment revealing such a radical phenomenon. > > Until he secure his work with patents, he is only person able to conduct > the experiment. Ask him right questions (e.g. dependence of height) but > not validating issues. > > Note: My suggestions and some of questions are on > "Re: NASA 's gravity-shielding publication.." > Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:57:32 -0700 (PDT > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 11:14:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:59:15 -0700 From: John Logajan Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate To: vortex- l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:59:06 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"Ne7Hj1.0.V61.nlM8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10891 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > If you think intuitively about why accelerated charges radiate > (e.g., if a charge at rest suddenly moves to the right 1 meter, > it must propagate out a new static coulomb field whose center of > origin is one meter to the right, and this propagating field > discontinuity is precisely the radiation field), Using this intuitive model, one would seem to be able to conclude that constant velocity motion alone would cause a charged particle to radiate -- since its coulombic field is constantly moving to a new location -- accleration, the change in velocity over a change in time, is zero in this case. -- - 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 Sep 18 11:45:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:15:43 -0700 (PDT) From: John Logajan Subject: Re: Dean Drive To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:14:56 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"AtXnb3.0.jf4.7_M8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10892 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank Stenger wrote: > We know that a SINGLE, flexible suspension line will > point through the c.g. of a black box - and will hang plumb at null > conditions I'm inclined (no pun intended) to agree that a single line device will operate under different rules than a multi-line (parallelogram-like) device. However, I can think of one system that will mislead even the single line test -- though it will have telltale behavior ... If you suspend a gyro at 90 degrees with respect to the line, and the CG off center, I believe the CG will move to the lowest gravitational point which will hang the string off vertical -- but -- the gyro and the string deflection will precess around and around. -- - 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 Sep 18 11:34:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:30:20 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:16:14 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Mitchell Jones agreed with Rothwell To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"sjSlJ1.0.MY3.tCN8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10896 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex; >INTERNET:johmann atlantic.net Kurt Johmann suffers from faulty memory. He should do what I do: keep everything on disk and look it up. He believes that Mitchell Jones debunked my PowerGen report: On the old SPF forum, Mitchell Jones, who has been long-gone, led the charge in debunking Jed's outrageous 1.5-kilowatt-excess claim for the PowerGen demo which took place, if I am not mistaken, almost two years ago. The big problem for Jed, at that time, was that the experimental evidence accumulated by Mitchell Jones and others was *against* Jed, and in favor of there having been a sizable resistance-load in the flow circuit which Jed had bypassed by breaking the circuit to measure the flow-rate. In his final analysis, Jones unequivocally agreed with me. He wrote: It seems likely that the low power run was producing about 200 watts, as claimed by CETI, rather than the 469 watts originally calculated by Jed. Whatever the true power output, it seems virtually certain to have been wildly over unity, because *it is absurd to suppose that the flow rate measurement could have been sufficiently in error to account for all of the excess*. Certainly the backpressure hypothesis which I have been investigating is insufficient for this purpose. Thus if you want to argue that the device wasn't over unity, you are going to have to come up with a better argument than that. For myself, I am not denying that the device was over unity. All I deny is that it was as far over unity as Jed claims that it was." -- Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic I-link.net), "Magnum 350 Run," sci.physics.fusion, Mon, 25 Mar 1996 15:55 I disagree with Jones' methodology. I think he is doing the experiment backwards. Flow calorimetry is a good, simple, direct method of measuring heat, whereas an analysis of cooling tower performance is fraught with complexity. However, I do not quarrel w ith Jones' results. He says my estimate of the CETI heat is off by a factor of two, but at the same time he says that Kurt Johmann et al. are off by a factor of 2,000. I can live with that conclusion. Kurt adds: To me, Jed's denial that he made a mistake -- in spite of the evidence, which IMO was overwhelming -- is a good example of one of the differences between someone with proper credentials (for example, Swartz: PhD, MD), and someone with improper credentials (for example, Jed: undergrad degree in basket-weaving from Podunk U?): Japanese linguistics and literature, Cornell University and Okayama National University, Japan. To me, Johmann's rewriting of history and his selective memory are a good example what happens when people depend upon memory rather than consulting the written record of experimental evidence. He even ignores the experimental evidence I presented yesterd ay: the fact that the flow was visible and audible, and the outlet temperature did not change. He will never address those facts or attempt to reconcile them with his hypothesis. Six months from now he will probably again be telling people that Mitchell J ones debunked Rothwell. He suffers from a loss of short term memory. He forgets history, even from last year. Politicians count on such people to forget and forgive. As Santayana put it, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I think these e-mail discussion groups encourage forgetfulness because the messages scroll off. I base my research on written scientific papers, books, electronic archives, web pages, and other sources I can easily return to. These Vortex discussions are archived, which is good. But they are voluminous and not organized. If you are going to use Vortex or s.p.f. archives, I recommend you keep them on your hard disk and use a search utility like GREP. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 11:28:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:21:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:16:27 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Baser beam Bose Condensate remediation To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"hhQG91.0.zk2.e4N8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10894 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex John Logajan writes: Mona Charen is a political columnist -- has demonstrated no previous expertise in physics, and therefore her report is likely nothing more that a reiteration of a press release from the company in question. Yes, she must be a political columnist. The rest of the column is devoted to politics. I posted the message in order to bring it people's intention. I certainly did not intend to endorse Charen, the American Technologies Group, or the California Institute of Technology. I have never heard of any of them. For that matter, I haven't got the foggiest idea what a "Bose-Einstein condensate" might be. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 11:40:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:22:26 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:17:06 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: A little more leaks from the NHE To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"6tAHR3.0.6r2.W5N8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10895 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Well, I see that Elliot Kennel and the NHE are following their usual schedule. For years I have heard rumors that they debunked Pons and Fleischmann. The only reason given was the "unboiled" or entrained water hypothesis. Perhaps that is the only reason they can come up with. I don't know, I can only cite rumor and innuendo. They ne ver give us hard numbers, equipment names, percentages and so on. The NHE operates with the same scientific ethics and operating procedure you see in other mainstream establishment labs like the NIFS and PPPL hot fusion labs: 1. First they spread rumors about their work, designed to elicit funding or torpedo their rivals. 2. Next, they do "science by press conference." The NHE announces to the waiting world and the Japanese newspapers that they have debunked Pons and Fleischmann. They do not say how or why, they provide no details. "Trust us, we're the experts." 3. They leak more detailed rumors on Internet. We have reached this stage with Kennel here on Vortex. No numbers or hard details yet. 4. Months later, or more likely never, they publish a paper which may or may not support their claims. It does not matter. Congress, the press, and the public have forgotten. Well, since we have no hard facts, I will rely on some guesswork and what I have heard from unbiased observers like Storms and highly biased people like Fleischmann who know a lot about the NHE work. Kennel writes: Both Icarus-1 and Icarus-2 boiling cells were supplied by Pons and Fleischmann and extensively tested here. We used their cells, their palladium, their instrumentation (of course they may have used different stuff for their experiments). Ah, but I'll bet you did not use their heavy water . . . And what I saw did not look like their test tube either. It wasn't half-silvered. Perhaps it was a bit shorter? In the case of boiling cells, we were able to verify that the electrolyte is entrained in the vapor column by measuring the pH of the condensate. Whenever excess heat was calculated, it was always due to overestimating the vapor mass transport. This is not to say that P&F did not have valid results. It may be that their equipment generates nuclear excess heat in France and false positives in Japan. All we can say is that our results, using their equipment, was susceptible to false positives, and for that reason we are not convinced by the data set which now exists. Yes, this is what I have heard. Okay, let us have a quick look at the literature. Miles, McKubre, Bockris, Fleischmann and others have repeatedly warned this can happen. With some heavy water supplies, you get a lot of frothing. In a boil off experiment, especially one with a short test tube fitted with the wrong kind of top, this frothing may cause unboiled electrolyte to leave the cell. Miles and Fleischmann say they have identified the cause of this frothing: some heavy water supplies are contaminated with surfactants. These are surface-adhering chemicals, often used in detergents. As my handy Britannica CD explains: "The surface-active molecule must be partly hydrophilic (water-soluble) and partly lipophilic (soluble in lipids, or oils). It concentrates at the interfaces between bodies or droplets of water and those of oil, or li pids, to act as an emulsifying agent, or foaming agent." Anyway, Fleischmann explained to Steve Jones: One could say some of the D2O is dispelled as droplets (actually, we recover ~95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and titrating; some is undoubtedly lost by irreversible reactions with the glass walls of the Dewars.) While everyone knows this can happen, it has never been observed to cause more than a minor error, no more than 10% as far as I know. This is minor compared to the 150% to 300% excess measured using boil-off calorimetry. Pons and Fleischmann and the Frenc h AEC look for entrained water, and they also ignore many counteracting factors that add to enthalpy. For example, Fleischmann notes: 1. The boiling point of NaCl increases as the electrolyte gets more concentrated; 2. As the electrolyte boils to dryness, one has to supply the heat of solution. Rumor has it the NHE can produce 10% fake excess heat, just as anyone else can with contaminated heavy water. I do not think they can achieve 150% or 300%. I doubt they can make two-thirds of electrolyte leave the cell unboiled. To borrow an electrochemist's joke: Maybe they add a little Palmolive detergent to the electrolyte? Kennel claims entrainment occurs "invariably." I presume that means it happens with Pt blanks and joule heater boil-off tests. That should ring the alarm bells! They should try it with pure water. If it still appears to boil off with significantly less than 40,700 joules per mole, something is wrong. Maybe the test tube is too short, or the heat source is too close to the top? Th ere must be some critical, obvious difference between the NHE and IMRA Europe and the French AEC, because in blank boil-off tests the latter find close agreement with the textbook numbers for the vaporization of water. Here's a thought. Let's assume the NHE experiments produced significant froth. I know of no other cause for significant levels of entrained water, especially if the NHE used IMRA test tubes, as Kennel claims. In other experiments this foam has been caused by surfactants. And these are known to attach to the surface of the cathode an d poison the reaction. Maybe that is why the NHE never got real excess heat. Well . . . I see I may be wrong. Miles says that some cathodes worked in spite of the foam: For the experiment in cell C, a rather large excess-power density of 15 W/cm3 was observed. These four experiments were all hindered by unusually large fluctuations in the cell voltages (+/-0.5 V) that were traced to a foaming problem in the D2O-LiOD solutions. This foam would collect in the coils of the anode and then release. These four experiments all used D2O supplied by NRL (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Lot No. PSO EH-283) and lithium foil supplied also by NRL (Alfa/Aesar Stock No. 10769). This shows that the D2O can be an important uncontrolled variable in these experiments. It seems to me you should begin an experiment of this nature by confirming that your equipment produces the textbook numbers for the heat of vaporization. Boil some pure water, then some heavy water (and watch for foaming), then go on to NaCl (which shoul d takes more energy than water), and finally do electrolysis. Maybe the NHE did these steps, but if their experiments "invariably" show false excess heat, they should tell us at what stage and for what reasons this happens. Do they invariably entrain wate r using pure H2O and a joule heater?!? I presume they do not claim that it is fundamentally impossible to measure the heat of vaporization of a liquid by boiling it in a tall test tube. That's kind of like claiming that all flow calorimeters suffer from a 1 deg C noise error, heretofore undetected. If you can prove that kind of assertion you'll win a Nobel prize. Okay, that's enough about entrained water . . . To be sure, it is an important issue in cold fusion, and I am glad I took this opportunity to review my notes on it. To summarize: It's in the literature; The causes and cures are well known, and you should never let it happen; You should prove it is not happening before going on to steps B, C and D; It does not happen anywhere outside the NHE, for obvious reasons. I expect it happens there for political reasons. I find it hard to imagine that I can write three pages on this subject off the top of my head, but the NHE researchers are unaware of these causes & cures, and it never occurred to them to fix the problem and try doing the experiment right. I am speculating, but I suppose they saw entrainment and instead of fixing it, they did the experiment several more times in order to have build up ammuni tion (a C.Y.A. file) with which to discredit Pons and Fleischmann. The tactic works well with the general public. People who know nothing about chemistry, like how to measure the heat of vaporization, and people who have not read the cold fusion literatur e will assume the NHE research is credible. Some comments about the other stuff from Kennel: K Kunimatsu et al, "Deuterium Loading Ratio and Excess Heat Generation during Electrolysis of Heavy Water by a Palladium Cathode in a Closed Cell..." p. 31. Good reproducibility was claimed. The same experiment was repeated in a water mass flow calorimeter 26 times at IMRA Japan with no results: ICCF-6, T. Nakata et al., "Excess Heat Measurement at High Cathode Loading by Deuterium During Electrolysis of Heavy Water Using Pd Cathode," p.121. In other words, same experiment, same experimenters, same loading, but different calorimeter and no excess heat. To me it is very significant that this occurred, and I applaud the IMRA-Japan people for having the courage to publish their results. Courage my ass. I personally have published two papers showing no excess heat, and people like McKubre and Miles have published data from hundreds of experiments that did not work. Since when does it take courage to publish a negative CF experiment? Peopl e get harassed for publishing positive results. They get praised and quoted in the Yomiuri for publishing negative results. In any case, it was not the same experiment. You can never do the same CF experiment twice in a row, because critical unknown parameter are constantly in flux. That is why CF is s o difficult to reproduce. The cathode material, which is by far the most important parameter, changes by cracking, getting dirty, and gradually degrading. If you used different cathodes, it was a completely different experiment. If you did not test the ca thode beforehand, your chances of success were about 1 in 10. If you used IMRA Japan palladium, your chances of success are 0 in 19, or 0 in 50 as far as I know. If you used cathodes which previously worked, then the chances of success are enhanced. Fleischmann and Storms had shown that good palladium is robust. But it isn't all that robust, and there are many ways to wreck it. Furthermore, it is not the same experiment because you are using a different kind of calorimeter. As McKubre and Fleischmann have pointed out, you are using the wrong kind of calorimeter; a type that is known to suppress the reaction. Finally, McKubre and others do not agree with the loading figures. BTW, for some reason this experiment has been attributed to us, and it has been critically stated that researchers should only do an experiment about seven times before giving up. This is nonsense. It is indeed nonsense. I cannot imagine who said that. Bockris said you should try changing the method before you do the same experiment 50 times in a row, and I said you should try reading the literature and testing your cathodes. I don't know anyone say s you should give up. It is highly significant that the experiment works in one type of calorimeter but not in another. Yes, it is. See comments from Fleischmann, McKubre and others. Don't use calorimeters that are known to interfere with the reaction! That's what I suggested to the NHE after ICCF3, ICCF4, ICCF5 and ICCF6. As far as calorimetry is concerned, a critique was published of the Pons-Fleischmann method in ICCF-5: T. Saito et al., "Studies on the Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetry with ICARUS-1." This paper indicates that a disagreement exists with the Pons-Fleischmann model. Note especially that Saito et al observed that, using the PF model, the imaginary radiative heat transfer coefficient, k_R1 was observed to be larger than the real radiative heat transfer coefficient k_R2, which is a physical impossibility. This results in errors of some 20% in estimating excess heat. I am not qualified to judge this. My mathematical abilities are not good enough. However, I brought it to the attention of electrochemists, and they told me it is, quote, "bullshit." Other readers of this forum will have to sort that out for themselves. I n any case this has nothing to do with the boil-off phase calorimetry, which uses different, simpler equations, and no input power in the later stages. Moreover, common sense ought to tell us that the use of a calibration cathode is a dubious procedure in a thermally active cell, in which heat can be generated not only at the cathode but also at the anode (both of which are excellent chemical catalysts, by the way) Common sense tells us that when the electric power is turned off, the anode does not get hot from joule heating. It tells us that even if the anode and cathode produced as much chemical activity as they could, using up every available species in the cell, it would not account for more than a tiny fraction of the observed heat. The video close up of the IMRA Europe boil off tells me that nothing whatever happens on the anode: no bubbles from electrolysis or boiling. Kennel closes with this incredible statement: Mr. Rothwell claims to have some easy solutions, and I hope that he will soon convince some reliable laboratories to put them to the test. Mr. Rothwell is the last person on earth who would claim he has "easy solutions" to cold fusion!!! Rothwell has spent the last two weeks reading and re-reading papers by Melvin Miles which describe the difficulties of this research in excruciating detail . According to Tom Passell, Rothwell may be the only person east of the Mississippi who read the EPRI publication TR-104195 from cover to cover, and he was definitely the only one to ask two dozen questions about it. (Hey, it's my job!) I may not know muc h about electrochemistry, but I sure do know how difficult cold fusion is. This is a gross distortion of my views. I am not upset. I think it's hilarious that anyone could misunderstand or misrepresent my views so much. This is like saying: "Rothwell claims you can learn Japanese in one week" or "Rothwell thinks you can qualify for a pilot's licences to fly a 747 by practicing with Microsoft Flight Simulator." What have I ever said that would make Kennel think I believe in easy solutions to cold fusion? I think cold fusion will be very difficult to perfect. It may even be as dif ficult as: Edison's work on the incandescent light AT&T and Sony's invention of the transistor Aviation up to the development of DC-3 (the first commercially viable transport airplane) Computers up to ENIAC-I Steam engines up to Newcomen Automobiles development up to Ford Our ancestors achieved these miracles with so few resources. They overcame such arduous difficulties. It gives me confidence that we can make cold fusion work. We may need someone like Edison. Unfortunately our creativity is at a low ebb these days. We ca nnot even bring a hybrid ICE - electric automobile to market. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, we will return to our traditions, and our society will once again produce a profusion of new inventions. PLEASE NOTE: before Kennel and million others jump on me, that was a JOKE about Palmolive detergent in the electrolyte. That's what electrochemists say -- as a joke! -- when you ask: "how do you clean a cathode?" I didn't mean it, okay? I am not accusing the NHE of deliberately spiking their cells to produce a meaningless result. They are quite capable of producing meaningless results without resorting to fraud. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 11:39:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:34:58 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:34:14 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"dAuaZ2.0.254.EHN8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10897 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Confused: YES!! John I find your research very interesting but your report writing EXTREMELY difficult to understand. Please explain in plain English and in point form what your device is. What is attached to what, what is in what container etc. How can we offer su ggestions when we don't know what you've measured? Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 14:45:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:10:11 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:08:56 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: power gen 95 Resent-Message-ID: <"Bu9FI3.0.613.mYP8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10900 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Now Jed wasn't the only one to see the device. Frank Z and many others including Professor Miley were there too. We've never heard other accounts and probably never will. It's all so frustrating! Martin Sevior .............................................................................. ...................... I was there. One KW of energy is hard to miss. It produced a 15 deg C delta T across the cell. The water was warm. Cravins dumped some of it into my calibrated flask and I measured the temps with a bulb therometer. True they didn't run the thing to long or the entire apparatus would have overheated. I video taped the whole affair. Jim Reding asked me not to distribute the tape. Someday in the distant future I will send a copy of the tape to the Smithsonian. A 1000 to 1 energy gain is hard to miss . It was a moment in history, I was glad to be there. Do you all believe it was a fraud? I believe that Jim Reding and Patterson are honest people. True, Jed does not have a Phd, however, he can do simple heat calculcations. Give it a break and stop bashing CETI and Jed. All of the conversations about extracting latent heat from phase changes. With one KW of energy coming out and no visible change in the circulating fluid it would have to be one incredible phase change. I have also woked with Yuri. We did not get any excess energy with his device, however, Yuri is onto something. He does not understand his process and needs a bit of help. Someday I would like to get it going and develop his technology in the US. I've just got a hold of lot of equipment. I'm up to something but I will not say what. Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 14:36:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:11:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Off Topic] NASA $elects (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"qgG4R3.0.ht2.ZUP8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10899 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:25:49 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: NASA Selects Contract for Agency-Wide Financial Management System Sonja Alexander Headquarters, Washington, DC September 18, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1761) Jim Sahli Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD (Phone: 301/286-0697) RELEASE: C97-l NASA SELECTS CONTRACT FOR AGENCY-WIDE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NASA has selected KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, Washington, DC, to implement an agency-wide financial management system. This Integrated Financial Management (IFM) System consists of the following components: core financial, budget, executive information system, travel, time and attendance, procurement, and asset management. The contract also will include all hardwar e and software required by the IFM System as well as associated implementation and sustaining support services. The contract is valued at $186.3 million. It includes fixed price options for the budget, procurement, travel, and time and attendance components and the sustaining support services. The contract also includes a level of effort ceiling and a ceilin g for indefinite-quantity training classes. An unpriced option for asset management is also included. Deployment of the IFM System will begin on October 1, 1998, and is expected to be completed no later than July 1, 1999. The contract will be managed by NASAUs Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. -end- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 15:51:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:45:48 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:45:40 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate References: <199709181759.MAA25459 mirage.skypoint.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"qR2ew3.0.373.QyQ8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10901 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: > > Barry Merriman wrote: > > If you think intuitively about why accelerated charges radiate > > (e.g., if a charge at rest suddenly moves to the right 1 meter, > > it must propagate out a new static coulomb field whose center of > > origin is one meter to the right, and this propagating field > > discontinuity is precisely the radiation field), > > Using this intuitive model, one would seem to be able to conclude > that constant velocity motion alone would cause a charged particle > to radiate -- since its coulombic field is constantly moving to > a new location -- accleration, the change in velocity over a > change in time, is zero in this case. > Oh, John you spoil sport. :-) I was trying to avoid the technical detail that in order to understand why uniform motion does not create a radiation field, you have to let the field of the unaccelerated charge be the general E-B field of a uniformly translating charge with speed v, whi ch is only the static coulomb field in the case where v = 0. Thus, if the charge moves right by dX in time dT, the field turns out to only need to propagate out a correction if dX/dT is not v---if dX/dT = v (no accel.), the needed field "correction" is al ready included in the general form of the coulomb field, and so there is no radiation. -- 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 Thu Sep 18 16:55:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:53:10 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:53:03 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EV's vs OU's References: <199709181420_MC2-20F9-97A5 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"8cs-R.0.WV3.bxR8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10903 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little made the (astute) comment that all the historical (doesn't strictly apply to patent issued quite recently) "OU" patents are likely bogus, because other wise we would all be using OU washer and driers, etc, right now. Jed responded by saying that this was not completely valid, because we also do not all drive electric vehicles, even though the technology works and is in many ways superior (at least in the form of hybrid gas/electric, or perhaps fuel-cell powered) to ou r current intenal combustion vehicles. While Jeds argument does highlight one valid point (i.e. there are many reasons why technologies do not fully penetrate the market place), it does address the point Scott was making, which is really the question of whether "OU" devices exist at all. On th is issue, Jeds example does not counter Scott's valid point: While EV's have not penetrated the market, the fact that they are real and work has led to a fairly large number EV builders, owners and users---thousands in the US alone (even before the govern ment push to develop the technology). This is proof of existance and functionality of EV's. In contrast, there is no similar proof of existence of OU devices, even though their supposed designs have been published. (This argument of course does not prove that P&F or CETI are invalid (though in the case of P&F its getting there), but it certainly does practically dismiss all patented things that are decades old.) One final note, Just to supply Jed with his necessary daily dose of irritation. While I like Jed ("in a fashion"), and I thinks over all its very cool what he and Gene are doing, and I admire him for putting his time and money where his mouth is, and that he's quite intelligent and well educated, and he has always been helpful to me---I must say that I often find that the essays Jed writes have a subtle one sidedness, that turns them basically into very well contructed validations of what Jed believes. Th us, they either construct an airtight argument for a point that is subtly different from the true point of the discussion (as above) or they carefully select the facts that provide airtight support for Jed's perspective (often so in Jed's historical surve ys). Either way, I usually agree with what Jed write's as far as it goes, but I also think it usaully does not go far enough in addressing the fundamental point or in consideraing all the evidence in an even handed, unbiased fashion. Thus, I find his arti cles must be taken with a grain of salt---a large one, since I find them deceptively well written and organized. No offense Jed, just my opinion....view it as a backhanded compliment if you like, since basically I'm saying you write deceptively well, too well for the sake of science. Maybe you should be a philosopher of science---they seem to favor such discourse... . -- 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 Thu Sep 18 17:12:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:09:46 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off topic: Something unusual on Mars image Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:09:25 GMT Organization: Improving References: <342166DF.8C3D9FED verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"u07YX2.0.xX4.9BS8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10904 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:37:35 +0400, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >Go to http://mars.sgi.com/default.html (Sol 73, 17 Sep 1997), >look at northview_left.jpg or northview_right.jpg (stereoscopic images). >On upper left corner about 1/4 down from top, and 1/7 from left on left Also above it near the top of the left image, is what looks like the head of a flat topped screw upside down (solid black, with light grey sharp edge). >image and and very close to edge on right image there is a black elipse >or circular trace. There is also gray line trace on the sand descending >close to this circle. As this artifact is present on both images and >taken separately by different cameras, are not defects. Even a >trapizodal trace can be seen below the circle. And the trapezoid appear to contain regular rows of objects, slightly reminiscent of a computer keyboard (though this could be an artifact of the pixels in the image). > >Regards, > >hamdi ucar > 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 Thu Sep 18 18:50:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:43:44 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:49:28 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: [Off topic?] Extraterrestrial amino acids Resent-Message-ID: <"wFS4T.0.wC2.DZT8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10907 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Interesting summary in Nature Sep,18(www.nature.com): "Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchisonmeteorite" Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 18:17:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:12:54 -0700 X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:09:23 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: In bath... no bubblesRe: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"xBv6f2.0.mV.K6T8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10905 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi John, First, ...Congratulations! At 12:24 PM 9/18/97 -0400, John wrote: > > The initial tests were run in air, no nitrogen bath except for >chilling.... then fished out .... but they do not stay cold for long. > It appears from your description here, that there could be a slight (beneficial) artifact occurring. There was a "weight vss applied heat" experiment that was done at the turn of the century by Poynting, whose artifact-error turned out to be the added "buoyancy" due to the temperature difference between the hot object that was being weighed, and the surr ounding air. This made the experiment *appear* as if heating an object causes it to lose weight. In your case however, if you are weighing the total assembly at room temperature, there should appear, for the exact reverse reason, a *downward* force, due to very cold air surrounding the assembly, sinking. This negative buoyancy *should* cause the total assembly weight to appear *heavier* on the scale. While the negative gravity effect is occurring however, this downward force may not have been noticed. But did you notice at any time, *after* the gravity effect diminished, that the total assembly appeared to be slightly heavier ? The total weight loss may be *greater* than 2%. (Just my 2%'s worth.) Colin . X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 19:13:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:27:44 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Off topic: Something unusual on Mars image Resent-Message-ID: <"GQKRq1.0.HG6.zZT8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10908 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Did you ever tried to look these stereoscopic images as 3D by simply crossing eyes. They looks great. Clue is placing the left image to the right and the right to the left on the screen. 3D Mars images gives more information than I expected (Its worth to consume the downlink time). Even the resolution is geting enhanced automatically by the optical proccessing at the brain. At 3D, the artifact look like more to a stone having a height, rather than a flat trace on soil. If it is a stone, it is not difficult this time to explain the dark trace as a shadow contour. Unfortunately, the trapeizoid is off the right image. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 18:39:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:32:29 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:28:12 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Open question "Black box" Resent-Message-ID: <"rCM5s.0.BV1.hOT8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10906 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Industry at times has used persons as "Black Boxes" for the purposes of enabling technology transfer. The BB is a person trusted by both parties but who does not stand to gain. In the old west sometimes a doctor or a bartender was the black box and wo uld hold a bet. I am looking to see who would be a good black box for the gravity work. I would use Richard Feynman ... if he were alive and he would come. In this case the need for the black box arises from a basic property of the gravity work to date; even though I admit I do not know exactly the mechanism ... it is VERY simple to do. One look from a technical person of moderate background and the repr oduction is easy. Any ideas? Thanks, John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 13:43:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:06:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:02:04 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"mHqdW3.0.5q1.Yij8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10939 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick - Everyone reinvents the solid-state thermodynamic molecular thruster when they first arrive at the notion that heat is the momentum of the movement of the individual particles comprising the material. I always wanted to induce a large boulder to spend its heat in a way that would make it float in the air, if even only for a short time. I read stories that the ancients knew what kind of things to play on their trumpets to make this happen. Yeah, I know - rock music. Ugh. But I still feel like I've mis-communicated here. Let me just state clearly that I think it is absolutely NOT possible that any system using classical mechanics could produce an unbalanced or reactionless thrust. That's not to say that something *else* mi ght not come along, nor does it rule out that the effects of such might indeed appear from amidst rotating or gyrating objects under some special circumstances. But rotating, oscillating, gyrating gizmos, by classical mechanics will never work, IMO. , I just wanted a simple irrefutable test/knife to cut away those gizmos which are claimed by some to produce thrust but in fact do not work, such as the Dean drive and many related devices devices. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 23:25:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:19:25 -0700 References: Conversation <199709180053.RAA32089@mail1.halcyon.com> with last message <3420F21D.2E713289@mi crotronics.com.au> Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Fred Epps" Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Thu, 18 Sep 97 18:55:34 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"Q5FUC.0.e8.ibX8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10914 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Greg, I do have a lot of material on various inertial drives (several hundred pages). Much of it you are welcome to post. Unfortunately I will have to send you the 16 pages of material I have on the Thornson drive on the condition that you view it for your ow n benefit and send it to those who ask, but do not put it on your site. The reason being that it is by Tom Valone who is a current and active participant in the O/U world and who at some point I may have to deal with.... I would like to keep on his good side. If I can get ahold of him I will ask him if it can be done. Also, I am reposting a question I had about gyromechanics to you, maybe you can give me an answer. Nobody has been able to so far (I will post it to the list when I get home but for some reason the list doesn't recognize my work computer) Fred > Being a Dean fan & Dean drive builder, I would like to post ALL you > have on Dean and any such drives. > > -- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 19:10:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:04:30 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Open question "Black box" Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:03:53 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"-4id93.0.r13.jsT8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10910 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:28 AM 9/19/97 +0000, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Industry at times has used persons as "Black Boxes" for the >purposes of enabling technology transfer. The BB is a person trusted by >both parties but who does not stand to gain. In the old west sometimes a >doctor or a bartender was the black box and would hold a bet. > In this case the need for the black box arises from a basic >property of the gravity work to date; even though I admit I do not know >exactly the mechanism ... it is VERY simple to do. One look from a >technical person of moderate background and the reproduction is easy. > > Any ideas? Methinks that "reproduction" and gravity are inter-related too. Gravity does help. :-) Good Luck. Regards, Frederick > > > Thanks, > > > John > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 20:05:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:00:02 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:59:17 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"xnrqb2.0.2j6.lgU8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10912 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:36 PM 9/18/97 +0000, Rick wrote: >John - > > > If you suspend a gyro at 90 degrees with respect > > to the line, and the CG off center, I believe the > > CG will move to the lowest gravitational point > > which will hang the string off vertical -- but > > -- the gyro and the string deflection will > > precess around and around. > >Aha! Thanks John, that sounds like a good idea. I had a feeling there was >some way to do it, and that's why I was in doubt. > >Now couldn't there be a second gyro to offset the precession? Hide this all >in a black box and hang it from the string, and the box will hang there >dead still (if it's all tuned properly) with the string at an angle. > >I *was* wrong. But the question remains then: if the entire geometric >volume of the box is hanging clear of the vertical plumbline, *then*, given >the usual precautions mentioned before, can we be asssured of a true >anomaly which probably involves reactionless thrust? > >This would be good to know as a solid and rather simple acid test for such >claims. Aha! A simple rule of mechanics. "The Sum of the forces in a closed system is equal to Zero (Fx + Fy + Fz = 0)." The Earth levarage point for suspending the "box" completes the equation. It WILL NOT work in space. You can send it up to the MIR and try it if you like, or put a frisky cat in a box or sack and watch the action of "Puss n Boots space drive". :-) Regards, Frederick > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 20:50:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:17:18 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"vCFOX3.0.uC4.4_U8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10913 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Brief; The feed wires go up along with the support threads.... travel along the beam ... and the nearly-limp-as-a-dead-snake Litz wires take a gentle turn away from the beam at the pivot point over a foot away. On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Martin - > > > This sounds like the SC is included in the weight > > of the object. If this is the case the explanation > > is simple. Your SC is repelling some of the > > magnetic field thus lightening the load. > > This points up some apparent confusion here, some of which is probably > mine, but... > --------------------------------- > My understanding of Schnurer's setup here is that the coils, the SC, and > the target masses (quarters) are *all* stuck together in one package. The > whole thing is weighed together while under LN2. He's not just weighing the > quarters, and not just weighing the quarters and SC over some fixed coils. > -------------------------- YES----------- > The thing that bothers me the most is those wires carrying current while > connected to the hanging assembly. They have magnetic fields around them > which may interact with the coils and SC fields, and they might tend to > flex and move during current pulses. They do not visibly move even under magnification ... But why then would there be such a > difference in force between runs with and without target masses? I think > John pretty much nulls out their potential effect. Do the quarters somehow > change the induction in the area above the SC so much that it increases or > dramatically changes the geometry of the the push-off the hanging assembly > might get against the litz wires' fields? wires are on beam ..... no tension anywhere along beam. That doesn't make sense to me, > but I admit the question may need to be cleared by further refinements or > versions of the experiment. > You bet. Collecting artifacts! > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 18 19:13:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:31:54 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Modification References: Resent-Message-ID: <"6P9zk2.0.FX6.BeT8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10909 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi John S. et al! You mentioned you cannot pick up a quarter with a magnet......there is an unusual device which lets you pick up non-ferrous metals....I had asked a friend (Ken McNeal) if gold or silver could be magnetically attracted and he said yes, that he had a friend who used a small machine to win bar bets doing just that. The principle involves creation of a 'circulating current' in the object to be attracted. As it was explained to me, a probe with specially wound coils culminating in a tip was touched to the gold or silver coin. When power is applied, the coil produces an artificial circulating current in the object which then makes it subject to a magnet. I understand there is a book on the subject but don't know the name or author of it. Have to check into it and run up a file with the details and schematics if possible. One other point that concerns me about the claims of gravity modification. Since a superconductor produces a strong diamagnetic effect, then it is simply repelling magnetism. This is amply proven by the repulsion sufficient to levitate living objects su ch as the frogs. The superconducting spherical monopole that Wachspress uses and which fly off into space are simply repelling against the earths magnetic field. TRUE gravity control is a horse of a different color that I don't think will have anything to do with magnetic effects. Wouldn't it be odd if most of the historical reports of antigravity simply involved the temporary production of a very strong diamagnetic effect and that NONE had any true interaction with gravity? 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 Thu Sep 18 23:32:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:27:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:27:07 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"rGceH3.0._N._iX8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10915 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Jerry wrote: > Hi John S. et al! > > You mentioned you cannot pick up a quarter with a magnet......there is an > unusual device which lets you pick up non-ferrous metals....I had asked a > friend (Ken McNeal) if gold or silver could be magnetically attracted and > he said yes, that he had a friend who used a small machine to win bar > bets doing just that. Hi Jerry! This is the "aluminum electromagnet". If you power an electromagnet with AC, it will repel conductors by Lenz-law forces. (This is basically the same as superconductive repulsion.) The AC field induces a current in the conductor, the current creates its own magnetic field, and the fields repel each other. A strong AC electromagnet can actually levitate an aluminum plate. But if TWO THIN CONDUCTOR PLATES are placed near an AC electromagnet, they will be repelled, but also they will attract each other. The electromagnet induces a current in both conductors, the currents travel in the same direction, and they attract magnet ically. So, to make an electromagnet pick up non-ferrous metals, power it with AC, and attach one conductive plate to it with a spacer between the plate and the electromagnet. When held near another conductive plate, the plate will be attracted to the first plat e more strongly than it will be repelled by the magnet. Since loops of current are induced, this works better for plates or rings than for small objects. Being an AC induction device, I wonder if Tesla invented it? .....................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 Sep 18 23:36:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:31:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:31:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex Subject: Re: Open question "Black box" Resent-Message-ID: <"o7LnQ1.0.vU.HnX8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10916 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > Industry at times has used persons as "Black Boxes" for the > purposes of enabling technology transfer. The BB is a person trusted by > both parties but who does not stand to gain. In the old west sometimes a > doctor or a bartender was the black box and would hold a bet. Do you need a "black box," or do you actually need an unbiased expert who is willing to sign an NDA? The latter is probably easier to find... .....................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 Sep 19 00:12:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:07:20 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: (fwd) New CERN preprint on transmutations in palladium Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:06:59 GMT Organization: Improving References: <3420bc66.77778443 mailman.enter.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"2Ygt_1.0.tb1.dIY8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10917 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:25:14 GMT, Robert G. Flower wrote: > >Report title: "Unexpected Elements from Saturated Palladium" >Report date: 28 April 1997 [snip] >>http://preprints.cern.ch/cgi-bin/send_tiff_frame.sh.cgi?/archive/electronic/scan/9709/SCAN-9709020.tif >> [snip] Note that one of the elements found that are reported in this report is Am, a completely "artificial" element that has only short lived isotopes, and is therefore not found in nature. (Presumably all the Am used in smoke detectors comes from nuclear reactors). 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 Fri Sep 19 00:57:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:44:06 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:50:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Off topic:] Something unusual on Mars image Resent-Message-ID: <"UyweN3.0.CX2.5rY8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10918 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >>On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:37:35 +0400, Hamdi Ucar wrote: >>>Go to http://mars.sgi.com/default.html (Sol 73, 17 Sep 1997), >>>look at northview_left.jpg or northview_right.jpg (stereoscopic images). >>>On upper left corner about 1/4 down from top, and 1/7 from left on left -snip-snip-snip? >>Also above it near the top of the left image, is what looks like the >>head of a flat topped screw upside down (solid black, with light grey >>sharp edge). >>>image and and very close to edge on right image there is a black elipse >>>or circular trace. There is also gray line trace on the sand descending >>>close to this circle. As this artifact is present on both images and >>>taken separately by different cameras, are not defects. Even a >>>trapizodal trace can be seen below the circle. >> >>And the trapezoid appear to contain regular rows of objects, slightly >>reminiscent of a computer keyboard (though this could be an artifact >>of the pixels in the image). >>>Regards, >>>hamdi ucar >>Regards, >>Robin van Spaandonk hi hamdi & robin, What are you guys looking at?? .. i went there (crank'd up the ol winDOZE to get over 60 files in the archive too.) the last archived is sol 72, so i presume sol 73 is the ROCK on the MAIN PAGE.. I see the Rock with a slot (inverted screw i think).. the black elipse i suppose you talking about is the longest line (s.w/ or behind the rock / with top of pic being north) DID YOU Notice straight across from that trial (elipse) to the right is a little itty bitty rock that made an 80 degree right turn??? (left a 2 foot trial and hooked towards the "chimp" boulder for about 4-5 inches!?!?!) Perpective: you know, i'm sure that sojourner is ONLY about 3' or 1 meter or so in size?? the fore and aft pictures (with sojourner included), so these rocks,rocks,rocks are about 2-6 feet i guess (looks a lot like the chilian desert they practiced on in south ame rica). Great Pictures! however, the attached one i recieved in 'my cache' (see attached) did not look anythinglike a ROCK.. what the heck is this a picture of?? It didn't show up on my web browser (maybe not complete on transfer?)... do you clean your c ache regularly (or can you check), to see if you got a similar picture (gif). Most of the images were .jpg's i noted, but about 20-30% were .gifs (weird to me /standardization was i thought a nasa thing). --------- anyway, (ROCK 1) what are you looking at?? attached gif (what the heck kind of bug/dog/picture is this??) --------- finally, I got to admit i never thought i would be able to 'take a trip to mars' from my home here, so i would recommend the link. i'm not plannin on keeping this image, as i clean up nightly... and rocks,rocks,rocks while cool take more room than i have at the moment... about 8-10 meg of mars! just thought it was weird (the attached.gif) was included. did you note the sol 73 temperture = 14 F?? now THAT's COOL & that was the HIGH! :) thanks for anyhelp in define attached gif... [THIS was/IS diffently OFF TOPIC] -=se=- p.s. I like the bull's-eye of sediment from the atmosphere that had collected already on their magnet collector. look like smot will work on mars too! :) Content-Type: IMAGE/GIF; name="mars_what.gif" Content-ID: Content-Description: Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\MARS_WHA.GIF X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 01:16:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:12:01 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:18:00 -0600 (MDT) From: St eve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"Qqxrg2.0.6q3.GFZ8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10919 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Rick Monteverde wrote: -snip- >>John pretty much nulls out their potential effect. Do the quarters somehow >>change the induction in the area above the SC so much that it increases or >>dramatically changes the geometry of the the push-off the hanging assembly >>might get against the litz wires' fields? That doesn't make sense to me, >>but I admit the question may need to be cleared by further refinements or >>versions of the experiment. >> >>- Rick Monteverde >>Honolulu, HI >> hi Rick, A few years back there were guys running ALL OVER the place measuring gravity (atop 1000' ft antenna towers , over hills and dales.. etc..) seems i recall one or (some) of the 'Most deviated G areas' were IN the Colorado mines we have around here... The Largest Deviations were WHEN the ABOVE MOUNTIAN was Thicker/ Heavier Metal Ore content. (quarters?) *This doesn't make sense to me either, (quarters 'blocking' gravity would point/suggest aether ): heavier. Mountain over Tunnel/mine 'blocking' aether should be heavier pointing/suggesting 'pull gravity'. lighter. I know that doesn't help, but just a 2% thought :) "time to turn my chair around again" :) noted your weather there on the news (must me nice:) our Aspen are turning and the A10 bomber bomb search is OFF for the WINTER.. brrr envious me :) -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 04:55:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:41:18 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:20:20 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: eprint: Theory of Hysteresis Loop in Ferromagnet Resent-Message-ID: <"21Q73.0.SB1.TJc8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10925 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Condensed Matter, cond-mat/9709194 Theory of Hysteresis Loop in Ferromagnet Authors: Igor F.Lyuksyutov, Thomas Nattermann, Valery Pokrovsky Abstract: A theory of the hysteresis loop in ferromagnets controlled by the domain wall motion is presented. Published at 17 Sep 97, available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9709194 Mostly for Watson, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 05:17:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:12:56 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off topic: Something unusual on Mars image References: <342166DF.8C3D9FED verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"vEi4U2.0.LO2.ZQc8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10926 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Steve Ekwall wrote: anyway, (ROCK 1) what are you looking at?? attached gif (what the heck kind of bug/dog/picture is this??) Your attached gif did not appears. The exact locations of images are: http://mars.sgi.com/ops/northview_right.jpg http://mars.sgi.com/ops/northview_left.jpg Look at them as 3D by the method I described previously (if you have not better method). Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 03:28:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 03:19:22 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 06:17:32 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: gwatson@microtronics.com.au, fepps@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: A patent for a converting ZPF EM radiation to electrical energy. Resent-Message-ID: <"oIYe31.0.7v6.e6b8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10923 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi All, You will find a very interesting patent bellow : 5590031 : System for converting electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INVENTORS:Mead, Jr.; Franklin B., Lancaster, CA 93535 Nachamkin; Jack, Poway, CA 92064 ABSTRACT: A system is disclosed for converting high frequency zero point electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy. The system includes a pair of dielectric structures which are positioned proximal to each other and which receive incident ze ro point electromagnetic radiation. The volumetric sizes of the structures are selected so that they resonate at a frequency of the incident radiation. The volumetric sizes of the structures are also slightly different so that the secondary radiation emit ted therefrom at resonance interfere with each other producing a beat frequency radiation which is at a much lower frequency than that of the incident radiation and which is amenable to conversion to electrical energy. An antenna receives the beat frequen cy radiation. The beat frequency radiation from the antenna is transmitted to a converter via a conductor or waveguide and converted to electrical energy having a desired voltage and waveform. >> The direct link is :http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/5590031 Sincerely, Jean-louis Naudin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 04:43:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:04:46 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"-82Mn1.0.nU1.Dob8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10924 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:50 AM 9/19/97 +0000, Rick wrote: >Frederick - > > > Aha! A simple rule of mechanics. "The Sum of > > the forces in a closed system is equal to Zero > > (Fx + Fy + Fz = 0)." The Earth levarage point > > for suspending the "box" completes the equation. > > It WILL NOT work in space. > > [snip] > >What won't work? The whole point I was on about was to find a simple way to >test reputed "inertial drives" in case one does work. I thought maybe any >deflection of the string would be good, but John Logajan pointed out the >gyro situation which could 'fake' that case and provide no real thrust. > >But say you had a promising gravity or inertial or something shield, and >you mount it sideways. It moves the string over a little bit, but the >imaginary vertical plumbline from the connection point above (not the other >end on the device) still falls across part of the mechanism. Not that that >rules out anoomalous force, but it doesn't necessarily prove it either. But >if the apparatus can swing itself out and stay put with it's entire >geometric area out to the side of the plumblline, then...see? Such a gizmo >*would* work in space as a thruster. > >I think. Here is an exercise that tickles the dendrites and nearly got me in debt back in the early seventies. Take a sealed can, say 10 cm diameter by 40 cm long and evacuate it to around 0.1 mm Hg. Now since at 760 mm Hg and 20 deg C there are 2.69E19 molecules of a gas/cm^3, at this pressure there should be (2.69E19/7600 equal 3.54E15 molecules/cm^3. Now then, from the kinetic theory of gases the number of molecules striking a cm^2 of the internal suface of the can/sec; 0.25*3.54E15*average molecular velocity. Since 1/2*mv^2 = kT, for helium v = [kT/.5m]^1/2 = 1.1E5 cm/sec. Thus there should be 0.25* 3.54E15*1.1E5 equal 9.77E19 wall collisions/second/cm^2 anywhere in the can causing pressure (in this case 14.7/7600 = 1.93E-3 psi. Ok. Now paint all but one end of the can so as to cool it as much as possible by heat radiation and heat one end so that as the molecules strike the heated area they gain momentum giving it more of a kick or causing a pressure greater than the 1.93E-3 psi as they recoil from it causing a thrust proportional to the pressure difference between the heated and cooled surfaces. Essentially this the principle that those Crookes Radiometer "Perpetual Motion Machines" work on. Will it "Fly" in Space if the hot end is heated, say with a radioisotope, essentially making it a "passive space drive? :-) Regards, Frederick > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 07:12:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:04:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:26:53 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex , Frank Znidarsic Subject: eprint: Energy Radiation from a Moving Mirror with Finite Mass Resent-Message-ID: <"3BepS2.0.cE7.QPe8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10928 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com High Energy Physics - Theory, hep-th/9709128 Energy Radiation from a Moving Mirror with Finite Mass Authors: Riuji Mochizuki, Kenji Ikegami, Takayuki Suga In this paper we study energy radiation from a moving mirror in 1+1 dimensional space-time. The mirror is assumed to have finite mass and accordingly to receive back reaction from scalar photon field. The mode expansion of the scalar field becomes differe nt from that without back reaction though the trajectory of the mirror is not changed. Then energy density of the vacuum becomes to have finite value proportional to equae aof the mass of the mirror. Moreover we compute the energy momentum tensor of the r adiation in the case that acceleration of the mirror is small. As a result we show that the mirror creates energy radiation whose quantity does not depend on its mass but on its acceleration even if the acceleration is uniform.} Published at 18 Sep 97, available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9709128 This is around the exact experiment proposed by Frank Znidarsic and me. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 06:08:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:44:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Open ..expert... question "Black box" Resent-Message-ID: <"vrEto3.0.Dk3.rId8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10927 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Bill, Howdy! Yes an expert who is unbiased and who signs NDA is a black box... the sticking point we recently found was in industry or DoD it was often not OK for that person to field aphone call saying 'Yes, I saw'. J On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, William Beaty wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, John Schnurer wrote: > > > Industry at times has used persons as "Black Boxes" for the > > purposes of enabling technology transfer. The BB is a person trusted by > > both parties but who does not stand to gain. In the old west sometimes a > > doctor or a bartender was the black box and would hold a bet. > > Do you need a "black box," or do you actually need an unbiased expert who > is willing to sign an NDA? The latter is probably easier to find... > > > .....................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 Sep 19 07:45:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:37:14 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:41:33 -0500 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, g-miley@uiuc.edu Subject: Blue re Liversage throrium measurement Resent-Message-ID: <"iH7oa1.0.Pj.Pue8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10929 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Re: Liversage responds to Blue Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:38:34 GMT From: blue pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Liversage made a basic mistake when he assumed that the determination of the thorium activity was a simple measurement that could be made by relatively crude means. The fact that he received advice from George Miley does not really address the problems a ssociated with a determination of that activity in a manner that is appropriate to an independent evaluation of the Cincinnati Group's claims. First it should be recognized that the very long half-life for 232Th means, that by definition, the activity is rather low -- low enough that careful consideration of backgrounds is essential. Second it should be recognized that the detectors employed by Liversage and by CG do not, in fact, respond to the decay of thorium! It is not the alpha decay of thorium that is being detected at all, but rather it is gamma rays emitted from various daugh ters somewhere further down in the decay chain. So Liversage employed a detector that responds to something other than thorium and asserts that a change in the count rate confirms the transmutation of thorium. It is the sort of error that a prudent scientist would not make, particularly if he is divin ely inspired. As I have pointed out in other notes on this subject, anyone using radio-chemical methods should be aware of the fact that activity determinations and chemical analysis may involve such vastly different sensitivities that the activity measurements can be dominated by isotopes that are not even seen in the chemical analysis. It seems to me that before anyone pays much heed to the CG claim for "deactivation" of thorium we ought to see evidence that they can, in fact, make a meaningful measurement of said activity. Liversage has not made such a measurement. Dick Blue PS: For anyone who is scratching their heads over selection rules, it's nothing you haven't heard of before. Just remember that what does not first go up cannot then fall back down. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 08:24:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:20:57 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:25:10 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re Merriman re Rothwell Resent-Message-ID: <"kfsC71.0.Kl3.NXf8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10931 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 19, 1997 Dear all, I want to second Barry Merriman on his "back-handed compliment" about Jed Rothwell: "quite intelligent...subtle one sidedness...deceptively well written and organized". I want to add that Rothwell's style is frankly partisan, with a quality of urgency, that casts issues in a "we" vs "them" light, so that critics and their efforts are dismissed as untrustworthy opponents, rather than carefully listened to as helpful contributors to a necessary debate process. As an recent example, here is a suggestion by Mitchell Swartz and Rothwell's response on Sept. 17: BTW, if you want to be taken seriously and/or if you want to improve your papers though (often harsh) criticism, Jed, you might try the channels directly through the physics or electrochemical communities. God forbid I should ever be taken seriously by the physics community or any other branch of establishment science. I would never submit my ideas for "peer review" with people like Lewis, Lindley, Morrison or Hoffman. If they approved I would assume I made a mistake. So, here is a very well said statement, honest, direct, humorous. I think the trap for Rothwell is the term "establishment science". This "establishment science" has in the last two decades come up with a vision of physics that mandates six more dimensi ons of space, and that depicts the observed universe as resulting from a single quantum vacuum fluctuation in something, an event that equally effortlessly created a wider unobservable (because further than 12 billion light years away) universe, equally f ull of galaxies, perhaps over 10E75 greater volume. Why not give up our own prejudices that cause us to limit communication with minds that think this freely and daringly? As one, Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 09:11:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:53:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:49:42 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: EV's vs OU's To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"piVyn1.0.2q5.G0g8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10932 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: Scott Little made the (astute) comment that all the historical (doesn't strictly apply to patent issued quite recently) "OU" patents are likely bogus, because other wise we would all be using OU washer and driers, etc, right now. Jed responded by saying that this was not completely valid, because we also do not all drive electric vehicles, even though the technology works . . . Perhaps I did not make it clear that I agree with Scott. These patents are probably bogus. The absence of practical devices is evidence for this. Evidence, but not proof. There are a few important counter-examples. There are even cases of deliberate suppression, which will excite the conspiracy theorists. These are not "o-u," they are conventional energy devices. The best example is the Farnsworth fusor, a hot fusion reactor which I think must have been real. Farnsworth's reputation as one of America's greatest scientists and inventors is secure. He developed it at ITT, a leading U.S. lab, with a crack team of researchers all of whom stood by his c laims. Perhaps the fusor may never have been perfected and brought to market. But there is strong evidence it worked. That is, it self-sustained for short periods. There is no doubt whatever that it was brutally suppressed by vested interests, which contr ibuted to Farnsworth's tragic early death. There may be other examples. The ones I have tried to follow up on dissolve in smoke and mirrors. In contrast, there is no similar proof of existence of OU devices, even though their supposed designs have been published. This is a much more telling point than the lack of commercial products. This is why we can be sure cold fusion is real, and the Meyer device probably is not. Many people tried to replicate both. Hundreds succeeded in replicating CF, no one succeeded in re plicating Meyer as far as I know. (This argument of course does not prove that P&F or CETI are invalid (though in the case of P&F its getting there), but it certainly does practically dismiss all patented things that are decades old.) P&F's was a scientific discovery, not a business venture. It has been confirmed by widespread replication at high s/n ratios. R&D is often scientifically valid even when it does not lead to commercial success. Josephson junctions and HTSC are a good examples: nobody would question the reality of these superconducting effects just because the devices have failed commercially. Unless Merriman can find a technical error in CF experimental method or data, he must a dmit that the CF effect is real, because the sigma is high and the effect has been observed often by many different researchers using sound techniques. Commercial standards are irrelevant. You cannot arbitrarily apply standards from one discipline to an u nrelated field. You cannot judge science by the standards of business; or business by the standards of engineering; or love by the standards of the U.S. army. The patent o-u patent holders aspired to business success. They kept their methods secret according to business ethics. We are forced to judge them by the standards of business. Pons and Fleischmann did not keep any important secrets about cold fusion for the first three years. They taught anyone who was willing to listen as much as they knew. By the end of 1990, many people learned the lessons well. If Merriman disagrees, he dismisses the work of these people for no reason. He has never given me a reaso n, anyway, and he has had many years to think about it. He abandons the experimental method. He is adrift with no standards and no way to judge a scientific question. In physics, if you cannot find a reason to doubt replicated results, then you must belie ve them. Any belief not forbidden is compulsory, to paraphrase Feynman. How else can it work? Are we going to arbitrarily choose which experiments we believe and which we reject based on business factors?!? We might as well use an Ouija board, a populari ty contest, or a random number generator. Business has nothing to do with it, and theory is no guide either. You can never reject a fact just because it appears to be impossible. Replication and the s/n ratio are the only meaningful standards. In a compliment that pleases me immensely, Merriman adds: I must say that I often find that the essays Jed writes have a subtle one sidedness, that turns them basically into very well constructed validations of what Jed believes. Thus, they either construct an airtight argument for a point that is subtly different from the true point of the discussion (as above) or they carefully select the facts that provide airtight support for Jed's perspective (often so in Jed's historical surveys). Either way, I usually agree with what Jed write's as far as it goes, but I also think it usually does not go far enough in addressing the fundamental point or in considering all the evidence in an even handed, unbiased fashion. In that case my essays succeed far beyond my expectation! Chris Tinsley will say I have Scots blood, but I must answer this complement with an insult. I never expected I could even partially convince Merriman, because there is an unbridgeable cultural gap between us. This message is a good example. He seriously believes that we might dismiss the work of Pons and Fleischmann because it does not sell yet. For me that is heresy. I am a fanatical Baconian. I believe in the *absolute, unshakable primacy of exp eriment and observation* in science. When instruments dictate the truth we must believe it. More often, they send a confused massage, so we need to devise better instruments. But when they agree again and again, in lab after lab, and they show 1, 2 or 15 deg C temperature elevations that can only indicate excess heat . . . well, if we reject or ignore such results, we reject Western Civilization. As Bacon said, "we are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, although weak; but rat her to furnish them with assistance." Merriman finds me "subtly" biased. I find him grossly biased. He refuses to discuss McKubre or any other CF paper and he would reject Pons and Fleischmann because CF does not sell. How can a scientist think this way?! ? When I see scientists casually dismiss, ignore and denigrate replicated data -- the holy grail of science! -- and when I see them toss out objectivity and substitute marketing fads, it shocks me. It is like seeing a policemen casually abandon the rule of law, or a doctor sneer at the germ theory. I am not suggesting that commercial success is meaningless, or that business does not have its own standards and logic. Business offers valuable lessons to the scientist, and vice versa. But you cannot run science as if it were a business. You cannot run a corporation like a laboratory either. Business is not governed strictly by objective logic. It takes sensitivity, emotion, empathy for the customer, ambition, and other ineffable qualities expressed in art and literature, which science cannot encompass. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 10:41:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:38:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:02:26 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: A patent for a converting ZPF EM radiation to electrical energy. References: <970919061731_640597238 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"Ys-an2.0.YA3.2Yh8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10933 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 very interesting patent bellow : > > 5590031 : System for converting electromagnetic radiation energy to > electrical energy Thank you Naudin, very interesting indeed. I am still downloading pages. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 03:41:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 03:38:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:36:03 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"tD6U7.0.me2.pUw8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10964 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin - > How about expulsion of the earth's magnetic field? But why would it expel the earth's field with about half a gram or so of force with 4 quarters as targets, and then expel the field with over a gram of force when more quarters are used? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 12:15:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:40:05 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: EV's vs OU's To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"zwIh62.0.kh6.gVi8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10934 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: Scott Little made the (astute) comment that all the historical (doesn't strictly apply to patent issued quite recently) "OU" patents are likely bogus, because other wise we would all be using OU washer and driers, etc, right now. Jed responded by saying that this was not completely valid, because we also do not all drive electric vehicles, even though the technology works . . . Perhaps I did not make it clear that I agree with Scott. These patents are probably bogus. The absence of practical devices is evidence for this. Evidence, but not proof. There are a few important counter-examples. There are even cases of deliberate suppression, which will excite the conspiracy theorists. These are not "o-u," they are conventional energy devices. The best example is the Farnsworth fusor, a hot fusion reactor which I think must have been real. Farnsworth's reputation as one of America's greatest scientists and inventors is secure. He developed it at ITT, a leading U.S. lab, with a crack team of researchers all of whom stood by his c laims. Perhaps the fusor may never have been perfected and brought to market. But there is strong evidence it worked. That is, it self-sustained for short periods. There is no doubt whatever that it was brutally suppressed by vested interests, which contr ibuted to Farnsworth's tragic early death. There may be other examples. The ones I have tried to follow up on dissolve in smoke and mirrors. In contrast, there is no similar proof of existence of OU devices, even though their supposed designs have been published. This is a much more telling point than the lack of commercial products. This is why we can be sure cold fusion is real, and the Meyer device probably is not. Many people tried to replicate both. Hundreds succeeded in replicating CF, no one succeeded in re plicating Meyer as far as I know. (This argument of course does not prove that P&F or CETI are invalid (though in the case of P&F its getting there), but it certainly does practically dismiss all patented things that are decades old.) P&F's was a scientific discovery, not a business venture. It has been confirmed by widespread replication at high s/n ratios. R&D is often scientifically valid even when it does not lead to commercial success. Josephson junctions and HTSC are a good examples: nobody would question the reality of these superconducting effects just because the devices have failed commercially. Unless Merriman can find a technical error in CF experimental method or data, he must a dmit that the CF effect is real, because the sigma is high and the effect has been observed often by many different researchers using sound techniques. Commercial standards are irrelevant. You cannot arbitrarily apply standards from one discipline to an u nrelated field. You cannot judge science by the standards of business; or business by the standards of engineering; or love by the standards of the U.S. army. The patent o-u patent holders aspired to business success. They kept their methods secret according to business ethics. We are forced to judge them by the standards of business. Pons and Fleischmann did not keep any important secrets about cold fusion for the first three years. They taught anyone who was willing to listen as much as they knew. By the end of 1990, many people learned the lessons well. If Merriman disagrees, he dismisses the work of these people for no reason. He has never given me a reaso n, anyway, and he has had many years to think about it. He abandons the experimental method. He is adrift with no standards and no way to judge a scientific question. In physics, if you cannot find a reason to doubt replicated results, then you must belie ve them. Any belief not forbidden is compulsory, to paraphrase Feynman. How else can it work? Are we going to arbitrarily choose which experiments we believe and which we reject based on business factors?!? We might as well use an Ouija board, a populari ty contest, or a random number generator. Business has nothing to do with it, and theory is no guide either. You can never reject a fact just because it appears to be impossible. Replication and the s/n ratio are the only meaningful standards. In a compliment that pleases me immensely, Merriman adds: I must say that I often find that the essays Jed writes have a subtle one sidedness, that turns them basically into very well constructed validations of what Jed believes. Thus, they either construct an airtight argument for a point that is subtly different from the true point of the discussion (as above) or they carefully select the facts that provide airtight support for Jed's perspective (often so in Jed's historical surveys). Either way, I usually agree with what Jed write's as far as it goes, but I also think it usually does not go far enough in addressing the fundamental point or in considering all the evidence in an even handed, unbiased fashion. In that case my essays succeed far beyond my expectation! Chris Tinsley will say I have Scots blood, but I must answer this complement with an insult. I never expected I could even partially convince Merriman, because there is an unbridgeable cultural gap between us. This message is a good example. He seriously believes that we might dismiss the work of Pons and Fleischmann because it does not sell yet. For me that is heresy. I am a fanatical Baconian. I believe in the *absolute, unshakable primacy of exp eriment and observation* in science. When instruments dictate the truth we must believe it. More often, they send a confused massage, so we need to devise better instruments. But when they agree again and again, in lab after lab, and they show 1, 2 or 15 deg C temperature elevations that can only indicate excess heat . . . well, if we reject or ignore such results, we reject Western Civilization. As Bacon said, "we are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, although weak; but rat her to furnish them with assistance." Merriman finds me "subtly" biased. I find him grossly biased. He refuses to discuss McKubre or any other CF paper and he would reject Pons and Fleischmann because CF does not sell. How can a scientist think this way?! ? When I see scientists casually dismiss, ignore and denigrate replicated data -- the holy grail of science! -- and when I see them toss out objectivity and substitute marketing fads, it shocks me. It is like seeing a policemen casually abandon the rule of law, or a doctor sneer at the germ theory. I am not suggesting that commercial success is meaningless, or that business does not have its own standards and logic. Business offers valuable lessons to the scientist, and vice versa. But you cannot run science as if it were a business. You cannot run a corporation like a laboratory either. Business is not governed strictly by objective logic. It takes sensitivity, emotion, empathy for the customer, ambition, and other ineffable qualities expressed in art and literature, which science cannot encompass. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 11:56:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:45:31 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:43:05 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Oops! Posted twice. To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"uB8AW1.0.hc7.8Xi8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10936 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Oops, I think I just posted a message here twice! Sorry about that. I meant to post another message asking anyone to define "ou." I honestly do not understand the term. Does it mean, "violates mass-energy conservation"? - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 11:58:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:45:37 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:43:18 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Swartz table / "ou" definition unclear To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"4Vuqy1.0.1d7.CXi8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10937 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitch Swartz posted a table that my e-mail could not format. It is titled "Proposed assessment of Putative Overunity Devices." Various devices are listed with two categories "yes" or "no" but I cannot tell what the categories are supposed to be. Somethin g about "o-u" or "breakeven" (or breakeven and ou)? I cannot tell which column is which. More to the point, I do not understand these terms. They have been tossed around for years, but I do not understand what they mean. All energy producing systems are o ver-unity. When you strike a match, it outputs much heat than you input with the rubbing motion. When you rub two sticks together, that's a breakeven system. It does not generate energy. It stores the energy, focusing it on one small spot. That triggers a second self-sustaining over-unity chemical reaction, good for roasting marshmallows. Swartz writes: Actually, many of the consumer devices are powered by OU with breakeven, i.e. ==> nuclear power. E = mc2 Do we include fission and fusion in OU? Why is this equation is associated with fission and fusion? All energy producing reactions annihilate mass according to this equation: fission, fusion, chemical or mechanical. All consumer devices conserve mass - energy. I do not understand what "breakeve n" means in this context. S. Jones and many other skeptics have said that cold fusion would violate mass-energy conservation, therefore it cannot be real. I do not understand what they are talking about. How can anyone tell? You cannot measure the mass lost from such tiny energy r eleases. Jones presents a sophisticated analysis, which I think boils down to a statement that special relativity proves all possible fusion reactions in the lattice must produce be neutrons and radiation. Other experts in nuclear theory like Schwinger sa id you can too have lattice fusion without neutrons. It is over my head, but in any case, there is no *experimental proof* that mass is conserved or not conserved. So we don't know. For that matter, in the book "The Ring of Truth" P. Morrison says that th ere has never been direct laboratory experimental proof of bulk matter mass annihilation during energy generation. He attempted some experiments with plutonium dioxide, but he found they do not work because of vibration, insufficient sensitivity and so on . He writes: "A windup toy unwinds and lightens by one billionth the weight of a dot of an i. . . . No doubt exists now about Einstein's equivalence of mass and energy. The relation has been checked very well indeed, though never by direct weighing on th e scales . . . The change in weight from a chemical reaction is a few parts per ten billion of the total weight of the reactants . . . The fine ultramicrobalance we used fell short by a thousandfold . . ." (pp. 92, 93) In a related argument skeptics say that CF cannot be nuclear because there are no products. Yet the best evidence we have so far is that CF *does* produce a nuclear product: helium, at levels commensurate with a conventional fusion reaction. Miles and the Italians have done the most painstaking studies looking for helium in the effluent gas, and they have found it. Others have looked but they have either not found it or they have been overwhelmed by helium contamination from air. It remains an open questi on until more people can replicate, but evidence for helium is growing stronger. As I said, I cannot read this table, but I notice it lists things like the water vortex devices, and coupled electro mechanical dynamos. Question #1 is: Do these things work? Do they produce more energy out than you put in? As far as I know, the Griggs wa ter vortex device works, but the electro mechanical devices (magnet motors) do not. Does the Griggs device also conserve mass-energy? Does it produce nuclear products? We have never checked and we cannot guess. I think it is fruitless to speculate about s uch matters. If a magnet motor works does it conserve mass energy? This is speculation about speculation -- angels dancing on the head of a pin. The only way we can answer these questions is by doing experiments. For now, the answers in both columns for a ll devices is: "Don't Know Yet." The default answer is: "Conserves Mass-Energy, Until Proven Otherwise." For CF, you can add: "Is Nuclear, Because it Cannot Be Chemical and We Don't Know of Anything Else (And Besides, it Probably Makes Helium.)" That's te ntative. It is not very satisfactory, but it is the best we can come up with until we perform more experiments. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 11:56:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:44:39 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:44:28 -0400 From: uban world.std.com (Jim Uban) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"OYXV62.0.lU7.KWi8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10935 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Schnurer wrote: > This sounds interesting [mag repulsion].... how would repelling > the magnetic field lighten the load .... remember EVERYTHING is fastened > together .... SC, field device, target .... the whole thing.... Rather than gravity reduction, we may instead be seeing here an equally interesting lack of compliance with Newton's 3rd equal and opposite reaction law: i.e., the imposed fields may create magnetic repulsing effect in the SC, but there may not be an equ al reaction force back on the fields generator mechanism. Thus an unbalanced force upwards. Researchers such as Graneau, Pappas and Aspden have indicated via experiment and theory that all is not well with standard field-based relativistic EM, where the fields supposedly carry and balance momentum and energy in mixed electromagnetic + mechanical systems. Jim X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 13:08:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:05:17 -0700 From: John Logajan Subject: Re: Dean Drive To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:05:00 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"noyr43.0.ag7.vhj8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10938 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick J. Sparber wrote: > Ok. Now paint all but one end of the can so as to cool it as much as > possible by heat radiation and heat one end so that as the molecules > strike the heated area they gain momentum giving it more of a kick > or causing a pressure greater than the 1.93E-3 psi as they recoil from > it causing a thrust proportional to the pressure difference between > the heated and cooled surfaces. > > Essentially this the principle that those Crookes Radiometer > "Perpetual Motion Machines" work on. > > Will it "Fly" in Space if the hot end is heated, say with a radioisotope, > essentially making it a "passive space drive? :-) Well, the Crookes Radiometer conserves momentum, but it is probably not immediately apparent how it does so. It is true that interaction of gas molecules on the "white/cool" side of the radiometer vane is less energetic than on the "black/hot" side. But the molecules that bounce off are confined in the bulb of the radiometer and eventually (at least those causing the net spin imbalance) impact the bulb at a glancing tangent. So the bulb picks up a rotational force opposite of the spinning vane, whic h the bulb mechanically couples to the base, to the table, to the floor, to the earth. So the whole earth has an equal and opposite rotational momentum of the spinning vane of the radiometer. In your linear low pressure can device, the cool wall will eventually get the internal impacts from the energetic reactions on the hot wall. So your device will not gain velocity in space from this mechanism, since momentum will ultimately be conserved, though the pathways may be a bit circuitous. However, your device will probably produce some non-zero thrust in a surrounding atmosphereic environment, since the energetic reactions with external molecules do not have to terminate at the other end of the can. But then the internal low pressure is n ot even needed. You could get a similar result by painting a flat plate with white on one side and black on the other. -- - 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 Sep 19 13:28:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:20:58 -0700 From: John Logajan Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate To: vortex- l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:20:52 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"R103P2.0.NR1.ewj8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10940 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > I was trying to avoid the technical detail that in order to > understand why uniform motion does not create a radiation field, > you have to let the field of the unaccelerated charge be the > general E-B field of a uniformly translating charge with speed v, which > is only the static coulomb field in the case where v = 0. Thus, > if the charge moves right by dX in time dT, the field turns out > to only need to propagate out a correction if dX/dT is not v---if > dX/dT = v (no accel.), the needed field "correction" is > already included in the general > form of the coulomb field, and so there is no radiation. I liked the intuitive approach better. :-) I guess it would help to define "radiate" in an intuitive sense. Two charged particles of otherwise constant velocity approaching each other will interact (by the exchange of virtual photons, if I recall my introductory physics.) Yet this is not what we mean by radiate, correct? -- - 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 Sep 19 14:13:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:08:22 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:07:42 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"Jaz3I3.0.1-3.5dk8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10941 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:05 PM 9/19/97 +0000, John Logajan wrote: >Well, the Crookes Radiometer conserves momentum, but it is probably >not immediately apparent how it does so. > >It is true that interaction of gas molecules on the "white/cool" side >of the radiometer vane is less energetic than on the "black/hot" side. > >But the molecules that bounce off are confined in the bulb of the >radiometer and eventually (at least those causing the net spin >imbalance) impact the bulb at a glancing tangent. So the bulb >picks up a rotational force opposite of the spinning vane, which >the bulb mechanically couples to the base, to the table, to the >floor, to the earth. So the whole earth has an equal and opposite >rotational momentum of the spinning vane of the radiometer. Isn't the Crookes Radiometer essentially a Carnot limited engine that is converting the W = hf of the photons to heat and thrust on the black/hot side of the vanes (Th), and the white/cool side and the bulb rejecting the heat at (Tc)? The pressure necessarily has to be low so that the mean free path M.F.P.= 1/[N*(pi)*R^2 where N is the number of molecules per unit volume and R is the molecular radius. Thus the M.F.P. has to be about the same as or greater than the radius of the bulb fo r it to work as a heat engine. Otherwise if the presuure is too high the drag on the vanes would be working against the thermal torque. > >In your linear low pressure can device, the cool wall will eventually >get the internal impacts from the energetic reactions on the hot wall. >So your device will not gain velocity in space from this mechanism, >since momentum will ultimately be conserved, though the pathways >may be a bit circuitous. Now if you can invent a linear setup that uses a condensable vapor that gives a reflection momentum off the hot end and condenses on the cold end. :-) > >However, your device will probably produce some non-zero thrust in >a surrounding atmosphereic environment, since the energetic reactions >with external molecules do not have to terminate at the other end >of the can. But then the internal low pressure is not even needed. >You could get a similar result by painting a flat plate with white >on one side and black on the other. Yep. A radioisotope heated side on an "aerogel" insulation sheet should do okay, but the drag is likely to do you in, except at very high altitudes. Then again the "aerogel" insulation might make the Radiometer vanes a bit more efficient. :-) Regards, Frederick > >-- > - 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 Sep 19 15:06:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:29:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: "Frederick J. Sparber" , Vortex-L Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:27:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"y-QMO3.0.uV4.7xk8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10942 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick The usual toy radiometer spins backwards from what you would expect from radiation pressure due to photons being absorbed on the darkside. John's explanation is the usually accepted one. Hank Scudder ---------- From: Frederick J. Sparber To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Friday, September 19, 1997 2:07PM At 08:05 PM 9/19/97 +0000, John Logajan wrote: >Well, the Crookes Radiometer conserves momentum, but it is probably >not immediately apparent how it does so. > >It is true that interaction of gas molecules on the "white/cool" side >of the radiometer vane is less energetic than on the "black/hot" side. > >But the molecules that bounce off are confined in the bulb of the >radiometer and eventually (at least those causing the net spin >imbalance) impact the bulb at a glancing tangent. So the bulb >picks up a rotational force opposite of the spinning vane, which >the bulb mechanically couples to the base, to the table, to the >floor, to the earth. So the whole earth has an equal and opposite >rotational momentum of the spinning vane of the radiometer. Isn't the Crookes Radiometer essentially a Carnot limited engine that is converting the W = hf of the photons to heat and thrust on the black/hot side of the vanes (Th), and the white/cool side and the bulb rejecting the heat at (Tc)? The pressure necessarily has to be low so that the mean free path M.F.P.= 1/[N*(pi)*R^2 where N is the number of molecules per unit volume and R is the molecular radius. Thus the M.F.P. has to be about the same as or greater than the radius of the bulb fo r it to work as a heat engine. Otherwise if the presuure is too high the drag on the vanes would be working against the thermal torque. > >In your linear low pressure can device, the cool wall will eventually >get the internal impacts from the energetic reactions on the hot wall. >So your device will not gain velocity in space from this mechanism, >since momentum will ultimately be conserved, though the pathways >may be a bit circuitous. Now if you can invent a linear setup that uses a condensable vapor that gives a reflection momentum off the hot end and condenses on the cold end. :-) > >However, your device will probably produce some non-zero thrust in >a surrounding atmosphereic environment, since the energetic reactions >with external molecules do not have to terminate at the other end >of the can. But then the internal low pressure is not even needed. >You could get a similar result by painting a flat plate with white >on one side and black on the other. Yep. A radioisotope heated side on an "aerogel" insulation sheet should do okay, but the drag is likely to do you in, except at very high altitudes. Then again the "aerogel" insulation might make the Radiometer vanes a bit more efficient. :-) Regards, Frederick > >-- > - 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 Sep 19 15:08:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:54:57 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:49:48 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate References: <199709192020.PAA13529 mirage.skypoint.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"u8vgu1.0.IV6.lIl8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10943 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Logajan wrote: > > I guess it would help to define "radiate" in an intuitive sense. > Two charged particles of otherwise constant velocity approaching > each other will interact (by the exchange of virtual photons, if > I recall my introductory physics.) Yet this is not what we mean > by radiate, correct? > The signature of a radiation field from a point charge is that its intensity drops off as 1/r instead of the coulombic 1/r^2. There is a very simple geomtric/intuitive picture (due to Thompson, if I recall) which I don't have the energy to express, and is probably presented in many basic E&M texts. -- 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 Sep 19 15:53:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:24:10 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's References: <199709191152_MC2-2111-C6CE compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"xBi5P3.0.pG6.Gll8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10944 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > > In a compliment that pleases me immensely, Merriman adds: > > I must say that I often find that the essays Jed writes have > a subtle one sidedness, that turns them basically into very > well constructed validations of what Jed believes. Well, I'm glad you are not upset. > >I never expected I could even partially convince Merriman Convince, no, since your opinions and arguments (and those of anyone else, of course) can have no bearing on the physical reality of a phenomena. But, you (and Gene, indirectly) deserve substantial credit for maintaining my interest in the field, via the information and advocacy that you provide. > He seriously believes that we might dismiss the work of P&F > because it does not sell yet. For me that is heresy. I am a fanatical > Baconian. I believe in the *absolute, unshakable primacy of > experiment and observation* in science. Once again, you have slipped into the deceptively convincing polemical mode you wield so well, wherein you destroy the straw man and demonstrate the eminent rationality of your own view point. I'm not going to debate you, or try and correct your misconceptions about my world view, because we both have more impotant things to do. I would just make a couple comments---first, I share your expressed belief in the primacy of experiment in science. However, I also understand the distinction between experimental results and interpretation of experimental results, as well as the importan ce considering _all_ the experimental results, rather than those selected for whatever reasons, and also that there is a fairly intricate coupling between "theory" and intepretation of experimental results. I also understand the difference between experim ental results as reported vs. experimental results as what really happened in the lab. Etc. I find it extremely simplistic to have a naive trust in the positive experiments in the field of CF, in particular. As a practicing scientist, I also understand the importance of *not* knowing what is going on---i.e. that there is no need to prematurely form an opinion about what must be occuring in an experiment. Finally, I also understand that experiments are carried out by people, and that can lead to a host of seemingly "irrational" behaviors in itself, in terms of how the research proceeds. One isolated instance that comes to mind is that Jed, who values exper iment above all else, and Gene---a competent engineer in his own right---have supposely repeatedly tested the Griggs device, found it to be 300% OU with excellent repeatability, even purchased one, and yet they don't devote all their human effort to advan cing this single device, which would seem unique in the entire history of OU devices, at leat by their experiences. I can't fathom such behavior, but it surely confounds ones interpretation of the significance of those experiments---it would seem as if th e experimenters themselves did not really believe their results will hold up. Etc. -- 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 Sep 19 07:44:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:39:03 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:40:47 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's References: <199709181420_MC2-20F9-97A5 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"jHkQB3.0.up.5we8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10930 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:53 PM 9/18/97 -0700, Barry wrote: >Scott Little made the (astute) comment that all the historical >(doesn't strictly apply to patent issued quite recently) "OU" >patents are likely bogus, because other wise we would all be >using OU washer and driers, etc, right now. Barry: Actually, many of the consumer devices are powered by OU with breakeven, i.e. ==> nuclear power. E = mc2 Do we include fission and fusion in OU? Methinks not, although cold fusion links OU for now by connotation. Suggest the following Table of Over Unity Devices, and would be interested in your and the other vortexians thoughts or the assignments: ================================================== ================================================== Proposed assessment of Putative Overunity Devices used by COLD FUSION TIMES (9/18/97) http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html TYPE OU Breakeven ================================================== cold fusion (classic FP Pd, D2O) yes no(*) power density 1989 circa 10 W/cm3 , now ~1000+ W/cm3 -------------------------------------------------- cold fusion (nickel light water) yes no(*) power density >10 W/cm3 -------------------------------------------------- Cold fusion (codeposition) yes no -------------------------------------------------- Cold fusion (gas discharge, gas loading) yes no(*) -------------------------------------------------- Muon fusion no (*, but see COLD FUSION TIMES volume 5, number 3, '97) no -------------------------------------------------- Hot fusion no no -------------------------------------------------- Fission yes yes -------------------------------------------------- water vortex (fixed system, feedback arm) no (*) no -------------------------------------------------- water vortex (rotor system) perhaps (*) no -------------------------------------------------- coupled electromechanical dynamoes no no -------------------------------------------------- perpetual energy motion machines no no -------------------------------------------------- others perhaps (*) no --------------------------------------------- {(*) based upon present lack of assessment of the background noise, calibration, and output available to the author of this table. Errors? Corrections? Additions? Comments? More data? Please let me know at mica world.std.com} ====================================================== >(This argument of course does not prove that P&F or CETI are >invalid (though in the case of P&F its getting there), but >it certainly does practically dismiss all patented things that >are decades old.) > > Given P&F's initial findings confirmed in France, etc, and actually corroborated in the independant data at both Harwell and MIT, it is perhapsh incorrect to read that you lump and incorrectly imply otherwise. Barry, please also note the power density increase (vide supra). Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 16:33:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:05:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:04:28 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"E4mFc2.0.2H.GLm8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10945 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:02 PM 9/19/97 +0000, Rick wrote: >Frederick - > >Everyone reinvents the solid-state thermodynamic molecular thruster when >they first arrive at the notion that heat is the momentum of the movement >of the individual particles comprising the material. Not everyone,Rick the momentum of a photon mc = Energy/c requires about a gigajoule of photons reflecting off a mirror surface to get a pound of force. The "Solar" sail calculates out to about 1E7 square feet to get a pound of thrust from the solar photon s at the Earth's distance from the Sun. So you switch to molecules-Phonons in a lattice and you end up with a "closed system". Not much there. I spent about $100.00 getting a SS "can" welded up because I mistook the convection currents set up with a sealed-empty coffee can sitting on a hot plate that was sitting on a scale. Interesting to note that if the coffee can was not hermetically sealed i t got lighter too. :-) >I always wanted to >induce a large boulder to spend its heat in a way that would make it float >in the air, if even only for a short time. I read stories that the ancients >knew what kind of things to play on their trumpets to make this happen. Lets see. Potential energy at one meter height = mgh, at least 9.8 kilojoules to lift a modest sized rock a meter high. Now there is some Powerful Lungs and Strong Eardrums, when a watt/meter^2 will permanently ruin your hearing. Maybe thats why they play ed the trumpets so damn loud. :-) There's always "ACID-ROCK" that lets go up as a cloud of vapors as opposed to regular Rock Music. What you want here is phonon resonance-imbalance. If you set a pan of cold water on a hot-plate with the hotplate on a scale, you will see an impulse due to the piston effect of the water column in the pan as the heat is introduced. Great stuff to show t he kids in science class. > >But I still feel like I've mis-communicated here. Let me just state clearly >that I think it is absolutely NOT possible that any system using classical >mechanics could produce an unbalanced or reactionless thrust. The Dean "Space Drive" is a classic example of misunderstanding physics. >That's not to >say that something *else* might not come along, nor does it rule out that >the effects of such might indeed appear from amidst rotating or gyrating >objects under some special circumstances. I'll bet you will see snowballs popping out of Kilauea before something else comes along. :-) >But rotating, oscillating, >gyrating gizmos, by classical mechanics will never work, IMO. IMHO, also. However, a single molecule with a swarm of electrons "orbiting" at c/137 creates a gyrating motion of the molecule. If you let the momentum of the electron cloud, m*c/137 = MV the momentum of the molecule and solve for the "average" velocity V of the molecule you can get Avogadro's Number out of it and a close fit for the velocity of molecules used in the kinetic theor y of gases. What does a single molecule "isolated" and in microgravity do? >, >I just wanted a simple irrefutable test/knife to cut away those gizmos >which are claimed by some to produce thrust but in fact do not work, such >as the Dean drive and many related devices. Would you settle for a math statement of a physical truth like Fx + Fy + Fz = zero, in a closed system, and "Ockham's Razor"? :-) Regards, Frederick > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 17:14:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:47:10 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vor tex-l eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: One comment ..Re: EV's vs OU's Resent-Message-ID: <"KGitH1.0.Rz1.A0n8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10946 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Barry, Jed and Vo., I ahve one comment on one little part of this thread ... so I will cut ... a bunch; On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > > > In a compliment that pleases me immensely, Merriman adds: > > __________________________________________________ This part: > > As a practicing scientist, I also understand the importance > of *not* knowing what is going on-- That is me as far as gravity modification goes ... -i.e. that there is no need > to prematurely form an opinion about what must be occuring > in an experiment. Very interesting to watch and do .... but no clear grasp in my mind about what, exactly, causes it or is happening ... John X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 18:20:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:11:26 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: In bath... no bubblesRe: Gravity Modification Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:10:33 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"tR5HT2.0.8H5.wAo8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10947 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:24:55 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: > > > Test is in bath .... no bubbles on test weight. [snip] Could induction heating of the quarters be creating bubbles between them? (Where the cooling N2 doesn't reach so easily). 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 Fri Sep 19 19:03:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:00:33 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's and slippery slopes Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:54:25 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"i2bSm2.0.Qa3._uo8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10948 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The current dialogue between Barry and Jed is worthy of study, and I hope Bart Simon is listening and has noticed it. The viewpoints are ones we all share with different emphasis. I am happy that Barry accords Jed and Gene the respect due worthy opponents , and vice versa. Some data is excluded in any analysis, and experimental science had advanced by carefully controlled conditions, following some hypothesis (preconceived opinion). In the present case, if you consider all the results of all CF experiments everywhere, you g et a very poor S/N ratio. Enter the "Qualified Observer", elected by whom? In the case of the PowerGen demonstration, was Jed a QO? Frank Znidarsic? As in Jed's essay on the Wright Brothers, who is the QO to see them take off, circle and land in Dayton? Apparently not the townspeople, who did not grasp the significance of what they saw. When the effect is macroscopic you have truth in immediate experi ence, not in academic quibbling about possibilities. Barry says we have to look at all the data. When you depart from existence proofs and characterization studies into why-don't-they statements, regarding the Griggs machine, "....and yet they don't devote all their human effort to advancing this single dev ice, which would seem unique in the entire history of OU devices, at leat by their experiences. I can't fathom such behavior, but it surely confounds ones interpretation of the significance of those experiments---it would seem as if the experimenters them selves did not really believe their results will hold up." Barry has engaged in the same skillful advocacy of a viewpoint which he cites in Jed. He has not considered the engineering aspects of the Griggs machine, the difficulties in finding markets, etc. That Griggs doesn't promote it as O/U is good marketing se nse. Gene's Griggs unit was purchased by a grant and it is a high powered unit, non-trivial to install when you are publishing IE all by yourself. The Griggs machine is just one manifestation of a larger phenomenon. Barry himself is not considering all aspects, or the subtitles, or the whole picture. We all blind men groping an elephant, and some pretend that it isn't there. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 19:45:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:37:01 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Oops! Posted twice. Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:35:01 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199709191444_MC2-2111-D861 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"6SAKP1.0.gV.6Rp8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10949 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:43:05 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >To: Vortex > >Oops, I think I just posted a message here twice! Sorry about that. > >I meant to post another message asking anyone to define "ou." I honestly >do not understand the term. Does it mean, "violates mass-energy conservation"? > >- Jed IMHO it has come to mean "any system supplying energy, of which we don't know (understand) the source". 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 Fri Sep 19 19:57:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:54:13 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:35:03 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199709192020.PAA13529 mirage.skypoint.com> <3422F37C.6C1C@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"XDCuz2.0.rV5.Jhp8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10953 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:49:48 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: [snip] >The signature of a radiation field from a point charge is that >its intensity drops off as 1/r instead of the coulombic 1/r^2. >There is a very simple geomtric/intuitive picture (due >to Thompson, if I recall) which I don't have the energy to express, >and is probably presented in many basic E&M texts. [snip] I must not be understanding this correctly. 1) I thought that the sun was made up of many point charge "radiators" 2) I thought that the intensity of sunlight dropped off as 1/r^2. What am I missing? 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 Fri Sep 19 19:47:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:43:06 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: GR problem-orbiting charges do radiate Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:35:05 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199709192020.PAA13529 mirage.skypoint.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"jg_xC.0.jk.sWp8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10951 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:20:52 -0500 (CDT), John Logajan wrote: [snip] >I liked the intuitive approach better. :-) > >I guess it would help to define "radiate" in an intuitive sense. >Two charged particles of otherwise constant velocity approaching >each other will interact (by the exchange of virtual photons, if >I recall my introductory physics.) Yet this is not what we mean >by radiate, correct? [snip] If said two charged particles interact, will they then not also accelerate (decelerate)? And should this then not result in "real" radiation (e.g. bremsstrahlung)? Or are you going to "nail them down", so that they can't accelerate? :) 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 Fri Sep 19 19:46:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:37:30 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:35:06 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"v0tMe2.0.HY.bRp8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10950 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:29:22 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: [snip] > This sounds interesting .... how would repelling the magnetic >field lighten the load .... remember EVERYTHING is fastened together >.... SC, field device, target .... the whole thing.... > > > > > Your SC is repelling some of the >magnetic field thus lightening the load. Martin Sevior [snip] How about expulsion of the earth's magnetic field? 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 Fri Sep 19 19:57:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:52:15 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:48:18 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com cc: John Schnurer Subject: Re: In bath... no bubblesRe: Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"csVrV3.0.OS5.Ufp8q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10952 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Could be. Doubt it .... the SC largely excludes the magnetic field. The power levels are low ... we have neve seen bubbles in on or near the quarters or SC. On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:24:55 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote: > > > > > > > Test is in bath .... no bubbles on test weight. > [snip] > Could induction heating of the quarters be creating bubbles between > them? (Where the cooling N2 doesn't reach so easily). > > > > 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 Fri Sep 19 20:18:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:14:54 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's and slippery slopes References: <19970920020341911.AAA164 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"lgL5M1.0.0h1.r-p8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10954 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike Carrell wrote" > > Barry...has not considered the engineering aspects of the Griggs > machine... Gene's Griggs unit was purchased > by a grant and it is a high powered unit, non-trivial to install > when you are publishing IE all by yourself. All the more bizarre---presumably the whole point of publishing IE is to push forward the field on new energy devices, from its present fringe status toward mainstream acceptance and development. That being the case, I would think that if such a devoted person were already in possesion of a working device, they would focus their efforts on that as a proof of principle experiment. I make this comment not to assert any truth about the reality of the Griggs effect and its cause, but only to point out that science functions best if the "primacy of experiment" is coupled with a certain "experimental work ethic": one must not abandon or let languish promising experimental results that one has obtained, instead one should continue experimenting to get to the bottom of things, and encourage and assist others to replicate their experiments, in proportion to the significance of the experim ental results. After all, if exeriments don't get done, their decisive primacy is not going to matter much. And the natural burden of advocacy fall on those who claim to have the results, not those who don't. >From my distant view point, it would seem the Jed/Gene's work with the Griggs device has not had anywhere near the experimental follow up their original experiments had warranted, especially since their other experimental forays have not paid off. Thus I would say to Jed that, instead of lecturing scientists on the experimental foundations of scientific knowledge, he should adopt a bit of the experimental ethic I outlined above and bring those Griggs experiments back on line in full force. If an experime ntal facility was available and functioning, I would surely like to investigate it myself. Certainly it is my own ethic that if I ever come across a replicable anomaly, I am going to investigate it quite intensively by whatever means I have available. But I'm still searching... -- 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 Sep 19 20:59:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:57:37 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:57:30 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's Resent-Message-ID: <"v9xeb3.0.uy7.lcq8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10955 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > I must say that I often find that > the essays Jed writes have a subtle one sidedness, that turns > them basically into very well contructed validations of what > Jed believes. This comment suprises me. I detect a hidden assumption that Jed is biased, but that you are not. Are you *very sure* that your own writing is not biased by your view of the world? Do you never habitually select evidence which validates your beliefs, while ignoring evidence which runs contrary? In observing people (including myself), I've had my nose rubbed over and over in the fact that we humans see very little of the world. The major part of whatever is really out there is extremely distorted by our psychological filters. Yes, a baseball is a baseball, but a fan of the sport sees it as an entirely different object than a sports-hater does, and as a result neither person can SEE a baseball. When I watch intelligent "skeptics" argue with rational "believers", I am constantly made aware that both parties have stunningly complicated patterns of blindness and perception. I see the same thing in myself. And I've never encountered any person who lacked this. If there's no escaping our beliefs-bias and mental filters, then at least we can strive to be constantly aware of them. If we stay blind to them, then they will control us in ways we might not enjoy. .....................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 Sep 19 21:44:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:41:56 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's References: Resent-Message-ID: <"MCC6o1.0.Dz3.QGr8q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10957 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com William Beaty wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > > > I must say that I often find that > > the essays Jed writes have a subtle one sidedness, that turns > > them basically into very well contructed validations of what > > Jed believes. > > This comment suprises me. I detect a hidden assumption that Jed is > biased, but that you are not. Everyone is biased, which I would take to mean that emotionally they are more receptive to certain ideas than others. The issue is wether we seek to overcome our biases, or whether we seek to reinforce them. As you point out, an important part of overcoming biases is acknowledging they are there in the first place. But it is also important to want to overcome them, since it is generally more comfortable to simply reinforce them. In practical terms, some people like to always be right. Personally, I like being wrong, because I that way I learn something new. And when it comes to discourse, I prefer discourse that favors bringing out the truth, whatever it may be, rather than convincing people of a certain opinion. This is why I am not interested in debating skills. Jed is quite skilled at writing convincing essays, which I suppose is good given his self-proclaimed advocacy role. I'm much less certain that he's good at determing the reality of things. This is not to say that Jed is not a fountain of useful information regarding CF----indeed he is, with few peers. And since he is an advocate and not a scientist, he can be forgiven for having a style suited to advocacy and not science. But I think many o f the sweeping conclusions he comes to in his frequent areas of exposition---the history of scientific breakthroughs, the viablity of magnetic confinement fusion, and the reality of low energy nuclear reactions---are not nearly so clear cut as his forcefu l prose would suggest. -- 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 Sep 20 16:23:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:23:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:20:25 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"Uax052.0.cP4.ah59q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10983 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick - One of the thermo "thrusters" I've read people proposing is by using a variation of a T-demon to get all the particles moving in one general direction to "freez", while the others keep moving until they too happen to take the correct direction and are mad e to stand still. The classical equations would zero out by the mass first lunging slowly upward for a time, followed by an equal and opposite lunge downward as accounts settle. But presumably you would have several seconds or so to carry an object 'light', putting it down on the ground and waiting through the 'heavy' cycle. It's a variation on the idea of swinging your arms over your head to make yourself wiegh less briefly, but you've got lots and lots of arms with very high v^2 in proportion to their M. The reference I made to the ancient legends and acoustics is connected in the sense that it's been proposed that the right phonon patterns in a material might somehow selectively acoustically refrigerate a mass in a manner which produces this effect to so me degree. Sounds like complete nonsense to me, but there are gigantic rocks in places like Tiahuanaco which were apparently quarried many miles away with extremely rough mountain terrain intervening. (I'd like to see some real detail on the quarrying par t of it, but it's "widely acknowledged" in the literature I've seen.) The legends say that the stones were moved by simply being carried by a few poeple, with the priest/sorcerers blowing their special trumpets to make the giant stones practically float i n the air by themselves. Another acoustic trick would be to get phonons 90 deg. apart in both direction and phase in order to induce an organized circular pattern of motion in the particles comprising a solid, making it gyroscopic. If this solid was piezoelectric, and many if not most common rock crystal components are to some degree, you could get tiny circulating currents and magnetism too. And those things aren't necessarily part of the simplistic classical solutions, either. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 16:36:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:33:13 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: gravity-shielded propelled vehicle Resent-Message-ID: <"iP0hH3.0.gg4.St59q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10984 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com James Cox wrote: [snip] > Schnurer's SC disc, itself, only weighs around > .5 ounce, yet yields a lift thats 18 times larger > than its own weight! Say WHAT??? > Tune-in for more details--you can get AGN > subscription for $36 to J.E.Cox... Pay WHAT??? ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 17:32:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:32:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:29:16 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: That darned Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"BYv9v3.0.XR6.1i69q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10986 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris - > Why? I should treat them as rational and > reasonable persons, simply ones who take a > differing view? Why should I do that? Uh, 'cause that's how riots and wars get started? We first dismiss, then objectify, and then begin to *violently dispose of our now unworthy and less-than-human opponents? There are no 'real' UFOs flying in visitors from other worlds, that's simply Satan and his demons playing tricks to deceive us and lead us astray from worshipping the one true God. Hey, you know those people who believe in UFOs? They're impeding God's wor k here. We should stone them to death. They're not good and proper like us, so let's kill them. (paraphrasing recent comments by a certain religious leader and former U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Perhaps some have convinced themselves that the sins of the elite have been cleansed so that they may justifiably stone those of us who find ourselves contaminated by thought and opinions not to their liking. We went over this on this list at some length a while ago, but it keeps coming up. If nothing else, it's just a *really* lousy way to conduct PR. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI *sue, harrass, play dirty tricks, steal their garbage, poison their dog, get them fired, etc. etc. - "Hayduke" 'em, or even in the extreme, bomb their offices or shoot and kill them. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 19 23:53:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:50:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:49:58 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: That darned Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"6k7LP.0.ZW5.U8t8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10959 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > William Beaty wrote: > > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > > > > > I must say that I often find that > > > the essays Jed writes have a subtle one sidedness, that turns > > > them basically into very well contructed validations of what > > > Jed believes. > > > > This comment suprises me. I detect a hidden assumption that Jed is > > biased, but that you are not. > > Everyone is biased, which I would take to mean that emotionally > they are more receptive to certain ideas than others. The > issue is wether we seek to overcome our biases, or whether > we seek to reinforce them. (I realize that I'm indulging in an old habit here: always turn the complaint back at the complainant, to see if the behavior to which they object is a behavior in which they themselves indulge.) So, Jed is emotionally receptive to certain ideas, and seeks to reinforce them, while you yourself seek to overcome your biases and find the truth? >From my viewpoint, I'd say that EVERYONE ON VORTEX could benefit from attempting to see the world through the eyes of the "enemy." Suppose for a moment that Barry's entire worldview is right. Think of the implications. If this creates unpleasant feelin gs, even revulsion, then I think it points to the existence of emotional bias which we should not hide from ourselves, and which we should strive to expunge. Or suppose that Jed is right in every detail. Does this produce an emotional reaction in the sk eptical subscribers? The non-scientist is right and the majority of experts in the field are wrong? Then it indicates an emotional bias on the part of the skeptics as well. Negative emotional reaction to the ideas of others is the basis of intolerance. It leads to "science-bigotry" on both sides of the controversy. > As you point out, an important > part of overcoming biases is acknowledging they are there > in the first place. But it is also important to want to overcome > them, since it is generally more comfortable to simply > reinforce them. > > In practical terms, some people like to always be right. Personally, > I like being wrong, because I that way I learn something new. > And when it comes to discourse, I prefer discourse that favors > bringing out the truth, whatever it may be, rather than convincing > people of a certain opinion. This is why I am not interested in debating > skills. In the above, I must point out that you may be assuming that Jed's views are wrong and that yours are correct, and therefore your prose is an attempt to bring out the truth, while Jed's is an attempt to manipulate onlookers into accepting his incorrect vi ewpoint. Or am I reading things that aren't there? Which debating skills do you find objectionable? Are you sure you would still object to them if someone used them in arguing for modern fusion theory and against CF? It might interest you to know that my view is very similar to yours, but with roles reversed. From my viewpoint, I assumed that Jed's views are correct, that Jed's prose is a powerful tool for exposing the truth, and that your objections to Jed's points are a misguided attempt to hold onto an incorrect stance for emotional reasons! Ignore for a moment which side is right. Instead look at this "Rashomon" effect going on above. My ASSUMPTION that I'm right and that you're wrong causes me to see your arguements as manipulative, while I see my own arguments as truth-seeking. But this is terrible, since it makes me ignore your reasoning and reject your evidence. I see your work as springing from questionable motivation, and therefor it is suspect and I need not examine it too closely. But if I were to attack you as being manipulativ e, I would be in the wrong. I would be expressing deep disrespect for your viewpoint. And by assuming in advance that I am right, I would be removing the whole point of any discussion. > Jed is quite skilled at writing convincing essays, which I > suppose is good given his self-proclaimed advocacy role. > I'm much less certain that he's good at determing the reality > of things. Again, I hear the unspoken assumption that, since Jed is wrong, then when he argues successfully, he's merely good at convincing others, rather than being good at digging out the truth. > This is not to say that Jed is not a fountain of useful information > regarding CF----indeed he is, with few peers. And since he is > an advocate and not a scientist, he can be forgiven for having a style > suited to advocacy and not science. But I think many of the sweeping > conclusions he comes to in his frequent areas of exposition---the > history of scientific breakthroughs, the viablity of magnetic > confinement fusion, and the reality of low energy nuclear > reactions---are not nearly so clear cut as his forceful prose > would suggest. True. But I would say that the proper solution is NOT to complain about Jed (or to hope that he becomes less skilled at convincing the bystander). I see this as leaning too much towards suppression of dissenting opinion. Instead we should tolerate and even encourage dissenting views, respect the views of our "enemies" in deed and not just in word, LISTEN to the other side and not ignore it as biased, and BOTH SIDES keep digging for the truth. Assuming that CF is real wou ld be a mistake if there is a finite probability that it is not. Assuming that CF doesn't exist would be a mistake if there really is a CF out there. .....................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 Sep 20 00:18:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:15:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Geosas@aol.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 03:15:13 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Dihydrogen monoxide to be banned in EU? Resent-Message-ID: <"P1EUn3.0.-I.YWt8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10960 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi all, Recently a British scientist stood outside a London underground train station, handing out flyers describing the dangerous properties of dihydrogen monoxide. Among other things, it was correctly stated that the substance is found in the tumours of termin al cancer patients, and that it is highly corrosive. 76% of those who responded signed a petition that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned in the European Union. This says much about the general public's ignorance of science, and its readiness to react hysterically to the latest health scare. George S. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 03:31:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 03:29:34 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: Dean Drive Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 10:28:57 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"mjOHx3.0.yp1.CMw8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10963 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:02 PM 9/19/97 +0000, Rick wrote: > >Everyone reinvents the solid-state thermodynamic molecular thruster >when they first arrive at the notion that heat is the momentum of >the movement of the individualparticles comprising the material. > Truer words were never spoken, Rick.You might try an alternative train of thought though. Take a 300 watt "heat lamp" and coat the front face with several layers of a carbon-black spray paint and bake it out by turning on the light as you apply the paint so as not to cause it to blister. After you have a good coat of "molecular thermal thruster" applied, run some tests with the thing on a scale-balance in a vacuum chamber. Now, as to thought; you have the internal reflector in the heat lamp shining the light-heat from the incandescent filament through the glass envelope and the carbon (solid-state) layer. Across this layer is a delta T and a heat flow that is being radiated off into space at a T^4 rate with momentum mc = W/c. Not much force there. However, by definition, mechanical work is extracted by heat-energy flow from T (hot) to T (cold) and there is a delta T across the carbon layer on the face of the heat lamp. The heat is being transfered by phonon vibrations in the carbon lattice and there should be a momentum associated with the complex vibrations, thus the possibility of a "solid-state" heat-engine-thruster. It's gonna cost you to find out which way the bulb thrusts, ain't it? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 04:20:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:13:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 07:11:57 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's To: vortex-l eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"HkyxV.0.bf2.r_w8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10965 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry, > more impotant things Reminds me of the guy who arrived home dressed up, and said: "The doctor says I'se impotant, so I'se gonna dress impotant." > One isolated instance that comes to mind is that Jed, who values > experiment above all else, and Gene---a competent engineer in his > own right---have supposely repeatedly tested the Griggs device, > found it to be 300% OU with excellent repeatabil ity, even > purchased one, and yet they don't devote all their human effort to > advancing this single device, which would seem unique in the > entire history of OU devices, at leat by their experiences. Er ... I think you should read their report again!! > I can't fathom such behavior, but it surely confounds ones > interpretation of the significance of those experiments---it would > seem as if the experimenters themselves did not really believe > their results Nah. It looks more like you should brush up on those reading skills. (To save you time, the actual apparent o-u performance of the Griggs thing is more like 30% than 300% - that makes a SERIOUS difference.) Hey - done the Phys Letts A vs. New Scientist thing yet? Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 04:19:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:14:01 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 07:11:58 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's and slippery slopes To: Vortex Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"4iFq32.0.pf2.t_w8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10966 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike, > The current dialogue between Barry and Jed is worthy of study, and > I hope Bart Simon is listening and has noticed it. Oh, hell, I seem to be getting nastier and more cynical by the day. For myself, I hope that Bart *Simpson* is listening. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 04:42:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:37:49 -0700 X-Sender: frederick.sparber@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Frederick J. Sparber" Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:37:13 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <"4qQeG.0.KD3.CMx8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10967 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:11 AM 9/20/97 +0000, Chris wrote: >Barry, > > > > more impotant things > >Reminds me of the guy who arrived home dressed up, and said: "The doctor >says I'se impotant, so I'se gonna dress impotant." You caught it too, huh Chris? :-) Did you have a good vacation? Good to see you back and in top form! Best Regards, Frederick > >Chris > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 05:13:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:10:22 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:08:30 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: That darned Jed To: vortex-l eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"7G1rC3.0.Xs3.iqx8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10968 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Bill, > Suppose for a moment that Barry's entire worldview is right. > Think of the implications. If this creates unpleasant feelings, > even revulsion, then I think it points to the existence of > emotional bias which we should not hide from ourselves, and which > we should strive to expunge. Or suppose that Jed is r ight in > every detail. Does this produce an emotional reaction in the > skeptical subscribers? I've always regarded you as about the most level-headed person in this field. And certainly I have tried very hard over the years to find out just where my bias lies, and to work out what my motives are. Yup, I'm biased - hopelessly biased. I admit both to iconclastic desires and a tendency towards schadenfreude, the joy of destruction. On a more positive line (and I wouldn't be in this game for negative reasons) I would say that if any of the walls which modern science tells us are blank do in fact have doors in them - then humanity needs those doors to be forced open. I've spent quite a lot of time being quite polite to those who take a negative view of the kind of thing we do. After all, I think, why should everyone think as I do? Do I not also have my prejudices, my convictions that a lot of people are crooks? Why get upset when people see me as some kind of crook, or when they seem unable to think things through clearly? But increasingly I find myself drifting away from the intellectualised, Rothwellian stance and toward the more fiery Mallovian one. Although I think it's a total waste of time and energy to debate with the self-styled "sceptics" when there is so much do do of a more positive variety, I simply cannot be bothered any longer to make the effort to be polite to people whose bias is so extreme that they just don't seem capable of simple honesty or, perhaps, just see what we do as so silly that they don't bothe r to read it and then ask why we are being so foolish as not to pursue something we've measured as 300% o-u! On IE we try to be accurate and we try to be honest. Yes, we print *stories* about stuff which may well be completely wrong - but we also *study* such devices as we can. We then publish what we find, whether we like the findings or not. We attack those in the field whom we believe to be their own worst enemies, and do what we can to trash the crooks which every field of human endeavour attracts. Compare these efforts with those of the "sceptics". They never trash one another's more stupid and ridiculous notions, they try to preserve a united front. Returning to the old chestnut of the New Scientist article - because it's such a classic of its k ind - I have to say that no "sceptic" has ever done an assessment of that piece of yellow journalism. Indeed, some of them have mailed copies to me as proof that I'm talking nonsense! After all of which, I have to ask - just exactly why should I give respect to the "sceptics"? Why? I should treat them as rational and reasonable persons, simply ones who take a differing view? Why should I do that? Not, you appreciate, that I'm sugge sting that you are telling me to do that, but I do value your views. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 05:14:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:10:30 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:08:32 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Dihydrogen monoxide to be banned in EU? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"5hN-g1.0.os3.rqx8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10969 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com George, > 76% of those who responded signed a petition that dihydrogen > monoxide should be banned in the European Union. > > This says much about the general public's ignorance of science, > and its readiness to react hysterically to the latest health > scare. Er - hysteria isn't quite the right word here. And while I have some sympathy with your view (I tend to be rather cynical about this kind of thing), I also appreciate that there is an element of "look at me, I'm the clever-clever science chap who underst ands all this techie stuff, while out there are the poor ignorant idiots whom I can look down on." Actually, I posted a very similar dihydrogen monoxide story here just recently, without comment in the hope that someone might notice this specific irony to the story. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 05:25:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:18:02 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's To: vortex-l eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"kJlpM1.0.Or3.hzx8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10971 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frederick, > Did you have a good vacation? Good to see you back and in top > form! Excellent, my first in at least ten years, a week in a caravan ("trailer") on a farm at the tip of the Lleyn Peninsula, which is that bit of land jutting out from the North Wales coast into the Irish Sea. Our hosts were deliriously happy on our arrival - they'd been holding the name of Mother Teresa in the local pub sweepstake, and had won nearly 600 pounds (not far off $1000). The area is breathtakingly lovely, the shopkeepers are surly, and the local restaurants are (generally) terrible. Little English is spoken, and my Welsh is not only rusty but the wrong dialect. We had a great time, should have been longer, and I have to admit that my temper is no sweeter. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 06:16:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 06:13:14 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:09:58 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"KjvMJ.0.T65.fly8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10972 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Bill Beaty said it better than I did: > When I watch intelligent "skeptics" argue with rational "believers", I am > constantly made aware that both parties have stunningly complicated > patterns of blindness and perception. I see the same thing in myself. > And I've never encountered any person who lacked this. I don't want to pick on Barry, except as an illustration at hand. With respect to the Griggs device, he says: "If an experimental facility was available and functioning, I would surely like to investigate it myself." Well, to my knowledge it exists at Gri gg's plant. After Griggs discovered his hydrosonic pumps were O/U, he spent a reported $250,000 upgrading his instrumentation to include a precision in-line dynamometer to measure the mechanical power into the pump. He also installed multiple thermistors/ thermocouples in the input and output lines and hooked it all to a computer to automatically log the runs and evaluate the results. I think Jim Griggs would welcome a visit by Barry, so for the price of a plane ticket, Barry can see for himself. The instr umentation is far more complete than anything Gene can set up. Of course, the computer can be programmed to produce a plausible but utterly false set of printouts. And noisy data indicating excess heat can be smoothed -- by hand, in one case -- to erase evidence in a report that supports one's convictions and funding needs (the MIT case). Griggs was visited by a scientist from the big accelerator facility in Illinois (sorry, name of person and installation escapes me now). The scientist wasn't interested in the actual equipment or a demonstration run, he wanted to see protocols and error b ars, the trappings of academic research. The parting comment to Griggs was "You're no scientist!", to which Griggs replied "You're no engineer!". There is no substitute for repeated hands-on, been-there, did-it-myself experience. Lacking that, we rely on second-hand reports done in an accepted manner. Doubting that, we fall back to metaphors, anecdotes, and speculations about other's behavior (If I knew, I would...). On this slippery slope, the line between fact and faith blurs so fast that we often don't notice it. For my part, I see in Jed's report of PowerGen the stamp of immediate truth that needs no quibbling, and his defense of that truth satisfactory and convincing. I see in Miley's replication of the Patterson cell from patent information adequate confirmatio n of the basic design. I have the Arata report, and it appears convincing for the production of heat and He 3&4, the nuclear ash sought by critics. >From the whole of Jed's commentary, I count him a reliable surrogate observer, for he is always careful to delimit his areas of competence (something some critics neglect to do). When he cites a handful of successful observers, having read the actual rep orts, I think that critics (including Murray) should study the same source materials before making judgments. Jed has his agenda, and I don't always agree with him. His agenda is not hidden, so one can construct one's own correction factor. We are perhaps a decade away from enough instance-dots to connect to form a coherent picture of this beast and explain the failures and successes. It is possible that the P&F effect is only one small instance of a large and complex field. Just remember that in LENR we may be dealing with "nuclear chemistry" and not much further ahead than the much maligned alchemists, puttering around with their recipes. They didn't suffer from a inbred schism between "chemistry" and "nuclear physics". Per haps the field needs a new champion, name of Joe. Mike Carrell ---------- > From: William Beaty > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > Subject: Re: EV's vs OU's > Date: Friday, September 19, 1997 11:57 PM > > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > > > I must say that I often find that > > the essays Jed writes have a subtle one sidedness, that turns > > them basically into very well contructed validations of what > > Jed believes. > > This comment suprises me. I detect a hidden assumption that Jed is > biased, but that you are not. > > Are you *very sure* that your own writing is not biased by your view of > the world? > > Do you never habitually select evidence which validates your beliefs, > while ignoring evidence which runs contrary? > > In observing people (including myself), I've had my nose rubbed over and > over in the fact that we humans see very little of the world. The major > part of whatever is really out there is extremely distorted by our > psychological filters. Yes, a baseball is a baseball, but a fan of the > sport sees it as an entirely different object than a sports-hater does, > and as a result neither person can SEE a baseball. > > When I watch intelligent "skeptics" argue with rational "believers", I am > constantly made aware that both parties have stunningly complicated > patterns of blindness and perception. I see the same thing in myself. > And I've never encountered any person who lacked this. > > If there's no escaping our beliefs-bias and mental filters, then at least > we can strive to be constantly aware of them. If we stay blind to them, > then they will control us in ways we might not enjoy. > > .....................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 Sep 20 07:34:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 07:30:49 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 10:29:39 -0400 (EDT) To: 72240.1256 compuserve.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Subject: I'm tired of people bashing you. Resent-Message-ID: <"fG-w7.0.z77.Ouz8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10973 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I was at Power Gen. I saw the demo. I got the straight scoop directly from Geroge Miley. I also saw the CETI device emitting steam on national TV. I heard Geroge Miley state on Good Moring America that anomalous energy was being produced. Geroge told me many things at Wright Patterson. I went to visit Dr. Storm's in Santa Fe. I saw his device. He told me of the 3 watts of anomalous energy he was producing. I saw the measuring instruments and have no reason to doubt Storms. Storms also showed and told me things. Carol fixed me lunc h. I read the EPRI report from SRI. I met with and spoke to EPRI's Tom Passell about it. They did get extra energy. Passell also told me things I went to NASA Marshall and met with Dr. Noever. I learned something. What I learned has put me over the edge. I never say what it is! They are onto something but even they don't know it. I am still trying to help Yuri. He has a vaild technology. It did not produce excess energy but has the capability of doing so. Yuri is agreat man and went through great pains to teach me what he knows. Jim Reding took me to supper at the World Trade Center in Orlando. Jim has also let the cat out of the bag on a few points. I learned a bit from each person and now I'm putting it together. My aim to make electricity directly from the cold fusion process. I will have the results be years end. Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 07:46:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 07:42:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 10:41:34 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"56lsR3.0.wr5.Y3-8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10974 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hal Puthoff wrote of a fellow named Cook "with a similar drive that he has powering a boat across a swimming pool. I would still worry about an attenuated version of the two forms of friction, even in water." Judging by Cook's boat and the boat mentioned in Fred Epps' interesting post re the Thornson Drive, as well as by Rick Monteverde's experience in oomphing a dinghy across water, there might really be an attenuated version, in water, of the effect produced on a tabletop by the difference between sliding and static friction. That would invalidate my proposed test. Another boyhood fantasy bites the dust. Hal, when did Cook use his drive to power a boat across a swimming pool? Was that 37 years ago or more recently? Fred, has anything been heard of Thornson since 1990? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 08:53:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:41:28 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:37:11 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Barry's Heresy To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"N7hUt3.0.tR1.cw-8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10975 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex; >INTERNET:barry julia.math.ucla.edu Barry Merriman wrote that might dismiss the work of P&F because it does not sell yet. I presume he was not joking; he should tell us if he was. I say this is heresy, because scientific claims should only be judged by experiment and observation, never by commercial success or failure. He responds: Once again, you have slipped into the deceptively convincing polemical mode you wield so well, wherein you destroy the straw man . . . It is NOT a straw man. You said it, Barry! A "straw man" is an argument opponent did make in the first place. Did I misunderstand you? Did you or did you not seriously suggest that we should dismiss the published, peer reviewed scientific papers by Pons a nd Fleischmann because commercial cold products have been developed? Please respond. The readers of this forum deserve a clear answer from you. You have said similar things in the past. You refuse to comment on the scientific papers I sent you by McKubre and Miles. I think this pattern of behavior is unworthy of a scientist. I'm not going to debate you, or try and correct your misconceptions about my world view, because we both have more impo[r]tant things to do. You should correct my misconceptions. They are your fault. You wrote the message. You gave me and other readers the impression that you think Pons and Fleischmann should be judged by sales, not replication. If that is not what you meant, you owe us an exp lanation. And if that *is* what you meant you should stick to your guns and stand up for this extraordinary world view. I think it is important for you to take a few minutes to explain yourself. I think you are evading the issue and trying to change the s ubject. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 08:49:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:37:31 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Griggs replication To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Fuigf2.0.lH7.bw-8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10976 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: Finally, I also understand that experiments are carried out by people, and that can lead to a host of seemingly "irrational" behaviors in itself, in terms of how the research proceeds. One isolated instance that comes to mind is that Jed, who values experiment above all else, and Gene---a competent engineer in his own right---have supposely repeatedly tested the Griggs device, found it to be 300% OU with excellent repeatability, even purchased one, and yet they don't devote all their human effort to advancing this single device, which would seem unique in the entire history of OU devices, at least by their experiences. I can't fathom such behavior, but it surely confounds ones interpretation of the significance of those experiments---it would seem as if the experimenters themselves did not really believe their results will hold up. Barry, your facts are wrong and your speculation is unfounded. 1. The Griggs device produces 5 to 15% OU with hot water, 30% with steam. If it produced 300% we would drop everything, cease publication of the magazine, and devote our waking hours to testing it. 2. It does not have excellent repeatability. It is only so-so with hot water, although once the machine is adjusted it tends to remain in adjustment for months. As I reported, I observed many tests which showed no excess. They made good blanks, but they w ere not deliberate. The high percent excess with steam is very difficult to achieve, and it is transient. We will not attempt steam generation. 3. We *are* devoting significant human effort to advancing this device. However, we lack money and equipment. If Barry would please send us $50,000 progress will go a lot faster. If it produced 300% we would find the money somehow. As it is, other, cheaper, more promising devices that must take priority. We must make painful choices. 4. The experimental results have held up in every test I know of, including recent tests at the TVA. We have every reason to think they will hold up if and when we get the money to install and test the machine ourselves. Barry has no reason to doubt the m achine will work, since he cannot point to an error in our test procedures. We are not allowed to print money. Neither is Mizuno, Miles, Oriani or the others. Therefore, they live and work hand to mouth, constantly in crisis, and our research is highly constrained -- to say the least. These are middle class people. Some have spen t $50,000, $100,000 or more out of their own pockets for equipment. Experiments that should take weeks drag on for months for lack of money. Laboratory facilities that lie unused are placed off-limits, access is denied to us by jealous and vindictive riva ls. Many vital experiments are never done in the first place. This is not our fault. It is the fault of the scientific establishment, which devotes billions to dead-end technologies like hot fusion, and refuses to allocate $10,000 or even $1000 to cold fu sion. This is, as Barry says, the height of irrationality. I cannot fathom it. But it isn't *our* irrationality. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 09:36:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:33:36 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:32:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Griggs replication Resent-Message-ID: <"VWLhm3.0.I33.Vh_8q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10977 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Since we are all examining our motives, I thought I'd put my 2 cents in. On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > We are not allowed to print money. Neither is Mizuno, Miles, Oriani or the > others. Therefore, they live and work hand to mouth, constantly in crisis, and > our research is highly constrained -- to say the least. These are middle class > people. Some have spent $50,000, $100,000 or more out of their own pockets for > equipment. Experiments that should take weeks drag on for months for lack of > money. Laboratory facilities that lie unused are placed off-limits, access is > denied to us by jealous and vindictive rivals. Many vital experiments are > never done in the first place. This is not our fault. It is the fault of the > scientific establishment, which devotes billions to dead-end technologies like > hot fusion, and refuses to allocate $10,000 or even $1000 to cold fusion. This > is, as Barry says, the height of irrationality. I cannot fathom it. But it > isn't *our* irrationality. > To me, this is a crying shame. I know that this is true and no funding agency will support CF research. I believe a sufficiently strong case has been made that research into this endeavour should be persued. Until 1994 I thought that the claims of positi ve results were simply the end of the Gaussian tail. After all many 100's of experiments were being carried out, some were bound to make mistakes and get false positive results. It is my hope that this will change. It is clear to me that if CF does exist, it will not be perfected by a garage tinkerer or even a $10 million development. Though I am most intrigued at the progress of Blacklight. The TV interview with Pons and the video tape of the boiling cell changed my mind. There have since been much better demonstrations that have vanished with no follow up (like Powergen). Why? I can think of 2 reasons. 1. They can't be repeated. 2. The scientists involved don't want large scale investigation by the mainstream! I've been told this directly by a couple of well known CF names. So given that Jed, Gene and Chris are correct they have a double difficult job. Not only do they have to convince the mainstream to look at CF again, they also have to convince the CF people to allow the mainstream to look! It appears that as soon as a pr omising procedure is found, the person involved shuts up. This could be because of either 1 or 2 above. My own Scientific training says it because of reason 1. My personal hope is that it is 2. If it is reason 2 and there are a large class of new devices that can tap into some previously unknown energy source, I hope that Greg Watson beats them to it. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 13:21:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:13:06 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:10:22 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Griggs replication To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"023I02.0.2I3.Hv29q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10978 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: There have since been much better demonstrations that have vanished with no follow up (like Powergen). Why? Because, as I have stated here, CETI does not want scientists, the public, or large corporations to know what they are doing. They believe that by keeping it secret and developing on their own they will earn more money in the future, by grabbing a larger market share and by developing more comprehensive patents. They are delighted with the status quo. They hope mainstream scientists continue to attack cold fusion until they are ready to roll out consumer products. CETI told me that quite explicitly during PowerGen and many times subsequently. In fact, they nearly refused to show the demo to me, after inviting me to buy a ticket and fly to California on short notice. Chris Tinsley can tell you I was fit to be tied! There has never been any love lost betwee n us. That is why you can trust my reports about CETI. I would never exaggerate on their behalf or put anything in a good light. Many other CF R&D companies agree with CETI's strategy. CETI did not invent the idea. The correspondence between the Wright brothers and their venture capital firm in New York describes it almost word for word in places. You can find hundreds of other exa mples. It did not work in 1907 and it will not work today. This strategy is amateur, wasteful, time consuming and unimaginative. As I told Stan Pons (who also subscribes to it to some extent), it reminds me of the WWI military strategy of direct frontal attacks against fortified trenches. It might work, but it is the worst method. I can think of 2 reasons. 1. They can't be repeated. 2. The scientists involved don't want large scale investigation by the mainstream! I've been told this directly by a couple of well known CF names. Point 1 is incorrect. The experiments have been repeated and greatly improved. I have spoken with trustworthy independent observers who have seen them. Point 2 is right on the mark, as I said. I too, have been told this frequently by well known CF names who shall remain nameless. So given that Jed, Gene and Chris are correct they have a double difficult job. Not only do they have to convince the mainstream to look at CF again, they also have to convince the CF people to allow the mainstream to look! It appears that as soon as a promising procedure is found, the person involved shuts up. Right! And the latter job is much more difficult. Many people in the mainstream are willing to look at CF. That is why our subscriber base is growing. The CF corporate developers cannot get funded, but that is their fault. I have told them over and over t hey must publish, demonstrate publicly and welcome investors. They tell me to mind my own business. I put 80% of the blame on the CF scientists, and 20% on the opposition. I wish Randy Mills would be more open than he is, but I must grant that he has done a good job. He is a businessman and he did what business textbooks recommend. He encouraged independent verification at Thermacore and U. Pennsylvania. He welcomed investors from the power company. As a result, he got $10 million. If the other CF R&D companies would act rationally they would get $10 million too. Some of them would get $100 million. While many CF scientists are to blame for their own predicament, please remember that one group is not to blame. Academic scientists like Miles, Storms, Mizuno, Bockris and Oriani have been fully open. They have published in detail. They have fully cooper ated with outsiders. Mizuno went to a lot of trouble to fabricate cathodes for Oriani -- who then went to even more trouble to verify the excess heat. The Italians at the INF laboratories have been cooperative. McKubre has fully revealed his methods and r esults, and he has assisted other people, but I believe EPRI and SRI have not revealed everything they know about cathode material. Since that is the most important factor by far, it is a shame they have decided to keep this under wraps. EPRI is semi-publ ic R&D consortium so they should not be keeping secrets. Pons and Fleischmann revealed a great deal before they went to IMRA. While he was at IMRA, Fleischmann gave cathodes to many top scientists, including Miles. These cathodes worked with almost 100% r eliability. Fleischmann says he advocated more openness at IMRA, and the sale of demonstration kits. I think the most laudable CF scientists are Storms, Miles and Mizuno. It is a shame they have not been able to achieve the kind of spectacular results CET I has seen. But their results are spectacular enough by the standards of experimental science. Their reproducibility is reasonably high and their s/n ratios are so high that no "skeptic" dares to look at the data, and no rational scientist who does look will deny the effect is real. In any other field of science these results would have convinced e veryone back in 1990. Many other academic scientists deserve kudos for fine work and openness. The ones I mentioned have done some of the best research, in my opinion. If . . . there are a large class of new devices that can tap into some previously unknown energy source, I hope that Greg Watson beats them to it. Me too! Frankly, I would love to see Greg Watson make the CETI, EPRI and IMRA devices commercially useless. It would serve them right. However, I hope that even if this happens scientists go back and find out what CF is and how it works. It is exciting sc ience in its own right. It may have important applications besides energy. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 14:17:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:12:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:11:51 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"smf9_1.0.Sz.zm39q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10979 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/20/97 2:45:09 PM, you wrote: <> His book was published in 1980: J. Dickinson and R. Cook, "The Death of Rocketry," CIP Systems. ISBN 0-9604584-0-9 Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 14:38:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:33:08 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:33:56 -0700 (PDT) From: james cox Subject: gravity -shielded propelled vehicle To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: gravity voicenet.com Resent-Message-ID: <"WOS5Z1.0.tH6.I449q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10981 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com James E. Cox in his new journal ANTIGRAVITY NEWS and SPACE DRIVE TECHNOLOGY Vol 1.No. 2 (July-August edition) describes how we may now start thinking (put on your engineering hats, folks!) about how to apply the Podkletnov/Schnurer (and others) supercondu ctor g-shield results to potentially useful future hardware. He proposes a modular arrangement of SC layers, each one yields the demonstrated 2% reduced weight (column effect up to infinity) so the lift equation is quite simple: F = (g-coef)(14.7 psi)(SC-area,inch squared)(N,layers).Podkletnov showed that the PRINCIPLE OF SUPERPOSITION is valid, when he stacked two devices and got 4% shielding. For the Dr. Schnurer device with 1" dia. SC, at 5% (or .05) g-shi eld coefficient, the lifting force is about 9 ounces. Considering the photograph in Feb 17, Business Week; the device is rather small and must have been close to liftoff! If not, we can lighten it up, and go for a SCHNURER LEVITATION demonstration--heads will start to turn, folks! Remember, the pressure un derneath the SC remains unchanged at 14.7 psi at sea level. (Podkeletnov actually measured the pressure differential above his device (see second paper) as 8 mm of Hg mercury. Schnurer's SC disc, itself, only weighs around .5 ounce, yet yields a lift tha ts 18 times larger than its own weight! Does he have a hole in the roof of his lab? Well, Mr. Cox wants to win the $10,000,000 X-prize (three people to 62 miles altitude), and donate a big chunck to g-shield research. Any takers? Tune-in for more details--you can get AGN subscription for $3 6 to J.E.Cox, P.O.Box 655, Marietta, GA 30061-655. _____________________________________________________________________ Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 14:33:31 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:11:12 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Dean Drive References: <970920104025_1822207501 emout15.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"QjNKs1.0.MQ1.V_39q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10980 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts Vorts! It was in fact Thornsen instead of Cook who drove a canoe across a swimming pool. Thornsen and Cook were both at the Tesla Conference in 1994 and each showed videos of their experiments. Thornsens machine made a godawful clacking sound when in operation because it is purely mechanical but it clearly drove the canoe with nothing in the water. Thornsen said you must establish a cycloid motion to produce the inertial effect. This is precisely what Keely said could be done in a 'graduated' or harmonized mass. If the electron orbits in each atom of a mass aggregate could be entrained to produce a synchronized cycloid, you would have an inertial mass driver. This was pointed o ut in the paper written by Dan Davidson and myself and published in 1995 in the ITS journal. The Bose Einstein condensate is the closest thing to achieving such a condition to date. Keely went far beyond what most people realize since they all get hooked on the Tesla mythos. Tesla copied many of his ideas and discoveries from Keely's work, his main contribution that made the technology practical was the use of electrical currents rather than vibrating masses to produce phenomena. Eventually I'll finish the paper that points out these pecadillos. The beauty of inertial drives is that they react against their own center of gravity, which is intensified when all components of the aggregate are 'harmonized'. Though the thrust is small, at high frequencies and with a large weight, it has distinct pos sibilities for propulsion and even lift. There are two other related if not identical motions, that of counter-bary and one called apsidal motion. John Astor wrote a book in the late 1800's that dealt with the use of a drive system based on yet a similar force which he called 'apergy'. I found a full copy of the book at the University of Virginia and extracted only the apergy description which I intend to post on KeelyNet...don't have the specific Univ Virginia URL handy for that at the moment.....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 Sat Sep 20 20:14:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:14:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:15:45 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: COLD FUSION TIMES' O/U Table Resent-Message-ID: <"HNtSX3.0.fP2.3499q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10987 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:43 PM 9/19/97 -0400, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >Mitch Swartz posted a table that my e-mail could not format. It is titled >"Proposed assessment of Putative Overunity Devices." Various devices are >listed with two categories "yes" or "no" but I cannot tell what the categories >are supposed to be. Something about "o-u" or "breakeven" (or breakeven and >ou)? I cannot tell which column is which. More to the point, I do not >understand these terms. They have been tossed around for years, but I do not >understand what they mean. All energy producing systems are over-unity. When >you strike a match, it outputs much heat than you input with the rubbing >motion. When you rub two sticks together, that's a breakeven system. It does >not generate energy. It stores the energy, focusing it on one small spot. That >triggers a second self-sustaining over-unity chemical reaction, good for >roasting marshmallows. > No. Overunity means more out than you put in. ===> Chemical storage is UNDER UNITY. Breakeven means feedback has been put in, and NET output is occurring. ================================================================== >Swartz writes: > > Actually, many of the consumer devices are powered by OU with >breakeven, > i.e. ==> nuclear power. > > E = mc2 Do we include fission and fusion in OU? > >Why is this equation is associated with fission and fusion? All energy >producing reactions annihilate mass according to this equation: fission, >fusion, chemical or mechanical. All consumer devices conserve mass - energy. I >do not understand what "breakeven" means in this context. > see above. ================================================================== >Miles and the Italians have done the most painstaking studies >looking for helium in the effluent gas, and they have found it. Others have >looked but they have either not found it or they have been overwhelmed by >helium contamination from air. It remains an open question until more people >can replicate, but evidence for helium is growing stronger. I have been sending you copies of the COLD FUSION TIMES, so you really should be up on this, Jed. Check out the cover page of the COLD FUSION TIMES at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Check out Dr. Arata and the QMS He4, and Helium-3 results. ================================================================== >As I said, I cannot read this table, but I notice it lists things like the >water vortex devices, and coupled electro mechanical dynamos. Question #1 is: >Do these things work? Do they produce more energy out than you put in? As far >as I know, the Griggs water vortex device works, Based upon what? A single equation and a short-term measurement again? I have asked for long term data of this for years. Still waiting. Doubt it is overunity, although given energy storage, and cavitation issues, and corrosion issues, it might appear it. Suggest looking at the long-term and calibration data. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 20:15:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:15:17 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:16:51 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Griggs replication Resent-Message-ID: <"Gj9Qd.0.Su3.4599q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10988 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:37 AM 9/20/97 -0400, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >Barry Merriman writes: > > Finally, I also understand that experiments are carried out by people, > and that can lead to a host of seemingly "irrational" behaviors in > itself, in terms of how the research proceeds. One isolated instance > that comes to mind is that Jed, who values experiment above all else, > and Gene---a competent engineer in his own right---have supposely > repeatedly tested the Griggs device, found it to be 300% OU with > excellent repeatability, even purchased one, and yet they don't devote > all their human effort to advancing this single device, which would seem > unique in the entire history of OU devices, at least by their > experiences. I can't fathom such behavior, but it surely confounds ones > interpretation of the significance of those experiments---it would seem > as if the experimenters themselves did not really believe their results > will hold up. > >Barry, your facts are wrong and your speculation is unfounded. > >1. The Griggs device produces 5 to 15% OU with hot water, 30% with steam. If >it produced 300% we would drop everything, cease publication of the magazine, >and devote our waking hours to testing it. If there was clear evidence of 10% OU, clearly, that would be impressive. That evidence, does not exist IMHO, because it would be provided as graphs/data with controls, noise analysis, and clear power/energy plotting to rule out potential storage, etc. Wouldn't you agree that it is NOT sufficient to apply a formula(e) and assume the formula is correct in that case, unless controls, boundary conditions, etc. are examined? BTW in the Griggs-device case that would require ruling out corrosion effects (including the cavitation related form) on the rotors, and calculating the maximum possible energy provided by that reaction. There is pitting? isnt there? If with the corrections,and controls, measurement of noise, removal of the corrosion energy component, there is OU, then it would be impressive indeed. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 15:36:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:46:29 -0800 From: "M.Twain" To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Helical vortex aether ... GIF format Resent-Message-ID: <"pEQED3.0.BG3.y-49q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10982 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Amigos y amigas, I am searching for GIF illustrations and images of vortices in nature. Plasma filaments, electromagnetic waves, tornados, water sinks and spouts, electron clusters, hurricanes, storms, galaxies, dna, seashells, solid state magnetic vortices, etc. These will be made available to participants in the Global Aether Workshops this coming year in Australia and New Zealand, [http://www.mediacity.com/~muse/workshop.html], and in my modeling of the aether origin of electron, proton, neutron, atomic, and nu clear structures. Yesterday I received some GREAT vortex "TEP V7.0" images from J.Naudin -- which of course made me realize the internet might be the place to look for more. Thanks in advance for any GIFs or suggestions. Anyone wishing to contribute to/participate in the Global Aether Workshop is heartily encouraged. to our World Renaissance! Millennium [http://www.mediacity.com/~muse/mirror.html] X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 17:30:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:30:26 -0700 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: "M.Twain" , vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:51:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Helical vortex aether ... GIF format Reply-to: chronos enter.net Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"uRE5A1.0.WF6.Xg69q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10985 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 20 Sep 97 at 15:46, vortex-l eskimo.com wrote: > Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:46:29 -0800 > From: "M.Twain" > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > I am searching for GIF illustrations and images of vortices in nature. > Plasma filaments, electromagnetic waves, tornados, water sinks and > spouts, electron clusters, hurricanes, storms, galaxies, dna, seashells, > solid state magnetic vortices, etc. 1. "Sensitive Chaos: The Creation of Flowing Forms in Water & Air" by Theodor Schwenk. Preface by Jacques Cousteau. Schocken Books [200 Madison Ave. NYC] 1976. ISBN 0-8052-3636-8. This is a reprint of the 1965 edition published by Rudolf Steiner Press (L ondon), which was a translation by Olive Whicher and Johanna Wrigley of Schwenk's "Das Sensible Chaos." This has a good 100+ full-page plates and 4+ pp. of references. 2. According to the article "Vortex Patterns Anchor Schwenk's Theory of Flow" in "Brain-Mind Bulletin" Jan/Feb 1996 (PO Box 42211 LosAngeles, CA 90042): "Schwenk's work is carried on at the Institute for Flow Research, Stutzhofweg 11, 79737 Herrischried, Germany. And at the Water Research Institute of Blue Hill, Box 930, Blue Hill, ME 04614 [phone 207-379-3660]. A new edition of 'Sensitive Chaos' from R udolf Steiner Press, London, is due this summer." I don't know if this new edition is actually out. 3. A big photo collection of flow patterns from fluid mechanics research was published ca. 1980 to 1986. Author maybe "VanDyke" I don't recall the details. Try searching on "flow visualization" in internet search engines, Books in Print, etc. Best regards, Bob Flower ============================================= Robert G. Flower - Applied Science Associates > Scientific Software & Instrumentation < > Quality Control Engineering < ============================================= X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 14:46:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:33:09 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: All Hail Vortexia Resent-Message-ID: <"1jtGI3.0.SS1.4DP9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11010 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Bill Beaty wrote: > Gnorts you right in the SMOT, don't > it? LOL! it certainly does! (I've been trying to come up with a phrase like that for weeks now!) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 20:44:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:44:05 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 03:37:50 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"pvQ4s1.0.2u2.2W99q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10990 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:36:03 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Robin - > > > How about expulsion of the earth's magnetic field? > >But why would it expel the earth's field with about half a gram or so of >force with 4 quarters as targets, and then expel the field with over a gram >of force when more quarters are used? [snip] Ok, I admit I'm guessing here, but how about a simple increase in volume of expelled field? (i.e. the quarters behave as though they were part of the superconductor? - perhaps due to induced fields?) PS can someone work out just how much "lift" would be generated by total exclusion of the earth's field from the volume in question? (My intuition says it is too small by several orders of magnitude). 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 Sep 20 20:39:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:38:57 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Griggs replication Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 03:37:53 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199709201612_MC2-2131-1A58 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"lk1LZ3.0.tj4.FR99q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10989 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:10:22 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >devices commercially useless. It would serve them right. However, I hope that >even if this happens scientists go back and find out what CF is and how it >works. [snip] Oh, I'm sure they will. Just as soon as it becomes "safe" (read "almost useless") they will be all over it! (And Chris thinks he is a cynic - hah! ;) 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 Sun Sep 21 17:16:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:12:55 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:15:16 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"ciy2g1.0.PC2.3WR9q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11015 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin - > Ok, I admit I'm guessing here, but how about a > simple increase in volume of expelled field? > (i.e. the quarters behave as though they were > part of the superconductor? - perhaps due to > induced fields?) I think the Razor should have cut just above "the quarters behave as though they were part of the superconductor...". :) I see what you're saying, but when you say "volume", don't you really mean cross-sectional area? That doesn't increase, and like you said, it would seem to be a very small component anyway. It would only be the vertical component of the earth's field anyw ay. In Ohio the field's dipping to some degree, but it does seem an altogether unsatisfactory explanation. People need to replicate these latest experiments using good controls, and report them in detail. If it's still working, we've probably got something really really interesting. The problem with the first round of experiments was that getting any results a t all was a very rare event. Never happened at all for me. This new one looks much more promising. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 15:37:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:33:50 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:31:06 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: That darned Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"WTn-Z1.0.hA5.D3Q9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11013 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris - > Um, not really what I meant. Ok. I've seen statements (not from you, necessarily) equating those who impede CF with mass murderers because people are dying from air pollution and dying from diseases arising from a lack of fuel and clean water in the third world. I was referring to th at kind of thing. I just get a bit put off, as do others, but the rapid decline in civility these online debates can sometimes take. And by the way, I was disappointed to see you fail to respond in your post to my veiled insult about riots. Everyone knows a that for a "footy" fan, a riot is engaged in for the sheer pleasure derived; they ae not for "solving problems". Then I cought, bu t decided to leave in, a juicy mispelling: "harrass" - one of your favorites! Not a peep. Soo?! Someone's using Chris' account! > There's a *terrible* joke about that. Not *that* sounds more promising. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 00:38:05 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:36:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , "Free Energy" Subject: Fw: gyro torque converters Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:43:36 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"eRAb53.0.Xn6.EwC9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10991 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Brilliant Physicists of the Lists, Here is a question that has been puzzling me and I can't seem to get a clear answer out of the books on gyromechanics. Is there somebody out there that can help? [Orignally posted privately] > > OK, you have a gyro with angular momentum H. Normally, if for instance you > > have a top, gravity provides a torque that causes the top to precess with > > velocity Vp. > > If, on the other hand you make the gyro precess at Vp you get a torque at > > right angles to the force. The equation is > > > > T = HVp > > > > Now what I'm thinking is this. The angular momentum H is due to energy > > stored in the gyro disc. this energy can be extracted at any point by > > making the motor that drives the disc a generator instead. This is how flywheels work. Lets say > > ideally it can be done with 100% eficiency and there are no frictional > > losses in the gyro disc (this last part can be approached in practice). > So > > THEORETICALLY there are no inherent energy costs in creating any particular H. > > The H is caused by stored energy rather than dissipated energy. > > > > Obviously output torque has a relationship to output energy (I've > forgotten the exact equation at the moment, but it is some linear relation based on > > the torque and the torque arm). The torque equation above implies that > any desired torque (energy output) can be gotten with any specific > > forced-precessional velocity by adjusting the H to match. But we have > > already established that H is based on stored energy and not on dissipated > > energy, so that means that a gyro can generate any output energy desired > > from any input energy, since we can write the energy used to create H out > > of the energy equation! Of course, theoretically... > > > > The catch of course is Vp. Of course it takes energy to turn the gyro > > along its precessional axis, but the question is, and this what I am > asking, does the energy required to turn the gyro around its precessional > axis > > INCREASE as the H of the gyro rotor increases, or does it STAY THE SAME? > > > > If it increases then this where my idea falls flat-- but intuitively I > > don't see how it COULD increase, because the moment of inertia ALONG THE > > PRECESSION AXIS has not increased because of increased spin and inertial > > moment along the ROTOR axis, or at least I don't THINK it has.. > > > > Do you know? Or have I even made it clear what I am asking? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Fred > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 00:43:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:43:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , "Free Energy" Subject: Fw: Dean Drive Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:50:24 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"Ersit2.0.Yy6.40D9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10992 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- > From: Fred Epps > To: fred epps > Subject: Fw: Dean Drive > Date: Saturday, September 20, 1997 3:05 PM > > > > ---------- > > Date: Saturday, September 20, 1997 02:06:40 > > From: fepps > > To: vortex-l eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: Dean Drive > > > > Hi Rick and all! > > > > > > > But I still feel like I've mis-communicated here. Let me just state > > clearly > > > that I think it is absolutely NOT possible that any system using > classical > > > mechanics could produce an unbalanced or reactionless thrust. That's not > > to > > > say that something *else* might not come along, nor does it rule out > that > > > the effects of such might indeed appear from amidst rotating or gyrating > > > objects under some special circumstances. But rotating, oscillating, > > > gyrating gizmos, by classical mechanics will never work, IMO. > > > , > > > I just wanted a simple irrefutable test/knife to cut away those gizmos > > > which are claimed by some to produce thrust but in fact do not work, > such > > > as the Dean drive and many related devices. > > > > I recommend looking at the Thornson drive as an actual device completely > > different from the Dean drive rather than burying it in an abstraction > > called "many related devices". The Thornson drive was observed to work by > > qualified observers and the classic test was applied-- suspension from a > > string with a consistent one-way deviation. It seems like an instance of > > "goal-post moving" to say that this is no longer a test when for many > years > > I heard it expressed that this was precisly the test that would disqualify > > the Dean drive and "related devices". > > Even if such an effect can be duplicated by a gyroscopic assembly acting > > against the CG, it must be remembered that this drive is simple and can be > > seen not to contain such a gyroscope. And IF the gyroscopic device as > > described would create such a lateral force, it could be used as a prime > > mover for ground transportation, and I have some (not yet clearly > > articulated) questions about the conservation laws in such a case... AND > > any theory of gyroscopic behavior must satisfactorily explain the famous > > picture of E.R. Laithwaite holding up a long rod with with a heavy > > precessing gyro on one end-- with one finger! According to the standard > > view the gravitational countertorque must be applied to his finger, yet it > > is not. > > Interestingly the Newtonian equations of motion for the Thornson drive > were > > simulated on a computer by some grad students associated with Valone and > > the simulation showed the same behavior as the actual device-- a > > preponderance of force on one side! These results were reported in the > > IECEC proceedings, sorry I don't have the ref with me here at work. > > The Woodward patent which was recently discussed on the list is similar to > > this patent except that the mass is added to one side of the rotation > > electromagnetically rather than mechanically. I guess that makes it more > > legitimate, based on your "something else" exception. > > I think it must be pointed out yet again that there is no satisfactory > > explanation of inertial force within current physics. I am not so much > > making a case for the Thornson dirve as a working inertial drive (I have > no > > idea whether it actually works or not) but a case that the laws of > > classical mechanics contain unexplained terms which can lead to unusual > > results. > > > > As an aside, it is often said, and has been said again recently, that the > > mechanical perpetual motion machine is an absurd fiction. The historical > > record shows that the Bessel Wheel or Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?) was > observed > > to operate completely independently of the inventor for 6 months by being > > locked in the King of England's personal vault. The observations were > > conducted by a notable scientist of the day-- Isaac Newton! > > This device appears to have been based on centrifugal force. It has > > recently been determined by studies of centrifugal force around black > holes > > that it must be considered a force in its own right and not simply an > > application of action-reaction to centripetal force. In the ancient > > controversy between Newton and Huygens over whether CF is a real force or > a > > ficticious force, Huygens has won! Newtonian mechanics is not an accurate > > picture of the universe even on its own level of application and the way > is > > still open for devices that use mechanical inertial effects to show > > anomalous effects. > > > > Fred > > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 01:28:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:27:50 -0700 From: Geosas@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 04:26:58 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: viv ictus.demon.co.uk, Spelve@aol.com, jmb@cs.su.oz.au Subject: Antigravity observed with simple gyroscope? Resent-Message-ID: <"8R2MD1.0.A-3.4gD9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10993 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In the London Sunday Telegraph of 21 Sept. 1997, Robert Matthews reports that a team of Japanese scientists have spun up a gyroscope to 18000 rpm and dropped it through a distance of 63 inches in vacuo. The time taken to fall this distance was 1/25000 sec. longer than when the gyroscope was not spinning, corresponding to a weight reduction of 1 part in 7000. The effect only occurred when the gyroscope was spinning anticlockwise. The fall was timed usin g laser beams. The team say that this is in line with earlier findings of theirs published in 1989. This work was done by Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan, together with Matsushita the Japanese multinational. Their results are reported in the journal Speculations in Science and Technology. Does anyb ody on Vortex have access to this journal? The newspaper article gives no further details. Best, George S. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 20 05:22:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:38:21 +1000 X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: Dihydrogen monoxide to be banned in EU? Resent-Message-ID: <"Te-171.0.7q3.5zx8q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10970 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:15 AM 9/20/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hi all, > >Recently a British scientist stood outside a London underground >train station, handing out flyers describing the dangerous properties >of dihydrogen monoxide. Among other things, it was correctly stated >that the substance is found in the tumours of terminal cancer patients, >and that it is highly corrosive. > >76% of those who responded signed a petition that dihydrogen monoxide >should be banned in the European Union. > >This says much about the general public's ignorance of science, and its >readiness to react hysterically to the latest health scare. > >George S. > >Yes I have found water to be quite deadly too that why I drink coke and and work in fruit juice Factory Geoff > >http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel http//www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 10:05:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:05:35 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Antigravity observed with simple gyroscope? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 03:28:12 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"ItS6u.0.VO7.VFL9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10997 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > This work was done by Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty > of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan, together with Matsushita the > Japanese multinational. Their results are reported in the journal > Speculations in Science and Technology. Does anybody on Vortex > have access to this journal? The newspaper article gives no further > details. I do, and I will look for the article next week when I go to the library... Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 04:10:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 04:10:04 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 07:08:02 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: That darned Jed To: vortex-l eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"glVZ_3.0.vi6.B2G9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10994 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rick, Always good to hear your views. > Uh, 'cause that's how riots and wars get started? We first > dismiss, then objectify, and then begin to *violently dispose of > our now unworthy and less-than-human opponents? Um, not really what I meant. I have no problem with seeing people as human, worth precisely as much as I am - not a whit more or less than anyone is. That's not the problem. What I was saying was that I've been trying to treat with people as though the y were honest and diligent. Now, I'm not saying that all are dishonest - but certainly they are less than diligent. For example, see Kurt's attack on Jed's report on PowerGen, or Barry's comments on the Griggs device. Certainly I've been guilty of some things like these, but in general I reckon I do make the effort to be diligent and I know I'm pretty honest. I also know that I tend to take people at the best possible evaluation before I have evidence for their being OK. Is there no way that I can be much more cynical and dismissive of the so-called "sceptics" without the risk you mention? After all, I'm not talking about doing any real harm, just about the fact that I find I've ceased to treat them as if they are both h onest and diligent when they clearly are not both of those things. > Hey, you know those people who believe in UFOs? They're impeding > God's work here. We should stone them to death. They're not good > and proper like us, so let's kill them. > > (paraphrasing recent comments by a certain religious leader and > former U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE) Yeah, I heard. No, I'm not suggesting doing that - but maybe you are right and maybe I should try to be sweetness and light all over again. > "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There's a *terrible* joke about that. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 08:57:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 08:57:06 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:56:29 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Its time for Puthoff and I to get off the pot Resent-Message-ID: <"xFHCt1.0.9X5.FFK9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10995 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I've been working in this area since 1983. Hal has been working in this area since the 70's. It high time for the both of us to develop our own working technologies. I have a feeling the window of opportunity will close within a two years. I will begin shortly with a new round of experiments. Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 10:09:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:09:29 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:09:22 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: That darned Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"dxb911.0.bZ7.8JL9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10998 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: > After all of which, I have to ask - just exactly why should I give > respect to the "sceptics"? Why? I should treat them as rational and > reasonable persons, simply ones who take a differing view? Why should > I do that? Not, you appreciate, that I'm suggesting that you are > telling me to do that, but I do value your views. Hi Chris. Respect yes, and only that. No need to treat their views as rational and reasonable when they lack these qualities. And I guess the word "respect" doesn't fit exactly. Instead call it "retro-humility". I mean it like this: I myself was a sk eptic once. I believed that perpetual motion was always a scam. I believed that science was reality and not a system of beliefs, and that science had no down side. Anything that promoted (conventional) science was good for humanity. And so I find I ca nnot muster much anger against (or disrespect for) the hyper-skeptical position. I know what drives it. I know that it is a valid worldview. But it's valid only within a limited realm, and it has a very large negative side. When applied to the *entire* world, it is wrong, and when the negative side of it is actually examined, it turns out to outweigh the positive. But those who still labor under its grip seem to me like Christians who have yet to discover the joys of Atheism. I can't see myself as superior, since I was once one of them. I don't want to destroy them, I want to convert them. I try to treat others as rational and reasonable people but NOT who simply have a differing view. I see them as rational and reasonable people who are victims of a Meme-disease. Their minds have been taken over by a coherent set of beliefs which brings a type of blindness th at prevents its victims from observing it's true nature. The best solution I've ever found is one I alluded to in my last message: become a voluntary victim of it yourself. Surrender your defenses and become a pathological skeptic. Or for those who abho r the "believers", they should do the opposite and become one. Important point: the state is not permanent, it eventually will wear off (though at worst it might take years.) The result is a person who is a victim of neither the "believer" meme nor the "skeptic" meme, and who can pick and chose from the benefits of both sides. Once the power of both memes is defeated, one can become a self-built mind (which I believe is a major goal of human existence, and is more important than the goals of either th e "skeptics" or the "believers.") I agree that it's immensely frustrating to spar with people who use all sorts of underhanded debating tactics, especially when they remain blind to their own behavior. But I've been on the other end of those fights too, and had hostile reactions to disgu sting attacks which, in hindsight, were really just threats to my self-importance and weren't "disgusting attacks" at all. I find that when someone moves me to anger or disgust, it's usually because of a failing in myself and not in the other party. Often the cause is my denial of an offensive part of myself, and when I face the fact that I have that same thing within me, then my disgust becomes embarassing. I usually end up realizing that I can only muster a healthy disgust when my ego takes over a nd I start pretending that I myself never had the behavior which I find so offensive. No, I'm no saint, I find that it's a continuing fight to avoid succumbing to the anger/hatred stuff, and I fail more than I succeed. It feels so right when it's happen ing, and only in my more lucid moments do I see it for what it is: self-righteous ego crap. To All: One of the constant complaints on vortex is that the other side DOESN'T LISTEN (or doesn't bother to read what's actually written.) If I recall correctly, Barry complains of this too, so I cannot accept that the "believers" lack this behavior. Since there's no way to force the other side to listen, the only recourse is for US to actually listen to THEM. (note that if both sides of the debate always maintained this practice, the problem would vanish.) Instead of objecting to the misbehavior of the other side, spend your efforts to find instances where you behaved in the same way. Learn to recognize when you yourself are doing it, otherwise you'll continue to be part of the problem. .....................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 Sep 21 09:31:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:30:50 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:41:37 -0800 From: "M.Twain" To: fznidarsic aol.com CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: recommended experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"1TuAn2.0.PG6.ukK9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10996 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com FZ, What are your planned experiments? Can you recommend any simple and low cost experiment concepts in overunity and superluminality? I will now, with my move to NuZe, begin conducting electromagnetic- related experiments. I hope to conduct superluminal signalling tests (cf Obolensky), perhaps water-vortex voltage-generation experiments, and others, in addition to the Faraday-disk and aether-drift stuff. I have a lot to learn, and look forward to returning to a lab/shop environment -- now that I have finally learned/understood/explained some very basic physical phenomena. to our World Renaissance, Millennium X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 11:18:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:17:12 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:13:32 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: "OU" definition still unclear To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"kaQQx.0.aj1.dIM9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10999 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz made a distinction between chemical and nuclear energy as follows: No. Overunity means more out than you put in. ===> Chemical storage is UNDER UNITY. Breakeven means feedback has been put in, and NET output is occurring. I do not understand. Fission is a form of "stored" energy just as chemical energy is. It is stored when supernovas explode and create heavy elements. I know little about cosmology, but I believe that hypothesis is currently in fashion. Fusion, I suppose, is not stored. Unless the big bang put the potential energy into deuterium? For that matter, some mechanical energy is not stored. When a meteor collides with earth it releases energy directly from the big bang. My point is, "ou" appears to be a distincti on without a difference. Swartz seems to be saying that nuclear energy is "ou" and all other derivative energy is not. It seems to me the difference is that most energy comes from electron bonds, including chemical energy and a wind-up spring, but some en ergy originates in the nucleus. To label this distinction "ou" or not ou confuses the issue, because some nuclear energy is ou (fusion) and some isn't (fission). Most chemical and mechanical energy is not ou, but some is (rocks whacking earth, tides, the Big Crunch at the end of time). Earlier Swartz wrote: E = mc2 Do we include fission and fusion in OU? I pointed out that E = mc2 is associated equally with all forms of energy, nuclear, chemical, mechanical . . . everything from the sun to a falling weight in a grandfather clock. I asked why he associates this equation with nuclear energy. Swartz replies with a cryptic comment: see above. Looking above, I see the sun is shining. That is the original source of energy which ends up driving the grandfather clock, but sorry, I still don't get it, because at every step e=mc2 applies. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 11:18:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:17:21 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:14:06 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Griggs replication To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Xfofh.0.uj1.mIM9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11000 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz writes: If there was clear evidence of 10% OU, clearly, that would be impressive. That evidence, does not exist IMHO, because it would be provided as graphs/data with controls, noise analysis, and clear power/energy plotting to rule out potential storage, etc. Don't forget that the excess heat was far greater than 10%, because the machinery is not insulated and kilowatts are radiated into the room. A null run shows about 95% recovery of mechanical energy, as I recall. Wouldn't you agree that it is NOT sufficient to apply a formula(e) and assume the formula is correct in that case, unless controls, boundary conditions, etc. are examined? But of course these were examined! Of course they measured the noise. They were examined and accounted for in detail, using industry standard techniques. The experiment was designed by the Dean of Mechanical Engineering of Georgia Tech, and the instrumentation was installed and tested by a leading mechanical engineering consulting firm. It is all first-rate work. Perhaps Swartz is confused because this was not a scientific experiment, it was an engineering project. The terminology, procedures, customs and standards of an engineering project are somewhat different from those of a scientific experiment. The underlying techniques are the same, naturally. BTW in the Griggs-device case that would require ruling out corrosion effects (including the cavitation related form) on the rotors, and calculating the maximum possible energy provided by that reaction. There is pitting? isnt there? Ah, here is an example of where the engineer parts ways with the scientist. A mechanical engineer at Georgia Tech will know that the energy released (or more likely, absorbed) by pitting, cavitation and so on during a 30-minute test or an 8-hour test of t he Griggs device is trivial. It is thousands to millions of times smaller than the energy release. If that were not the case, the machine would self-destruct after a few weeks of use. Therefore, an engineer will ignore this hypothetical source of energy. This is a microscopic hypothetical energy source that we can easily prove has nothing to do with the problem. For every one of these that Swartz comes up, I can think of a dozen other microscopic factors that would add to the excess energy. What is the po int? If with the corrections, and controls, measurement of noise, removal of the corrosion energy component, there is OU, then it would be impressive indeed. It is impressive. It is far more impressive than the run-of-the-mill CF experiment, and more reliable too. The instruments and protocols are a lot better too, and the error bars are much clearer and better defined. I have experience messing with laborator y grade equipment. It is finicky, unreliable, and delicate. It goes out of adjustment easily and often. The saying is, "there is not such thing as a good lab pump." In contrast, the industrial pumps, gauges, thermocouples, dynamometer, power meters and ot her equipment that Griggs uses is rock solid and fantastically reliable. It has to be: people's lives and the money churned out by factory production lines depends upon this equipment working reliably for months. Griggs sent one of his power meters back f or factory calibration after years of heavy use in industrial sites -- an environment that would instantly wreck lab equipment. It hardly needed adjustment. Industrial instruments are inherently more reliable that lab instruments. You trust this equipment with your life when you drive or fly. I believe the engineering firm that set up the Griggs site does aviation instrumentation at Hartsfield International Airport. You bet your life that the dynamometers, power meters and other maintenance equipment back at the hanger is calibrated and working properly. It is a safe bet, 99.9999% of the time the airplane arrives. Reliability is orders of magnitude better than a laboratory test can boast of. Look at the gaps in McKubre's data, read the sad litany of bugs, breakdowns and mechanical snafues he reports. Lab equipment is as good as we can make it, but it is small scale (= big trouble!), and it is one-of-a-kind specialized machinery, so it can never be as good as industrial equipment. Elsewhere, Swartz writes: I have asked for long term data of this for years. Who have you asked? Griggs, his customers, the TVA? When I asked for data, I got it ten minutes later by fax. He displayed it and passed it around after every lecture. What exactly does "long term" mean? The steam runs are limited to about 40 minutes by t he volume of hot water the steam is splarged through. The hot water runs go on all day. Spot checking at customer sites reveals that the excess continues for months. Still waiting. Doubt it is overunity, although given energy storage, and cavitation issues, and corrosion issues, it might appear it. Suggest looking at the long-term and calibration data. Suggest first person sentences should employ pronoun. Told Morrison that too. Find this style annoying. In response to a suggestion that he avoid first person sentences, James Thurber once wrote (as I recall): "Not going to do that. You can't teach an old egoist new tricks." In any case, Griggs has better long term data and more calibration runs than anyone in the CF business except Stan Pons and Mike McKubre. The "corrosion issue" is nonsense. It is a million times too small to explain anything, just like Morrison's "the cig arette lighter hypothesis" and the Swartz sideways hypothesis. When it has been proved that an effect occurs at or below the noise level, by calibrating in a million previous experiments, no amount of mathematical hocus pocus or handwaving will make that effect thousands of times larger during the live run. Swartz cannot conjure up a 1 deg C noise error in McKubre's experiment, especially not one that magically appears only when hyperloaded palladium is employed -- a fantastic coincidence! Morrison cannot make his lighter produce hundreds of watts during a boil off. Glorified rust will not produce kilowatts with the Griggs device. The NHE cannot prove that unboiled water can cause 300% excess at IMRA, and even if they could we know it didn't at IMRA: the water was distilled, the reagent left behind. The "skeptic's" theories are always wrong because: 1. They are physically impossible; 2. The researchers always anticipate them, check, and verify they did not happen, even though everyone knows they are physically impossible. I digress . . . The bottom line is, you cannot make milliwatts equal kilowatts, no matter how you stretch the numbers. Mechanical or chemical energy storage in the Griggs device is physically impossible by the known laws of physics. I am still waiting for a plausible objection to the technique and instruments used to measure excess heat in these tests. All I have ever heard from anyone is this kind of nonsense about "stored energy" and hypothetical lighting-fast corrosion that would reduce the machine to splinters and rust in a month. I would say the statute of limitations for sensible objections has expired. Nobody can say why it does not work, so I conclude it does work, but I will withhold final judgement until I see more independent replications. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 15:38:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:33:44 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:35:15 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: "OU" definition still unclear Resent-Message-ID: <"hXXsz3.0.BA5.73Q9q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11012 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:13 PM 9/21/97 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Mitchell Swartz made a distinction between chemical and nuclear energy as >follows: > > No. Overunity means more out than you put in. > > ===> Chemical storage is UNDER UNITY. > > Breakeven means feedback has been put in, and NET output is occurring. > >I do not understand. Fission is a form of "stored" energy just as chemical >energy is. It is stored when supernovas explode and create heavy elements. I >know little about cosmology, but I believe that hypothesis is currently in >fashion. Fusion, I suppose, is not stored. Unless the big bang put the >potential energy into deuterium? For that matter, some mechanical energy is >not stored. When a meteor collides with earth it releases energy directly >from the big bang. My point is, "ou" appears to be a distinction without a >difference. Swartz seems to be saying that nuclear energy is "ou" and all >other derivative energy is not. It seems to me the difference is that most >energy comes from electron bonds, including chemical energy and a wind-up >spring, but some energy originates in the nucleus. To label this distinction >"ou" or not ou confuses the issue, because some nuclear energy is ou (fusion) >and some isn't (fission). Most chemical and mechanical energy is not ou, but >some is (rocks whacking earth, tides, the Big Crunch at the end of time). > Jed, you do not understand because you are putting words in the authors mouth. Overunity means more out than you put in. The above is a definition of over unity. It is NOT a distinction between chemical and nuclear energy as you purport I said. Jed, You left off answering the following in response to your statement: >As I said, I cannot read this table, but I notice it lists things like the >water vortex devices, and coupled electro mechanical dynamos. Question #1 is: >Do these things work? Do they produce more energy out than you put in? As far >as I know, the Griggs water vortex device works, "Based upon what? A single equation and a short-term measurement again? I have asked for long term data of this for years. Still waiting. Doubt it is overunity, although given energy storage, and cavitation issues, and corrosion issues, it might appear it. Suggest looking at the long-term and calibration data." Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 12:15:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:13:35 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:13:18 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, BlindCopyReceiver:; From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Griggs replication Resent-Message-ID: <"A-d5G1.0.RU4.T7N9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11002 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 14:14 9/21/97 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Don't forget that the excess heat was far greater than 10%, because the ^^^ ^^^^^^^ >machinery is not insulated and kilowatts are radiated into the room. A null >run shows about 95% recovery of mechanical energy, as I recall. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ Just trying to get a calibration here, Jed...are you saying that 15% is "far greater" than 10%? Scott > > > Wouldn't you agree that it is NOT sufficient to apply a formula(e) and > assume the formula is correct in that case, unless controls, boundary > conditions, etc. are examined? > >But of course these were examined! Of course they measured the noise. They >were examined and accounted for in detail, using industry standard techniques. >The experiment was designed by the Dean of Mechanical Engineering of Georgia >Tech, and the instrumentation was installed and tested by a leading mechanical >engineering consulting firm. It is all first-rate work. Perhaps Swartz is >confused because this was not a scientific experiment, it was an engineering >project. The terminology, procedures, customs and standards of an engineering >project are somewhat different from those of a scientific experiment. The >underlying techniques are the same, naturally. > > > BTW in the Griggs-device case that would require ruling out corrosion > effects (including the cavitation related form) on the rotors, and > calculating the maximum possible energy provided by that reaction. > There is pitting? isnt there? > >Ah, here is an example of where the engineer parts ways with the scientist. A >mechanical engineer at Georgia Tech will know that the energy released (or >more likely, absorbed) by pitting, cavitation and so on during a 30-minute >test or an 8-hour test of the Griggs device is trivial. It is thousands to >millions of times smaller than the energy release. If that were not the case, >the machine would self-destruct after a few weeks of use. Therefore, an >engineer will ignore this hypothetical source of energy. This is a >microscopic hypothetical energy source that we can easily prove has nothing >to do with the problem. For every one of these that Swartz comes up, I can >think of a dozen other microscopic factors that would add to the excess >energy. What is the point? > > > If with the corrections, and controls, measurement of noise, removal of > the corrosion energy component, there is OU, then it would be impressive > indeed. > >It is impressive. It is far more impressive than the run-of-the-mill CF >experiment, and more reliable too. The instruments and protocols are a lot >better too, and the error bars are much clearer and better defined. I have >experience messing with laboratory grade equipment. It is finicky, unreliable, >and delicate. It goes out of adjustment easily and often. The saying is, >"there is not such thing as a good lab pump." In contrast, the industrial >pumps, gauges, thermocouples, dynamometer, power meters and other equipment >that Griggs uses is rock solid and fantastically reliable. It has to be: >people's lives and the money churned out by factory production lines depends >upon this equipment working reliably for months. Griggs sent one of his power >meters back for factory calibration after years of heavy use in industrial >sites -- an environment that would instantly wreck lab equipment. It hardly >needed adjustment. Industrial instruments are inherently more reliable that >lab instruments. You trust this equipment with your life when you drive or >fly. I believe the engineering firm that set up the Griggs site does aviation >instrumentation at Hartsfield International Airport. You bet your life that >the dynamometers, power meters and other maintenance equipment back at the >hanger is calibrated and working properly. It is a safe bet, 99.9999% of the >time the airplane arrives. Reliability is orders of magnitude better than a >laboratory test can boast of. Look at the gaps in McKubre's data, read the >sad litany of bugs, breakdowns and mechanical snafues he reports. Lab >equipment is as good as we can make it, but it is small scale (= big >trouble!), and it is one-of-a-kind specialized machinery, so it can never be >as good as industrial equipment. > >Elsewhere, Swartz writes: > > I have asked for long term data of this for years. > >Who have you asked? Griggs, his customers, the TVA? When I asked for data, I >got it ten minutes later by fax. He displayed it and passed it around after >every lecture. What exactly does "long term" mean? The steam runs are limited >to about 40 minutes by the volume of hot water the steam is splarged through. >The hot water runs go on all day. Spot checking at customer sites reveals that >the excess continues for months. > > > Still waiting. Doubt it is overunity, although given energy storage, > and cavitation issues, and corrosion issues, it might appear it. > Suggest looking at the long-term and calibration data. > >Suggest first person sentences should employ pronoun. Told Morrison that too. >Find this style annoying. In response to a suggestion that he avoid first >person sentences, James Thurber once wrote (as I recall): "Not going to do >that. You can't teach an old egoist new tricks." > >In any case, Griggs has better long term data and more calibration runs than >anyone in the CF business except Stan Pons and Mike McKubre. The "corrosion >issue" is nonsense. It is a million times too small to explain anything, just >like Morrison's "the cigarette lighter hypothesis" and the Swartz sideways >hypothesis. When it has been proved that an effect occurs at or below the >noise level, by calibrating in a million previous experiments, no amount of >mathematical hocus pocus or handwaving will make that effect thousands of >times larger during the live run. Swartz cannot conjure up a 1 deg C noise >error in McKubre's experiment, especially not one that magically appears only >when hyperloaded palladium is employed -- a fantastic coincidence! Morrison >cannot make his lighter produce hundreds of watts during a boil off. Glorified >rust will not produce kilowatts with the Griggs device. The NHE cannot prove >that unboiled water can cause 300% excess at IMRA, and even if they could we >know it didn't at IMRA: the water was distilled, the reagent left behind. >The "skeptic's" theories are always wrong because: 1. They are physically >impossible; 2. The researchers always anticipate them, check, and verify they >did not happen, even though everyone knows they are physically impossible. > >I digress . . . The bottom line is, you cannot make milliwatts equal >kilowatts, no matter how you stretch the numbers. Mechanical or chemical >energy storage in the Griggs device is physically impossible by the known laws >of physics. I am still waiting for a plausible objection to the technique and >instruments used to measure excess heat in these tests. All I have ever heard >from anyone is this kind of nonsense about "stored energy" and hypothetical >lighting-fast corrosion that would reduce the machine to splinters and rust in >a month. I would say the statute of limitations for sensible objections has >expired. Nobody can say why it does not work, so I conclude it does work, but >I will withhold final judgement until I see more independent replications. > >- Jed > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 12:38:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:34:06 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:33:56 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: "OU" definition still unclear Resent-Message-ID: <"GtpWX2.0.sR5.jQN9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11003 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Jed Rothwell wrote: > To: Vortex > > Mitchell Swartz made a distinction between chemical and nuclear energy as > follows: Maybe he is using the definition I use: that "impossible" energy sources are "o/u". A conventional nuke is not "o/u", but a heat-producing LENR cell is "o/u". "O/u" therefore does not mean "overunity", it means "unknown energy source." Just like "F/E " doesn't mean zero-cost energy...

FREE ENERGY FAQ

Q: WHAT IS A "FREE ENERGY DEVICE?"

A: The term "Free energy device" has a number of meanings: 1. A device which collects energy from a source which is not recognized by current science. 2. Another name for "perpetual motion machine." 3. A device which collects energy at zero cost. Definition number one is the most commonly used. By this definition, a nuclear reactor would be a free energy device... if this were the year 1890. If tomorrow some researcher discovers how to harness the neutrino flux, or how to convert matter directly into energy, then that will be a free energy device, but only until the mainstream of science accepts its existence and starts to figure out how it works. When a successful device is attained, but before most people stop disbelieving, the device is a "f ree energy" machine. .....................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 Sep 21 13:16:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 16:05:23 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Griggs replication To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"thDVJ3.0.If5.MxN9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11005 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Scott Little asks: Just trying to get a calibration here, Jed...are you saying that 15% is "far greater" than 10%? Yup. 50% greater. Maybe I should have said "substantially greater" or just "greater." Don't forget we are talking about kilowatt level power here. An extra 5% of 40 KW is a lotta oomph! I gather the TVA is running at 1 MW, with a huge rotor. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 13:17:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 16:05:37 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: "OU" definition still unclear To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"q-q2k2.0.0f5.HxN9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11004 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Bill Beaty has a better definition: 1. A device which collects energy from a source which is not recognized by current science. 2. Another name for "perpetual motion machine." 3. A device which collects energy at zero cost. . . . When a successful device is attained, but before most people stop disbelieving, the device is a "free energy" machine. Unfortunately, this term has a problem too. "Free energy" (Gibbs free energy) already means something in conventional physics. It's confusing. I don't know a good name for these new sources of energy. Ed Storms suggested a slew of candidates to replace "c old fusion" but I suspect that name is here to stay, even if we learn it isn't fusion. Words transcend their etymology. We still call it meteorology, long after we learned that meteors don't cause weather. Or maybe they do, if earth really is being bombarded with ice! Wouldn't that be a strange turnabout? - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 13:43:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:38:49 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:38:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: All Hail Vortexia Resent-Message-ID: <"hYUZp3.0.uo7.ONO9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11007 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, William Beaty wrote: > years.) The result is a person who is a victim of neither the "believer" > meme nor the "skeptic" meme, and who can pick and chose from the benefits > of both sides. Once the power of both memes is defeated, one can become a > self-built mind (which I believe is a major goal of human existence, and > is more important than the goals of either the "skeptics" or the > "believers.") I just realized that vortex-L really is not a "believers" forum. I like to hide under the "believers" banner to short-circuit the narrow limits which come along with conventional science. Keeps us honest too. But the real "believers" appear in many pla ces on the net, in all the paranoid crackpot pages, in all the places where ALL unconventional science is blindly accepted without testing, and where everyone is selling water-softener magnets, magic crystals, and thousand-MPG carburetors to each other. If one is neither a "believer" nor a "skeptic" (especially if both of these camps treat you with distain!), then who are you? Yes, Juan Matus councils that we are all nothing. But a proper wizard must cultivate a coterie of Names and Personalities to pr esent to the mundane world. So, what are we? What's a catchy term? "Vortexians" comes close, but doesn't really fit between Believer and Skeptic. I suppose it could be made to fit, with proper "positioning" via a publicity campaign. ;) Believer... Skeptic... Vortexian. Surreal. Gnorts you right in the SMOT, don't it? BTW, those who are ordained by the the Universal Life Church are actual ministers. I'm told that their website contains among other things "click here to be ordained now"! I think that ministers of the First Church of the Perpetual Vortex should be able to perform marriages if required. And also bless cathodes, hold exorcisms against negative peer review, pitch the consecrated Dry Ice Block into the ceremonial Swimming Pool, etc. .....................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 Sep 21 14:11:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:00:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Chuck Davis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:00:27 -0700 Organization: ROSHI Corporation Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: ALERT Resent-Message-ID: <"ZwW6G3.0.lK7.nhO9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11008 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 10-Sep-97, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > I have three Amiga 1200's at home with respectively 10,6, and 2 Meg of >memory, and the 2500/30 in my office has 5 Meg installed. (I have another, >slower, 4 Meg sitting in a drawer--I have to set an extra wait state if I >install it, so I have never bothered to install it, or for that matter to >get some that is faster.) > Why the 10 Meg on one of the 1200's? Because I wanted to install and >run lots of software originally written for Unix, and it is a lot easier >not to fiddle with the assumptions of "free" virtual memory. > I just hope Gateway gets off its duff about the migration path for the >Amiga, and starts shipping Power PC based machines. ;-) > Robert, I know this is a long delay reply, but I've using A1200s in my stuff, for some time. I'm looking forward to Dave Haynie's PIOS ONE transAM :) -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' www.his.com/~emerald7/roshi.cmp/roshi.html X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 14:30:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:27:19 -0700 From: John Logajan Subject: Re: Antigravity observed with simple gyroscope? To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 16:27:04 -0500 (CDT) Resent-Message-ID: <"Qn2JY3.0.M62.r4P9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11009 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Geosas aol.com wrote: > to 18000 rpm and dropped it through a distance of 63 inches in vacuo. > The time taken to fall this distance was 1/25000 sec. longer than when > the gyroscope was not spinning, corresponding to a weight reduction of > 1 part in 7000 Since Galileo it is known that the mass of an object is independent of its rate of acceleration in a gravity field (if the mass of the object << the major body.) So strictly speaking, this is not likely a "weight reduction" but (if true) a gravity reduction. -- - 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 Sep 21 14:41:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:35:28 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Subject: Who did it? Resent-Message-ID: <"prpRb.0.-S1.CDP9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11011 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, Is there a well docmented case, (a paper not in the ICCF presentations) where the following has occured. A cell in a calorimeter shows no excess heat with low noise with a variety of cathodes. Upon changing to Fleischman supplied Palladium suddenly shows excess heat. ie The only change in the Calorimeter is the type of Palladium. One of your posts alluded to this. Is there a reference? Thanks, Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 13:42:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:33:46 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:38:05 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: That darned Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"888a73.0.pi7.fIO9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11006 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >Hi Chris. Respect yes, and only that. No need to treat their views as >rational and reasonable when they lack these qualities. And I guess the >word "respect" doesn't fit exactly. Instead call it "retro-humility". I snip-- > practice, the problem would vanish.) Instead of objecting to the > misbehavior of the other side, spend your efforts to find instances > where you behaved in the same way. Learn to recognize when you yourself > are doing it, otherwise you'll continue to be part of the problem. > >.....................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 Dear Bill, Nicely written post. Evan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 22:28:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:18:57 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:28:38 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Questions from Mitch Swartz To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"fnFxR2.0.ap6._-V9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11019 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitch writes: You left off answering the following in response to your statement: "Based upon what? A single equation and a short-term measurement again? Well, I think I did answer. But, to repeat myself briefly: I am not sure what "a single equation" means. They measure electric power in, mechanical power in, and heat out in steam or hot water. You know the procedures and equations they use. These are the standard methods used in factories all over the world for the last 100 to 150 years. Maybe you do not find them adequate but the consulting engineers and profs from Georgia Tech say they are fine, so I'd say you are overrulled. If you have a better idea I'm sure Griggs would like to hear it. In fact, if you can show us a mistake in these procedures or equations that might cause a 5% or 10% error, you will win a Nobel prize for revealing it, so don't hide your light under a bushel. I wouldn't call it short term. As I said, some tests last 40 minutes, some last all day, and some last for months. Call that "short term" if you like . . . I have asked for long term data of this for years. Well, then you are not very effective at getting information. My advice is stick with your day job and don't try to become a reporter. Hope that hurts. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 19:08:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:05:27 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Dean Drive, A very simple question. X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,8-17 From: fsparber juno.com (Frederick J Sparber) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:01:29 EDT Resent-Message-ID: <"l94Vw3.0.qY7.c9T9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11016 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex Considering a metal bar or a group of steel balls confined in a line in a non ferromagnetic or glass tube, surrounded by sections of "solenoid" coils with each section along the length excited at a given frequency and amplitude so as to mimic X-directed t hermal lattice vibrations of a solid with a thermal gradient and heat flow,will the "device" move in a preferred direction thus exhibiting a net force-thrust? Will it knock the socks off the Dean Space Drive and work in space? :-) Regards, Frederick P.S. Please note E-mail address change. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 19:21:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:10:36 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:09:54 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Magnetic diode invented ????? Resent-Message-ID: <"D2JXv1.0.sp7.QET9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11017 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Magnetic diode invented ????? Date: 97-09-21 21:48:19 EDT From: HLafonte To: freenrg-l eskimo.com For your info. I found in my email a post from this guy (that I don't know) that says he has invented a generator that has no counter torque due to a magnetic diode. He said that the Department Of Energy is conducting tests at this time. He is from Tampa, Fla. and in the original post went into much detail but I lost all data on my hard drive when it died last week and this is all he would tell me when I asked for in fo. when I got my new hard drive. Here is what he sent me. This web site should be interesting (if it does in fact come about). Thanks, Butch LaFonte Steve, > I lost everything on my hard drive when it crashed (broke for > good). > Could you please send me a copy of the first post you sent me that > told about > your invention and the company, web site , testing , ect. > Thanks, Butch LaFonte > HLafonte aol.com Things are constantly changing in the business aspects but that area is being handled by my partners and web site they are setting up should be operational by next week the address is www.omnidyne.com. The invention is an electrical generation device w hich lacks the counter torque of today's designs. Some minor flux leakage creating some minor counter torque but this is negligible compared to today's generator designs It is anologous to a diode in that there is high permability in one direction and low in the other. The details will not be released as manufactures we are negotiating with wish to keep it quiet until they release there products based on the concept.. >End X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 03:55:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Beaty's "That Darned Jed" Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:21:32 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"QaACG1.0.Pm5.8sa9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11024 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I won't quote this essay, as hopefully you have all read it. It is elegant, insightful and as much a gem of its kind as Jed's are. My compliments, sir. I'm accustomed to flipping from one side of an argument to the other, so I know whereof you speak. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 21 21:37:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 21:33:57 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 21:33:48 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Griggs References: <199709191152_MC2-2111-C6CE compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"n-ZcL2.0.W75.pKV9q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11018 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] Thanks to Jed for correcting my misrecollections of their Griggs testing results. Still, even at 20---30% OU, this would be a tremendously interesting result given that: (1) we are talking about kW power levels (2) we are talking about robust factory (not lab) grade equipment (3) The inventer is open and cooperative with investigators, and is already marketing (a supposedly OU) version of the device I would still maintain that the combo of (1)---(3) make it unique within the OU world, and am curious why there has not been any new developments since a couple years back (circa the Droege visit). Personally, I was not satisfied with the experiments carried out by Jed, since they did not account for the stored energy in the device (i.e., energy stored during its "warming up" phase). But, I would think that from Jeds perspective, this would be the most promising of the technologies he has ever personally investigated (taking all of 1---3 into account!), and so I'd like to understand better the lack of follow up, by Jed/Gene/Chris or t heir associates. If I were passing through Georgia, I would probably check it out, but thats pretty far from my territory for a casual visit. -- 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 Mon Sep 22 01:42:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:31:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , , "Jean-Louis Naudin" Subject: Re: Fw: gyro torque converters, and time. Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:39:11 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"GEzT32.0.h24.lpY9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11022 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Dave and all! > >> --INCREASES... Intuitively, yes it IS harder to make a 10,000 rpm > gyro precess than a 200 rpm one. Although, I haven't tested this. (Try > torquing a spinning bicycle wheel while it's spinning at 20 rpm vs 200 > rpm. Big difference!) > >> > >OK I'm holding the axles of a spinning bicycle wheel with a high > velocity stretched out in front of me. I twist my hands so the gyro has > a second spin at right angles to the first. What I experience is a > strong torque IN THE THIRD DIRECTION, not against the direction of my > twisting motion. It is because my arms resist that third torque MOVING > OUTWARD--- not being designed for that many degrees of freedom :-) > ---that I feel an opposing force. The torque I apply to my hands is not > opposed directly along the same vector! Imagine that the torque applied > to the precessional axis of > >the wheel is from a coupling with another degree of freedom, like a > >universal joint, and the situation becomes clearer. Or at least thats > MY physical intuition. > > > >Thanks for the input, Dave. I sure wish I could see what you're saying > in writing though, though maybe I just haven't dug deep enough. > > ----Sorry Fred, now I clearly see what you mean. OK, I think that if > you tried to get work out of that 3rd axis torque, it would just be that > much harder to torque the 2nd axis, but I'm not sure. This is true, never had any argument about that.. but see the reply I just wrote to Robin about this matter. The fact that the input power increases proportionately to the loading of the output is not in doubt. But the gyro spin rate is part of that conve rsion formula. If you increase the load AND increase the gyro rate at the same time, wouldn't you eliminate the effect of the increased load on the input, because of T = HVp ? And isn't the energy that causes H still available, not having been acted upon by any of the other torques? It shouldn't be > too hard to test with two weights and some string. > The lighter weight to provide the 2nd axis torque and a slightly heavier > one to be "pulled up". Of course, one of the weights will have to pull > horizontally, so just droop that string over a low friction > point away from the axis so that weight also hangs down. > I'm having a hard time imagining how this test relates to the rotating situation... maybe it does, I just can't picture it. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 06:34:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:27:54 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell Resent-Message-ID: <"Sq4Wj1.0.V11.u8d9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11026 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:28 PM 9/21/97 -0400, Jed wrote: > You left off answering the following in response to your statement: > "Based upon what? > A single equation and a short-term measurement again? > >Well, I think I did answer. But, to repeat myself briefly: > >I am not sure what "a single equation" means. They measure electric power >in, mechanical power in, and heat out in steam or hot water. You know the >procedures and equations they use. These are the standard methods used >in factories all over the world for the last 100 to 150 years. Maybe you do >not find them adequate but the consulting engineers and profs from Georgia >Tech say they are fine, so I'd say you are overrulled. If you have a better >idea I'm sure Griggs would like to hear it. In fact, if you can show us a >mistake in these procedures or equations that might cause a 5% or 10% error, >you will win a Nobel prize for revealing it, so don't hide your light under >a bushel. You equation was wrong for vertical flow. and corroborated both by Bernard, Merriman (see his correction at his web site) and the Patterson patent (cited it for you, but doubt you looked, did you? did you see the correction?). Bet you didnt correct fo r the Bernard vertical flow yet, either. Did you? ================================================================= >I wouldn't call it short term. As I said, some tests last 40 minutes, some >last all day, and some last for months. Call that "short term" if you >like . . . > If there was serious data, it would have been shared. Your tests are uncalibrated and ignore storage, and other issues it appears. If you want to be a serious reporter, Jed, you should focus on those issues. Science is a little harder than just recounting history. ================================================================= >Hope that hurts. > >- Jed We are sure you do. If you were less hostile to researchers in the field, Jed, you might focus on the science and engineering better. Best wishes anyway, Jed. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 06:32:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 06:28:11 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:29:40 +0000 To: From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Griggs Cc: Resent-Message-ID: <"pjLnQ3.0.vI3.g9d9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11027 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:20 AM 9/22/97 -0400, Mike wrote about the Griggs device: >3. The "storage effects" or "corrosion effects" are IMHO more of a failure >to confront the simple, continued measurement of temperature in, >temperature out, flow rate, and mechanical power input, which goes on for >hours. The "storage effect" argument was used for years against the P&F >experiments, but withers against the Patterson cell with its milligrams of >active material. If there was data, it would have been posted to allow analysis. It has not. There are no cool-off curves, no calibration curves, or other re-requested data to see if this is real. Instead, just handwaving, like the paragraph above. Data will determine if it is real, and what the contributions of storage, corrosion, etc, are, and then how much. ====================================================== > Jed adequately points out that corrosion rates that would >give kilowatts of excess heat and megajoules of excess energy would quickly >demolish the machine. As a matter of fact, serious pitting has been >observed in Griggs rotors, from the intense cavitation. Similar pitting is >seen in the E-Quest targets. If Jed has knowledge of corrosion he would not have said the above, and you, sir, demonstrate your lack of knowledge by quoting him on this. There are NO kilowatts of heat or excess heat from corrosion despite what Jed said. There are a certain number of joules heating which occured from the corrosion and that is the correct unit (energy). Again, data will determine how much. And BTW there is corrosion in that device. Perhaps you will state how much material is lost, and how fast. Please then indicate how this accounts for "kilowatts" as you claim Jed "points out"? ====================================================== Mike, like yourself, have put a lot of time in making these suggestions, over and over, and -- attention is directed to the fact that not once has the correct data either been sent, or published. If it is, and if there is real 10% O/U (and it is doubtful based upon the tardive responses so far accompanied by handwaving), then it would be impressive indeed. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 02:37:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 02:33:58 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Phonon Drag Propulsion? X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-18 From: fsparber juno.com (Frederick J Sparber) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:33:29 EDT Resent-Message-ID: <"RWBqW2.0.aZ5.5kZ9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11023 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex, I talked to my Oracle (weekend rates) and it said that heat flow through various solids that have a heat flow (Q) due to a temperature gradient Might show a thermal resistance or "Phonon Drag" Force in the direction of heat/energy flow. Calculations and preliminary tests using a 300 watt "heat lamp" with a carbonized coating on the face of the "bulb" indicate that a thrust on the order of about 0.1 lb/KW might be possible. This would be about 5 orders of magnitude better than the "photon drives", and many times simpler than Electric powered Ion Propulsion systems for Space travel. Regards, Frederick propulsion X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 05:44:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Griggs Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:20:42 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"EHG41.0._v6.BDc9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11025 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com We are really beginning to grind on this issue, but perhaps it's worth the effort to pound some more sand. Chris faults Barry for not closely reading the available information. Now Barry says: > But, I would think that from Jeds perspective, this would be the > most promising of the technologies he has ever personally > investigated (taking all of 1---3 into account!), and so I'd > like to understand better the lack of follow up, by Jed/Gene/Chris > or their associates. > > If I were passing through Georgia, I would probably check it > out, but thats pretty far from my territory for a casual visit. I think that very reasonable answers have been given in recent posts: 1. Jed has cited additional qualitative information re Georgia Tech and TVA work showing ongoing use of the Griggs machine, though not as o/u self sustaining machines. 2. I pointed out that the pump built for Gene (at cost by Griggs) was paid for by a private grant. It is a large machine, requiring special wiring and support equipment. Gene simply doesn't have the time to finish the installation nor the funds to hire th e help to do it. He has a family to support and his soul invested in IE. 3. The "storage effects" or "corrosion effects" are IMHO more of a failure to confront the simple, continued measurement of temperature in, temperature out, flow rate, and mechanical power input, which goes on for hours. The "storage effect" argument was used for years against the P&F experiments, but withers against the Patterson cell with its milligrams of active material. Jed adequately points out that corrosion rates that would give kilowatts of excess heat and megajoules of excess energy would quickl y demolish the machine. As a matter of fact, serious pitting has been observed in Griggs rotors, from the intense cavitation. Similar pitting is seen in the E-Quest targets. 4. Follow-up for what? A very ephemeral standard. The Griggs instrumentation is in place and he continues to build machines. Presumably data and machines are available for inspection on any reasonable visit arrangement. If by "follow-up" Barry wants a machine available to characterize in a formal academic study, let him produce the funds to enable Gene to finish the installation of his unit and hire the help to a) do the study or b) publish IE. Otherwise, he is *unable* to understand the world outside of his academic appointment. 5. By stating that "I would think that from Jeds perspective, this would be the most promising of the technologies he has ever personally investigated" he is deflecting attention from the worth of the short list of well documented P&F-type experiments/dem onstrations. This is a failure to understand the whole range of parameters, which Barry was citing as necessary a few posts back. "...most promising..." is an ephemeral criterion. IMHO Barry is trying to say that if the Giggs machine is a solid existence proof of excess energy from cavitation processes, there should be a significant program to characterize the phenomenon and optimiz e it toward domestic use and the self-sustaining demonstration. If Barry would like to understand the lack of follow-up, let him produce the funds for the program. I have reason to believe that people are doing just that, including Hoffman, and using fluids other than water, and getting very high COPs. But once again we have the secrecy associated with other o/u devices. These don't appear in IE because they haven't been checked out by known witnesses. IMHO the Griggs machine, as such, is not promising at all in the large picture. Will Barry quit his academic post and start a company to build mini-Griggs as domestic water heaters? For 10-15% o/u performance? How about a new generation of Barry Steamer a utomobiles? There are probably a significant number of devices which are modestly o/u and as such are important in an overall global economy with dwindling concentrated fuel resources. But these do not hold promise of major power modules that can replace the fossil f uel systems. I know of only three such: the hydrated metals (LENR) cells, the BLP process, and the Correa PAGD -- and maybe the E-quest device. All of these have very significant scale-up and implementation problems. 6. Barry stated he would like to check out a Griggs machine when he thought it had 300% output. So would lots of people. I pointed out he could visit Griggs for the price of a plane ticket. Now "If I were passing through Georgia, I would probably check it out, but thats pretty far from my territory for a casual visit." My, my. I would like to point out once again that Jed has put up his own funds to travel, to witness, to acquire reports, to study them, to report, to defend. It is so very easy to invent theoretical "gotchas" from an armchair. Mike Carrell > Thanks to Jed for correcting my misrecollections of their > Griggs testing results. Still, even at 20---30% OU, this would > be a tremendously interesting result given that: > > (1) we are talking about kW power levels > (2) we are talking about robust factory (not lab) grade equipment > (3) The inventer is open and cooperative with investigators, > and is already marketing (a supposedly OU) version of the device > > I would still maintain that the combo of (1)---(3) make it unique > within the OU world, and am curious why there has not been any > new developments since a couple years back (circa the Droege visit). > > Personally, I was not satisfied with the experiments carried > out by Jed, since they did not account for the stored energy > in the device (i.e., energy stored during its "warming up" phase). > But, I would think that from Jeds perspective, this would be the > most promising of the technologies he has ever personally > investigated (taking all of 1---3 into account!), and so I'd > like to understand better the lack of follow up, by Jed/Gene/Chris > or their associates. > > If I were passing through Georgia, I would probably check it > out, but thats pretty far from my territory for a casual visit. > > -- > 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 Mon Sep 22 08:14:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:03:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell Resent-Message-ID: <"CUIEE3.0.qP3.uZe9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11028 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >a bushel. > > You equation was wrong for vertical flow. and corroborated both by > Bernard, Merriman (see his correction at his web site) and the Patterson > patent (cited it for you, but doubt you looked, did you? did you see > the correction?). Bet you didnt correct for the Bernard vertical flow > yet, either. Did you? > > ================================================================= Mitch, you've got to get a feeling for orders of magnitude, what matters in a measurement and what doesn't matter. This Bernard Instability that you're hung up on is at most a 0.1 degre es celcius effect - as confirmed experimentally by Merriman, Little and Scaffer. The effect claimed by CETI is a temperature change of 3-15 degrees C. The Bernard instability can't possibilly account for the claimed effects. Hope that helps, Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 08:20:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:16:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:15:56 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Water-Mass flow calorimetry. Resent-Message-ID: <"oz1rf.0.Om6.Jle9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11029 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Eliot Kennel, in the experiments where the isoperobolic calorimeter was placed inside a water mass flow calorimeter, was the temperature of the water allowed to rise? There have been a number of reports that CF effects require elevated temperatures. The "dual-method" calorimeter built by Scott Little at Earth Tech. was specifically designed to allow measurements at elevated temperatures. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 09:15:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:06:58 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex -l eskimo.com Subject: symmetry/invariance breaking Resent-Message-ID: <"DEOft.0.TN5.lUf9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11030 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Vo, Something I've been thinking about for a little while and had a chat with a member. I believe that there are similarities between zpe and constant entropy work. I don't understand the zpe stuff yet, but I keep hearing (Hamdi et al) talking about symmetry breaking. Phase transitions are symmetry breaking... Just as I believe that random thermal motion can be reconstitued into order, might random zpe fluctuations yield to the same approach? I.e. (ha ha good pun) one would look for physical phenomenon that break symmetry, not just balls moving in conservative fields say because that is a totally symmetric system. I believe the second law should be replaced by notions of potential decrease and information loss. (i.e one *can* do work in a constant energy and entropy system). I believe that the first law should say something along the line of 'the mass/energy and zp energy of the universe is constant'. In a way, zpe devices reduce the 'entropy' of the zp field making regions of ordered matter. ******************** Now I've heard of some people's papers: Ross Tessian, Hal Putoff. Are there good intros' to get one up to speed on this, good source papers? Some have gone further in using the idea of symmetry breaking to explain other impossible physics. ******************** On for a few days, too many wankers producing copious quantities of toss and f*cking-up any productive effects on this list. Its just a lot of silly fading middle aged boes who if they didn't own a pc would be watching day-time-tele or 'house-husbands'. E ndless philosophy sucks. The problem about the general maliase in science and society I think has been solved: freedom, small state, better morality, more logical, lateral and independent thinkers - like the renaissance. Go on, take a break from vortex, you can get by without it, Remi. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 09:49:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:42:58 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:42:22 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: The Dean Drive, A very simple question. Resent-Message-ID: <"RD26o.0.Rn2.H0g9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11031 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred, I would assume that the solenoid coils would react oppositely to the balls' motion, and thus no net thrust (assuming the coils and their supplies are mounted on the tube. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 10:00:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:56:53 -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, 22 Sep 1997 11:56:20 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Stuff More Interesting Than Philosophy Resent-Message-ID: <"whLON.0.JY3.JDg9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11032 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Some interesting things I've run across today. Enjoy! Metal/Ceramic Foam Products. Porous electrodes, and etc. http://www.ergaerospace.com/gallery.htm -- September 8, 1997 Design News - Technology bulletin (http://www.designnews.com) by Gary Chamberlain Senior Editor Teraflops computer up and running for first time The full complement of 84 cabinets that compose the teraflops high-performance ultracomputer, said to be the fastest in the world, have begun operation at Sandia National Laboratories. The Intel massively parallel computer consists of 76 computer cabinets with 9,072 Pentium Pro processors. It has nearly six hundred billion bytes of memory. The remaining eight cabinets, called disconnect cabinets, separate the machine so that classified and unclassified calculations can be run at the same time. The entire computer consists of four rows with 21 cabinets in each row. It covers about 1,600 sq ft. The system can perform up to 1.8 teraflops or floating point operations per second. It would take someone operating a hand-held calculator about 57,000 years to calculate a problem the teraflops computer could do in one second. Generator harnesses the wind more efficiently A prototype generator built by a researcher at the Rensselaer Institute of Technology could make wind power more practical for farms, isolated homes, and remote settlements in Third World countries. David A. Torrey, an associate professor of electric power engineering, reports that his variable-reluctance generator has the potential to act as a robust and highly efficient electrical conversion system for use with variable-speed, direct-drive wind turbines. The generator operates at no more than 120 rpm--about 15 times slower than an off-the-shelf generator. This eliminates the need for a gear box, which reduces construction costs and provides a sturdy, low-maintenance system. Following the successful demonstration, Torrey plans to redesign the generator based on what he has learned, build another, and incorporate it in a turbine for field testing. E-mail torred rpi.edu. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 19:26:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:56:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:11:22 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Corrections for Calorimetry of Purported OU systems Resent-Message-ID: <"b68BZ1.0.fr5.27o9q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11047 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 01:13 PM 9/22/97 -0400, Jed wrote: >Barry Merriman writes: > > Personally, I was not satisfied with the experiments carried out by Jed, > since they did not account for the stored energy in the device (i.e., > energy stored during its "warming up" phase) . . . > >We did not start the steam tests until temperatures stabilized, including the >temperature of the pump itself. The pump did not cool down until after the >test. Therefore, no energy is stored and released during the test. In the hot >water tests, if the energy was stored before the test begins the machine >would be incandescent. > A warm up curve, and cool-off curves would have established the data of the system. Energy can be stored even if it is at quasi-equilibrium like Jed claims. ============================================================== > > But, I would think that from Jeds perspective, this would be the most > promising of the technologies he has ever personally investigated > (taking all of 1---3 into account!) . . . > >In its present state as a source of energy it is not promising. 10 to 30% >excess has no commercial value as a heat source, except in limited >applications where combustion cannot be used. Things like gas loaded CF cells >have far greater potential. You could not sell the Griggs device as a >cute-but-useless demonstration. 10% to 30% excess will never convince >academic scientists. 10% of real excess in this system would be convincing. So far it is probably below unity IMO. ============================================================== > You and Mitch Swartz are good examples. Griggs has >gilt-edged data from tests designed and implemented by the most qualified >people in the State of Georgia, from the Georgia Tech, one of the best >engineering schools in the country. But you two refuse to believe it. You >invoke theories about heat storage, lightning-fast rust, and the sideways >hypothesis (which does not apply, since the installation *is* sideways, but >Swartz will continue to insist it explains everything.) That is NOT what was said, Mr. Rothwell. Those things are the beginnings of things to think about even though Jed has misstated several of them. The issues are: 1 heat and energy storage 2 input from other sources 3 misuse of equation 4 corrosion 5 effect of vertical flow calorimetry 6 others not on the above list. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 10:23:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:13:09 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Should we rob a bank, Barry? To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"ZNH1C2.0.Dq.FWg9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11033 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: Personally, I was not satisfied with the experiments carried out by Jed, since they did not account for the stored energy in the device (i.e., energy stored during its "warming up" phase) . . . We did not start the steam tests until temperatures stabilized, including the temperature of the pump itself. The pump did not cool down until after the test. Therefore, no energy is stored and released during the test. In the hot water tests, if the ener gy was stored before the test begins the machine would be incandescent. But, I would think that from Jeds perspective, this would be the most promising of the technologies he has ever personally investigated (taking all of 1---3 into account!) . . . In its present state as a source of energy it is not promising. 10 to 30% excess has no commercial value as a heat source, except in limited applications where combustion cannot be used. Things like gas loaded CF cells have far greater potential. You coul d not sell the Griggs device as a cute-but-useless demonstration. 10% to 30% excess will never convince academic scientists. You and Mitch Swartz are good examples. Griggs has gilt-edged data from tests designed and implemented by the most qualified peop le in the State of Georgia, from the Georgia Tech, one of the best engineering schools in the country. But you two refuse to believe it. You invoke theories about heat storage, lightning-fast rust, and the sideways hypothesis (which does not apply, since the installation *is* sideways, but Swartz will continue to insist it explains everything.) If sustained, replicated 30% excess energy at high sigma could convince mainstream academic scientists, they would all believe cold fusion is real. . . . and so I'd like to understand better the lack of follow up, by Jed/Gene/Chris or their associates. Okay, Barry, let me explain it one more time. The problem is money: M-O-N-E-Y. We don't have enough to pay the power company to install 3-phase power, lease the instruments, install the equipment. Here in the real world people who don't have money cannot do research. We are not the hot fusion program. We do not get billions of dolla rs from Uncle Sam. What do you want us to do, rob a bank? Are you volunteering to drive the getaway car? - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 10:51:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:39:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:37:58 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: kennel nhelab.iae.or.jp Subject: NHE Double Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"aQUdB.0.Vk1.zqg9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11034 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The NHE lab in Sapporo found that isoperibolic calorimetry measured XSH, but that the XSH disappeared when water flow calorimetry was added. I'm having a hard time visualizing the experimental setup. Isoperibolic calorimetry uses a water bath of constant temperature. Did the NHE lab first set up an electrolytic CF cell inside the water bath of an isoperibolic calorimeter and then place that combination inside a water mass flow (WMF) calorimeter? Or was the water mass flow calorimeter directly connected to the electrolytic cell? If the water mass flow calorimeter was directly connected to the electrolytic cell, then was the cell-WMF calorimeter combination placed in the water bath of an isoperibolic calorimeter? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 12:08:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:55:18 -0700 (PDT) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Dean Drive, A very simple question. References: <970922123730_353105019 emout12.mail.aol.com> X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-19 From: fsparber juno.com (Frederick J Sparber) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:53:43 EDT Resent-Message-ID: <"me8OQ.0.qT4.Jyh9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11035 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Puthoff aol.com writes: >Fred, > >I would assume that the solenoid coils would react oppositely to the >balls' >motion, and thus no net thrust (assuming the coils and their supplies >are >mounted on the tube. > >Hal Puthoff > I agree, Hal. I was trying to model an analog of heat flow in a solid. Perhaps a heated metal rod with one end in a heat-sink, or piece of Thermoelectric Semiconductor material will show thrust in the direction of heat rejection? Regards, Frederick X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 12:16:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:10:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:06:38 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Suggest UE or IE in place of OU To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"0Tzd91.0.NX2.tAi9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11036 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I do not usually get hung up about words. They are merely labels. When a new word describes object inaccurately it can be confusing at first, after a while people learn what it means. Still, it bothers me. I have been thinking about terms like "ou," "free energy," "zero cost energy." They are controversial, inaccurate, misleading, limited in scope, or otherwise unsatisfactory. Everything is o-u. "Free energy" means something else. The firewood in my back yard is zero-cost to me. "Unconventional energy" means something like roof-top solar or back-yard hydroelectricity. CF describes only one of these new sources of energy. "Perpe tual motion" is no good because you cannot prove the thing will never stop. Greg Watson's machine appears to be a p.m.m. but it may be tapping a reservoir which will be exhausted eventually. ZPE may or may not be the source of one, two or all of these phe nomena. Any word which implies a violation of the conservation of energy is unfortunate because: 1. You cannot tell unless you measure it, and nobody has ever directly measured mass-energy conservation (see P. & P. Morrison). For that matter, since we have never measured M.E.C., it may not exist. We end up with negative imaginary, like "non-phlogisto nic energy," which sounds silly. 2. I don't know about the magnet motor inventors, but most CF scientists vigorously deny that CF violates conservation. The "skeptics" routinely claim it violates C. of E. but they have no proof. I don't like to make a label out of an insult. On the other hand "impressionist painting" began as a put-down. Anyway . . . how about: Unknown or Unlimited Energy (UE). Or Infinite Energy (IE)! That is as a good plug for our magazine, and it is a good description too. These energy sources appear to be unlimited for all intents and purposes. Energy from terrestrial deuterium will last about as long as the sun does. I suppose ZPE energy would last until the Cosmic Crunch. Or, if there isn't enough dark matter and we are headed towards endless entropy, perhaps ZPE would suffice to crank up the whole business again, restart the universe, and take another turn at the Wheel. Buddhists say that would be a bad idea. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 12:30:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Time Out, Neutral Corners on Griggs Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:21:51 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"02Ubi2.0.8b5.BOi9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11037 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com We are talking past each other. Me too, mea culpa. Much arm waving on all sides. Once again Jed is at ground zero with a macroscopic demonstration. I trust him as a surrogate observer and wave my arms to cheer him on. No academic papers exist on the Griggs machine. No publicly documented formal characterization procedures that would meet the criteria of a journal publication. That is not the same as saying that adequate documentation (in an engineering sense) does not exist, but specifically it has not been sent to Barry and Mitch for review and approval. Nor does this say that Jed's observations have been inadequate to support his conclusions. All that can be said that he did not anticipate all possible objections in his observations and reports. Such studies would be useful, A private grant paid Griggs to build a machine for scientific study at his cost. It is at a small facility rented by Gene Mallove. The resources to install, instrument, and study the machine are lacking. The Griggs machine is scientifically and perhaps historically important, but is not an adequate base for commercial development as an energy *source*. That is not to say that cavitation machines as a class could not be so developed if the basic physics we re understood. Outside of this small circle we wander into a fog of speculation biased by our own expectations. Let us have some peace and respect for our worthy opponents/colleagues. Hail Vortexia! Mike Carrell ---------- > From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> > To: BlindCopyReceiver:; > Subject: Should we rob a bank, Barry? > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 1:13 PM > > To: Vortex > > Barry Merriman writes: > > Personally, I was not satisfied with the experiments carried out by Jed, > since they did not account for the stored energy in the device (i.e., > energy stored during its "warming up" phase) . . . > > We did not start the steam tests until temperatures stabilized, including the > temperature of the pump itself. The pump did not cool down until after the > test. Therefore, no energy is stored and released during the test. In the hot > water tests, if the energy was stored before the test begins the machine > would be incandescent. > > > But, I would think that from Jeds perspective, this would be the most > promising of the technologies he has ever personally investigated > (taking all of 1---3 into account!) . . . > > In its present state as a source of energy it is not promising. 10 to 30% > excess has no commercial value as a heat source, except in limited > applications where combustion cannot be used. Things like gas loaded CF cells > have far greater potential. You could not sell the Griggs device as a > cute-but-useless demonstration. 10% to 30% excess will never convince > academic scientists. You and Mitch Swartz are good examples. Griggs has > gilt-edged data from tests designed and implemented by the most qualified > people in the State of Georgia, from the Georgia Tech, one of the best > engineering schools in the country. But you two refuse to believe it. You > invoke theories about heat storage, lightning-fast rust, and the sideways > hypothesis (which does not apply, since the installation *is* sideways, but > Swartz will continue to insist it explains everything.) If sustained, > replicated 30% excess energy at high sigma could convince mainstream academic > scientists, they would all believe cold fusion is real. > > > . . . and so I'd like to understand better the lack of follow up, by > Jed/Gene/Chris or their associates. > > Okay, Barry, let me explain it one more time. The problem is money: M-O-N-E-Y. > We don't have enough to pay the power company to install 3-phase power, lease > the instruments, install the equipment. Here in the real world people who > don't have money cannot do research. We are not the hot fusion program. We do > not get billions of dollars from Uncle Sam. What do you want us to do, rob a > bank? Are you volunteering to drive the getaway car? > > - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 12:51:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Suggest AE Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:42:35 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"6S26J1.0.dO6.Whi9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11038 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed's suggestion of a new nomenclature is appropriate and might save a lot of quibbling. Let me suggest another : Anomalous Energy. I note from browsing through the Journal of Scientific Exploration that the various parapsychological phenomena have been l umped under the heading of Anomalous Cognition or Anomalous Perception. These indicate that knowledge or perception arrives by some channel not adequately described by known means. Similarly, we see evidence that substantial energy can emerge from a device or system from some source we do not understand. We don't know if it is really unknown (the skeptics are sure that a conventional one is hiding there someplace) and if it's unknow n, we don't know if it's infinite. Certainly specific devices, such as the CETI cells and the BLP systems require servicing and consumables. Perhaps only the PAGD reactor does not consume anything visible, although there is erosion of the electrodes -- which apparently does not contribute to the energy release. The essence of our quest is an energy source that does not use fossil fuel, is safe, modular, portable, effectively inexhaustible and scaleable to any reasonable extent. It at present is seen only as a persistent anomaly in certain experiments and devices . Under the broad tent of anomalous energy we can all live, and if some process is well enough characterized we can give it a new name and send it out into the world while we puzzle over the remaining anomalies. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 13:15:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:09:33 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:06:12 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Stuff More Interesting Than Philosophy Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Sc8cZ.0.R16.y1j9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11040 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex John E. Steck reports: The full complement of 84 cabinets that compose the teraflops high-performance ultracomputer . . . have begun operation at Sandia National Laboratories. The Intel massively parallel computer consists of 76 computer cabinets with 9,072 Pentium Pro processors. It has nearly six hundred billion bytes of memory. . . . It would take someone operating a hand-held calculator about 57,000 years to calculate a problem the teraflops computer could do in one second. Running DOS, that is. Under Windows 95 it's faster to compute the answer on the back of an envelope. On the other hand six hundred gigabytes of RAM should reduce disk swapping. It will meet the minimum RAM requirements for Windows 98. Seriously . . . according to Moore's law we should have this much computer power on the desktop in . . . (back of envelope computation. . .) 20 years. (2^14 * 1.5 years) If that sounds impossible, consider the specifications of the 1974 Illiac IV supercomputer at NASA Ames Reseach Center: 64 processors with 2 KB RAM each, augmented with high speed disks with 500 million bits per second transfer rates. Q uote: ". . . because the Illiac had no parity, lacked error detection and correction, runs were limited to only two hours at a stretch. They would then run diagnostic checks to be certain the machine was performing correctly before continuing for another two-hour run. It was an inconvenience, to be sure . . ." Illiac IV was replaced with a 1 MB RAM Cray 1-S in 1982. The director of Advanced Computing said that the Cray was more powerful internally but "it doesn't have the memory and the bandwidth availabl e to the user." In other words, it went slower. (Source: E. K. Yasaki, Datamation magazine, 1982) - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 13:26:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:13:15 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Suggest UE or IE in place of OU Sender: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"B-2ZQ1.0.KA.g7j9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11041 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, I'll leave responding further about the Griggs device, since Mike and you have done such a clear job on that. > 2. I don't know about the magnet motor inventors, but most CF > scientists vigorously deny that CF violates conservation. I could apply logic to this one, but will restrain myself and say that C of E is an axiom. You just rewrite it as you go along and find things that break the original definition. CF scientists (probably rightly) claim that C of mass-energy is not violat ed - in a few instances they have some evidence to support their claim, but mostly it's an affirmation of their faith. > I don't like to make a label out of an insult. On the other hand > "impressionist painting" began as a put-down. As did the term "Prime Minister". > Anyway . . . how about: Unknown or Unlimited Energy (UE). Or > Infinite Energy (IE)! That is as a good plug for our magazine, and > it is a good description too. Now enforce your decision... > Or, if there isn't enough dark matter and we are headed towards > endless entropy, perhaps ZPE would suffice to crank up the whole > business again, restart the universe, and take another turn at the > Wheel. Buddhists say that would be a bad idea. I agree with the Buddhists. Once around is more than enough. May I take this opportunity to apologise to Rick for not responding to his attempt to provoke. That message is in the email file from when I was on the Welsh pig-farm, and I've only just found it. Also my respects to Bill for his excellent post. I am once again struck by the high quality of opinion posted here. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 13:24:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:21:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [Off Topic] Spectroreflectometer (fwd NASA) Resent-Message-ID: <"cXmIc.0.OC.M8j9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11042 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:22:49 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: ekwall2 diac.com Subject: Effects of Space Environment on Mir to be Measured with New Device Michael Braukus Headquarters, Washington, DC September 22, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1979) Steve Roy Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL (Phone: 205/544-0034) RELEASE: 97-209 EFFECTS OF SPACE ENVIRONMENT ON MIR TO BE MEASURED WITH NEW DEVICE A new NASA device to monitor the structural health of the future International Space Station will soon be on its way to the Russian space station Mir for testing. The Space Portable Spectroreflectometer, a device for measuring the effects of the space environment on spacecraft materials, is scheduled to fly aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour on the STS-86 mission. Launch is targeted for no earlier than Septem ber 25. The device is designed to test spacecraft materials such as those being used to construct the International Space Station. NASA and its international partners are scheduled to begin on- orbit assembly of the Space Station in June 1998. "The Spectroreflectometer is the first hand-held, battery- powered device of its kind," said principal investigator Ralph Carruth of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. "It will allow astronauts to monitor and assess the condition of actual spacecraft surfaces, rather than relying on information gathered from samples of previous experiments." During a spacewalk planned for later this year, Russian cosmonauts and a U.S. astronaut will use the device to measure how much energy can be absorbed by the thermal control coatings, or radiator surfaces, of the Mir space station. "Radiators, where excess heat is dumped from the space station, are a vital part of the spacecraft's cooling system," said Jim Zwiener, co- investigator for the device at Marshall. "If the radiators degrade, the cooling system degrades, so these are critical surfaces." Measurements will be used to determine the deterioration of radiator surfaces caused by the space environment. "Also, in the vacuum of space, gases generated by -- and released from -- the spacecraft collect on the spacecraft's surfaces, resulting i n contamination," said Zwiener. The gas deposits are visible as a discoloration of the spacecraft's white paint surfaces. Measurements will be taken from four sites on Mir -- three on the core module and one on a smaller adjacent module. To take measurements, the device will be held against the space stationUs surface for approximately two minutes. "During tests, ligh t consisting of wavelengths from near ultraviolet to infrared will be emitted by sources within the device," explained Carruth. "The device measures then how much of this light is reflected, which also indicates how much is absorbed and the extent of det erioration." The device will display the measurements on a small screen, and the astronauts will read the information to researchers on the ground. "Following the spacewalk, more detailed information will be downlinked to the ground from the device via a compute r aboard Mir," said Carruth. The radiator surfaces of Mir are very similar to those being manufactured for the Russian components of the International Space Station. Based on ground testing, researchers have constructed models of expected surface deterioration for the future sp ace station. "Comparisons of findings from this study with computer models will allow researchers to better predict and plan for the health of the International Space Station," said Carruth. The experiment also will test the design of the measuring device. "Plans are to not only use the device to monitor the effects of the space environment on the surfaces of the International Space Station," said Carruth, "but it may also be used to m onitor other spacecraft, such as the Hubble Space Telescope." NASA's Space Environments and Effects Program at Marshall will also use information gathered from the experiment to enhance the development of advanced technologies in the area of space environments for future NASA missions. The Space Portable Spectroreflectometer was built for NASA by AZ Technology, Inc., in Huntsville, AL. - end - X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 13:56:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:44:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:43:22 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: The Dean Drive, A very simple question. Resent-Message-ID: <"HKHwZ3.0.c51.eYj9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11043 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/22/97 7:01:22 PM, Fred Sparber wrote: <> To the degree there was the asymmetrical emission of IR photons from one end as opposed to the other, it would constitute an IR- photon-propelled rocket. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 12:58:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:52:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:56:10 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Heat & The Three Laws of Thermodynamics Resent-Message-ID: <"rE1r-1.0.Je6.kni9q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11039 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 MAA08590 Heat & The Three Laws of Thermodynamics  With the recent discussion on the List regarding "terminology" [e.g., "over-unity," "free-energy," "infinite energy," etc.], the interesting and important points raised by Jed and others with respect to such terms, and the implications of the 1st Law of T hermodynamics --- I thought I would post the following as it relates to heat and thermodynamics: >[Ben Miday] >So the heat is then in your hand, and not on the coal...agreed? Actually >then, >heat is a figment of our imagination. It is actually the radiation >of light >energy. And there is no such thing as heat per se. > >[Ben Miday] The coal is only radiating electromagnetic energy(light) >which >results in the absorption of EM energy by an adjacent medium. > Very interesting comments, Ben. Thought I'd pass along the following .... Regarding Nikola Tesla's dream of a "totally new source of power": Tesla would only say that .... the apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity with both mechanical and electrical features. Tesla said the p reliminary cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the installation would be both permanent and indestructible. Of course, the disagreements between Einstein and Tesla over the nature of "atomic energy" are known. What I find interesting as a speculation would be Tesla's view (were he alive) on the relationship between his proposed "totally new source of power" an d the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how such would relate to Einstein's concept of E=mc^2. With such a speculation in mind, I offer the following: >From the Chapter entitled, HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS: [I ask the reader to please forgive the fact that considerable preparatory discussion/documentation by Joseph Newman is omitted -- consequently, the conclusions that follow are posted so mewhat out-of-context.] "....Heat is electromagnetic energy (consisting of gyroscopic massergies*). Gyroscopic massergies* (or electromagnetic energy) comprise all Matter. Alterations in the _heat_ (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter cause a change in the amount of (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter in accordance with E=mc^2. __________________________________ __________________________________ *Nomenclature note: It's been said that "learning is a result of understanding which is a result of good communication which is a result of a consistent language which is a result of good NOMENCLATURE." For over 20 years, Joseph Newman has referred to the fundamental 'entities' creating (electro)magnetic fields as "gyroscopic particles." Over the past 14 years, some individuals have expressed to me their problem with the word "particle(s)." This word sometimes causes them to wonder "to what "particle" the "gyroscopic particle" belongs?" Some individuals have wondered how does the "gyros copic particle" relate to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc., etc....... About a year ago, I began substituting the term "masergy" for "particle." More than anything it represents a 'refinement' of one aspect of Joseph Newman's paradigm. To employ a completely new word has the advantage of disassociating its old usage from pr eviously used words and their connotations....especially when Joseph Newman has described his "gyroscopic x" as being the fundamental unit out of which the larger units and sub-atomic "particles" are constructed. The new term also immediately suggests the ongoing, simultaneous equivalence between "mass" and "energy" and that the IMPORTANT point (within the context of Joseph Newman's technology) is to FOCUS on the word *GYROSCOPIC*, not the word "particle" or even the word "masergy." A gentleman named Ben (with whom I've had several private email discussions) has acted as a "catalyst" to encourage me to pursue this new nomenclature. Anyway, I have had a recent discussion with Joseph Newman about this issue of appropriate (and perhaps more explicit) nomenclature and he agrees with the new usage, with one slight correction (i.e., the addition of a second "s" to more explicitly indicate the "mass" involved). In otherwords, this "entity" is simultaneous both "mass" _and_ "energy" --- and that its most important _mechanical_ characteristic is its _GYROSCOPIC_ nature. So, henceforth, it is suggested that the "gyroscopic particle" be referred to as the: Gyroscopic Massergy. __________________________________ __________________________________ To continue quoting from Joseph Newman: 32. "I shall now proceed to constructively refute the negative doctrines that are a result of the present "Three Laws of Thermodynamics." A. FACTS: 1. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding of the relationship between heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) and Matter. 2. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding that there is an energy relationship other than the simplicity of Work = Force X Distance, Power = Work/Time, and Force = Mass X Acceleration. 3. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without any knowledge, understanding, or anticipation of Einstein's equation of E=mc^2. 4. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without an understanding of Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Inertia, Matter, and Planetary Motion. 32-B. QUESTION: If none of these things were understood at the time that the Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived, how can these three laws be so "all encompassing" as to be capable of predicting --- on a seemingly "infallible" basis --- the "Doom of th e Universe" and the "Total Impossibility of Perpetual Motion?" Those who made such predictions __must have understood the mechanical workings of the Entire Universe__. QUESTION: Did they? 32-C. The "First Law of Thermodynamics" (1850) states: "Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant." The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most positive scientific statements ever made, although this was not the initial intent of this Law. QUESTION: What does this Law say? ANSWER: If one cannot destroy energy, this means that energy always exists. If energy always exists, one can always use it. The Facts have indicated to me that the gyroscopic particle composition of all Matter is totally in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics since it appears that the energy (spin speed) of the gyroscopic particle cannot be consumed! 32-D. The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" (1850): The First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are incorrect! The Second Law of Thermodynamics represents a conclusion concerning the use of heat, based upon primitive, 19th-century mechanical devices. T he "Second Law of Thermodynamics" may well apply to such primitive mechanical devices, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the implications of E=mc^2! As I have demonstrated earlier, many of the 19th century scientists believed heat to be only the result of motion. They did not understand that heat was simply the conversion of Matter into gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) as implie d by the brilliant work of Joseph Black. Nor did they realize that heat (consisting of gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy) was convertible into Matter. They were completely ignorant concerning E=mc^2. In their ignorance, they would have sa id that anyone claiming such a statement was stupid. In my opinion, Joseph Black would have readily accepted the implications of E=mc^2. In 1824, Sadi Carnot published a paper entitled "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat." Carnot had discovered that heat must flow "downhill," i.e., heat must change from high to low temperatures to perform work. Such a conclusion was based upon the o bservation of primitive inventions and has no real connection with the essential nature of heat or E=mc^2. Joseph Black understood the nature of heat as early as 1760 --- others did not. By 1850, it was concluded throughout the scientific community that Carnot's discovery of a definite direction for heat flow laid the foundations for one of the basic laws of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law was first formulated in 1850 by the German physicist, Rudolf Clausius, who stated, "It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature." The essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is this: heat will not flow of its own accord from a cold place to a hot one. Again, I repeat that this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the essence of heat and demonstrates a total lack of unde rstanding that heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) which comprises all Matter and that E=mc^2. In physics it is presently believed that this unidirectional flow of heat, as stated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, implies the "Doom (or heat death) of the Universe." I vigorously disagree with this unfounded statement! All of the facts now prese nted in science prove this closeminded statement to be totally incorrect! This negative statement has been an extreme hinderance to the diligent progress of science since it closes one's mind to creative thought and has succeeded in unjustly influencing young minds that were taught to accept it. Electromagnetic energy is __perpetually__ changing from energy to Matter and from Matter to energy. [While I fully realize that the use of the word "perpetual" violates __current__ scientific taboos, I will do so anyway!] The gyroscopic entity I have des cribed in this Book perpetually spins and travels at the speed of light in accordance with E=mc^2. Even if all physical Matter could become exactly the same temperature, the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) within Matter is __still moving at the speed of light__. Any Matter could still be caused to release its incredible electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy) composition! A chain reaction could be induced within a mass the size of a planet, thereby causing the mass to release its electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy composition) at a rate as rapid as that of the Sun. The mass would then cause a source of heat great er than its surroundings which were retaining the major portion of their gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) composition within the physical boundaries of the materials. All heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter i s gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter can release its gyroscopic massergies in the form of heat, light, electrical current, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic radiation, or in smaller quantities of its t otal physical form. However, it makes no difference in what form Matter is released, since it is always composed of gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). The reverse is also true: all gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) can be converted into physical Matter! Having a basic understanding of the ingenious properties of the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) composition of all Matter in the Universe, __the mathematical law of probability tells me that the probability of the Universe undergoing a "heat death" is zero. One of Joseph Black's important discoveries was that different substances have different capacities for absorbing or emitting heat (electromagnetic energy)! EXAMPLE: If 1 kg. of iron at 80 degrees C. is immersed in 1 kg. of water at 40 degrees C., then the equilibrium temperature is found to be 43.7 degrees C. In other words, __the same amount of heat (electromagnetic energy) has resulted in a much greater temperature change in the iron than in the water__. The same unfounded statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also used in present physics to have stamped the final label of "FUTILE" on the quest for "Perpetual Motion." I would agree that "Perpetual Motion" would be futile as long as one accepts the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as explaining everything in the Universe for all time. However, I challenge such validity. It is easy to recognize that in this sense, the Second Law has operationally been a deliberate attempt to close young minds who would be otherwise willing to question the "finality" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am sure that there are many who read this Book who have been so unjustly influenced. Please recognize that the conversion of physical Matter to electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) and from electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) bac k to physical Matter __is perpetual__ throughout the Universe and this phenomenal energy change can be conceptually understood and technologically harnessed in the immediate future for the incredible benefit of humanity! 32-E. The "Third Law of Thermodynamics" (developed 1888-1902): In 1902, measurements of the heat reaction of various substances were examined, and it was found that the free energies experienced an increasingly __small variation__ as the reaction approaches absolute zero. This line of thought was initiated in 1848 by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). Knowing that when cooled one degree from 0 degrees to -1 degrees C. a gas loses 1/273 of its pressure, Kelvin reasoned that at -273 degrees C., gas should have no pressure and he called -273 degrees C. __absolute zero__. Scientists at the time further reasoned that if "cold" is simply the absence of "heat," then there should be a point when there is absolutely no heat. This reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of understanding that heat is actually electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) which comprise all Matter and that E=mc^2. [Kelvin's knowledge is valuable, however, in terms of designing my Pioneering Invention where atom unalignment is important since heat causes random motion and rapi d atom unalignment.] In accordance with the above concept regarding the absence of heat, the Third Law of Thermodynamics was proposed. It states that every substance known to man undergoes entropy, i.e., a measure of the availability of energy to perform work that approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero (-273 degrees C. or -459.69 degrees F.). Einstein's equation of E=mc^2 and the work I have accomplished prove that this statement concerning entropy is totally incorrect. Kelvin's results are explained by my prior discussion that heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) loss from Matter causes the atomic entities to demand a smaller area. This is why gases lose pressure at low temperatures since they are becomi ng a liquid state. The concept that cold is the absence of heat should be corrected as follows: Cold is simply a condition of less gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) in Matter. As long as one has Matter, one still has gyroscopic massergies (electromagn etic energy or potential heat). Matter at -459.69 degrees F. __still contains tremendous electromagnetic energy (or heat if properly released) or vast quantities of gyroscopic massergies spinning at the speed of light. Only when Matter is gone, is all potential heat gone. The mechanic al essence of E=mc^2 is the gyroscopic-action-massergy which is the basic building entity of all Matter. 32-F. It is totally amazing to me that these three laws of thermodynamics have been so long accepted, knowing that their total premise is one of negativism which completely stops the creative thinking processes of a student who is motivated to question or disco ver a method for a better energy invention that would ultimately be of service to humanity. However, __in spite of the negative intentions of those who developed it, THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROVES JUST THE OPPOSITE!__ It is a most positive, scie ntific statement. Although this may seem superficially paradoxical, I will make the positive statement that ___there is NO PLACE in science that negativism should be allowed to exist!___ The entire history of science has proven over and over again that, whenever it has be en thought that something was not possible, it later turns out to be possible. Therefore, as the facts have proven, science should put forth positive statements of hopes and dreams that will perpetually stimulate the creative processes of the human mind. In contrast, throughout my sincere, scientific efforts of nearly two decades, I have had to fight against many negative "scientific statements" that were and are wrong. Such injustice has not been unique to my efforts, but, on the contrary, it has been t he common fate of most creative individuals throughout the History of Science......" Joseph Newman __________________________________ Posted by: Evan Soule' josephnewman earthlink.net "Long term is what you become while you are busy doing something positive that will last longer than you will." --- SUZANNE J. GALAMBOS X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 14:33:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:29:01 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:16:50 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Time out, Neutral Corners on Griggs Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"V86fl.0.562.QCk9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11044 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mike Carrell writes: No academic papers exist on the Griggs machine. No publicly documented formal characterization procedures that would meet the criteria of a journal publication. That is not the same as saying that adequate documentation (in an engineering sense) does not exist, but specifically it has not been sent to Barry and Mitch for review and approval. . . . Documentation does exist, in the form of Prof. Keizios' recommendations, the contract specifications for the instrumentation, the calibration data for the power meters and dynamometer and so on. I reviewed this material at Hydrodynamics. I did not ask for copies of everything. It seems to me that Barry and Mitch should contact Hydrodynamics and politely ask to see this documentation before they make extensive comments on e-mail. I asked Barry if he would be willing to drive a getaway car in a bank robbery to raise research funds. I hope the readers of this forum realize this was meant as a light hearted joke. I personally am not cut out for armed robbery. I would lean towards computer embezzlement, which pays better and seldom leads to arrest or conviction. Barry, on the other hand, is the second brawniest scientist I know. He could do it if anyone could. The scientist most likely to succeed in a barroom b rawl would be Chris Tinsley's son Chris Jr. He is getting a PhD in neurology. His hobby is engaging in weekend war games in the British Territorial Army. A scientist who actually did commit wholesale manslaughter is Prof. Jean-Pierre Vigier. He was a memb er of the French Resistance during WWII. He told me that he is not afraid of academic bunfights because "I used to go around shooting German officers in the back of the head." - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 15:49:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:44:44 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , "Free Energy" , Subject: Re: Suggest AE Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:27:14 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"UUZ6N3.0.Qj6.NJl9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11046 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > Jed's suggestion of a new nomenclature is appropriate and might save a lot > of quibbling. Let me suggest another : Anomalous Energy.. >From now on I will call it Anomalous Energy (AE), except when we are rallying the troops and we like that old battle cry-- overunity :-) We don't know if it is > really unknown (the skeptics are sure that a conventional one is hiding > there someplace) and if it's unknown, we don't know if it's infinite. The agnostic position is best on ultimate truths. I would go even farther: we don't know that it is an energy, and we don't know if there is only one Anomalous Energy. > > The essence of our quest is an energy source that does not use fossil fuel, > is safe, modular, portable, effectively inexhaustible and scaleable to any > reasonable extent. A precise statement of my goal. It at present is seen only as a persistent anomaly in > certain experiments and devices. Under the broad tent of anomalous energy > we can all live, and if some process is well enough characterized we can > give it a new name and send it out into the world while we puzzle over the > remaining anomalies. I like. Chris Tinsley said in a recent post: I could apply logic to this one, but will restrain myself and say that C of E is an axiom. You just rewrite it as you go along and find things that break the original definition. I believe this is true and it makes C of E meaningless. There are always going to be class of phenomena that appear to violate C of E, no matter how many new energy sources we create to "explain" things. The universe is alive, infinite and ultimately inc omprehensible-- means there's always more to know :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 15:08:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:56:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:53:45 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Who did it? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"n9u_C3.0.HV3.Sck9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11045 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Martin Sevior asks: Is there a well documented case, (a paper not in the ICCF presentations) where the following has occurred. A cell in a calorimeter shows no excess heat with low noise with a variety of cathodes. Upon changing to Fleischman supplied Palladium suddenly shows excess heat. ie The only change in the Calorimeter is the type of Palladium. . . . One of your posts alluded to this. Well, I don't know that the heat onset was sudden, but I believe you are referring to something I posted the other day. This is a summary of Table 10 in NAWCWPNS TP 8302, "Summary of Palladium Materials Tested for Excess Power," published by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA 93555-6100. It lists: Source Success Ratio (excess heat / total tests) NRL Pd-B alloy 7/8 Johnson-Matthey (J-M) Pd 13/24 J-M from P&F 4/4 NRL Pd 1/2 Tanaka Pd (sheet) 1/3 NRL Pd (another batch) 0/4 NRL Pd-Ag 0/3 IMRA Japan Pd-Ag 0/2 WESTGO Pd 0/6 Pd/Cu 0/2 John Dash Pd (sheet) 0/2 Co-deposition (1992) 2/34 Total: 28/94 Most of the samples produced 1 to 2 watts per cubic centimeter. One of the J-M samples produced 15 watts/cm^3, and one of the J-M from P&F samples produced 14 watts/cm^3, in 1984. You see a pronounced difference in performance between palladium from diffe rent sources. This has been noted by other researchers who have tested Pd from many different sources. Miles discusses some of the morphological and metallurgical differences between working and non-working palladium. A fuller treatment of this subject ca n be found in: E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," Fusion Technology, March 1996. There are many documented cases showing significantly better outcomes from one source of palladium or another. The best source by far is Johnson-Matthey. What I find even more interesting is that in some cases you can improve a non-working sample, using methods described by Storms and Cravens. You put it back and this time it works. You can only fix a cathode which is fundamentally good, but which suffers from minor surface damage or contamination. Cravens fixes his cathodes with the polishing attachment on a Black and Decker drill. He uses something like cosmetic rouge for polishing optical glass. You can also, of course, wreck a good sample by mishandling it. Two common ways to do this are by contamination and uneven loading, which will bend and crack the metal. Some of the problems with bad palladium are difficult to test for. But the first-round elimination tests are simple (although not easy to perform), and the problems they reveal are readily observable with the naked eye or with a magnifying glass. Recent s amples from the NHE apparently failed these first-round tests. In other words, if the NHE researchers had bothered to watch their palladium de-gas under water four years ago, they could have saved the Japanese taxpayers 20 million dollars. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 21:18:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:14:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:13:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@eskimo .com Subject: Re: Suggest UE or IE in place of OU Resent-Message-ID: <"nthzT2.0.Yw.r8q9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11048 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com How about "CryptoEnergy" (in analogy to cryptozoology), since mainly this field seems to consist of a never-ending quest to find this elusive and ephemeral "energy". :-) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 00:33:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:29:25 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:49:05 +1000 X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: "OU" definition still unclear Resent-Message-ID: <"xA4fC2.0.dp2.KvX9q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11020 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:13 PM 9/21/97 -0400, you wrote: >To: Vortex > MY Definition of overunity in common currency terms Take one dollar note and put in your empty coat pocket Then remove one dollar from same pocket try again remove another dollar from the same pocket How did second dollar get there? Some will say it was there all the time and not noticed there before.(optimist) or Some one else put it there when you weren't looking.(persimist) maybe not such a great definition after all Geoff http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 >Mitchell Swartz made a distinction between chemical and nuclear energy as >follows: > > No. Overunity means more out than you put in. > > ===> Chemical storage is UNDER UNITY. > > Breakeven means feedback has been put in, and NET output is occurring. > >I do not understand. Fission is a form of "stored" energy just as chemical >energy is. It is stored when supernovas explode and create heavy elements. I >know little about cosmology, but I believe that hypothesis is currently in >fashion. Fusion, I suppose, is not stored. Unless the big bang put the >potential energy into deuterium? For that matter, some mechanical energy is >not stored. When a meteor collides with earth it releases energy directly >from the big bang. My point is, "ou" appears to be a distinction without a >difference. Swartz seems to be saying that nuclear energy is "ou" and all >other derivative energy is not. It seems to me the difference is that most >energy comes from electron bonds, including chemical energy and a wind-up >spring, but some energy originates in the nucleus. To label this distinction >"ou" or not ou confuses the issue, because some nuclear energy is ou (fusion) >and some isn't (fission). Most chemical and mechanical energy is not ou, but >some is (rocks whacking earth, tides, the Big Crunch at the end of time). > >Earlier Swartz wrote: > > E = mc2 Do we include fission and fusion in OU? > >I pointed out that E = mc2 is associated equally with all forms of energy, >nuclear, chemical, mechanical . . . everything from the sun to a falling >weight in a grandfather clock. I asked why he associates this equation with >nuclear energy. Swartz replies with a cryptic comment: > > see above. > >Looking above, I see the sun is shining. That is the original source of energy >which ends up driving the grandfather clock, but sorry, I still don't get it, >because at every step e=mc2 applies. > >- Jed > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 22 23:22:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 23:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:22:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Suggest UE or IE in place of OU Resent-Message-ID: <"B2zfW1.0.YG7.Oxr9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11050 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: >>How about "CryptoEnergy" (in analogy to cryptozoology), since >>mainly this field seems to consist of a never-ending quest to >>find this elusive and ephemeral "energy". >> >>:-) You make us all smile! I was gonna suggest ABC for simplicity as it *IS* as simple as a SimpleMOT.. ABC = Anomolious But Constant 'engery'... Then I realized that this *Could be* Pulsed (UN-constant) also it would be and ABC'E' at some point - so I let i t go - :).. All in all AE seems to cover ALL bases (from whatever arena)(pulsed/constant whatever..) until we discover *what it is* then, I guess 'they' can rename at that time. my KISS goes to *AE* Eternally :) -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 01:01:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:58:06 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 03:56:30 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Suggest UE or IE in place of OU Sender: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Kpnz6.0.Z01.DQt9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11051 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry, Barry, > How about "CryptoEnergy" (in analogy to cryptozoology), since > mainly this field seems to consist of a never-ending quest to find > this elusive and ephemeral "energy". Not bad, especially when you consider the numerous successes of cryptozoology during the C20th. Actually, it's similar in other ways: the definition of a cryptozoological animal is rather like that of C of E. You just adapt it as new species (like the g orilla, the okapi, and the rest of them) are tracked down and described properly. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 06:25:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:09:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:10:50 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell References: <3.0.1.32.19970922092754.006c725c world.std.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"D_Fjn2.0.u4.0-x9q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11053 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:03 PM 9/22/97 +0200, Martin Sevior wrote: > > >On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: >> >a bushel. >> >> You equation was wrong for vertical flow. and corroborated both by >> Bernard, Merriman (see his correction at his web site) and the Patterson >> patent (cited it for you, but doubt you looked, did you? did you see >> the correction?). Bet you didnt correct for the Bernard vertical flow >> yet, either. Did you? >> >> ================================================================= >Mitch, you've got to get a feeling for orders of magnitude, what matters in a >measurement and what doesn't matter. This Bernard Instability that you're hung >up on is at most a 0.1 degrees celcius effect - as confirmed experimentally by >Merriman, Little and Scaffer. The effect claimed by CETI is a temperature >change of 3-15 degrees C. The Bernard instability can't possibilly account for >the claimed effects. > >Hope that helps, > >Martin Sevior > Excellent. 1) But the driving force is the delta-T. Furthermore, even in simple systems, that temperature gradient can create more flow, and heat transfer than expected. And a 0.1 degree temperature gradient, as Martin suggests, is small. The driving force is usually bigger than 0.1C in these systems. Of ten 0.3-1C is more typical in vertical flow systems. 2) In many of the experiments in questions, there may be exogenous heaters, recycling of temperatures, and even volumes of liquid in the flow systems. In summary, the driving temperature gradient may be often more than 0.1 degree, in vertical systems. 3) When the delta-T is 15 degree (or more) then, as you correctly state, the contribution will be so much the less. 4) Now let us look at exactly what the delta-T's were. The US patent 5,607,563 lists this as 5.4C The ICCF5 demo had delta T from 1.1C to 3.5 C over 3 days. Therefore, 1 is the same order of magnitude as 3 or 5. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 06:17:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:10:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:11:23 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Boilover at EarthTech Resent-Message-ID: <"qFhh42.0.G6.d-x9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11054 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com This has been discussed previously at spf by Dieter and myself and others, including calcs etc. You might try there. Summary: 1) Boiling is not overunity 2) Changes in electrical impedance are not overunity. One other thought: 3) Did you measure Pout as a function of Pin? Could you send the data as a vector if you have it? Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- At 06:30 AM 9/23/97 -0500, Scott wrote: >Our latest Ragland triode experiment boiled over last week. However there >is no indication that it was due to an excess heat event. > >Apparently some non-conductive layer built up slowly on the surface of the >cathode...perhaps silicates from my glass vessel. At any rate, the >effective cell resistance was typically constant during most of the 10 day >run but just started increasing one day. Since we use constant current power >supplies, the voltage starting climbing...and with increasing slope! This >increasing trend lasted for about 10 hours and finally the voltage exceeded >20 volts which is the limit of my ADC. While I could still monitor it, the >heat output power tracked the electrical input power all the way up. Once >it exceeded 20 volts I could no longer monitor the input power but the heat >output power continued upwards along a smooth unbroken curve until the cell >was at 100C. It stayed there until enough electrolyte boiled away to expose >some of the cathode and increase the cell resistance to the point where the >power supply saturated and could no longer supply the selected current. In >a crude way, therefore, it self-limited and finally cooled back down to a >reasonable temperature where I found it when I came in to the lab one >morning last week. > >I wonder if this has happened to others and been misinterpreted... > > >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 Sep 23 06:17:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:10:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:11:56 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: "OU" definition still unclear Resent-Message-ID: <"gAPfB2.0.a7.5_x9q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11055 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:49 PM 9/22/97 +1000, Geoff wrote: >At 02:13 PM 9/21/97 -0400, you wrote: >>To: Vortex >MY Definition of overunity in common currency terms > >Take one dollar note and put in your empty coat pocket >Then remove one dollar from same pocket >try again remove another dollar from the same pocket > >How did second dollar get there? > >Some will say it was there all the time and not noticed there before.(optimist) >or Some one else put it there when you weren't looking.(persimist) >maybe not such a great definition after all > >Geoff >http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 It is a good definition. Make it a machine which converts $1 to $10 bills. That is overunity. But soon, you are depleted of $1 bills, and only have tens. Breakeven is finding a bank, but holding on to the machine. At the Tellers window, all those $10s become $1 which are reinserted to the machine. This is breakeven. Good analogy, Geoff. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) >>Mitchell Swartz made a distinction between chemical and nuclear energy as >>follows: >> >> No. Overunity means more out than you put in. >> >> ===> Chemical storage is UNDER UNITY. >> >> Breakeven means feedback has been put in, and NET output is occurring. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 07:58:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:41:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:43:03 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell References: <3.0.1.32.19970923091050.006da1e0 world.std.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"l4PGI.0.LI3.ZKz9q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11059 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 03:42 PM 9/23/97 +0200, you wrote: > > >On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >> >> 1) But the driving force is the delta-T. >> >> Furthermore, even in simple systems, that temperature >> gradient can create more flow, and heat transfer than >> expected. And a 0.1 degree temperature gradient, as Martin >> suggests, is small. The driving force is usually bigger >> than 0.1C in these systems. Often 0.3-1C is more typical >> in vertical flow systems. >> > >You've invented a new theory to support your own theory in the face of hard >facts. There's no evidence to support this positive feedback effect. Quite the >contrary. Continuum electromechanics discusses Bernard instability. Suggest you read up on it. The thermal gradient results from the temperature boundary conditions of the inlet and outlet. Mass transfer relations result in movement because of the differential changes in density with temperature. BTW, Martin, this is NOT the positive feedback effect of cold fusion. The latter does exist, and this is not it. =================================================== >The SOFE demo was 4 degrees, the Powergen was 8 to 15 degrees. Face it, this >Bernard Instability, which is at most 0.1 degrees, is not going to make CETI >results go away. > >Martin Sevior No one is trying to make anything "go away". A whole science and engineering of cold fusion is available at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html In fact, the only thing suggested is increased use of better calibration and semiquantitative corrections. Like clear definitions of input power, and noise power on the measurement, such improved means to verify and ascertain the accuracy of the measurements will help, Martin, IMO. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 08:05:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:54:13 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Corrections for Calorimetry of Purported Resent-Message-ID: <"DXTjb3.0.em3.xUz9q"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11062 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:36 AM 9/23/97 -0400, Jed continues with a series of misstatements: >To: Vortex >Mitchell Swartz describes the issues in the Griggs tests as follows: > >1 heat and energy storage. A.K.A. the incandescent pump problem. > Energy and heat storage are VERY important --- and have NOTHING to do with incandescence. Nor do they have anything to do with pump heat contamination. ============================================================== >2 input from other sources. In violation of the Second Law. > This is not true. ============================================================== >3 misuse of equation. Not according to the professional engineers who do this >for a living, and not according the Dean of Engineering, Georgia Institute of >Technology. But, okay, it is a problem unknown to these ordinary mortals. >Perhaps someday Swartz will deign to tell them how they should have been doing >their jobs for the last 30 or 40 years. In the meanwhile, let us hope our >carpet mills and factories do not blow up and our airplanes do not fall out of >the sky because of undetected 30% errors. > None of this is relevant to the misapplication of an equation. ============================================================== >4 corrosion. Invisible, undetectable corrosion. I have seen rotors after weeks >of tests that remained bright, shiny, and intact. We must have faith to >believe in this corrosion. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the >evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) > This is false. Mr. Griggs personally did discuss with me and show evidence of pitting corrosion in some of his rotors. That is visible, detectable, and make or make not be of corrosive origin because cavitation effects are also present. ============================================================== >5 effect of vertical flow calorimetry. Amazing! They use spirit bubble levels >to make sure the flow, inlet and outlet are right on the level, but they >*still* have this problem. > Mr. Rothwell still has ignored why there are difference between horizontal or vertical flow calorimeters. It is relevant. ============================================================== >6 others not on the above list. Ah, an open ended Kafkaesque trial ....with no >... reluctant King in a fairy tale ... hand of the princess ... 20 yards > (zip) - Jed There are others not on the list. They include exogenous contamination, systematic errors, etc. etc. The criticisms are real and so is cold fusion. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 04:38:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 04:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:30:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Boilover at EarthTech Resent-Message-ID: <"TtNoW.0.Yx4.nXw9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11052 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Our latest Ragland triode experiment boiled over last week. However there is no indication that it was due to an excess heat event. Apparently some non-conductive layer built up slowly on the surface of the cathode...perhaps silicates from my glass vessel. At any rate, the effective cell resistance was typically constant during most of the 10 day run but just started increasing one d ay. Since we use constant current power supplies, the voltage starting climbing...and with increasing slope! This increasing trend lasted for about 10 hours and finally the voltage exceeded 20 volts which is the limit of my ADC. While I could still moni tor it, the heat output power tracked the electrical input power all the way up. Once it exceeded 20 volts I could no longer monitor the input power but the heat output power continued upwards along a smooth unbroken curve until the cell was at 100C. It stayed there until enough electrolyte boiled away to expose some of the cathode and increase the cell resistance to the point where the power supply saturated and could no longer supply the selected current. In a crude way, therefore, it self-limited an d finally cooled back down to a reasonable temperature where I found it when I came in to the lab one morning last week. I wonder if this has happened to others and been misinterpreted... 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 Sep 23 08:40:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:36:36 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:38:03 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell References: <3.0.1.32.19970923104303.006ef320 world.std.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"AZ2Qu1.0.aT7.38-9q"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11064 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 05:22 PM 9/23/97 +0200, you wrote: > > >Mitch, > >Do you agree that the reported results of Little, Merriman and Schaffer, using >the same setup at the CETI system show that artifacts in vertical flowing >electrolyte calorimetry are typically 0.1 C? > >If not, please explain why. > >Please also explain how they all managed to measure 0 +- 0.1 C >temperature differential in presence of much larger artifacts. > >Thank you, > >Martin Sevior > > > Martin, Two of the above have supplied lab data to me. The artifacts in the former are considerable and may be linked to room transients (?). Barry Merriman did a very good job and noted: "We found a consistent temperature differential of 0.2+/-0.1 C across the cell (outlet hotter than inlet) in the steady state operating conditions (flow rate near 10 ml/min, consistently maintained for hours), which is significantly beyond the 0.1 C ac curacy of the thermistor temperature probes and is distinctly biased toward the outlet being hotter than the inlet. If this measurement were taken at face value, it would imply a power production in the cell of P(watts) = (10mlH2O)/min)x(1min/60s)x(4.2J/ (mlH2O*C))x(0.2C) = 0.14 watts, for zero input resistive heating, which is clearly spurious." In Barry Merrimans's experiment, much was felt to be due to thermal stratification. Both have a role. Room thermal stratification, different boundary conditions of the input (heat and mass) in the flow system. Both (and perhaps other features) can drive the Bernard instability. It is not a big number. It does not exist in other systems. Its important depends upon the mass flow from the Bernard instability to the forced mass flow, and therefore can be engineering out if the flow rate becomes considerable. The discussion of this, and Barry Merriman's quote above both show why it is important, and one proper way to begin to explore, and correct for, it. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 03:10:45 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 03:06:52 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net References: Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 21:54:16 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Resent-Message-ID: <"2QTjt.0.NR2.xOEAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11091 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin - Conductors can act a bit like a superconductor in the presence of AC magnetic fields in the sense that they can be made to behave diamagnetically. Still, I don't know how this can be cause of the observed weight loss. After the coils are shut off, the eff ect continues for a minute or so, and I don't think the SC can sit there maintaining oscillating currents (how would that work?) in the non-superconducting targets with their significant resistive eddy losses. And the magnetic force involved in small sole noids at 400ma - in terms of the experiment as reported, they don't work anyway on the earth's fields or anything else without the quarters there. The SC is always there, so it's diamagnetism is present, but when there are no targets, there's very little or no effect. I sure wish John would run this with more alternative targets and report the details. One good thing to try would be to use slugs of aluminum and then slugs of copper the same size. There'd be about the same volume of metal of roughly equivalent conductiv e properties, but the differing masses might help pin the effect to either the merely conductive or the (hoped for) case where is must be a mass-related effect. By the way, that notion that plain conductors at room temperature can behave like SCs because they can get a diamagnetic barrier of current running in them timed to solenoids carrying AC at the right frequency is pretty interesting. It might be possible t o get some effects from ordinary materials at room temperature if the effect (if it exists at all) is due to the currents produced in that way, and not due necessarily to something special about superconducting currents. You know, the layered layered bis- mag story, that sort of thing. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 06:49:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:44:23 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:42:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell Resent-Message-ID: <"tbWQQ1.0.UL2.rUy9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11056 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > 1) But the driving force is the delta-T. > > Furthermore, even in simple systems, that temperature > gradient can create more flow, and heat transfer than > expected. And a 0.1 degree temperature gradient, as Martin > suggests, is small. The driving force is usually bigger > than 0.1C in these systems. Often 0.3-1C is more typical > in vertical flow systems. > You've invented a new theory to support your own theory in the face of hard facts. There's no evidence to support this positive feedback effect. Quite the contrary. > 2) In many of the experiments in questions, there may be > exogenous heaters, recycling of temperatures, and even > volumes of liquid in the flow systems. > I contend that Bernard is a small effect compared to temperature loss of a pre-heated liquid through a non-performing Cell. Scott Little's attempted replication of CETI recorded anomolus cold after pre-heating his electrolyte. ie. He recorded a lower temperature at the outlet than the inlet because of cooling through the cell. His was a vertical arrangement. Scott Little's, Barry Merriman's and Micheal Schaffer's attempted CETI replications all used vertical flowing electrolyte. All saw temperature differentials of about 0.1 C. If you are right one would expect to see temperature differentials of about 1 de gree. They were not observed. All were very keen to try to spot artifacts in their arrangements that would show up as increased delta-T. Nothings like a 1 degree effect was observed. > In summary, the driving temperature gradient > may be often more than 0.1 degree, in vertical systems. > I don't know of any data to support this and it is theoretically unsound too. > > 3) When the delta-T is 15 degree (or more) then, > as you correctly state, the contribution will be so much > the less. > > 4) > Now let us look at exactly what the delta-T's were. > > The US patent 5,607,563 lists this as 5.4C > The ICCF5 demo had delta T from 1.1C to 3.5 C over 3 days. > > Therefore, 1 is the same order of magnitude as 3 or 5. > Hope that helps. > The SOFE demo was 4 degrees, the Powergen was 8 to 15 degrees. Face it, this Bernard Instability, which is at most 0.1 degrees, is not going to make CETI results go away. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 07:33:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:23:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:18:46 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex-l@esk imo.com Subject: Apologies for being rude Resent-Message-ID: <"DO5tt.0.7D4.F3z9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11057 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Vo, Sorry about the swearing and none-too-subtleness. I've been in a bad mood for a few weeks at what I can only describe as an outbreak of a sentimental-facist-dicatorship in this country. I've seen grown people scared and lying through their teeth about not stocking a certain publication (private eye) or not opening when they want to do business less they be fire-bombed. The hypocrisy is astounding (you know what I'm going on about) and the masses are a thick as horse excrement and half as pretty: . people are getting beaten-up on the streets for points of view or minor offences which 'taintless' vigilantees see fit to adminster the law. 'It's what she would have wanted!' . free speech is being curtailed. . people's sense of proportion and ability to think for themselves is now caput, due to tabloid and global media. There have been many tragic news stories, case in point, a train crash in West London, 6 people die - well they have families and friends too - one bunch of flowers left at the scene. . Most off all, we are being told that we need to have a 'more compassionate' society by the feeble-minded left, great and good. People are being made to feel guilty for having wealth and happiness in life. Those producing this speil are usually the most wealthy. People are now under compulsion it seems to give away payrises to charity. Why can't they naff off! People *DON'T* want charity and pity, they want to feel they are doing something worthwhile and profitable. The most moral person in society is the enlightened capitalist providing services for the community. The profit motive mea ns they don't force anyone to be a slave to anyone else. End of rant, Logging off shortly... Remi. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 07:46:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:40:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:36:17 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Corrections for Calorimetry of Purported Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"koSgY.0.kr4.pJz9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11058 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mitchell Swartz describes the issues in the Griggs tests as follows: 1 heat and energy storage. A.K.A. the incandescent pump problem. 2 input from other sources. In violation of the Second Law. 3 misuse of equation. Not according to the professional engineers who do this for a living, and not according the Dean of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. But, okay, it is a problem unknown to these ordinary mortals. Perhaps someday Swartz will deign to tell them how they should have been doing their jobs for the last 30 or 40 years. In the meanwhile, let us hope our carpet mills and factories do not blow up and our airplanes do not fall out of the sky because of unde tected 30% errors. 4 corrosion. Invisible, undetectable corrosion. I have seen rotors after weeks of tests that remained bright, shiny, and intact. We must have faith to believe in this corrosion. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. " (Hebrews 11:1) 5 effect of vertical flow calorimetry. Amazing! They use spirit bubble levels to make sure the flow, inlet and outlet are right on the level, but they *still* have this problem. 6 others not on the above list. Ah, an open ended Kafkaesque trial with no resolution. Like the reluctant King in a fairy tale, you can always think up another quest we must fulfill before we win the hand of the princess. You can always move the goalpost another 20 yards. So can I! And it would not be sporting to tell us in advance which tests we must pass next month, or next year. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 07:56:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:36:28 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Boilover at EarthTech Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"EmGbG2.0.EP3.KNz9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11060 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Scott Little reports: Our latest Ragland triode experiment boiled over last week. However there is no indication that it was due to an excess heat event. . . . Apparently some non-conductive layer built up slowly on the surface of the cathode...perhaps silicates from my glass vessel. . . . Since we use constant current power supplies, the voltage starting climbing...and with increasing slope! This increasing trend lasted for about 10 hours and finally the voltage exceeded 20 volts which is the limit of my ADC. Yes, people have reported similar events, especially Pons and Fleischmann and the French AEC. They agree that a build up of silicates is the likely cause. In some cases they deliberately caused a boil over by pushing up voltage. This is done as a blank. These tests do not show any excess. As far as I know, the only false boiloff that shows spurious excess heat is the entrained water problem reported by Pons and Fleischmann and the NHE. This, as I said, is probably caused by froth in the electrolyte from contaminated heavy water. You must check for it by analyzing the condensate or the reagent left in the test tube, and by holding a tissue steam to check for "wet steam." (You weigh the tissue before and after.) You should also check for it during the boiloff by direct observation. Look closely! Do you see bubbles reaching to the top? Did you see the same thing when pure water was boiled with a joule heater? I wonder if this has happened to others and been misinterpreted... How could it be misinterpreted? You knew the voltage exceeded the limits of your analog-to-digital card. You knew the true value for voltage is unknown. So you draw no conclusions from it. Who would? You see the line goes flat at upper limits of detection and you know that the data after that is lost. It is like a pen recorder when the pen reaches the edge of the paper and draws a straight line. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 07:52:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:46:09 +0100 (BST) From: Remi Cornwall To: vortex -l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Stuff Resent-Message-ID: <"bXfNi2.0.3a3.2Rz9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11061 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, John E. Steck wrote: > Some interesting things I've run across today. Enjoy! > > Metal/Ceramic Foam Products. Porous electrodes, and etc. > http://www.ergaerospace.com/gallery.htm > John, Liked the bit about the hydrogen fueled transit bus. Some one (I think Ed Wall) wrote into IE#13/14 about what to study or where to place ones money - environmental, medical, information technologies. I like the first one as it is very pioneering - just think when the satelites are colonies, the need for li fe support systems (air conditioning at the most basic). A great one for the general engineer - physics, chemistry, biology and many of the sub-diciplines. 21C science and engineering won't be for the specialist but the renaissance person and it might be easy to do by individuals in the garage with a bright idea not massive conglomerates. Remi. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 08:30:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:22:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vor tex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell Resent-Message-ID: <"Kgzwf3.0.au4.fxz9q" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11063 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitch, Do you agree that the reported results of Little, Merriman and Schaffer, using the same setup at the CETI system show that artifacts in vertical flowing electrolyte calorimetry are typically 0.1 C? If not, please explain why. Please also explain how they all managed to measure 0 +- 0.1 C temperature differential in presence of much larger artifacts. Thank you, Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 09:28:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:21:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:21:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Questions to Jed Rothwell Resent-Message-ID: <"qxDCc3.0.pg1.No-9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11065 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Two of the above have supplied lab data to me. > The artifacts in the former are considerable and may be > linked to room transients (?). Barry Merriman did a > very good job and noted: > > "We found a consistent temperature differential of 0.2+/-0.1 C > across the cell (outlet hotter than inlet) in the steady state > operating conditions (flow rate near 10 ml/min, consistently > maintained for hours), which is significantly beyond the 0.1 C accuracy > of the thermistor temperature probes and is distinctly biased > toward the outlet being hotter than the inlet. If this measurement were > taken at face value, it would imply a power production in the cell of > P(watts) = (10mlH2O)/min)x(1min/60s)x(4.2J/(mlH2O*C))x(0.2C) = 0.14 watts, > for zero input resistive heating, which is clearly spurious." > > > In Barry Merrimans's experiment, much was felt to be > due to thermal stratification. Both have a role. > > Room thermal stratification, different boundary > conditions of the input (heat and mass) in the flow system. > Both (and perhaps other features) can drive the Bernard instability. > > It is not a big number. It does not exist in other systems. > Its important depends upon the mass flow from the Bernard instability > to the forced mass flow, and therefore can be engineering out if the > flow rate becomes considerable. > > The discussion of this, and Barry Merriman's quote above > both show why it is important, and one proper > way to begin to explore, and correct for, it. > > Hope that helps. > Yes Mitch, to me it means that at temperature differentials of 1 degree or more at the typical CETI flow rates are at least 5 sigma away from artifacts like thermal stratificaton and Bernard instabilities. So it helps a lot. I shall continue to try to think of other ways the system could be fooled and won't worry about Bernard Instabilities. I suggest you do the same. Cheers! Martin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 10:43:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:33:43 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:32:53 -0400 (EDT) To: newman-l emachine.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: mirror image symmetry in coil winding? Resent-Message-ID: <"AsyuH1.0.IA6.rr_9q" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11066 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi all, Is anyone familiar with mirror image symmetry in coil winding? Do you agree with the claims of the recent patent? Earl Koenig's (the inventor) claims are for two coils of the same size, a symmetry coil will have less resistance, less inductance, higher current, increased gauss, and higher force (in a solenoid configuration). I can see how all of this can take place but the lower inductance, I can't figure out. How can the INDUCTANCE be lower and the field strength be STRONGER than a coil of same size, w ound in the standard fashion? If this is true this might have some interesting applications. Thanks, Butch LaFonte X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 11:01:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:56:56 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:56:20 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: Remi asks Resent-Message-ID: <"27yot.0.Df3.cB0Aq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11067 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I believe that there are similarities between zpe and constant entropy work. I don't understand the zpe stuff yet, but I keep hearing (Hamdi et al) talking about symmetry breaking. Phase transitions are symmetry breaking... .............................................................................. .............. Entropy is a good question to ask. Point one: The energy of the universe is conserved but the entropy (or concentration of that energy) increases. We do not face a energy crisis but rather an entropy crisis. .............................................................................. ... Point two: Newton's laws are symmetric in their with time and do not predict an entropy increase. .............................................................................. ....................... Point three: Force produces gravity gravity = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) .............................................................................. ................... Point four: Contained gas produces a force on the containment walls. This force produces a gravitational field. This gravitational field is associated with the internal energy of the contained gas. interanl energy U = 3/2RT Now expand the size of the containment at without doing any work. The internal energy of the gas reamains the same (It's an aniabatic process). The force on the containwall temporary drops. A tiny wave of gravity is produced. This interaction is the the root cause of the asymetry we call entropy. In links the expansion of the universe to local changes in entropy. In a shrinking universe entropy would tend to decrease. The calc's are on my "Book on a Disk" Znidarsic therom: Irreversibilities consume gravitational potential. I believe that this process is very important to understand. It a need to know in order to generate anomalus energy. My latest round of experiments are constructed around this idea. Frank Z X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 11:09:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:04:23 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:00:16 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Corrections for Calorimetry of Purported Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"eEUDg.0.4X.cI0Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11069 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex I have seen rotors after weeks of tests that remained bright, shiny, and intact. Therefore corrosion cannot be the source of the excess heat. The other reason is that is it physically impossible for steel and aluminum corrosion in a motor to produce kilow atts of heat. Massive heat or cavitation might cause corrosion, but this corrosion, in turn, will only produce a tiny amount of heat. Take oxidation: rust is much slower than an open flame, and it does not produce any detectible heat. (I presume rusting i s exothermic.) Mitchell Swartz remarks: This is false. Mr. Griggs personally did discuss with me and show evidence of pitting corrosion in some of his rotors. That is visible, detectable, and make or make not be of corrosive origin because cavitation effects are also present. I too have seen the corroded rotors. I meant that *other* rotors were removed from the pumps after weeks of producing excess heat, and they were intact. I would have thought anyone could see that is what I meant, since I have often discussed the corroded rotors. I believe this discussion is no longer productive, and I shall withdraw from it. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 11:02:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:57:49 -0700 X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:02:02 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD Resent-Message-ID: <"wAd66.0.Rz7.SC0Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11068 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD >From Joseph W. Newman Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan have done for my life's work what Arthur Eddington and colleagues during the Ecliptic Expedition of 1919 did for the work of Albert Einstein [i.e., Eddington and others proved that the light from a star was bent by the gravitational forces surrounding our Sun]. Interestingly enough, prior to 1919, Einstein was strongly criticized and ridiculed by some members of the scientific community for his work in Relativity and his now-famous formula, E=mc^2. After the experiment of 1919, Einstein's work was taken very se riously around the world. Similarly, my life's work -- relating to my Theory of the Gyroscopic Particle (Massergy) and my revolutionary energy technology -- has received a similar reception in some scientific circles, and some individuals have even attempted to steal and/or stop t he development of my life's work. The A & E Network recently aired a nationally-telecast Special which featured the demonstrated conspiracy against my life's work. Now, for all who have doubted me and for all who wish to know the truth: I include the following from September 21, 1997: "In the London Sunday Telegraph of 21 Sept. 1997, Robert Matthews reports that a team of Japanese scientists have spun up a gyroscope to 18000 rpm and dropped it through a distance of 63 inches in vacuo. The time taken to fall this distance was 1/25000 sec. longer than when the gyroscope was not spinning, corresponding to a weight reduction of 1 part in 7000. The effect only occurred when the gyroscope was spinning anticlockwise. The fall was timed usin g laser beams. The team say that this is in line with earlier findings of theirs published in 1989. "This work was done by Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan, together with Matsushita the Japanese multinational. Their results are reported in the journal Speculations in Science and Technology." Fact: The experimenters at Tohoku University conclude in their work that "GRAVITY BREAKS DOWN COMPLETELY." Fact: Numerous copies of my book [THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, originally published in 1984] have been sold in Japan to universities, professors, and industry. My work has been extensively featured in the Japanese media -- both in magazines and on television -- having had Japanese film crews often visit my laboratory. I refer the reader to Chapter 17 of my book where I discuss the paradox confronting the scientific community regarding "Why do INERTIA and GRAVITATIONAL MASSES EQUAL?" I then propose an experiment which will prove that "BOTH EFFECTS (Inertia and Gravitat ion) ARE RESULTS OF THE GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE COMPOSITION OF ALL MATTER." I also state that "The natural Inertia effect of an obvious mass is the result of SPEED of the GYROSCOPIC-ACTION-PARTICLE WHICH IS THE BASIC BUILDING ENTITY OF ALL MASS." Specifically, I propose that by using light beams (e.g., electric eye) one can prove a variance in the Inertia of a Mass. I describe how one can place a "GYROSCOPE HIDDEN INSIDE" a container and spin up the gyroscope "to 30,000RPM" and convince an uneduc ated person to state: "I know of an object that has a varying inertia." Note: Japanese scientists (who have had access to my book describing such testing) have placed a GYROSCOPE in a container and have spun it up to 18,000RPM, checking its falling speed with a laser beam (light source). It is no accident that they have run such tests which represent a specifically recommended test of one aspect of my life's work, described by myself over 13 years ago. These Japanese scientists have proved that under the above conditions, the gyroscope h as a "VARYING INERTIA" or GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT. Remember, the members of the scientific community have long known and wondered why gravitational and inertial masses are equal. Neither Newton's nor Einstein's work could explain Inertia. And it is a fact that Einstein was criticized for not doing so. I have proven in Chapter 27 of my book that Inertia represents the result of the "GYROSCOPIC COMPOSITION OF ALL MATTER." Obviously, scientists are mystified by the fact that the above-described results are only detected when the gyroscope is spun "ANTICL OCKWISE." Consider that I have stated unequivocally that "Gravity is the unobvious effect of electromagnetic energy. Electromagnetism and magnetic energy consists of the GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE (Massergy) COMPOSITION OF ALL MATTER." Note: The result of the Japanese experiment is totally connected to the "GYROSCOPE" and its SPEED. All of this I have taught for many years. And regarding the Japanese scientists' discovery that their results occur when the gyroscope is spun ANTICLOCKWISE: If you live in the Northern Hemisphere (such as Japan) you will observe that as water travels down a sink drain it will rotate ANTICLOCKWISE. And in the Southern Hemisphere you will observe that such draining water rotates CLOCKWISE. In the first Chapter of my fundamental book I demonstrate and prove that a magnetic field consists of GYROSCOPIC PARTICLES and that (as depicted on page 11) I feature a drawing which indicates that if such GYROSCOPIC PARTICLES spin in the SAME direction, then they REPEL. Note: In the Japanese experiments their gyroscope spun in the SAME direction as the rotation of water traveling down drains in the Northern Hemisphere. The Earth's surface and its gyroscopic particle composition spin through space. Accordingly, a falli ng mass that is GYRATING at a high speed can expect to be affected by the GYROSCOPIC COMPOSITION OF ALL MATTER. I predicted this in no uncertain terms over 20 years ago and as first published in 1984! The Japanese scientists have proven me correct! Moreover, higher rotational speeds of 100,000 RPMs will provide even clearer results that what I say is true; and 1,000,000 RPMs even more so. Fact: During the famous Ecliptic Expedition of 1919, there was only a very minute change in the bending of light as predicted by Einstein --- but the HONEST PEOPLE OF THE EARTH TOOK IMMEDIATE NOTICE. Fact: Japanese scientists have now done the same for my life's work for Humanity. I ask all honest individuals to do the same. Currently, I have relocated to the Western United States and I am actively engaged in raising the capital to begin commercial production of my energy machine technology. I also predict (as described on page 368 of my book) that practical and economic spa ce travel will result from my Company's work. That which I have previously published is extremely simple to me, mechanically speaking --- I envision interactions in three dimensions. However, those close to me have indicated that they have difficulty in visualizing interactive three dimensional images. [In her own words, my wife Olivia wrote the following both for her benefit and for the benefit of those who may not easily picture interactive, three dimensional images in their mind. She was clearly excited about the concepts. I hope you are also.] To quote from her: "Gyroscopic particles act like gears (as drawn on page 11 of Joseph Newman's book). Using the diagram, one can see how unlike charges attract [the same particles spinning in opposite directions] and like charges repel [the same particles spinning in the same direction] just like gears! "Now picture these same particles coming from the Earth in the Northern Hemisphere spinning in a counterclockwise position --- if a gyroscope is then dropped while spinning counterclockwise at a very high RMP (the particles coming out of the Earth are spi nning in the same direction [like charges] as the gyroscope, then these gyroscopic particles will REPEL, slowing down the descent of the gyroscope. The faster the gyroscope spins, the more the gyroscope particles will repel and the slower the gyroscope w ill fall. "(In a vacuum) a gyroscope spinning at 1,000,000 RPMs will fall at a slower rate than one spinning at 18,000 RPMs. Considering that the particles coming up from the Earth are going at the speed of light, the rate of fall of the gyroscope will only be sli ght until the spin of that gyroscope ITSELF reaches the speed of light at which time the majority of the particles will REPEL and the gyroscope will FLOAT." [end of quote] Obtaining the "speed of light" rotation for a given gyroscope is NOT mechanically practical. [I again refer the reader to page 368 of my book for a presentation regarding practical space travel.] I now ask the reader to see page 10 of my book in which I explain how magnetic fields mechanically attract and repel as a result of the GYROSCOPIC particle (massergy) composition of all matter. [For a more precise mechanical understanding, one should impose a circle representing the Earth over the pictorial representation of the N/S fields emanating from a bar magnet] I also refer the reader to the drawing on page 118 of my book to which Dr. Robert Smith of NASA (Chief of Space Environment) had his statisticians study certain astronomical relationships of the Earth to the Sun and the Moon to the Earth. I stated unequivocally that "the Earth's true axis was the result of the Earth's magnetic axis being warped in outer space as it aligns with the Sun's magnetic field, and so also the Moon to the Earth." After studying my work, the statisticians at NASA in Huntsville, Alabama concluded: "THE CHANCES OF ME BEING WRONG WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE." Japanese scientists at Tohoku University have now verified my life's work for Humanity. All honest individuals will innately know that I speak the truth. In earlier posted information I provided exacting facts that hurricanes are not principally related to "heat" temperatures of water, but are principally related to electromagnetic induction into the Earth from the Sun --- especially as occurs during the E arth's crossing of the Sun equatorial plane on March 21st and September 21st. As though "right on schedule," hurricane Nora formed at 14.5 North and 102.8 West on Tuesday September 16, 1997 with initial winds at 45mph. Within four days the hurricane was only at 14.5 North and 104.2 West with winds of 100mph. It had moved very little! By Sunday, September 21st at 8:00am MT, Hurricane Nora's winds had increased to 125mph and was moving NW at 10mph --- the very day that the Earth was crossing the Sun's equatorial plane into opposite sunspot polarity! In the Astronomy Chapter of my book (pages 112 through 153) I provide exacting factual scientific information which proves that major storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc., are triggered by electromagnetic induction from sunspot activity into the Earth. As shown on page 113 of my book, Dr. Smith (Chief of Space Environment, NASA) sent me information concerning the life work of Dr. Huntington and said: "It contains much information that supplements and complements your work." Because the corrupt U.S. Government has conspired against the development of the Energy Machine aspect of my life's work (as shown on the recent A & E Special), they have also inadvertently conspired to keep the reader in the dark concerning the wide scop e and breadth of what I teach. As a result, at this moment of writing thousands of people on the South California coast and also in Arizona are being warned and threatened by hurricane Nora which is expected to hit Southern California and travel inland across Arizona and other states. California is not generally prepared for a major hurricane. I urge people to ask their local libraries to obtain a copy of my fundamental book [The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman]. The information contained in this book is written for the well being of all Humanity. Love to you, Joseph Westley Newman [For those individuals who would like to view the book pages as indicated above, please send a SASE to the address below.] _____________________ Posted by: Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS josephnewman earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Websites: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6087 http://www.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 phe nomena is _mechanical_ energy." --- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL X-From_: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 11:58:01 1997 Return-Path: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:02:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november Reply-To: Steve Ekwall To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l eskimo.com Subject: Something from nothing Resent-Message-ID: <"Zeylz3.0.Qy5.141Aq" mx2> Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/872 X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request eskimo.com This little article just appeared today in my local newspapers science section, has anyone received any more info? ----------snip---------- SCIENTISTS BEAM AT CREATION A Trailblazing experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in Calofornia has confirmed a long- standing prediction by theorists that light beams colliding with each other can goad the empty vacuum into cre- ating something out of nothing. In a report published this month by the journal PHYSICAL REVIEW LET- TERS, 20 physicist disclosed that they had created two tiny specks of mat- ter -- an electron and its antimatter counterpart, a positron -- by collid- ing two ultrapowerful beams of radi- ation. ------------ end snip -------------- While Evan/Newman say it's there, And Ross Tessien is sure he can take it Apart, Looks like with Bose-Eintsein condensates (sp) that the star-trek 'Replicator' may be in our grandchildren's Future.. Is this a great time to be alive OR What?!! :) -=se=- one Earl-Grey Tea - steaming, please. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 12:49:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:36:00 -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, 23 Sep 1997 14:35:38 -0500 References: <970923135203_1923337091 emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Remi asks Resent-Message-ID: <"D52e6.0.TK7.Te1Aq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11071 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 23, 12:59pm, FZNIDARSIC aol.com wrote: > Znidarsic therom: Irreversibilities consume gravitational potential. ..... like the Blacklight process? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 13:24:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:57:22 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: mirror image symmetry in coil winding? References: <970923132845_1559215951 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"otiyr.0.6v1.jD2Aq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11073 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com HLafonte aol.com wrote: > > Hi all, > Is anyone familiar with mirror image symmetry in coil winding? Do > you agree with the claims of the recent patent? Earl Koenig's (the > inventor) claims are for two coils of the same size, a symmetry coil > will have less resistance, less inductance, higher current, > increased gauss, and higher force (in a solenoid configuration). Which patent ? What is image symmetry? Is it Clock-wise/Counter-clock-wise scheme? If so I have pretty symmetrical, precision wounded coils and does not show such a asymmetric behaviour. > I can see how all of this can take place but the > lower inductance, I can't figure out. How can the INDUCTANCE be lower > and the field strength be STRONGER than a coil of same size, wound in > the standard fashion? If this is true this might have some interesting > applications. What the inventor exactly claims? Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 13:33:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:28:34 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:17:53 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: [Fwd: Something from nothing] Resent-Message-ID: <"2b1ba1.0.3i1.mP2Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11074 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Message-ID: <3428205B.AEBDB3D9 verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:02:35 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Ekwall Subject: Re: Something from nothing X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Ekwall wrote: > > This little article just appeared today in my local newspapers science > section, has anyone received any more info? > ----------snip---------- > SCIENTISTS BEAM AT CREATION > > A Trailblazing experiment at the > Stanford Linear Accelerator Center > in Calofornia has confirmed a long- > standing prediction by theorists that > light beams colliding with each other > can goad the empty vacuum into cre- > ating something out of nothing. > In a report published this month > by the journal PHYSICAL REVIEW LET- > TERS, 20 physicist disclosed that they > had created two tiny specks of mat- > ter -- an electron and its antimatter > counterpart, a positron -- by collid- > ing two ultrapowerful beams of radi- > ation. [snip] Yes, this is true but see how newspapers degenerate news. This is from PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE - The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News, Number 337 September 18, 1997 >>REAL PHOTONS CREATE MATTER. Einstein's equation E=mc^2 formulates the idea that matter can be converted into light and vice versa. The vice-versa part, though, hasn't been so easy to bring about in the lab. But now physicists at SLAC have produced ele ctron-positron pairs from the scattering of two "real" photons (as opposed to the "virtual" photons that mediate the electromagnetic scattering of charged particles). To begin, light from a terawatt laser is sent into SLAC's highly focused beam of 47-GeV electrons. Some of the laser photons are scattered backwards, and in so doing convert into high-energy gamma ray photons. Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- light scatter ing of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.)<< Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 14:15:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:09:48 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:15:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [off topic] Newman -vs- SeaWiFS WEATHER REPORT X-MAS 97? Resent-Message-ID: <"0nDvx3.0.-S4.Q03Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11075 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Necks on the line? 50%-50%: Sorry for the band width on this, but just recieved from NASA the following post on SeaWiFS looking down on 'El Nino'.. 1 side (Evans/Newman and others) see water tempertures as NOT being a main factor for hurricanes and such (see 13,000k+ file newman via evans..Today) 2 side (reniassance 'meteroligist') Predict Major Climatic (they sky is falling) Changes.... Granted Colorado Weather is hardest of all to predict (Rocky Mt. Intervention) .. but WILL I HAVE A EXTRA-WHITE X-MAS this year OR an extra DRY (world-droughted) X-MAS this year OR Earth indutance stability / instability or both?? (don't think it can be BOTH (can it?)) '97 Looks like a Great Year to Flip a Coin on Foresight. :) Someone will get the "I told you so" prize & at 50-50 seems like good odds to put your neck out. (Isn't 'this' El-Nino a once a Centerrian event?) -----snip------ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:47:24 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: ekwall2 diac.com Subject: First Global Ocean-Color Images from New Sensor Show Promise for Climate, Biological Studies David E. Steitz Headquarters, Washington, DC September 23, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1730) Lynn Chandler Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD (Phone: 301/286-9016) RELEASE: 97-211 FIRST GLOBAL OCEAN-COLOR IMAGES FROM NEW SENSOR SHOW PROMISE FOR CLIMATE, BIOLOGICAL STUDIES Exciting ocean-color images from the Sea-viewing Wide Field- of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) -- the first readily available ocean-color data in more than ten years -- should play a major role in studying the ongoing El Nino and in other global warming resea rch. The SeaWiFS data also is giving scientists their first continuous look at the global biosphere -- the combination of living organisms and their environment. Ocean color is largely determined by the concentration of microscopic marine plants called ph ytoplankton. Accurately measuring phytoplankton concentration is important to climate change research and to local economic concerns such as commercial fishing. "The images are more than we ever could have hoped for," said oceanographer Dr. Gene C. Feldman, who heads SeaWiFS's data processing team at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. "Although originally designed to just study the oceans, we'v e also discovered a way of using it to study the land as well, and as a result, we can study the global biosphere for the very first time." "The new images clearly show areas of coastal upwelling along the northwest U.S., Argentina and western South Africa. These upwelling events foster dramatic plankton blooms which are a critical source of food for major fisheries. The data will be e xtremely valuable for fisheries management," said Dr. Charles McClain, SeaWiFS Project Scientist. SeaWiFS offers great potential for monitoring oceanic conditions that have serious, and often tragic, effects on human health. Coastal blooms of algae have been associated with cholera outbreaks around the world. Early detection of these blooms, an d subsequent in-water sampling, may significantly reduce the impact of these outbreaks. Red tides, ocean dumping of organic and chemical waste, and perhaps even oil spills can be tracked with SeaWiFS data, Feldman said. With SeaWiFS, NASA is leading an international collaboration of researchers. More than 300 scientists representing 35 countries have already registered to use the data. Thirty-eight ground stations spread over 18 countries will receive data from the spacecraft. NASA also has developed a software package called the SeaWiFS Data Analysis System (SeaDAS) for scientists worldwide to process the data. More than 150 scientists have already been to Goddard to learn how to use this package. Another 79 scienti sts from 11 countries are signed up for SeaDAS training at the Center this fall. The SeaWIFS instrument is aboard a commercially built and operated satellite called OrbView 2, owned by Orbital Sciences Corp., Dulles, VA. OrbView 2 was launched at 3 p.m. EDT Aug. 1, 1997, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, aboard an Orbital Pega sus XL launch vehicle. The SeaWiFS mission is unlike many other NASA missions. NASA's SeaWiFS Project described the data they wanted to purchase without giving specific requirements for the spacecraft itself. "It's a whole new way of doing business," said SeaWiFS Project Manager Dr. Mary Cleave. The SeaWiFS instrument was built by Hughes/Santa Barbara Remote Sensing, Santa Barbara, CA, and is the only scientific payload on the SeaStar spacecraft, developed by Orbital Sciences Corp. NASA is buying the data and is providing it to researcher s throughout the world. SeaWiFS is a follow-on sensor to the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS), which operated aboard NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite from 1978-1986 and proved that satellite sensors could detect ocean-color from space. SeaWiFS improves on CZCS by providing gl obal coverage every 48 hours, giving a more accurate determination of phytoplankton concentration. Images from SeaWiFS are available from the World Wide Web at URL: http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEAWIFS.html The SeaWiFS program supports NASA's Mission to Planet Earth enterprise, a long-term coordinated research effort to study the Earth as a global system and the effects of natural and human- induced changes on the global environment. Using the uniqu e perspective available from space, NASA is observing, monitoring and assessing large-scale environmental processes focusing on climate change. -end- p.s. Last night it Rained and was chilly -=heater on:( but we're famous for 'indian-summers' Warm/Dry : Nov-Dec... -=se=- :) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 15:20:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Comments: ( Received on ftpbox.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.c om ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:11:38 -0500 References: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [off topic] Newman -vs- SeaWiFS WEATHER REPORT X-MAS 97? Resent-Message-ID: <"UGcyQ2.0.Gy6.1x3Aq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11077 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 23, 4:13pm, Steve Ekwall wrote: > Granted Colorado Weather is hardest of all to predict Try Chicago. A sudden jetstream dip can dump 6 inches of snow in June. 8^) > '97 Looks like a Great Year to Flip a Coin on Foresight. :) > Someone will get the "I told you so" prize & at 50-50 seems like good odds > to put your neck out. I had a teacher in school that was big on statistics and testing. Before each exam he would post the "chimpanzee score", which is what a chimp would get if it took the test, randomly filling in the multiple choice answers. The chimp often scored higher than 50% (... and someone always seemed to do worse than the chimp). Don't take that 50/50 bet! -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 15:22:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:12:25 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] References: <342823F1.32C19599 verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"GbtWl2.0.tx6.vw3Aq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11076 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > (snip) Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser > photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- > light scattering of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., > Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.)<< > Hey! Hamdi and Steve - This seems to be related to my "Oh Learned Physicists" post I made some weeks ago. I asked if the DENSITY of electromagnetic energy in a region might modify the speed of light in that region. If VERY energetic photon beams can int eract, then perhaps light speed does vary with EM energy concentration. Hey Frederick, bring back that particle theory of total internal reflection caused by local index-of-refraction increase at sites of enormous EM energy density! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 16:01:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:56:05 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Say again??? Re: Repel.. Gravity Modification Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:30:11 GMT Organization: Improving References: Resent-Message-ID: <"mGFv R1.0.MY2.3a4Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11078 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:15:16 -1000, Rick Monteverde wrote: [snip] >I think the Razor should have cut just above "the quarters behave as though >they were part of the superconductor...". :) > >I see what you're saying, but when you say "volume", don't you really mean >cross-sectional area? That doesn't increase, and like you said, it would No..I actually meant volume (I could of course be completely wrong). My intuition says it works something like a balloon. >seem to be a very small component anyway. It would only be the vertical >component of the earth's field anyway. In Ohio the field's dipping to some >degree, but it does seem an altogether unsatisfactory explanation. Somehow I think the horizontal component would also play a role. I.e. forcing the earth's field lines to bend around the superconductor will result in a force on the superconductor, because the field lines really "want" to go straight. Horizontal movement doesn't result in any change, so that only leaves vertical. The gradient in the earth's field points almost straight up (i.e. the field line density decreases as you go higher (or not?). Is there a particular distance from the centre, on a plane containing the equator of the magnet, where the field is at a maximum?) [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 Tue Sep 23 16:32:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:28:50 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:28:43 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Suggest UE or IE in place of OU References: <199709230357_MC2-217C-93E8 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"KKqU92.0.QK5.n25Aq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11079 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Chris: regarding conservation of energy; there is content to "conservation of energy", namely, the content is that we can identify precisely the types of energy conversion that are possible. It then becomes an experimental issue to verify whther this is t rue. It is also possible that it could be determined that C of E does not hold. There are things that are not conserved, and one simply cannot define them to be so. For example, photons. Also, quabtun mechanically C of E is not maintained, since quantum fluctu ations about the C of E mean are allowed, for example. It is true that in the past we have discoverd new forms of energy, and identified them as such, but this is certainly not cheating, and does not make C of E a circular principle. -- 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 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Fw: Dean Drive Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: > > >---------- >> From: Fred Epps >> To: fred epps >> Subject: Fw: Dean Drive >> Date: Saturday, September 20, 1997 3:05 PM >> >> >> >> ---------- > The >historical >> > record shows that the Bessel Wheel or Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?) was >> observed >> > to operate completely independently of the inventor for 6 months by >being >> > locked in the King of England's personal vault. The observations were >> > conducted by a notable scientist of the day-- Isaac Newton! >> > Fred Yo Fred, Your're an outthere kindof guy. The Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?)??! Did you hear about this from around some summertime campfire? Do you have any photos? Drawings? Woodcuts? Cavepaintings? Anything beside that incredible Name? -knuke X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 18:03:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:57:16 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:57:09 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] References: <342823F1.32C19599 verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"gUd9x1.0.IW.hL6Aq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11080 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > [news story:] > To begin, light > from a terawatt laser is sent into SLAC's highly focused beam of > 47-GeV electrons. Some of the laser photons are scattered > backwards, and in so doing convert into high-energy gamma ray > photons. Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser > photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- > light scattering of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., > Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.)<< > There must be some gap in my understanding of things, because I thought the cross section for photon-photon scattering was 0. This is naively because Maxwell's equations are linear, so photons pass through eachother with no interaction (just superposition ). What am I missing here? I could imagine two photons superimposing to make sucha large field energy that particles are created, but that is a bit different than scattering, in the classical sense. -- 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 Tue Sep 23 18:18:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:14:00 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: NHE Double Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"1tOtn3.0.Nt4.8c6Aq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11082 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tom Stolper wrote: >>I'm having a hard time visualizing the experimental setup.<< It consists of an isoperibolic calorimeter surrounded by a water mass flow calorimeter. The water mass flow provides not only calorimetry but a means for maintaining isothermal sink conditions on the isoperibolic calorimeter. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 23 18:23:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:15:10 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Suggest AE References: <19970922194904711.AAA185 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"bgmYh1.0.Bu4.Yc6Aq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11083 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike Carrell wrote: > > Jed's suggestion of a new nomenclature is appropriate and might save a lot > of quibbling. Let me suggest another : Anomalous Energy. > ..... It at present is seen only as a persistent anomaly in > certain experiments and devices. In general, I like the word "anomaly", as in "anomalous observations", since it does not prejudge the cause of the anomaly, nor carry emotional baggage. It is quite accurate. On the other hand, Anomalous Energy is a good name for what is being sought by the "OU" crowd, but it is not guaranteed that "Anomalous Energy" exists. In contrast, "anomalous observations" definetley exist, with varying causes. When I describe the "OU/CF/Alchemy" situation to fellow scientists, I usually say that there seem to be a residue of experimental anomalies that suggest underlying physical phenomena, as opposed to simply uninteresting misinterpretation/errors. However, the underlying phenomena may simply be known physics conspiring in unanticipated ways, and may not (probably wont) result in paradigm-shaking breakthroughs when it is understood. Nonethes less, because there would seem to be physical phenomena underlying the observations, and becuase there is not understanding of what is occuring, they should be investigated (and funded at some modest level). I think what separates the "scientist" from the "fringe" is a certain conviction about what must be causing these phenomena. -- 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 Tue Sep 23 19:15:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:10:35 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:10:28 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Should we rob a bank, Barry? References: <199709221316_MC2-2164-EF1F compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"pXKS82.0.t74.QQ7Aq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11084 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Barry Merriman writes: > > I was not satisfied with the experiments carried out by Jed, > since they did not account for the stored energy in the device > > > We did not start the steam tests until temperatures stabilized, > including the temperature of the pump itself. The pump did not > cool down until after the test. Therefore, no energy is > stored and released during the test. That would be true, if all things were really as you think. However, my specualtive hypothesis was that the thermal energy was stored in the rotor, whose temperature is not accessible for measurement. The apparent "OU" occured precisely when the machine went into a flow mode that was a particularly good thermal i nsulator, and with lower frictional losses---e.g. a cavitation (= vapor void) dominated flow mode. At that point, heat stored in the rotor was flowing primarily into the effluent, rather than being conducted to the outer metal chamber. This is just a speculative theory, but it suggests a means by which y ou could have been fooled about the thermal equilibrium of the device if that was based on exterior temperature measurements. If one simply counted up all power input from the moment the cold device was turned one, or if one ran the test so long that roto r-stored energy could not possibly supply the difference (several hours), then that would refute such ideas. > . . . and so I'd like to understand better the lack of follow up > Okay, Barry, let me explain it one more time. > The problem is money: M-O-N-E-Y. Well, OK, I can understand how that would block obvious avenues, but lack of money can usually be overcome with the right combination of determination and creativity, which would certainly be warranted by such a monumental discovery. Why not simply collaborate with Scott Little? I'm betting EarthTech has three phase power already, and I'm betting Scott could get the 0th phase of testing done on the cheap. If they get positive results there, I'm sure they'd scrape together the resources to take it up a notch in sofistication, etc. I understand that you cannot set up a top notch lab from scratch without ~ $100k, but if you would work with EarthTech and take an incremental approach, you would get to where you want to go, if it exists. Next summer, I may even be willing to test it myself, since even I (non academic) friends who probably have the setup necessary to run the thing and do basic power in vs heat out tests, with new expenses at the few thousands of dollars level. In my experience, the essential ingredient for productive investigation of anomalies is cooperation from those who have the working device. At this point, that would be You and Gene (who have device available for off-site testing) and Griggs, who has the ultimate expertise and on-site facilities. Seems like an ideal starting point, if you folks want to cooperatively investigate things. Some a mount of new cahs is usually required, but this can be minimized to the ~ thousand dollar level by creative use of resources. -- 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 Tue Sep 23 20:05:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:02:08 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:01:51 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Should we rob a bank, Barry? Resent-Message-ID: <"fbj4N1.0.xt5.kA8Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11086 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:10 PM 9/23/97 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: >Why not simply collaborate with Scott Little? >I'm betting EarthTech >has three phase power already, and I'm betting Scott could >get the 0th phase of testing done on the cheap.... Indeed we do have 3-ph power. BTW, look at the "50 hp cradle dynamometer" photo in the Photo Gallery on our web page and just try to figure out why we might have built such a large, wonderfully infallible instrument to measure mechanical input power in the multi-kilowatt range. You m ay not be able to tell from the photo but it has been heavily used... Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 05:38:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 05:31:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:41:02 +0000 From: Jean-Paul Biberian Reply-To: biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hot fusion's hidden agenda? References: <970924065428_439916666 emout04.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"jLfHj3.0.2g5.mWGAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11095 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Geosas aol.com wrote: > > I have heard a rumor that the hot fusion program is being kept > going purely as a training-ground for physicists and engineers > to work on the continuing nuclear weapons development effort. > > This provides a motive for the suppression of cold fusion. > > Anyone have any comments on this? > > Geo. Well, I don't think that this rumor is surprising at all. The military in all countries is interested by new technology. The civilian nuclear program has been sold to the public in order to hide the huge cost of nuclear research for arms. It is interestin g to note that countries like Iran and Irak and others who sit on top of oil wells and have little scientific research in general want to do research in nuclear science. There are many other fields in science where lot of money is poured in simply to gain knowledge of the field in case one day something interesting may appear. I have in mind a few cases like: - Astronomy to develop new telescopes - Astrophysics to learn more about plasma physics - Space exploration for new rockets and earth observation. It seems that the Russians and the US will have the possibility to do some military observations on their own in the future international space s tation. - High energy physics to learn more about the constituents of matter in order to develop may be the anti matter arm(orders of magnitudes more powerful than nuclear bombs). These are a few areas that come out of my head now, but there are probably many more, if one spends some time in trying to find out the potential military applications of the various fields of research. It is interesting to note that in spite of the fact that there are budget cuts everywhere, these ones are still heavily funded. Nevertheless, this is business as usual. Galileo got money from the military to develop his telescope. -- 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 Tue Sep 23 23:26:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:23:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:28:34 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: astute Aspden re CG's LENT process] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"-ovvS.0.ld4.w7BAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11087 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 holland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA28086 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 16:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rbrtbass.pahrump.com (user12.pahrump.com [205.226.146.112]) by pahrump.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19762; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:24:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199709232224.PAA19762 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Harold Aspden" , "Steven E. Jones" , "Kent Harrison" , "Michael J. Schaffer" , "Frederick J. Sparber" , "Mike Carrell" , "John Strumila" , "Tim Mitchell" , "Steve Okerlund" , "Robert M. Wood" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Rich Murray" , "Robert Huggins" , "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" , "C. D. Johnson" , "James Powell" , "James A. Carr" , "James Bowery" , "Joseph N. Ignat" , "Horace Heffner" , "Gary Steckly" , "Grant Hudlow" , "Ed Wall" , "David A. Scott" , "Douglas Morrison" , "Charles McNeill" , "Bill Ward" , "Gordon Brightsen" , "Nicholas Palmer" <70374.3025 compuserve.com>, "Scott Chubb" , "Joe Champion" , "Mark D. Hugo" , "Ross Tessien" , "Toby Grotz" Subject: astute Aspden re CG's LENT process Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:08:01 -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 Subject: Remarkably Astute Dr. Harold Aspden re CG's LENT process I have for a long time been "putting off" something that I intend to do, someday, when I can find a clear block of time sufficient for me to "do it right." That is, I have been intending to study Dr. Harold Aspden's various Dissents from standard Basic Physics, and in particular his work on considering the possibility of a real Aether instead of accepting it that "relativity has obsoleted the concept of, or need for, an aether." Dr. Aspden holds a doctorate in Electrical Engineering from Oxford University and, in the U.K., is licensed to practice Intellectual Property Law. He is retired Director of Patents for a very major firm and has evinced what seems to me like an almost-om niscient knowledge of many aspects of Fundamental Physics, including Particle Physics [regarding which he is far better informed than I]. I would need considerable time to study his work _in toto_ because he apparently accepts that gravity is a fundamental force whereas if I had to bet, I would today bet on the Puthoff-Rueda-Haisch theory that gravity is a shadow-effect (like the Casimir F orce) and that only electric charge is fundamental. However, even if what Arthur C. Clark calls the SHARP theory in his latest novel (for Sakharov, Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, Puthoff) is the "final word" there still could be a phenomenological theory that could be expressed in terms of quanta, such as gravito ns. Hence my doubts that gravitons are not "real" should not inhibit anyone from considering Dr. Aspden's theory based upon "supergravitons." Now Stan Gleeson of the Cincinnati Group (CG) has just brought to my attention Dr. Aspden's comments on the CG's Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation (LENT) claims. Jump to http://www.energyscience.co.uk to see the wealth of fascinating material posted by Dr. Aspden. For present purposes, click on "Research Notes" and then click on "'Cincinnati Disclosure" to find 7 pages which I hope are soon _also_ available in the form of printed-periodical CF/LENT literature. I have it on the basis of mere "anecdotal hearsay" that although the results of running the CG process on 0.1 gram of Thorium Nitrate vary from run to run, the _predominant_ end-products, the majority of the time, are Titanium and Copper. Now, by brilliant reasoning, which depends critically upon his own little-known theories, Dr. Aspden has come extraordinarily close to giving a cause-and-effect reason "why" the reaction should favor Ti and Cu, and "why" a typical run gives the Ti and Cu in a ratio of 9 to 1, and even "why" the particular anomalies in Isotopic Abundance Ratios that were reported in the first printed Third Party Verification Report did occur!!! My information is that the CG has ordered enough materials to manufacture several scores of LENT-1 Kits, and to date received more than 30 serious inquiries or firm orders.** If other experimenters start to report the pattern reported in the "Infinite Energy," vol. 3, Nos. 13/14, then the 3 "whys" mentioned in the preceding paragraph will become a standing challenge to both conventional Quantum Electrodynamics and competing theories of fundamental physics, a nd I would therefore expect a close final resemblance between the quantitative aspects of _any_ such theory, and the impressive pioneering arguments with which Dr. Aspden has already favored the scientific world. Congratulations to Dr. Harold Aspden! Sincerely, Bob Bass ** I myself am an authorized Distributor, in case anyone learns about the LENT-1 Kits (MoneyBack Guaranteed transmutation) from my own "Bass-Brand Brass-Band" rather than from "Infinite Energy" or from "New Energy News" or from the CG itself, and wishes t o order through Innoventech, Inc., my son's Nevada Corporation at the address below. 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 Wed Sep 24 00:05:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:00:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 00:00:36 -0700 X-Intended-For: X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: Fw: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"qZCaI2.0.Bd5.QgBAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11088 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > >---------- >> From: Fred Epps >> To: fred epps >> Subject: Fw: Dean Drive >> Date: Saturday, September 20, 1997 3:05 PM >> >> >> >> ---------- > The >historical >> > record shows that the Bessel Wheel or Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?) was >> observed >> > to operate completely independently of the inventor for 6 months by >being >> > locked in the King of England's personal vault. The observations were >> > conducted by a notable scientist of the day-- Isaac Newton! >> > Fred Yo Fred, Your're an outthere kindof guy. The Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?)??! Did you hear about this from around some summertime campfire? Do you have any photos? Drawings? Woodcuts? Cavepaintings? Anything beside that incredible Name? -knuke X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 02:37:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 02:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:33:27 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] References: <342823F1.32C19599 verisoft.com.tr> <34286565.55A8@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"VXjSY3.0.Rh1.avDAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11090 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > > [news story:] > > To begin, light > > from a terawatt laser is sent into SLAC's highly focused beam of > > 47-GeV electrons. Some of the laser photons are scattered > > backwards, and in so doing convert into high-energy gamma ray > > photons. Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser > > photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- > > light scattering of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., > > Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.)<< > > > > There must be some gap in my understanding of things, because I > thought the cross section for photon-photon scattering was 0. This is > naively because Maxwell's equations are linear, so photons > pass through eachother with no interaction (just superposition). > What am I missing here? This seems exactly the time reversal of electron-positron annihilating procedure. Yes, it contradict the Maxwell's eqs., but why its look so strange after accepting the other? > > I could imagine two photons superimposing to make sucha large field > energy that particles are created, but that is a bit different > than scattering, in the classical sense. > Probably, gamma rays are not simply harmonic EM waves and classical ME would be a limiting case on the full spectrum of EM phenomena. I feel that we will understand the electron (structure) simulataneously with the understanding the creation phenomenon. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 01:47:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:40:21 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Fw: Dean Drive Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:08:56 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"-yn38.0.bv7.p7DAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11089 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Michael, > > The > >historical > >> > record shows that the Bessel Wheel or Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?) was > >> observed > >> > to operate completely independently of the inventor for 6 months by > >being > >> > locked in the King of England's personal vault. The observations were > >> > conducted by a notable scientist of the day-- Isaac Newton! > >> > Fred > > Yo Fred, > > Your're an outthere kindof guy. The Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?)??! > Did you hear about this from around some summertime campfire? No, it is described in Perpetual Motion, History Of An Obsession (forgot authors name at the moment) and a book called Oddities by Gould. It is well known to chroniclers of the wierd :-) Do you have > any photos? Drawings? Woodcuts? Cavepaintings? Anything beside that > incredible Name? I will have to dig up that info and get back to you. I have drawings made at the time but they don't show the operating mechanism which was concealed in the center of the wheel. Yes, it is possible that there was a spring mechanism in the central portion but it is hard to explain how the device maintained a steady 11 revolutions per min, month after month after month... Martin Rudefer the physicist believed that this was a primitive device for tapping the earth's rotation, which makes it a perpetual motion device of the second kind (concealed source of power). It is definitely possible to tap the earth's rotation for po wer by using gyros or variations of the Foucalt pendulum. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 06:39:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 06:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:33:58 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NHE Double Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"cU4vT.0.1c5.jPHAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11098 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:14 AM 9/24/97 +0900, Elliot Kennel wrote: >Tom Stolper wrote: > >>I'm having a hard time visualizing the experimental setup.<< > >It consists of an isoperibolic calorimeter surrounded by a water mass flow >calorimeter. The water mass flow provides not only calorimetry but a means >for maintaining isothermal sink conditions on the isoperibolic calorimeter. > Within what temperature range is the inner (?) isoperibolic calorimeter clamped? What was the range for the same system without the surrounding water mass flow calorimeter. Is the outer a horizontal of vertical flow? Thanks for clarifying. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 04:01:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 03:55:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Geosas@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 06:54:29 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Hot fusion's hidden agenda? Resent-Message-ID: <"Wl5NN.0.4j2.96FAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11092 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I have heard a rumor that the hot fusion program is being kept going purely as a training-ground for physicists and engineers to work on the continuing nuclear weapons development effort. This provides a motive for the suppression of cold fusion. Anyone have any comments on this? Geo. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 04:24:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:16:09 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Barry's position Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:12:23 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"8mBxS1.0.yq3.uPFAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11093 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry said: ------------------- > When I describe the "OU/CF/Alchemy" situation to fellow > scientists, I usually say that there seem to be a residue > of experimental anomalies that suggest underlying physical phenomena, > as opposed to simply uninteresting misinterpretation/errors. > However, the underlying phenomena may simply be known physics > conspiring in unanticipated ways, and may not (probably wont) > result in paradigm-shaking breakthroughs when it is understood. > Nonethes less, because there would seem to be physical phenomena > underlying the observations, and becuase there is not understanding > of what is occuring, they should be investigated (and funded at > some modest level). > > I think what separates the "scientist" from the "fringe" is a certain > conviction about what must be causing these phenomena. --------------- I think this is an excellent position statement, wholly acceptable in an academic context, and even acceptable to the "fringe" advocates. The huffing and puffing gets started over "what **must** be causing these phenomena". The "safe" academic/establishment/CYA position is that it ****MUST**** be "uninteresting misinterpretations" because the reporter doesn't have the proper credentials and his report is not of the proper form. This is not convincing to the immediate honest observer, like Jed, and Frank, who saw, felt, heard, measured, etc., or Joe Champion, or even Joseph Newman. The heavy lifting by Gene, Jed, and Chris is simply to get the anomalous phenomena lifted high enough that the **original investigators** and the academic/establishment/CYA community get some funding and effort to study the anomalies. One would think that just this happened in the case of the NHE effort. Yet, apparently, it didn't. Instead of humble replication of the exact conditions claimed to show the anomaly, the investigators did something else, assuming that it was the **same**, or better. Perhaps at the time the extant reports were of small anomalous heat production, so it was assumed that what was needed was more stable, more accurate measurement, ignoring the advice that elevated temperatures and transient conditions were need ed -- so the refined test conditions suppressed the phenomenon. Or earlier, Bose Corporation's procurement of monocrystalline, hyperpure palladium cathodes (which didn't work) when a specific commercial source was what worked -- for reasons not understood . The Patterson cell is radically different in construction and did work, but NHE made no effort to replicate it. Miley was successful, others who thought they were replicating it were not. Thus continued insistence on "uninteresting misinterpretation". Ara ta's cell is also radically different from the P&F cell, produces substantial anomalies energy, and showed the 4He signature beyond any "uninteresting misinterpretation". With all the discussion of cathodes, it is apparent that the necessary conditions **still are not known** for a classic P&F experiment. Of if someone does *know*, they aren't saying. This is vastly different from "uninteresting misinterpretations". Mike Carrell > -- > 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 Wed Sep 24 05:31:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 05:21:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:20:54 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Should we rob a bank, Barry? Resent-Message-ID: <"LXIrp1.0.3L5.RNGAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11094 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Scott Little wrote: > BTW, look at the "50 hp cradle dynamometer" photo in the Photo Gallery on > our web page and just try to figure out why we might have built such a > large, wonderfully infallible instrument to measure mechanical input power > in the multi-kilowatt range. You may not be able to tell from the photo but > it has been heavily used... > Arrgggg! Now your doing it too. There too many people on this list that cryptically hint that they've done these really interesting measurements... Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 05:39:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 05:34:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:34:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] Resent-Message-ID: <"XXBDK.0.-k5.YZGAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11096 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > > There must be some gap in my understanding of things, because I thought > the cross section for photon-photon scattering was 0. This is > naively because Maxwell's equations are linear, so photons > pass through eachother with no interaction (just superposition). > What am I missing here? > Yeah, I had trouble with this too when I first heard about it. Apparently you get a much larger cross section for gamma + gamma => something interesting (like Higgs paticles) than e+ e- => Higgs. There are schemes for colliding 100's of GeV photons off ph otons based on very high energy (e+ e-) linear colliders using the scheme outlined here. This is higher order QED rather than classical ElectroMagnetism. Two photons can couple directly to many different particles. Imagine for example, the time reversed e+ e- => gamma + gamma instead. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 06:31:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 06:27:33 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:27:10 -0500 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: laser-powered rocket Resent-Message-ID: <"sP_q02.0.YQ7.3LHAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11097 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com *** U.S. scientists test laser-powered rocket U.S. government space scientists have launched a miniature rocket using a ground-based laser beam for propulsion, the Advanced Space Transportation Program said Tuesday. Scientists aimed a 10 kilowatt pulsed carbon dioxide laser at the "launch vehicle" an d raised it seven feet off the ground. The object, which is about four inches in diameter and weighs about two ounces, has a reflector at the rear to concentrate the heat. This heats the air, which then blasts out of a nozzle. The latest test was the firs t of its kind in free flight. In previous tests the rocket was suspended from a wire. For story http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=5094111-c0a -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 07:41:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:34:30 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:31:03 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Barry's position Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"zGz2m3.0.Zm1.qJIAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11100 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Mike Carrell writes: With all the discussion of cathodes, it is apparent that the necessary conditions **still are not known** for a classic P&F experiment. Of if someone does *know*, they aren't saying. We know more about the necessary conditions than we used to. People do know, and they are saying. Fleischmann, Cravens, Storms, Miley or Mizuno have described the necessary conditions in considerable detail. The problem is that other researchers refuse to listen, because they think they know better. Miles says the big Navy labs and other government labs belittle China Lake. Their attitude is: we're the big guys. You are a nickel and dime lab that does not even have a high res mass spec machine (which is w hy Miles sent samples of gas to U. Texas for analysis.) The big guys do not believe the little guys know something they don't know. In his long report, Miles described many of the technical errors the big labs made. That landed him in hot water politicall y. That is the main reason his funding was cut off. Barry Merriman wrote: However, the underlying phenomena may simply be known physics conspiring in unanticipated ways, and may not (probably wont) result in paradigm-shaking breakthroughs when it is understood. This strikes me as unfounded speculation. We have no idea whether the excess heat, helium and transmutations in CF can be explained by conventional physics, or whether it will require a revolution. Barry is biased towards the "conventional" explanation. H e criticizes the "fringe" scientists who think CF overthrows paradigms. Neither side has a leg to stand on. Neither side has a theory. Barry cannot explain the heat and helium any more than I can. How can he predict what it will take to explain them? Expe rts tell me there isn't enough replicated evidence to build a theory. I think that theoreticians on both sides ignore much of the evidence we do have. Barry goes on to say: When I describe the "OU/CF/Alchemy" situation to fellow scientists, I usually say that there seem to be a residue of experimental anomalies A residue, eh? That's a loaded word. How much is a residue? That's the film of reagent left in a test tube after a liquid has been distilled or filtered. You envision of thousands of lousy experiments. Barry filters them. He dismisses most of them -- knows they're wrong -- and finds 0.01% may be worth bothering with. He's boiled down these claims and he finds "a residue." What impertinence! To be sure, the re are many mediocre and unconvincing CF experiments. There are "me too" researchers and people who report the same old results year after year. But to describe the many solid, repeated experiments from people like Storms, Claytor, McKubre, Miles and Bock ris as a mere "residue" . . . well, I find that biased. I do not think the spectrum of quality in CF experiments is much different from the spectrum in other new fields like HTSC. I think what separates the "scientist" from the "fringe" is a certain conviction about what must be causing these phenomena. I have a more comprehensive definition. Fringe people are those who have a certain conviction that CF can be explained by conventional physics, and other people who are convinced it cannot be explained by conventional physics. Fringe people dismiss all but a residue of experiments. Other fringe people accept all experiments uncritically. Fringe people deny reality by making up wild new physics at the drop of a hat: aluminum rotors that store a thousand kilowatt hours of heat; h alf-gram Pd samples that store megajoules; magic crystals that defy the Second Law; nonexistent 1 deg C noise; massive yet strangely invisible corrosion . . . At the other extreme, fringe people invent equally improbable physics to "explain" experiments that have not been documented, replicated, or even independently observed. Barry is at one end of the fringe and the thousand-mile-carburetor fans are at the other end. Scientists are in the middle. They accept the reality of replicated, high sigma, rigorously documented experimental evidence. They accept that something real must be happening which cannot be explained. Above all, they reserve judgement and they base thei r beliefs *on experimental evidence*, not on kooky new physics, marketing fads, popularity contests, or the opinions of journal editors. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 07:36:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:32:38 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:32:32 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hot fusion's hidden agenda? References: <970924065428_439916666 emout04.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"R0IRp1.0.hh1.5IIAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11099 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Geosas aol.com wrote: > > I have heard a rumor that the hot fusion program is being kept > going purely as a training-ground for physicists and engineers > to work on the continuing nuclear weapons development effort. > > This provides a motive for the suppression of cold fusion. > > Anyone have any comments on this? > > Geo. Ho ho, that is pretty funny. There does not need to be a covert training ground for weapons physicists---there is already an *overt* training ground for them. It is called the National Laboratory System (especially large groups within LANL, LLNL and LBL). These groups get large sums of money to design and test and maintain nuclear weapons. The fusion budget pales in comparison. Perhaps the grain of truth in what you heard is that a majority portion of the total "fusion research" program in the US is going to be inertial confinement fusion centering around the forthcoming National Ignition Facility at LLNL, a multi-billion dollar laser fusion device. The device is explicity billed as a dual use facility, one use being to allow micro-testing of nuclear weapons related things. Much of the funding for this comes from DOD, rather than DOE, so in that sense it is not part of what is o rdinarily called the "hot fusion program" (meaning the DOE magnetic confinement program, traditionally geared toward making power plants, not bombs). Again,this is no covert operation. Its all quite above board that NIF and related activities are attractive because of the weapons-related value (or, "stockpile stewardship", as it is called in polite company :-). In fact, your subject line really has it backwards. weapons are not the hidden agenda for hot fusion---quite the opposite! Hot fusion is the hidden agenda for weapons research, since NIF is primarily sold as a weapons-relevant facility, but certainly many of use fusion folks look at it as a means to get the DOD to pay for fusion research. I've always maintained that inertial confinement will succeed technologically before magnetic confinement precisely becuase the research will be subsidized by the military. As for the relation to cold fusion---again, far from fearing, nobody cares about it all in hot fusion circles. Its considered long dead. If you want to revive CF research, the best thing you could do would be to confince the military that a CF-bomb may be possible. -- 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 Thu Sep 25 02:23:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:14:17 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:11:31 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: laser-powered rocket Resent-Message-ID: <"iw4qE3.0.Qn1.ejYAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11134 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike - > Does anyone remember the rather good story > "The Mote in God's Eye"? Really _excellent_ story. Very worthy of a movie IMHO, I wish someone would do it someday. Read it years ago, and now I still take my coffee with a drop of motor oil in it. It ain't bad when you get used to it! ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 08:41:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:30:26 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Hot fusion's hidden agenda? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"vcLl61.0.a02.cCJAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11103 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Geos asks: I have heard a rumor that the hot fusion program is being kept going purely as a training-ground for physicists and engineers to work on the continuing nuclear weapons development effort. This is not a rumor, it is common knowledge. There are two branches of hot fusion: tokamaks, and inertial confinement laser fusion. Tokamaks have little to do with weapons research. Inertial confinement is now devoted to it. People originally hoped it might become a source of energy, but all funding now comes from the weapons programs, as far as I know. This provides a motive for the suppression of cold fusion. They have plenty of motives already: jealousy, rivalry, politics, and fear of the unknown. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 08:38:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:34:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:30:43 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Should we rob the hot fusion program, Ba Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"RrX161.0.MI4.TCJAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11102 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Barry Merriman suggests: Why not simply collaborate with Scott Little? . . . I understand that you cannot set up a top notch lab from scratch without ~ $100k, but if you would work with EarthTech and take an incremental approach, you would get to where you want to go, if it exists. Some amount of new cash is usually required, but this can be minimized to the ~ thousand dollar level by creative use of resources. If we could do this for a few thousand dollars in two weeks of spare time, we would have done it months ago. Of course we would have! You could not even ship the darn machine down to Texas for a thousand dollars. You can't get the power company to bring i n a line or rent a heavy duty AC power meter without a thousands more. We cannot move the machine without a chain lift crane. (We may have one by now; we are gradually accumulating the stuff we will need.) We could not bring you to New Hampshire or oursel ves to Texas for $1000 or even $3000. You want to eat while you are here? You want to sleep on the mattress in the warehouse? The heat goes off at night and weekends. You are living in a dream world, Barry. You talk as if money grows on trees. This is not hot fusion. We don't get handouts for equipment. We can't tell the engineering staff to hook up three-phase power or move 1000 lbs of metal. We pay for every instrument, every cinder block, handtruck and crane, every mass spec analysis and flo ppy disk. We do research on a shoestring a million times cheaper than you, and we produce a hundred times more energy than your best tokamak run, but we cannot perform miracles. Unless you prepared to open your checkbook and come lend a hand with the (literal) heavy lifting, I think you should can these suggestions. It is infuriating for me hear this kind of advice from a guy who is ROLLING in my money. I pay a third of my income for *your* salary, your equipment, your damn building! You get everything from me and rest of us taxpayers. You have no idea how expensive this kind of research is. And you have the gall to tell *us* how to scrimp on dynamometers?!? Don't tell grandma ho w to such eggs. Give me a break. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 09:04:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:49:54 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Hot fusion's hidden agenda? Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"4ZIEO.0.9w2.wWJAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11104 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: If you want to revive CF research, the best thing you could do would be to convince the military that a CF-bomb may be possible. That would not work. Claytor is already generating tritium at Los Alamos with cold fusion. The data should convince anyone -- at least enough to fund a replication in another weapons lab. Tritium is almost as important as a bomb. It is vital to H-Bomb maintanence. This small tritium generator should be ringing alarm bells in the non-proliferation establishment. But the military and everyone else in the establishment ignores it. The only way you could convince people with a CF bomb would be to explode a multi-kiloton prototype in an unathorized above-ground test. Any demonstration less convincing than that would be ignored and ridiculed, just like all other CF experiments. Fortunately, or unfortunately, most experts say a CF bomb is impossible. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 09:59:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:54:23 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Should we rob the hot fusion program References: <199709241134_MC2-21AA-612B compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"fX3jt.0.S25.3NKAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11106 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > If we could do this for a few thousand dollars in two weeks of > spare time, we would have done it months ago... > you could not even ship the darn machine down to Texas for a > thousand dollars. > Well, I will admit that I don't know how large your Griggs device is. Perhaps it is the size of one of the generators at the Hoover dam...in which case you are out of luck and I would say that you should have ordered a smaller model :-). But, barring that, I would like to see the outcome of a direct dialogue between you and Little/Puthoff about what could be done to test it. Knowing Scott Little, I'd bet that he would find a way if (a) you and Gene were truly willing, and (b) Griggs would agree to provide operating instructions. Have You and Gene acually negotiated with EarthTech on this, or are you just making hypothetical excuses? I of course don't know what other strings may be attached to EarthTech's testing, but most things would seem preferably to doing nothing. As for the more general comment about the costs: sorry, I just don't buy it. For instance, I have a friend with a fully functional electron microscope in his garage. He paid $100 for it, plus spending a couple thousand to put it into working order. He onc e bought an entire 30 foot, multi-ton microwave receiver dish for $500, including all the elctronics. He has a $5000 electronic balance that he got for a few hundred, and so on, endless examples---he simply knowns how to shop the used equipment world. We don't all have time to do that, but such people exist and are often willing to help out, if one really seeks them out. I would think with you and Gene's notoriety, you would be able to tap many more of these people than I, if you really wanted to. Since you are so concerned about your tax dollars, why don't you recover some of them from the used equipment market, most of which was purchased the first time around by universities and military using your taxes. -- 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 Wed Sep 24 11:52:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:46:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Martin Sevior Cc: Vortex-L Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:01:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"0WquO1.0.oX1.N0MAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11108 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com gnorts Vorts The three principal mechanisms of X-ray or gamma ray attenuation are photo-electric absorbtion, Compton scatter, and pair-production. The latter happens when the gamma photon gets close to an atomic nucleus (which conserves the momentum) and an electron and a positron are produced, and fly off in opposite directions. This is pretty standard stuff, in all textbooks on gamma rays since the thirties. Some advanced medical scanners are based on this. Are we talking something new and different in this thread? Hank ---------- From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 5:34AM On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Barry Merriman wrote: > > There must be some gap in my understanding of things, because I thought > the cross section for photon-photon scattering was 0. This is > naively because Maxwell's equations are linear, so photons > pass through eachother with no interaction (just superposition). > What am I missing here? > Yeah, I had trouble with this too when I first heard about it. Apparently you get a much larger cross section for gamma + gamma => something interesting (like Higgs paticles) than e+ e- => Higgs. There are schemes for colliding 100's of GeV photons off photons based on very high energy (e+ e-) linear colliders using the scheme outlined here. This is higher order QED rather than classical ElectroMagnetism. Two photons can couple directly to many different particles. Imagine for example, the time reversed e+ e- => gamma + gamma instead. Martin Sevior X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 11:16:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:11:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:14:38 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Seeking clarification Resent-Message-ID: <"4zDbu2.0.-U.MVLAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11107 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz wrote: > Dear Sir: > > Sorry to bother your during your work, but Jed Rothwell has you >as shown in full below. Because he widely publicizes his material, >and because he is wrong, I would like some clarification. > > Given that he has invoked your name, my apology to draw you in, >but the questions are below. > >At 10:18 AM 9/17/97 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip stuff on calorimetry and Benard instability] > Is this true? > > The articles in question is the following: > >1. Swartz, M, 1996, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy > Release Using a Bouyancy Transport Correction", > Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221. > >2. Swartz, M, 1996, "Potential for Positional Variation > in Flow Calorimetric Systems", > Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130. > > Here are the questions: > > Are you familiar with Bernard instabilities? Yes. > Have you measured them, or worked with them in >continuum electromechanical or other systems? Yes, I worked with them in an electrohydrodynamic experiment back in the late 1960s, shortly after I received my Ph.D. under Prof. J. Melcher, a pioneer in the field of continuum electrohydrodynamics at MIT. > Did you read the article involved? No. However, I read at least one other paper by you on this topic. I can't remember if it was in an ICCF Proceeding, Fusion Technology, or somewhere else. > Did you say what Mr. Rothwell has said you said? More or less, yes. You may recall a long discussion here on Vortex-L about a year ago (?) about flow calorimetry in attempted replications of cold fusion in Patterson cells. My colleagues and I built and operated our own copies of the Patterson cell. In order to understand our experiments, on several occasions we dedicated time to verifyiing the performance and possible pitfalls of our cells, including flow calorimetry as we practiced it. > Have you done experiments showing excess heat? Attempted, but I have never obtained excess heat in one of my own experiments. > Did you replicate Mr. Rothwells "kilowatt" claims as >he has inferred you may have? As implied in the above, I did not replicate "kilowatt" claims of excess power. I do not think that Jed Rothwell ever implied that I did. > Have you found in any of your studies that the observed >excess heat seen in a flow calorimetric system decreases >or otherwise changes when the flow becomes vertical vs. >horizontal? I have used flow calorimetry only in Patterson cells. Our Patterson cells had a vertical electrolyte flow upward through the bed of packed beads. We measured T_in in a constricted tube just before it opened into the cell volume. The exiting liquid was fi rst strongly mixed in the exit tube, and then T_out of this mixed liquid was measured. Our cell and the inlet and outlet tubes were thermally insulated, so temperature gradients in the outside air had little effect. The Benard instability can convect the rmal energy within the cell and modify its internal temperature distribution. However, it does not change the amount of thermal power into the cell, and, if the cell is well insulated (ours was), it cannot change the thermal power carried out of the cell by the liquid stream. Therefore, under these conditions, it is immaterial whether there is Benard convection inside the cell or whether the flow is vertical, horizontal or intermediate. The burden on the calorimetry is: to mix the liquid well to a uniform temperature, to measure (T_out - T_in) accurately, to measure the flow accurately (almost trivial), and to know the heat capacity of the liquid solution. We verified our cells' operation in this mode via a heater resistor located inside the cell. No corrections were needed. Sorry for the delayed response. I was away on travel. 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 Sep 24 12:06:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:57:37 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:01:18 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Test results, symmetry winding coil Resent-Message-ID: <"tI14a3.0.LX5.WAMAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11109 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com HLafonte wrote: >To all: Notice the reduction in Inductance but increase in Gauss and Force ! > >We have tested this design using two identical Guardian 11 HD INT 12VDC >solenoids. One solenoid was re wound using mirror image symmetry and the same >wire that came on the solenoid. The performance of the solenoid using the >mirror image symmetry is outstanding, far beyond the solenoid using >conventional windings. > > Resistance Inductance Current Gauss > Force > (ohms) (mH) (Amps 5VDC) @ 5VDC > (gms) >Mirror Image Symmetry 2.0 1.08 2.45 121.2 > 340 >Standard Winding 7.3 4.28 0.68 58.5 > 169 CAUTION TO ALL: Notice that the Mirror Image Symmetry coil consumes 2.45/0.68 = 3.60 times more power from the fixed 5 volt supply! The fixed 5 volts and the 3.6-times reduced winding resistance means that the new winding will overheat. It is clear from the table that all the changes can be explained by a change in the number of "electrical turns", a concept well known to coil designers. Mirror Image Symmetry has nothing to do with it. One can modify the number and distribution of turn s. But when one adds the constraints on not overheating, not saturating the iron core, total mass or volume, etc., the bottom-line performance (force vs watts) with a matched power supply is unchanged. 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 Sep 24 13:24:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:12:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , "Free Energy" Subject: a SPINDIZZY gif, and more explanation Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:18:45 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"weHUn1.0.CX4.PGNAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11110 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi folks! For anyone who is trying to visualize my complex gyroscopic scheme, here is some additional information. > > >BTW If anyone is interested I have written a post called THE SPINDIZZY > > >which I think goes to the heart of overunity efforts. I do not believe > > >anyone will find any "holes" in it, I have checked it over very > carefully. > > >If you DO, I want to know!! Although the example given is mechanical I > > >believe the principles are completely general. The mechanical example is > > >easy to visualize because the principles involve spatial orientation. > > > > > > > Can you do some drawing, to support your ideas... > > > > I do not understand this just from reading... > > Sorry again, I have looked at so many gyros I have forgotten that not > everyone knows the terms and space relations. > If you look at the GIF, The axis going straight up marked "Omega" is the > precessional axis, the axis marked "w" is the spin axis and the "axis of > nodes" is what I am calling the torque or output axis. > In a normal top or gyro demonstration a mass is attached to one end of the > w axis so there is a gravitational torque pulling it down. The gyro then > begins to precess around the omega axis, as I'm sure you have seen with > gyro toys, where the gyro is placed sideways on a little pedestal so that > it seems that it must fall, but instead it rotates around. > > In the spindizzy, the gyro is made to rotate around the omega > (precessional) axis as well as of course the spin axis. The result is that > a rotation occurs around the axis of nodes (what I call the output axis). > In a working model there would need to be a generator attached to the > platform of the output axis, a motor attached to the precession axis, and a > motor-generator attached to the spin axis. > ---The precession axis motor is simply to compensate for frictional losses > so it runs at basically no load (in fact it can be off for much of the > time-- the motors that drive missile gyros can be left off for 6 months at > a time!) > > ---The generator loads the output axis ("axis of nodes"). This is where the > power is taken off. > > ---The motor/generator performs three functions: > MOTOR > 1) It provides momentary bursts of power to maintain spin against > frictional forces. > 2) when the torque axis is loaded by its generator it provides a steady > torque to the spin axis to compensate for this. > GENERATOR > 3) when there is no load on the output axis, the motor acts like a > generator and extracts the stored power from the spin axis much like a > flywheel storage system. This is the key to O/U performance. The angular > momentum of the spin is used without depleting the spin energy. > > Note: I am not suggesting that anyone build this device, although it could > be done. Supplying power to a multiply-rotating framework would be > difficult, to say the least. Also, the mechanical inefficiencies would > result in an overunity performance of only about 100 to 120% efficiency. > The reason I am focussing on this device (when I am not making bad > suggestions to the TEP team :-\) > is to point out some basic principles having to do with spin, forces at > right angles, and nonreciprocal systems. I believe that the secret of > antigravity and overunity is in this demonstration device, and it has to do > with time. > > Fred > > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="gyro.gif" Content-Description: gyro (GIF Image) Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gyro.gif" GIF89a-‰ÄÿX-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 13:54:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:50:09 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: laser-powered rocket Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:34:08 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"3hP-e3.0.SQ5.0qNAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11111 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Does anyone remember the rather good story "The Mote in God's Eye"? An advanced civilization on a planet where cosmic dust obscured most of the sky launched a space probe as a solar sail driven by a laser cannon on a moon. The rest of the story was imagin ative and well written, worth a read. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 14:19:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:03:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:01:07 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Off-topic, SERIOUSLY off-topic Sender: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"7u_OL1.0.kq6.o0OAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11112 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts, all, This is a new phenomenon, and utterly weird. *Everywhere* I go, they are there, all these *old people*. The men wear well-pressed slacks and beige wind-jackets, the women smart skirts and jackets. Both sexes are depressingly healthy, in fact their face s *glow* with health. In motorway cafes, they sit chatting in cheerful groups, eating like food was going to be rationed, while the younger generation stare morbidly into their cups of coffee, stressed out with overwork. Worst yet was a recent visit (never again, I swear it) to the Meadowhall shopping complex in Sheffield. In one area these wrinklies were lin-dancing to a live orchestra (yes), and yet when we finally got to the place where this repellent activity was in progress, they had miraculously returned all the displaced chairs, and all was as if this spectacle had never happened. Scary. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 15:14:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:50:16 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Td6GX3.0.Vd.9nOAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11113 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Robert Bass sends out a steady stream of reports, mail and suggestions in a sort of manually operated one-man version of Vortex. Much of what he sends is either over my head or of no interest to me, but here is an important message. This is a letter from someone named Brodzinski, who is evidently at one of the government labs. I don't know who he is or which lab "pnl.gov" and "PNNL" stands for. If someone could enlighten me on these points I would appreciate it. - Jed Date: 24-Sep-97 16:06 EDT From: Ronald L Brodzinski Subj: Final Report on Cincinnati Group Experiment To: Robert Bass , Sorry I've been busy and haven't had time to read your messages. Forgive me, but I really have more to do than sit around creating junk mail all day. I did want to take a few minutes however, and give you my final report on the demonstration experiment performed at PNNL by the Cincinnati Group, and some logical explanation for the observations reported in their web site and elsewhere. 1) There was NO reduction in the amount of Th-228, Ac-228, Bi-212, Pb-212, or Tl-208 in the cell from before to after the run. 2) NO other gamma-ray emitting radioisotopes were produced during the run. 3) NO neutrons were emitted during the run. 4) Essentially all of the Th-232 was accounted for after the run, although some was inadvertantly wiped out of the cell during disassembly. We were not expecting the thorium to be physically deposited on the cell walls (along with iron and other elements) and simply wiped out the rust-like material into a bag before we discovered it was largely thorium and were able to quantify it. Also, significant quantities of thorium remain plated on the zirconium disc electrode and the zirconium cylinder. The thorium that was in solutions and quantifiable solids amounted to about 60% of the starting material. The remaining 40% are easily accounted for on the zirconium and in the dust. 5) There was significant electrolytic pitting of the zirconium surfaces, and large amounts of the zirconium and the impurities contained therein were dissolved in the electrolyte and partially replated on other surfaces. For example, the portion of the zirconium disc above the electrolyte solution contained over 200 ppm titanium while the portion in contact with electroyte was reduced to 100 ppm titanium. Most of this remained in solution. 6) The teflon gaskets and insulators are inadequate for preventing electrolytic dissolution of the stainless steel center rod, plug, and end plates. Significant quantities of those metals were also dissolved into the electrolyte and partially replated on other surfaces. For example, the stainless steels contain about 0.5% copper, much of which was dissolved and replated on the zirconium. Since copper is frequently purified by electroplating, it is very likely that previously observed copper flakes originated from the copper in the stainless steel. That this copper was also observed in blank runs supports this conclusion. 7) The isotopic composition of all elements was normal in all cases. 8) In summary, there was NO reduction of any heavy elements nor any production of new elements in the cell operated at PNNL. The electrolysis process simply boiled some water, dissolved some metals, and replated some of those metals. End of my report and discussion! * End of File * X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 15:19:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Champion To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:15:16 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"SxQit1.0.xR1.F3PAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11114 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com PNNL - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Joe Champion --- JoeC transmutation.com http://www.transmutation.com To call me using Net Meeting through the Internet, Dial: 207.204.154.102 My computer will answer 24 hours a day. If I am not in the office you will see an empty chair............ -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [SMTP:72240.1256 compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 2:50 PM To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group To: Vortex Robert Bass sends out a steady stream of reports, mail and suggestions in a sort of manually operated one-man version of Vortex. Much of what he sends is either over my head or of no interest to me, but here is an important message. This is a letter from someone named Brodzinski, who is evidently at one of the government labs. I don't know who he is or which lab "pnl.gov" and "PNNL" stands for. If someone could enlighten me on these points I would appreciate it. - Jed Content-Type: application/ms-tnef xŸ>"X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 15:58:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:54:30 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:53:52 -0400 (EDT) To: barry julia.math.ucla.edu, barry@math.ucla.edu, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] Resent-Message-ID: <"Kks_43.0.cv7.aePAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11115 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/24/97 1:07:41 AM, barry julia.math.ucla.edu wrote: <> Scattering of light by light is called Delbruck scattering, and does arise because of a quantum-mechanical nonlinerity of EM fields. A good accessible reference discussing this is J. D. Jackson's book "Classical Electrodynamics," 2nd edition, page 11, Wi ley, 1975. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 20:16:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:12:29 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:13:53 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NHE Double Calorimeter Resent-Message-ID: <"WGmQj1.0.TO.RQTAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11121 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 10:00 AM 9/25/97 +0900, Elliot wrote: >Mitchell Swartz writes: > > >>Within what temperature range is the inner (?) isoperibolic >calorimeter clamped?<< > > The nominal temperature is 10 C, but higher temperatures can also be >selected. The question must have not been clear. Given the nominal temp. (~10C?), do you mean that 10C is the range through which the delta-T traverses? What would have been the normal delta-T transversed without the external water mass flow calorimeter? ========================================= > The flow of the water mass flow calorimeter is adjusted so that >the temperature of isoperibolic calorimeter is kept approximately constant. >The water mass flow calorimeter consists of a spirally-wound tube which >basically surrounds the entire unit. We tried to avoid changes in potential >energy to the extent possible, but there is some vertical component to the flow. Hence the above question about the "temperature-clamping". > Several variations of the above were tried, and the sensitivity was >in the range of 0.04 W to 0.10 W depending on the configuration. > >Best regards, >Elliot Kennel >Sapporo Japan > Thanks. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 20:30:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:26:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:27:43 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: [Fwd: Aenertia, Aether and Anomalous Aenergy ....] Resent-Message-ID: <"AgTCO.0.wk6.idTAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11122 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:25 PM 9/24/97 -0800, "M.Twain" wrote: > >Vortex-L and friends, > >Free energy, new energy, zero-point energy, cold fusion, filamentary >fusion, cluster fusion, ether, aether, inertia, enertia, aenertia, >energy, aenergy? > >Just what are we looking at here? What foundation of nature? Whence >the creation of mass? How the production, where the origin, of energy? > >OU, Overunity? I like that term. It really spells it out. > >Anomolous energy? Well, sure, but we are beginning to understand its >origins in the ubiquitous aenertial aether. Thus it is generally not >anomalous at all. > >Unlimited Energy? Infinite Energy? Primordial Energy? Massergy? The choice of word will give precision (reproducibility) maybe. Maybe - because the OU/IE/CF/vortex/free-eng/etc. crowd is diverse and hardly likely to agree. Suggest accuracy. Therefore, here are some thoughts, and flames are probably deservedly forthcoming. ;-)X It is NOT infinite. It might be "free" in a sense, but surely whether it is free does not accurately describe WHAT it is. Cold fusion - It is. It makes He4, He3, and perhaps other products, and lots of heat which appears as phonons and infra-red. The aether-words are cute, but there has been as little evidence (to me, and if you have it my email address is below) for aether as there is for ZPE (excepting the miniscule zero point energy of materials at zero degrees K which is real). It is not anomalous, and if it is characterized as suchit should be divided in regular anomalous (as in nickel-light water systems) and the irregular irregular anomalous (as occurs in some bursts). I like primordial considering the link to deuterons only previous thought to be made "just after" the big-bang, but it seems quite esoteric and non-specific. Anyway: IMO -> cold fusion, and if the vortex can demonstrate data over unity, vortex-OU might create a dichotomy, although giving no indication as to the means, if any. For CF, the loading means, and material is usually specified, as in nickel-light water CF, or glow discharge loaded Pd CF. Perhaps the other systems might adopt that ancillary info to sort out the data. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 16:30:13 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:26:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:29:56 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Resent-Message-ID: <"EKWLe3.0.6o4.R6QAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11116 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com [snip] >This is a letter from someone named Brodzinski, who is >evidently at one of the government labs. I don't know who he is or which lab >"pnl.gov" and "PNNL" stands for. If someone could enlighten me on these >>points I would appreciate it. > >- Jed PNNL is Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Brodzinski is probably the R.L.B. Brodzinski listed in the "Directory of Physics, Astronomy and Geophysics Stafff", who is listed as working at the same laboratory. I do not know anything about him. 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 Sep 24 17:55:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:49:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:48:46 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Re: Fw: Dean Drive Resent-Message-ID: <"ikBcv3.0.jC1.HKRAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11117 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/24/97 7:04:58 AM, you wrote: <> I have an article, several pages long, giving details of the history. Let me know if you want a copy and where to send it. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 18:06:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:01:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:00:30 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: NHE Double Calorimeter Resent-Message-ID: <"3-a5r1.0.eq1.dVRAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11118 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz writes: >>Within what temperature range is the inner (?) isoperibolic calorimeter clamped?<< The nominal temperature is 10 C, but higher temperatures can also be selected. The flow of the water mass flow calorimeter is adjusted so that the temperature of isoperibolic calorimeter is kept approximately constant. The water mass flow calorimeter consists of a spirally-wound tube which basically surrounds the entire unit. We tried to avoid changes in potential energy to the extent possible, but there is some vertical component to the flow. Several variations of the above were tried, and the sensitivity was in the range of 0.04 W to 0.10 W depending on the configuration. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 19:32:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" , "vortex" Subject: Thronson drive info Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:37:51 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"cBU5c1.0.cX4.xhSAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11119 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi folks! I sent out info about the Thornson inertial drive to a number of people. Let me know if you wanted this information and I will send it to you when I get home next week. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 01:22:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:14:31 -0700 References: Conversation <01BCC93E.601DC3D0@chiltepine.ucdavis.edu> with last message <01BCC93E.601DC3D0@c hiltepine.ucdavis.edu> Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "Jean-Louis" From: "Fred Epps" Subject: Re: Thornson drive Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 20:54:21 PDT Resent-Message-ID: <"JLPyq1.0.5Y4.crXAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11133 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Dan! This message may not get through to the list or you, I don't have your email address down here but I will write it anyway in hopes... ---------- > > Hey, this is *very* close to a device that I cooked up a couple years back. > I was looking for a device to "rectify rotational force". Saw that there > might be something in the motion of a mass in a path that I knew as a > "cardioid" (Valone's paper calls it an "epicycloid"), since it looked like > the mass spends more time on one side of the main rotational axis than on > the other. Yes, I believe Jerry Decker has thought along those lines too. > > It was easy to make a simple device to drive a mass along that path. It was > not so easy to get my primitive device to hold together; there are some > pretty hefty forces developed even at low RPM. Yes, the fascinating nature of centrifugal force, the force that doesn't exist which can tear apart a rather large machine in a few seconds ;-) > > Back then, I did some fiddling with trying to figure out the velocities and > accelerations of the target mass. My math is very rusty so I was only able > to get approximations of forces, but it was looking like some very intense > second-order accellerations and decellerations going on in a small region > on one side of the path "Jerk" as they called it in the Dean drive articles, also used in the Woodward patent and a large number of other inertial devices. > - mechanically simple (the patented devices seem unnecessarily complex to > provide the net motion that they do; Valone's implementation looks good > enough to start with) Yes that is why I have been harping on this particular design. It is simple and might have good results. Here's a simple inertial force device I invented while i was writing this: Imagine a fairly heavy mass on the end of a good solid piece of spring metal so that if you pluck the mass it will wave back and forth. Mount it HORIZONTALLY above the surface of a platform, so that it can be vibrated in a horizontal plane. You can put frictionless wheels under the platform to test. Now what happens if you pluck the metal ball so the spring steel whips it back and forth? Are all torques and forces equal? What about the inertial forces on the ball? The vectors on the ball are exactly those of a body in rotation-- an acceleration at right angles to the spring, and a centripetal force that works against the tendency of the ball to move straight along the ac celeration vector, the inertia. if I swing a rock on a string over my head Iu can feel this force we call centripetal pulling my hand out. Why would this situation be any different? And since the force is only on the front of the device Now this may be one of those physics puzzles thin gs where you find out why it won't work and you slap your head, but there it is... > - even small units need to be built to withstand quite a bit of stress > - strong lateral forces produced from rotational force > - mirror symmetry but radially asymmetrical forces (did I get that right?) yup :-) > - the mass seems to spend more of its time on one side of the main spin > axis than on the other clearly shown in the analysis of Thorsons drive... > - it jerks back and forth in a most interesting fashion ;-) > - seems like the asymmetry could be taken advantage of by pairing with > opposite spins and spins in another plane (like in the patents) like Thorsen... > > Does anybody on the list have the mechanical wherewithal to put together a > simple implementation? I'd love to see a solid replica of even a one-sided > unit, would donate small $ and (if needed) suggestions toward building it. I will put in a little for parts if someone wants to build this. The orthodox view of physics is that: 1) centrifugal force and other reaction forces are not real forces. 2) all forces sum to zero within a system My view is that the only way that all forces can sum to zero over the extent of the universe is for centrifugal force to be a real force. The fact that the forces are summed over the whole universe seems to indicate that they might NOT be summed anywhere else...leading to the appearance of a centripetal force for which there is no equal opposing force. A note: gyroscopes do not exhibit centrifgual force, according to the experiments of E.R. Laithwaite. If you set your little toy gyro on a pedestal and let the gravitional torque put it into precession, and it is spinning rapidly, and you move the base of the pedestal half way over the edge of a table, so that the majority of the weight is over the edge for a half a rotation, the gyro will not fall. Fred > > Dan > > PS: please excuse and ignore any attachment following, I'm temporarily > forced into Microsoft mail product. > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 21:56:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:53:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:53:26 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Resent-Message-ID: <"mx8Ac2.0.me2.9vUAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11124 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> writes: >Date: 24-Sep-97 16:06 EDT >From: Ronald L Brodzinski >Subj: Final Report on Cincinnati Group Experiment > >To: Robert Bass , [snip] > 8) In summary, there was NO reduction of any heavy elements nor any > production of new elements in the cell operated at PNNL. The > electrolysis process simply boiled some water, dissolved some metals, > and replated some of those metals. End of my report and discussion! Sounds like a damning inditement of the Cincinnati Group and their alleged remediation device. So how did Liversage get it so wrong? Was it just a case of singing the song that the paying customer wanted? Or is Brodzinski in error? My guess at the moment is that the CG result is wrong, since the people involved are not PhDs, and amateur efforts in OU are as a rule either mistaken or worse, IMO. Kurt Johmann -- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 22:09:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:05:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Merriman To: vortex-l@ eskimo.com Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Resent-Message-ID: <"phZwZ1.0.bA3.S5VAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11125 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thanks for relaying the report. It certainly takes the wind out of the cincinatti groups sails. I suspect we have just stepped into the asymptotic zone, wherein their process receives legendary status as yet another "lost art". Of course, one such test does not put all the nails in the coffin, but it does eliminate any claims they can make about robustness. Science 1, God 0. PTL :-) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 22:27:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:23:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:22:35 +0900 To: vortex-L eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Resent-Message-ID: <"UY-5R.0.Lg3.2LVAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11126 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz wrote: >>Given the nominal temp. (~10C?), do you mean that 10C is the range through which the delta-T traverses? What would have been the normal delta-T transversed without the external water mass flow calorimeter?<< Sorry, 10 C is the heat sink temperature for the isoperibolic calorimeter, and the temperature of the inlet water in the mass flow calorimeter. At 5 W, the electrolyte temperature is 50 C, so the nominal delta T is 40 C at that power. We are using a thermocouple near the cathode to calibrate the isoperibolic calorimeter. If the tubing were removed, the cooling ability of the sink would be reduced , and so the temperature would rise in the electrolyte. Thus this cell really would not function well without the cooling provided by the mass flow calorimeter. Yours truly, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Sep 24 20:56:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:36:39 -0700 From: Jerry Organization: KeelyNet To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thronson drive info References: <199709250222.TAA15335 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"AZiSG1.0.mN.D1UAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11123 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Fred! Thanks for the information on the Thornson drive mechanism....I appreciate the time and effort it took to get it in computer form then to send it out.... However, would it not be more efficient for everyone concerned plus widely available to many if you simply posted a URL to the location of the files....this way it would not clog up email boxes and let people view it at their will? Don't get me wrong, the sharing of the information is all important, just that it took my computer awhile to download the files and I thought I had caught a virus..........thanks, keep up the excellent work! -- 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 Wed Sep 24 23:16:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:07:52 -0700 From: Dan Quickert To: "'vortex-l@eskimo.com'" Subject: RE: Thornson drive Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:05:34 -0700 Encoding: 45 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"Qh6c82.0.gb.t-VAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Fred and all, (A long post of personal anecdote, but hopefully pertinent): Hey, this is *very* close to a device that I cooked up a couple years back. I was looking for a device to "rectify rotational force". Saw that there might be something in the motion of a mass in a path that I knew as a "cardioid" (Valone's paper calls it an "epicycloid"), since it looked like the mass spends more time on one side of the main rotational axis than on the other. It was easy to make a simple device to drive a mass along that path. It was not so easy to get my primitive device to hold together; there are some pretty hefty forces developed even at low RPM. Back then, I did some fiddling with trying to figure out the velocities and accelerations of the target mass. My math is very rusty so I was only able to get approximations of forces, but it was looking like some very intense second-order accellerations a nd decellerations going on in a small region on one side of the path (I had a program that plotted the path and velocities and accelerations, but that's on a not-currently-installed disk drive; will see about firing that up soon). Seemed worth building a solid device for further testing, but time and materials weren't there, etc... Well anyway here's what I know about this device in its most basic form: - mechanically simple (the patented devices seem unnecessarily complex to provide the net motion that they do; Valone's implementation looks good enough to start with) - even small units need to be built to withstand quite a bit of stress - strong lateral forces produced from rotational force - mirror symmetry but radially asymmetrical forces (did I get that right?) - the mass seems to spend more of its time on one side of the main spin axis than on the other - it jerks back and forth in a most interesting fashion ;-) - seems like the asymmetry could be taken advantage of by pairing with opposite spins and spins in another plane (like in the patents) Does anybody on the list have the mechanical wherewithal to put together a simple implementation? I'd love to see a solid replica of even a one-sided unit, would donate small $ and (if needed) suggestions toward building it. Dan PS: please excuse and ignore any attachment following, I'm temporarily forced into Microsoft mail product. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 00:16:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:04:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:04:51 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Bill Beaty on Laura Lee Resent-Message-ID: <"LvwFL3.0.mA6.JqWAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11129 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com If I am not mistaken, this vortex-l list is hosted by "science hobbyist Bill Beaty". Apparently, Bill did a Laura-Lee radio show dated 4/5/97. The show is in an archive at: http://www.tstradio.com/lee2.html The above page has many entries, so just search for "Bill Beaty". The show's subject is the Taos hum, a low-frequency chronic sound which some people have the misfortune of hearing. So Bill, what is the actual web-address for the Taos-hum web page which you apparently have? I'd like to see it. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 00:18:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:10:54 -0700 From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hot fusion's hidden agenda? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:10:10 GMT Organization: Improving References: <199709241152_MC2-21AA-6361 compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"C8SHv3.0.Zv2.zvWAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11130 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:49:54 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >It is vital to H-Bomb maintanence. This small tritium generator should be >ringing alarm bells in the non-proliferation establishment. But the military >and everyone else in the establishment ignores it. The only way you could [snip] Perhaps the first is the reason for the second. 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 Thu Sep 25 00:18:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:11:17 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@eisa.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Barry's position Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:10:12 GMT Organization: Improving References: <19970924111805082.AAA130 default> Resent-Message-ID: <"7dd021.0.NH6.HwWAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11131 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:12:23 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: [snip] >With all the discussion of cathodes, it is apparent that the necessary >conditions **still are not known** for a classic P&F experiment. Of if >someone does *know*, they aren't saying. This is vastly different from >"uninteresting misinterpretations". > >Mike Carrell [snip] I would very much like to see a crystallographic analysis done on successful cathodes. It is my belief that success or failure depends critically on the presence or absence of specific structures. 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 Thu Sep 25 00:24:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:21:11 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:19:52 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: openway@nor.com.au Subject: About the Rodin coil experiment.... Resent-Message-ID: <"3ROjd.0.Jc6.W3XAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11132 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Content-ID: <0_28030_875171991 emout16.mail.aol.com.1547> Content-type: text/plain Hi All, On 25/09/1997 05:31:46 , Peter Nielsen wrote : << In any FE design two basic components are needed. One to excite the vacuum, and another to dimensionally translate and add its virtual particle flux to EMF within a "conventional" circuit. The first can be accomplished by a simple solenoid, essentially a self-embedding, contra-rotational vortex. The second by an inner bifilar coil, synchronised antiphase with the induced harmonic oscillations of the vacuum particles. IOW two drivers are needed. >> I think that it is possible with a Rodin style coil : T.E.Bearden has said ( "Introduction to Rodin Coil design" 1996 ) : << Obviously if you hold all the B-Field inside the coils of the torus, and then put something else in the center region outside the coils, you can get some additional potential and field energy there in the center of works. You can also get similar propagation outside the coil, with effects on distant objects. Rodin is apparently going by elementary electricity concepts but augmented by excellent native intuition. What he really is doing is attempting to separate the A-potential (i.e., the magnetic vector potential A) from the B-Field, and utilize the curl-fre e A-potential as an independent field of nature in the central "crossover" region. It is know that it is possible, the well known Aharonov-Bohm effect depends upon precisely this separation...>> Today, According to my first series of test, I can say that this coil have some interesting spec, as indicated in the original document. << Obviously the center crossover region is active !,...A long ferrite rod placed through the center of the Rodin style coil change the value of the inductance....So, the center region in Rodin style coil is quite active...>> ( See the attached picture wh ich shows the experiments.) You may find informations about the Rodin coil test results at : http://members.aol.com/overunity4/html/rcoil.htm You may see also a patent about EM transmission using the curl-free-A-field ( Gelinas patent ) at : http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/4432098 Sincerely, ( This mail has been sent at 07h03 GMT on 25 September 97 ) Jean-Louis Naudin ( France / GMT+2 ) Email : JNaudin509 aol.com my Overunity WEB Server : http://members.aol.com/JNaudin509/ Content-ID: <0_28030_875171991 emout16.mail.aol.com.1548> Content-type: image/jpeg; name="RCOILFER.JPG" ÿØÿàX-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 03:07:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 05:03:59 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Grou Sender: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"1BTbd3.0.-n1.dRZAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11137 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt, > My guess at the moment is that the CG result is wrong, since the > people involved are not PhDs, and amateur efforts in OU are as a > rule either mistaken or worse, IMO. And you might be correct (although I would doubt the reasoning of your comment). But you have recently attacked Greg Watson for 'fraud' - when apparently he was simply out of town - and you have attacked Jed Rothwell, who subsequently stitched you up big style. So, in your shoes I'd be a bit more cautious in my postings. I would also make some fairly humble apologies, in the way that you don't. By the way, you will note the hurry with which we repost negative stuff which appears (unlike the bulk of the feeble-minded drivel on s.p.f) to have some merit. Naturally, the Brodzinsky comments are themselves now coming in for some serious discussion. We'll see what the outcome is, but I would AGAIN stress that whatever is happening in a CG cell will be resolved if and when numerous tests are performed on the cells on sale with money-back guarantee by CG. There is an unhealthy tendency toward 'tabloid science', with people wanting instant gratification, immediate resolution of questions. Life isn't like that, and neither is science. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 10:02:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:10:54 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thronson drive info References: <199709250222.TAA15335 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"JYLbs1.0.v66.xVfAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11151 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > Hi folks! > > I sent out info about the Thornson inertial drive to a number of > people. Let me know if you wanted this information and I will send it to you when I get home next week. > > Fred Hi Fred, would you add my name to the list please. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 06:30:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 06:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:14:32 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Temperature Clamping in Isoperibolic Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"BWWJB2.0.o16.VKcAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11140 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:22 PM 9/25/97 +0900, Elliot wrote: >Mitchell Swartz wrote: > >>>Given the nominal temp. (~10C?), do you mean that 10C is the range through >which the delta-T traverses? > > What would have been the normal delta-T transversed without the >external water mass flow calorimeter?<< > >Sorry, 10 C is the heat sink temperature for the isoperibolic calorimeter, >and the temperature of the inlet water in the mass flow calorimeter. > >At 5 W, the electrolyte temperature is 50 C, so the nominal delta T is 40 C >at that power. We are using a thermocouple near the cathode to calibrate the >isoperibolic calorimeter. If the tubing were removed, the cooling ability of >the sink would be reduced, and so the temperature would rise in the >electrolyte. Thus this cell really would not function well without the >cooling provided by the mass flow calorimeter. > Thanks Elliot. Lets see if this is understood here. Your calorimeter with the external flow (temperature clamping OFF) had a 40 degree delta-T with 5 Watt input, into the control. Is that correct? If so, what is the temperature excursion (delta-T) with the external mass flow system on (temperature clamping ON). Is that 10 degrees? Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 06:29:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:24:36 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Barry's position Cc: Resent-Message-ID: <"IJkYv.0.L66.ANcAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11141 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mike (and Robin): Actually although some of the regions (with respect to loading and the changes wrought) are known, not all are, nor are their progression. x-ray spectroscopy, and the determination of assignment of phases is complicated. Try the Journal of Less Common Metals, and some of the other refs in my papers on catastrophic change and positive feedback within cold fusion systems. There a also occasional metallurgical papers on this subject in the ICCF proceedings and less frequen tally peripherally covered in Fusion Technology. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) At 07:23 AM 9/25/97 -0400, you wrote: >Robin wrote: > >> I would very much like to see a crystallographic analysis done on >> successful cathodes. It is my belief that success or failure depends >> critically on the presence or absence of specific structures. > >A very good comment. This converges with Peter Glueck's continuing >suggestion that the anomalous energy is associated with catalytic sites >where there are extreme gradients of conditions, not with bulk regions of >homogeneity. The problem is that we have no definition of what these >regions are like, so we have magic cathodes and a magic vendor. > >Mike Carrell > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 02:37:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jack@centuryinter.net Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 05:28:17 -0400 From: "Taylor J. Smith" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fw: Dean Drive References: <970924190312_-1263537545 emout14.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"CkG-j1.0.0L1.21ZAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11135 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Hal, My address is T. J. Smith 35748 Detroit Rd. Avon, OH 44011 If you send me your address, I can send you an S.A.S.E. to help keep your expense down. Thanks, Jack Smith Puthoff aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 9/24/97 7:04:58 AM, you wrote: > > < Did you hear about this from around some summertime campfire? Do you have > any photos? Drawings? Woodcuts? Cavepaintings? Anything beside that > incredible Name?>> > > I have an article, several pages long, giving details of the history. Let me > know if you want a copy and where to send it. > > Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 03:51:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:39:39 -0700 X-Intended-For: X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman) Subject: The Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?) Resent-Message-ID: <"91UMc2.0.Ib2.szZAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11138 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >>The Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?)??! > >I have an article, several pages long, giving details of the history. Let me >know if you want a copy and where to send it. > >Hal Puthoff Thanks for the offer Hal, but I don't think I'll have time for it anytime soon. For a moment, while I was looking at that name, I thought that perhaps maybe this might be some kind of vortex or cavitation device. Those types of devices are of primary in terest to me, and really, with all that is being discovered recently by the cavitation researchers, it is all I have time for. Almost everything else is a distraction. If you have anything relating to the Casimir Force, Bose-Einstien condensates, vortic es, cavitation, sonoluminescence, etc., I would be most grateful if you did send it to me in the most economical way possible at: Huffman Technology Company 1825 Nagle Place #210 Seattle, WA 98122 (206)325-2461 knuke aa.net Ideally, if you or anyone else for that matter, has anything along those lines, it would be great if you could scan, OCR, and put it up on a webpage. I would do it if nobody else would. That way anyone with access to a computer could read it at anytime. I realize this would require a considerable amount of time, probably some money, and of course the effort, but it really would be of enormous value t o people like me who rely so heavily on the Internet for information. Even if you've thought of this before, please read on. Almost all of the engineers that I know, are currently working alot of hours, and don't have the time to go back to school, and learn about some of the more recent discoveries and theories. Even if we all could go back to school and study, much of the st uff that you and others are currently working with probably won't even be in the textbooks for a few years anyway, so a webpage seems to be the best way of reaching the largest audience with the results of the most cutting edge research. I also believe t hat by making this information available to the general public, you can accelerate the rise in the level of understanding, acceptance and application of these newer discoveries and theories. I've looked at the Earthtech webpage, and it's a good start. The photos are nice, and give everyone a better idea of what it is that you guys are doing. You might consider either buying a scanner or contracting someone to systematically dump the entire contents of your filecabinets onto the net. My guess is, that with all of the crazy stuff that has probably passed through your inbox during your career, the contents of your filecabinets should probably be considered a national treasure. I'd sure read it. Jerry Decker and Bill Beaty have the right idea. Put everything onto the net, and let whoever wants it, have it. I guess what I am saying is, that I think the importance of doing this has not been assigned a high enough priority in the minds of some of the people who have spent time collecting information on these subjects. You just have to scan it in once, OCR it once, and put it on a webpage once. After that, millions of people can read it, if and when they want, without anymore effort on your part. Deals like that don't come around everyday, and I can't think of an easier, quicker, or better way to educate a large number of people. Just some thoughts. -Knuke X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 04:37:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 04:29:47 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Barry's position Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:23:27 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"K-n_p3.0.y42.fiaAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11139 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robin wrote: > I would very much like to see a crystallographic analysis done on > successful cathodes. It is my belief that success or failure depends > critically on the presence or absence of specific structures. A very good comment. This converges with Peter Glueck's continuing suggestion that the anomalous energy is associated with catalytic sites where there are extreme gradients of conditions, not with bulk regions of homogeneity. The problem is that we have n o definition of what these regions are like, so we have magic cathodes and a magic vendor. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 03:02:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:55:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:33:16 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" To: "Robert Bass " Cc: "vortex" Subject: Re: On Brodzinski's PNNL Report (0.5% Cu) Resent-Message-ID: <"-UT2c1.0.lX7.FKZAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11136 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:41:09 -0700, "Robert Bass" wrote: Dear Bob, Thank you for sending me this info. However, this is not actually a test: if the cell leaks in the upper side, water boils away (solutes remain in place), the volume decreases under the electrode disk and the PROCESS DOES NOT WORK. How could we explain that 80% of the water got lost? Or was missing? Do you have some voltage-current-temperature data for this experiment? I repeat: these data = not relevant, a minimum volume of liquid is mandatory. End of the analysis. 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 Thu Sep 25 07:22:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:17:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:21:20 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ceti onramp.net, design73@aol.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, halfox slkc.uswest.net, dennis@wazoo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, jonesse astro.byu.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, davidk@suba.com, shellied sage.dri.edu, schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il, zettsjs ml.wpafb.af.mil, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, nagel@dave.nrl.navy.mil, perkins3@llnl.gov, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, droege@fnal.gov Subject: [Fwd: Re PNNL's Report on CG's LENT process experiment] Resent-Message-ID: <"KCjzO1.0.31.W9dAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11144 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 25, 1997 Note by Rich Murray: In "Properties of Materials: Properties, Processing, and Selection of Materials," Table 16.24 (PART A), p. 16.62, for AISI Type (UNS) Stainless Steel, (S30430), the Typical Composition (%) is 3-4 Cu, 17- 19 Cr, 8-10 Ni, 0.08 C, 2.0 Mn, 1.0 Si, 0.045 P, 0.030 S, and, of course, Fe. 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 PAA23444 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rbrtbass.pahrump.com (user09.pahrump.com [205.226.146.109]) by pahrump.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA27250; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:27:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199709242227.PAA27250 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Toby Grotz" , "Ross Tessien" , "Mark D. Hugo" , "Joe Champion" , "Scott Chubb" , "Nicholas Palmer" <70374.3025 compuserve.com>, "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" , "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 Huggins" , "Rich Murray" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Robert M. Wood" , "Steve Okerlund" , "Tim Mitchell" , "John Strumila" , "Mike Carrell" , "Frederick J. Sparber" , "Michael J. Schaffer" , "Kent Harrison" , "Steven E. Jones" , "Harold Aspden" Subject: Re PNNL's Report on CG's LENT process experiment Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:24:59 -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 Ron, Thank you for presenting your Final Report in writing. The big news to me is that Stainless Steel (SS) is 0.5% Copper. I am not familiar with the exact weights of the various parts of the CG cell, but if I guess that the SS is about one pound, or 373 gms, then 0.5% of it would be 2 grams. Thus to get 6 or 7 Copper flakes totalling 0.1 gram, one would have to postulate that 5 percent or ONE TWENTIETH of the Copper in the entire _volume_ of the SS rod & end caps was electroplated out, whereas it was only the _surface_ of the SS parts that c ould even conceivably have provided the Copper flakes. So therefore the electrolysis would have to have penetrated more than one twentieth of the thickness of the exposed surfaces of the SS (if my guesstimates are more or less right) in order for contami nation to have supplied the Cu. I am not an electrochemist, but 5% penetration does not seem utterly implausible to me, so I agree that you have pointed out a conceivable source of contamination that could explain the Copper flakes as a misinterpreted artifact. I hope that in the next experiment greater pains are taken to exclude this type of error. Stan Gleeson, who is more conversant with the hardware than am I, once told me that either the Copper came from transmutation, or it was outright fraud & hoax. Since Stan knows that he has not committed fraud, he must have assured himself that the total amount of Copper available to the electrolyte vastly under-exceeded 0.1 gram. However, your comment seems to bring that assurance or assumption within range of being plausibly questionable, and I thank you for taking the trouble to bring this to light. Stan's confidence that Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation (LENT) is a genuine phenomenon does not rest upon this one experiment, but upon 4 years of work yielding _hundreds_ of similar results, including the soon-to-be-published apparent transmutation of T ungsten into Iron, Cadmium & Sulphur, but since you have been too busy to read my "junk mail" I guess you are not interested in trying that (even though explanation by contamination would appear to be infinitely more difficult, since there was nothing but a glass beaker, and Iron, Cadmium and Sulphur did not show up _at all_ in the blank run). Does laboratory glassware, or high-purity zirconium electrodes, contain significant quantities of Iron, Cadmium & Sulphur? If so, why were they not in the spectra of the blank run in which the _sole_ difference was the absence of Tungsten? No wonder you & Eric Wyse stopped reading my e-Mail, and classified it as "junk mail," as soon as I brought up the more elementary and harder-to-misinterpret LENT experiment involving transmutation of Tungsten! Still, I do thank you for the time you spent and I do apologize in advance if it turns out, ultimately (after more exhaustive tests), that your time was wasted. Sincerely, Bob Bass > From: Ronald L Brodzinski > To: Robert Bass ; Ronald L Brodzinski ; Norman J Olson ; stokes@pnl.gov; dashj@psu4.pdx.edu > Subject: Final Report on Cincinnati Group Experiment > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 1:09 PM > > Sorry I've been busy and haven't had time to read your messages. > Forgive me, but I really have more to do than sit around creating > junk > mail all day. I did want to take a few minutes however, and give > you > my final report on the demonstration experiment performed at PNNL by > the Cincinnati Group, and some logical explanation for the > observations reported in their web site and elsewhere. > > 1) There was NO reduction in the amount of Th-228, Ac-228, Bi-212, > Pb-212, or Tl-208 in the cell from before to after the run. ============================================ This does not say that there was no reduction of Th_232, which was the primary objective. Moreover, when Eagleton's postulated "multi-proton coherent resonance" is precisely correct for transmutation of Th_232, it is _off-resonance_ for transmutation of Th_228. ============================================ > > 2) NO other gamma-ray emitting radioisotopes were produced during > the > run. > > 3) NO neutrons were emitted during the run. > > 4) Essentially all of the Th-232 was accounted for after the run, > although some was inadvertantly wiped out of the cell during > disassembly. We were not expecting the thorium to be physically > deposited on the cell walls (along with iron and other elements) and > simply wiped out the rust-like material into a bag before we > discovered it was largely thorium and were able to quantify it. > Also, > significant quantities of thorium remain plated on the zirconium > disc > electrode and the zirconium cylinder. The thorium that was in > solutions and quantifiable solids amounted to about 60% of the > starting material. The remaining 40% are easily accounted for on > the > zirconium and in the dust. > > 5) There was significant electrolytic pitting of the zirconium > surfaces, and large amounts of the zirconium and the impurities > contained therein were dissolved in the electrolyte and partially > replated on other surfaces. For example, the portion of the > zirconium > disc above the electrolyte solution contained over 200 ppm titanium > while the portion in contact with electroyte was reduced to 100 ppm > titanium. Most of this remained in solution. > > 6) The teflon gaskets and insulators are inadequate for preventing > electrolytic dissolution of the stainless steel center rod, plug, > and > end plates. Significant quantities of those metals were also > dissolved into the electrolyte and partially replated on other > surfaces. For example, the stainless steels contain about 0.5% > copper, much of which was dissolved and replated on the zirconium. > Since copper is frequently purified by electroplating, it is very > likely that previously observed copper flakes originated from the > copper in the stainless steel. That this copper was also observed > in > blank runs supports this conclusion. > > 7) The isotopic composition of all elements was normal in all cases. > > 8) In summary, there was NO reduction of any heavy elements nor any > production of new elements in the cell operated at PNNL. The > electrolysis process simply boiled some water, dissolved some > metals, > and replated some of those metals. End of my report and discussion! > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 07:14:36 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:10:46 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:10:05 -0500 (CDT) From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Off-top ic, SERIOUSLY off-topic To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"7LBjQ2.0.3f7.a3dAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11143 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sepember 24, 1997 Chris, you unknowingly entered the 'twilight' zone. Da da, da duh (repeat). -AK- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 11:53:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:49:20 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:50:19 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Cc: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Resent-Message-ID: <"gJKFw2.0.pH4.k8hAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:46 AM 9/25/97 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Experts like >McKubre and Schaffer repeatedly take to the trouble to explain the principles >of calorimetry in the clearest possible terms: "The burden on the calorimetry >is: to mix the liquid well to a uniform temperature, to measure (T_out - T_in) >accurately, to measure the flow accurately (almost trivial), and to know the >heat capacity of the liquid solution. We verified our cells' operation in this >mode via a heater resistor located inside the cell. No corrections were >needed." It makes no impression on Mitchell Swartz. 1. Regarding the calorimetry, which Jed Rothwell often confuses with thermometry. Actually corrections may have been needed. And there involve discussions of precision, accuracy, noise, and modeling all of which Mr. Rothwell has stated he has no interest or apparent need. 2. Mr. Rothwell takes this statement above by Michael Schaffer, who apparently simply ignored other contributions to heat flow, heat storage, non-linearities, and the Bernard instability (taught by his teacher, the late. Dr. Jim Melcher in 6.527 or 6.528) as corroboration of the Rothwell Powergen "kilowatt". OK. If Jed will just get Mike Schaeffer to admit ONCE that Jed's claim of an uncalibrated "kilowatt" occured then his impression will have been made. Alternatively, Jed, or Mike Schaeffer can actually prove they are experts by writing out the equation and defending that all the terms are present, that the equation holds for the experiment in question, and that not other additional terms might influence the interpretation of data to be "plugged" into the equation. In the meantime, Jed is reaching for a conclusion which is just not there. 3. That corrections exist, or that more than one control might be needed, or that long term measurement to rule out energy storage, ...., appears to be lost on Jed. Perhaps that is why they can get "infinite energy"? ;-)X 4. Suggest Jed try a book on continuum electromechanics, or complicated heat flow, and consider the difference between thermometry and calorimetry before he continues to misinterpret what others say. Suggested keywords: density instability, thermal gradients, the nondimensional numbers of Archimedes and Rayleigh, Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 08:15:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:04:55 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:03:05 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: 72240.1256 compuserve.com Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Resent-Message-ID: <"JVOGg.0.wn1.MsdAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11147 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed, Thanks for posting the Brodzinski Report. It should clear away at least some of the fog generated by the Cincinnati Group's remediation claims. PNNL stand for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, in Richland, Washington, and is the email address there. PNNL is operated for the DOE by Battelle (see IE, No. 13-14, p. 16 col. 1), so the lab is sometimes called the Battelle Pacific North west National Lab. By the way, did Bass actually send out copies of the Brodzinski Report himself, or did it come to you by another route? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 08:52:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:44:20 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:38:48 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"SfSqk3.0.jG3.IReAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11148 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt favors us once more with a gem of logic. Quoting Brodzinski, > > 8) In summary, there was NO reduction of any heavy elements nor any > > production of new elements in the cell operated at PNNL. The > > electrolysis process simply boiled some water, dissolved some metals, > > and replated some of those metals. End of my report and discussion! > > Sounds like a damning inditement of the Cincinnati Group and their alleged > remediation device. Yes, indeed it "sounds like". > So how did Liversage get it so wrong? Illogical. Bordzinski may have got it wrong. There is only disagreement of available reports. > Was it just a case of singing the song that the paying customer wanted? Illogical. Brodzinski is also employed. Can Kurt state what Brodzinski's "customer" wanted? >Or is Brodzinski in error? A logical possibility. Also possible that Brodzinski truthfully reported a portion his observations, but the specific demonstration/test was flawed and did not reproduce the conditions truthfully reported by Liversage. There is information that most of the fluid in the cell was lost during operation, which clearly indicates that the conditions were not the same. > My guess at the moment is that the CG result is wrong Yes, it is a guess, just a guess > since the people involved are not PhDs Illogical. A PhD signifies hard work and the approval of a handful of peers with respect to a specific piece of work. It does not guarantee competence in experimental science which may or may not pertain to the case at hand. A PhD in nuclear physics does not qualify one in electrochemistry. The Wright Brothers and Edison were not PhDs; PhDs were earned by lesser people studying the fields these pioneered. > and amateur An amateur is one who works for the love it, without pay as being the primary motivation. Thus working for pay can imply doing the bidding of the payer, see comments above. Amateurs are often more careful and thorough than those who work on assignment. Am ateur sometimes implies untutored, a dilettante, as in amateur critic. > efforts in OU are as a rule Whose rule? >are either mistaken or worse, IMO. Let us examine the critics by the same rule. Barry has pointed out that the whole set of data must be examined. There are holes in the "Brodzinski" set and the "Liversage" set. Critics have been very quick to reject the Liversage set for perceived inconsi stencies and embrace the Brodzinski set, ignoring inconsistencies like the disappearance of a substantial portion of the fluid -- an indicator of a sloppy experiment. Thus there is more to be known before judgements are rendered. Mike Carrell > > Kurt Johmann > -- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 08:55:57 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:50:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:46:49 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"52ZBx2.0.8U3.LXeAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11149 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Tom Stolper asks: . . . did Bass actually send out copies of the Brodzinski Report himself, or did it come to you by another route? It came from Bass. As I said, he runs a one-man Vortex, constantly e-mailing things like this. This morning he has sent me four or five additional letters about this, including an exchange of questions and clarifications between him and Brodzinski, and a discussion of copper in stainless steel. Barry Merriman comments: Of course, one such test does not put all the nails in the coffin, but it does eliminate any claims they can make about robustness. Well, I wouldn't say it "eliminates any claim" but it does weaken the claim. I have seen prototypes that work robustly time after time, right up until the very day of the trade show presentation. This is what my mother called 'the innate perversity of ina nimate objects.' However, I agree with this assessment. This is a serious blow to the claim because Brodzinski says people from the Cincinnati Group came to the lab and performed the experiment, so the failure was not caused by inexperience or unfamiliari ty with the experiment. He says this is "my final report on the demonstration experiment performed *at PNNL by the Cincinnati Group*" (emphasis added). Bob Bass and Peter Glueck have called into question the Brodzinski report because he observed about 80% of the water leave the cell, and this was not seen in previous runs. They think a leak made the test malfunction, because "a minimum volume of liquid i s mandatory." If so, why didn't the G.C. people fix the leak? Bush questions Brodzinski's claim that the steel contained 0.5% copper, because handbooks say that much copper is not found in stainless steel, but Brodzinski says he measured the copper before the experiment. Barry introduces Yet Another Acronym (YAA!): "Science 1, God 0. PTL :-)" . . . Lessee: Put This Last? Pass The Lambchops? . . . no. Praise The Lord. That must be it. Here is an interesting little linguistic footnote. People think these acronyms become popular recently with the advent of e-mail. Newspaper editors and language purists rail against them, calling them modern electronic illiteracy. In fact, the acronym fad has come and gone many times in the U.S. It peaked in the 1830s, when newspaper gossip columns featured "A.S.A.P" and others, some 5 or 10 letters long. I wish I could remember examples. The most famous survivor is "O.K." What it stood for is not clear -- there are many theories -- but the acronym transm ogrified into the word "okay" and it has spread to dozens of other languages. Kurt Johmann makes a dark allegation of incompetence "or worse:" My guess at the moment is that the CG result is wrong, since the people involved are not PhDs, and amateur efforts in OU are as a rule either mistaken or worse, IMO. The expression ". . . or worse," means that Johmann believes these people may be engaged in a nefarious plot to defraud people with fake claims. He made similar claims about Greg Watson and others in the past. A question arises: If the G.C. is out to defr aud people, why on earth did they go to a National Laboratory and submit their experiment to a fully open test which they knew would be published on Internet, in our magazine, and everywhere else? This does not strike me as the kind of thing a scam artis t would do. He would know in advance the test will fail, the news will be published, and his scam will collapse. Before he publishes these dark allegations, Johmann ought to think twice and ask himself whether his suspicions are logical, and whether they fit the facts. As Chris says, "I'd be a bit more cautious in my postings." Chris suggested Johmann might "also ma ke some fairly humble apologies . . ." Apologies from a skeptic like Johmann are about as likely as a snowstorm in July. He made a serious accusation here, in a rude message. He accused me of "incompetence" at PowerGen. He said I have ignored the Jones an alysis. I went to the trouble to dig up the old messages from Jones. I set Johmann straight. I do not expect an apology, but it would be nice if he would at least acknowledge my message. It would be even nicer if he would admit he was wrong or post a rebuttal and show me where *I* am wrong. Bill Beaty said the problem is the other fellow does not listen. I disagree. People like Johmann listen, alright. The problem is that they refuse to answer! He makes a gross error, his memory has betrays him. I point out his mistake, and boom, that's the last we hear of it. The skeptic folds up, slinks away, changes the subject, e vades the issue . . . In six months, in some other forum, I expect Johmann will again be telling people that "the experimental evidence accumulated by Mitchell Jones and others was *against* Jed . . ." But not here, not now. I reminded Elliot Kennel that the entrained electrolyte hypothesis cannot be right because Pons and Fleischmann and the AEC checked for this, found the cause, and showed it does not happen during their boil-off tests. Kennel's statement that there are "holes in the data big enough to drive a truck through" was disproved years ago before the NHE got started. Since I told him that -- told him emphatically, for the third time -- we have not heard a peep out of him on this issue. I doubt we ever will. Experts like McKubre and Schaffer repeatedly take to the trouble to explain the principles of calorimetry in the clearest possible terms: "The burden on the calorimetry is: to mix the liquid well to a uniform temperature, to measure (T_out - T_in) accurately, to measure the flow accurately (almost trivial), and to know the heat capacity of the liquid solution. We v erified our cells' operation in this mode via a heater resistor located inside the cell. No corrections were needed." It makes no impression on Mitchell Swartz. He thinks he can rewrite the textbooks and overrule the experts with his Bernard Convection th eories, without a shred of experimental evidence to back up his claims! This is not a debate. It is more like a carnival shooting gallery where tin-plate clowns pop up and we knock them down with a b-b gun. It is futile: they pop up again a moment later w ith the same old discredited arguments. We make no progress, we reach no resolution. The only reason I ever bother to respond is to prevent other readers from thinking these people may be right. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 09:07:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:56:32 -0700 From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Kurt Johmann Cc: Vort ex-L Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:55:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"DFWSs.0.Ug3.lceAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11150 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt Do you mean, if I don't have a PhD I can't talk with you or participate in Vortex-L? Hank ---------- From: Kurt Johmann To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 9:53PM Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> writes: >Date: 24-Sep-97 16:06 EDT >From: Ronald L Brodzinski >Subj: Final Report on Cincinnati Group Experiment > >To: Robert Bass , [snip] > 8) In summary, there was NO reduction of any heavy elements nor any > production of new elements in the cell operated at PNNL. The > electrolysis process simply boiled some water, dissolved some metals, > and replated some of those metals. End of my report and discussion! Sounds like a damning inditement of the Cincinnati Group and their alleged remediation device. So how did Liversage get it so wrong? Was it just a case of singing the song that the paying customer wanted? Or is Brodzinski in error? My guess at the moment is that the CG result is wrong, since the people involved are not PhDs, and amateur efforts in OU are as a rule either mistaken or worse, IMO. Kurt Johmann -- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 10:28:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:19:16 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:21:25 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Resent-Message-ID: <"RRYG53.0.rf7.IqfAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11152 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To Vortex: R.Wormus give me a link that I found a formula to calculate of proton/electron mass ratio. (Also Neutron/electron ratio other properties of fundamental particles.) Actually, it is extracted from a book published at 1992. I used the formula (not so complex ) and found the correct value as Mp/Me = 1.83614678E+03. Note that *no* arbitrary constants are used on formulas. Everything is step by step are the result of the theory. Now I am asking is there any known formula for calculating this ratio. Then after, I will disclose the source. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 07:42:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:36:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:38:22 -0700 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr@bellsouth.net To: Vortex Subject: Hot Fusion in Europe Resent-Message-ID: <"XkEdb.0.Gk.pRdAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11145 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts, Vorts! Following is a Reuter's report on 50% breakeven from JET found at: http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=5087967-73c Also, note new email address. Terry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10:13 AM ET 09/23/97 European fusion lab sets new power output records By Paul Mylrea LONDON (Reuter) - Europe's flagship nuclear fusion program, researching what is potentially a safe and environmentally friendly energy supply of the future, has set a record for power output from the process. Scientists at the Joint European Torus (JET) project near the English university city of Oxford said Tuesday that new experiments had produced six times the power of the world's first controlled demonstration six years ago. The experiment, which creates energy by the same process taking place in the sun and the stars, also set a record for the ratio of power produced to power put in. But the record means JET, which produced 12 megawatts of thermal energy, enough when transformed into electricity to run 1,700 homes for an hour, is still only returning half the energy scientists have to put in. ``But what we did last night actually doubled the previous record of 25 percent,'' JET's Tom Elsworth said. The challenge now was to push ahead to produce more energy than goes in on the path to a commercially viable fusion power industry, which scientists believe will be a reality some time in the middle of the next century. ``Now comes the difficult part,'' Elsworth said. Cold fusion, briefly touted as the way forward after two researchers in 1989 sensationally claimed to have produced energy from a test tube experiment at room temperature, has since been comprehensively dismissed. Research now centers on the JET project and similar ones around the world. JET works by fusing relatively light atoms together to create even heavier atoms. The same process produces sunlight. But reproducing the process on earth requires even higher temperatures than in the sun. To do it, scientists contain hot gas, which can reach temperatures of 200 million degrees centigrade, inside a doughnut-shaped device called a torus, walls of which are made only of strong magnetic fields. The fuel is deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen widely found in water, and tritium, a still heavier form which is manufactured by the reactor itself. The by-product is helium, an inert gas. Unlike nuclear fission, which is used in the A-bomb and by present nuclear power plants, the conditions needed for self-sustaining fusion are so delicate that any instability stops the reaction. Added to this, there is no need to store radioactive waste long-term and the fuel is both plentiful and cheap. ``One gram of fusion fuel could power 5,000 homes for a whole day,'' said Elsworth. Despite the success, the future of the project is in doubt. JET has funding only until 1999. A new international experiment, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, 10 times the size of JET, is planned for early in the new century with funding from the European Union, the United States, Russia and Japan. But Britain, concerned about the cost, is considering ending its involvement in fission research. The United States has also mothballed its counterpart to JET, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton, N.J., because of budget cuts. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 12:07:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:04:20 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:10:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off-topic, SERIOUSLY off-topic Resent-Message-ID: <"sLVrG.0.635.oMhAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11155 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ref: old 'wrinkely' people: On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Akira Kawasaki wrote: >> >>Chris, you unknowingly entered the 'twilight' zone. Da da, da duh >>(repeat). >> >>-AK- Also, they've been know to side-step (AVOIDing) subjects like abortion, gun control, creationism, the Death Penalty, mandatory motorcycle helments, prayer in public schools, bilingual education, Legalizing Drugs, Government larger vs smaller AND SEX.... The arrogance of 'em.. you'd think that they are acting like they KNOW something that YOU don't... (AND their Dancing to Boot??) Have a nice day. :) -=se=- Time/wisdom = (nah....never-mind- that could never add up:) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 11:13:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:07:55 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:11:36 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: About the Rodin coil experiment.... Resent-Message-ID: <"NkGp82.0.xx1.wXgAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11153 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >I think that it is possible with a Rodin style coil : > >T.E.Bearden has said ( "Introduction to Rodin Coil design" 1996 ) : ><< Obviously if you hold all the B-Field inside the coils of the torus, and >then put something else in the center region outside the coils, you can get >some additional potential and field energy there in the center of works. You >can also get similar propagation outside the coil, with effects on distant >objects.[snip] >Today, According to my first series of test, I can say that this coil have >some interesting spec, as indicated in the original document. ><< Obviously the center crossover region is active !,...A long ferrite rod >placed through the center of the Rodin style coil change the value of the >inductance....So, the center region in Rodin style coil is quite active...>> >( See the attached picture which shows the experiments.) I disagree with your conclusion. The RCOILFER figure shows that the coil is incorrectly wound to "hold all the B-Field inside the coils of the torus." The reason is that the conductor (clearly visible in the figure) wraps around the torus in the _toroidal _ direction, as well as the poloidal direction. The toroidal component generates magnetic induction B through the central hole of the torus, where it naturally interacts with the ferrite placed there. In order to "hold all the B-Field inside the coils of the torus," one must wrap the wires only in the poloidal direction. Even so, normal winding technique would leave a single turn in the toroidal direction, from the winding start around the torus to it s finish. This toroidal turn can be eliminated by winding a second layer that proceeds toroidally in the opposite direction to the first. 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 Sep 25 13:14:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:02:44 -0700 (PDT) From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:01:42 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: Schaffer gav.gat.com Subject: Re : Re: About the Rodin coil experiment.... Resent-Message-ID: <"Oqsxn3.0.DT5.YDiAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11156 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 25/09/1997 20:13:41 , Michael J. Schaffer wrote : << I disagree with your conclusion. The RCOILFER figure shows that the coil is incorrectly wound to "hold all the B-Field inside the coils of the torus." >> This is the Bearden's conclusion, not the mine..... My main goal is to reproduce the original design of the Rodin coil and give to you objectivly my feedback and the results of my tests about this device. ------------------ << The reason is that the conductor (clearly visible in the figure) wraps around the torus in the _toroidal_ direction, as well as the poloidal direction. The toroidal component generates magnetic induction B through the central hole of the torus, whe re it naturally interacts with the ferrite placed there. In order to "hold all the B-Field inside the coils of the torus," one must wrap the wires only in the poloidal direction. Even so, normal winding technique would leave a single turn in the toroidal direction, from the winding start around the torus t o its finish. This toroidal turn can be eliminated by winding a second layer that proceeds toroidally in the opposite direction to the first. Michael J. Schaffer >> Thanks for this input, Michael, I shall tried this new setup as soon as possible. It seems to me interesting to compare your new design with the original Rodin Coil design... Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 14:45:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:36:03 -0400 From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541 compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Off-topic, SERIOUSLY off-topic Sender: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"SAMht1.0.tm1.iejAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11157 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Steve, > abortion, gun control, creationism, the Death Penalty, mandatory > motorcycle helments, prayer in public schools, bilingual > education, Legalizing Drugs, Government larger vs smaller... But these are matters of purely parochial concern to US citizens on this list. Chris X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 16:52:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:40:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 19:39:52 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Resent-Message-ID: <"nyL7j1.0.2G6.pPlAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11158 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In a message dated 9/25/97 5:31:57 PM, Hamdi asked: <> As far as I know there are no theory-derived formulas. There are some "numerological" formulas without a theoretical basis, such as Mp/me = 6 (pi)^5. Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 17:47:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 03:40:49 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio References: <970925193346_2064773171 emout18.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"WHHTj1.0._Y1.PImAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11160 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com The link is http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm I carried the calculations to a excel worksheet. I could put it on my web page tomorrow after completing it. Waiting comments, questions, analysis and critics. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 16:53:54 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:52:09 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Resent-Message-ID: <"XlQoS3.0.Xg6.jalAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11159 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >To Vortex: > >R.Wormus give me a link that I found a formula to calculate of >proton/electron mass ratio. (Also Neutron/electron ratio other >properties of fundamental particles.) Actually, it is extracted from a >book published at 1992. I used the formula (not so complex) and found >the correct value as Mp/Me = 1.83614678E+03. > >Note that *no* arbitrary constants are used on formulas. Everything is >step by step are the result of the theory. > >Now I am asking is there any known formula for calculating this ratio. > >Then after, I will disclose the source. No need for secrecy here, we would tell you or not no matter what. Any way, I know of a guy who has a means of doing that, might be the same guy. Thomas N. Lockyer. He presented a paper at the "Conference on the Fundamental Structure and Mechanisms of the Universe" which I hosted here in CA last spring. I still have some copies of the conference proceedings available for $20.00 if you are interes ted. Though his stuff may be on the web. The proceedings have 17 papers and about 230 pages. Any way, he does it with series calculations. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 18:17:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:16:09 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 04:17:56 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio References: <199709252352.QAA07126 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"rOdG71.0.7M5.NpmAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11162 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross Tessien wrote: I wrote: > > Now I am asking is there any known formula for calculating this > > ratio. Then after, I will disclose the source. > No need for secrecy here, we would tell you or not no matter what. > Any way, I know of a guy who has a means of doing that, might be the > same guy. Thomas N. Lockyer. He presented a paper at the "Conference > on the Fundamental Structure and Mechanisms of the Universe" which I > hosted here in CA last spring. Correct. This is great (that you hosted him). Thank you for the information about the author recent activities. I am considering the theory very seriously and wish get your feedbacks only for a mathematical issue but not about the whole theory which may l ead to speculations. This is why I did not just referenced the site at first. > I still have some copies of the conference proceedings > available for $20.00 if you are interested. Though his stuff may be > on the web. The proceedings have 17 papers and about 230 pages. > > Any way, he does it with series calculations. I would like of course to get these papers. As I am residing in Turkey, I should find a practical way to transfer you the expense, including the post cost. > Later, Ross Tessien Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 18:51:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:48:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 19:53:00 -0500 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, rdeagleton csupomona.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, design73@aol.com, ceti onramp.net Subject: [Fwd: [2]C,G,vS Rebut PNNL Report re CG's LENT Experiment] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"xa2fk3.0.Zj6.gHnAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11165 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 finland.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA21514 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:51:28 -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 HAA32032; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:35:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199709251435.HAA32032 pahrump.com> From: "Robert Bass" To: "Ronald Brodzinski" Cc: "Harold Aspden" , "Steven E. Jones" , "Michael J. Schaffer" , "Frederick J. Sparber" , "Mike Carrell" , "John Strumila" , "Tim Mitchell" , "Steve Okerlund" , "Robert M. Wood" , "Charles G. Beaudette" , "Gus P. Andrews" , "Talbott Chubb" , "Susan Blackburn" , "Robin van Spaandonk" , "Rich Murray" , "Robert Huggins" , "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" , "C. D. Johnson" , "James Powell" , "James A. Carr" , "James Bowery" , "Joseph N. Ignat" , "Horace Heffner" , "Gary Steckly" , "Grant Hudlow" , "Ed Wall" , "David A. Scott" , "Douglas Morrison" , "Charles McNeill" , "Bill Ward" , "Gordon Brightsen" , "Nicholas Palmer" <70374.3025 compuserve.com>, "Scott Chubb" , "Joe Champion" , "Mark D. Hugo" , "Ross Tessien" , "Toby Grotz" Subject: [2]C,G,vS Rebut PNNL Report re CG's LENT Experiment Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:33:00 -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 There follow Rebuttals/Comments re PNNL Report on CG's LENT Experiment by, respectively, Mike Carrel, Peter Glueck; and Robin van Spaandonk ================================== Dear Bob, I don't need to tell you that the PNNL report is as damaging as the official reports condemning the P&F effect. Since you don't read vortex, you may have missed my comments on the efficacy of the Teflon seals and the depth of the puddle of electrolyte in the horizontal cell. The configuration of these seals is not perfect nor hermetic, but it is not plausible that there will be gross exposure of the SS to the electrolytic processes in the cell. The end caps are not electrically connected and there is no r eason to assume electrolytic activity there. I suspect that boiling does not take place because of the increased pressure inside the cell. I doubt that there is a conductive path to produce electrolysis between the SS rod and the zirconium shell. All reas on indicates only the zone between the edge of the disc and the zirconium shell. I would be interested in photographs of the pattern of the alleged plating out of copper, and the assertion that it occurs on the blank run also. Broadzinski seem to have found what he wanted to find. The claim of no change in the Th concentrations is more damaging that the Cu migration. The claim was that CG did the demonstration before them. Did CG not also witness the disassembly of the cell and the subsequent tests? Rich Murray, Dick Blue, Steve Jones, Morrison, etc. will make much of this. But roses to you for including all in your distribution list. Regards, Mike Carrell ============================= Bob, you are welcome to forward my comments. Below I will copy previous postings which originated in discussion with Murray/Blue assertion of contamination from the SS. You don't listen to vortex, I'm not sure which keyhole you peep through. In a formal l ogic sense, it is not a replication of Liversage's tests. There is absent from both reports enough detail for 3rd party observers/commentators to determine exactly why the conclusions are so different. This has happened many times before in the Cf arena, and it happened with the NBS testing of the Newman machine. I was and am brief because I don't want to occupy bandwidth with rehashing past stuff unless it serves some purpose. A selection of previous posts: ------------------- A careful examination of the Cg cell depicted on p17 of IE 13/14 will show that the fluid touches only zirconium during the operation of the cell. The internal volume of the cell is about 116 ml, and the protocol calls for 25 ml of fluid in it, or about 22% of the internal volume. With the cell in the horizontal operating position, the fluid will fill the cell to a depth a little more than 1 cm. The mathematicians here can calculate a more precise number. The fluid is prevented from contacting the stainless steel end plates by the end gaskets and the O-rings which fit into grooves machined in the ends of the central cylinder. The fluid pool is too shallow to contact the Teflon insulators covering the stain less steel rods supporting the central disc. The description notes that the Teflon pieces are longer than the rod, so they are tightly compressed and seal the rod from the reaction chamber. All the current in the cell flows between the periphery of the disc and the interior of the cylinder, a volume nearly 12 cm long and of indeterminate cross section. The electrical power into this volume reaches the order of 200 WRMS. The cell temperature reaches the 250 F, with an inferred internal pressure of the order of 4 atm. Others can check me, but I doubt that boiling of the liquid will occur, being suppressed by the internal pressure. There will be vigorous circulation of the fluid. An arc very probably forms in the fluid between the electrode and shell, but the extent of the arc is uncertain. It probably fills the volume covered by the fluid, and may extend around the circumference, as there will be a conductive vapor in the cell. Critics have cited contamination from structural members as the source of anomalous elements present in the assays of the CG and RIFEX cells. There are some very fundamental differences. In the case of the RIFEX cells, there is a relatively large volume of fluid which circulates through the cell, which (in principle) can sweep contaminates from a large area and deposit them on the beads. And the RIFEX cells operate with DC, so there is a tendency to preferentially deposit material on the cathode beads. The CG cell is closed. The fluid contacts only zirconium, and the inside surfaces of the end gaskets. The end gasket material is unspecified, but is probably Teflon. Arguments that contamination comes from the stainless steel will have to show in detail how this can occur, since the fluid does not touch the stainless steel, except very small wetting which may occur as the cell is assembled and fluid introduced, before it is sealed. The fluid contains 0.25 drop of HCl, .25 gm thorium nitrate, and water. Hardly a corrosive mixture. Further, since the cell operates on AC, and the arc is in a small region, there is no preferred electrode for the deposition of contaminates , if any. The primary transmuted material is in the fluid, not the electrodes. Having witnessed the harumphing of critics in this and other fields, I have noted that the critics are often themselves guilty of the careless observation and sloppy reasoning of which they accuse the experimenters. In the case of the CG cell, I see caref ul thought given to the design of a simple cell whose macroscopic products are easily analyzed, with few sources of contamination. Mike Carrell -------------------- I had speculated that arcing occurs in the annular reaction zone in the CG cell. Valid objections have been raised, including the actual resistance as seen by the voltage and current measurements given in the protocol. Arcs are negative resistance phenome na and would have shown much lower ratios of voltage/current unless external current limiting is used. No such limiting is indicated in the protocol. The cell geometry is surely not accidental, but designed to contain a reaction between the electrolyte and zirconium electrodes. It produces an intense reaction zone, where the current density is high. Without specific dimensions, the actual density can't be calculated. There will be vigorous circulation of the electrolyte. The use of AC is curious. Normally, DC is used in an electrolytic cell to utilize the distinctly different processes at the anode and cathode. In the CG case, both are zirconium, and at 60 Hz there is ample time for reactions to occur at whichever surface is the cathode. In this case, use of AC is simply a convenience and rectification an unnecessary complication. The geometry of the cell is similar to some forms of gaseous rectifiers. If one electrode is a point and the other a plate, current flows much better when the point is the cathode. The mechanisms at work are different from the aqueous CG cell, so the anal ogy may not stretch that far. It would be interesting to know if the process works as well with stable, filtered DC, and if there is a preference as to which electrode is the cathode. In this vein, it is worth noting that stable, orderly zones may not produce the reactions sought. Jed has pointed out that the fatal error in much of the NHE work was a predisposition to room temperature, high stable environments thought to promote precis e calorimitry, which instead suppressed the sought-for reactions. My thought in suggesting arcing was a zone of intense gradients of electric field, hydrogen and oxygen ion concentrations, temperature, hydrodynamics, etc. Plasma, if it exists, is simply a rich source of free protons which are available for LENT reaction s. Joe Champion has noted that there are LENT reaction pathways that involve oxygen, also richly available in the reaction zone of the CG cell. One could speculate that AC would alternately provide O and H ions to a given volume of electrolyte faster than that volume would be removed by circulation. A test for this case would be a study of reaction rates as a function of the AC frequency. One could additionally speculate that cavitation occurs, but there is no direct evidence for this. Arata in his paper suggests the transient creation of zones within solid palladium wherein plasma conditions are created and which may provide the means of LENR and the production of He within the palladium crystals. The internal probes suggested by Rich might give interesting clues as to the nature of the internal processes. These will have to wait until more people have passed the Existence proof threshold and the resources of a laboratory with substantial staff and resources are used to study the phenomenon. The target now is more confirmations of the Existence of LENT, for which the kits are offered for sale. Existence does not depend on detailed understanding of the processes involved. Scale-up does not depend on detailed understanding of the processes invo lved, but can make the scale-up more cost-effective. Blue has objected to the Existence of LENT by citing problems of nucleon counts and energy balance in some reaction pathways. Aspden in his Research Note 14/97, available at his Web site, shows reaction pathways that account for observed Cu and Ti abundan ce ratios with mass-conversion energy release that is consistent with the experimental observations. I believe that Champion has proposed other reaction pathways. I hope that DoE will move forward with the CETI and CG cells. The radioactive waste disposal problem is so urgent and costly that deployment of even imperfect LENT cells should begin as soon as possible. Mike Carrell ------------------------- Robin takes issue with my view of the isolation of the stainless steel rod: > On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:57:03 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: > [snip] > >Except that the cell construction isolates the stainless steel surfaces > >from the electrolyte, which sees only plastic (Teflon and the end gasket > >material, probably also Teflon) and zirconium. > > Having finally received my copy of IE, I am now in a somewhat better > position to comment on this. From the diagram on page 17, it would > appear that there is no seal between the zirconium washer in the > middle, and the end of the Teflon insulator that appears designed to > isolate the stainless steel rod. IMO, this leaves room for the > solution to enter Teflon tube, eroding the stainless steel rod. In bold type on Page 17 of IE, just above the page number is the statement: "Teflon sleeve is slightly longer than SS rod -- for tight sealing of the rod when bolts are tightened." The straightforward interpretation of this is that a) the illustration is not scaled, b) each Teflon sleeve segment is longer than the SS rod segment it sheaths, c) that a seal is formed between each sleeve and the zirconium disc and the end gaskets or SS end caps, depending on details not shown. This implies as a practical matter that the electrolyte does not get to the SS rod during the operation of the cell and any presence of Fe, Cr, Ni, etc. in the post-processing assay did not come from the rod or e nd caps. Mike Carrell --------------------------- Continuing the discussion, Robin points out: > However, this still doesn't take two important facts into account, > both of which you snipped from my reply. > > 1) Everything expands when heated. This could at least in theory open > a gap between either the sleeve and the washer, or the sleeve and the > end gasket, due to differences in expansion coefficients. My 1946 edition of the Chemical Rubber Handbook does not have coefficient of expansion figures for Teflon. However, consider the following: The internal pressure of the cell reaches 4 atm., inferred from steam tables and measurement of temperature on the outside of the zirconium cylinder. At that pressure, steam will spurt out of any leaks. Without explicit dimensions, we don't know what fits into what. A reasonable assumption from good engineering practice is that the SS rod passes through larger holes in the end caps and does not contact the end caps. While the whole cell will reach substantially the same temperature during operation, the c lamping rods will be marginally cooler -- they certainly won't be hotter -- than the rest of the cell. If the initial dimensions are correctly chosen, no leakage should occur. No leakage is reported, nor is the specific absence of leakage reported. If there were substantial leakage, the contents of the cell would boil away and the reported shell temperature of 235-270 F would not be reached. > 2) Run number 2, purportedly done as a control, shows such large > amounts of iron in solution, that it results in a numerical overflow > in the display function of the computer program producing the report > (i.e. "OVERRANGE" in Total Intensity column). > > Both of these facts combined, provide IMO sufficient reason to redo > the experiment with zirconium rods ISO stainless steel. This would > appear to be the simplest way of deciding the matter. > Ideally the end plates should also be zirconium, as there is > necessarily a hole in the end gasket, where the stainless rod passes > through to the end plate. However, I suspect that if the end plates > contribute anything at all, it will only be a tiny percentage of that > contributed by the rods, so that replacement of the rods alone should > contribute far and away the largest improvement in signal/noise ratio. > > Please note that I do think this experiment shows very interesting > results, however an improvement in SN ratio wouldn't go astray. These second comments put me to scrutinizing the tables much more carefully than I had before, and found much that puzzles me. Since my understanding of the measurement process is very limited, I'm not going to pontificate about it. I agree that the data is tantalizing, and improvements in the S/N ratio would be welcome. A couple of interesting items: Scan 2, the cell blank was processed in the cell. Not just Fe, but lots of other elements appear. From where? There seems to be some uncertainty in assignment of mass numbers to elements. The starting point was dilute hydrochloric acid, which saw Zr and T eflon. N, O, and F were not measured; if there were decomposition of the Teflon, F should be released. There is evidence from other sources of the existence of LENR and LENT. Since we know almost nothing about the rules governing these processes, one can conjecture that more than one process is at work here. Transmutation of Th is only one of possibly many. Fe shows up in the copper flake. Fe has been reported as appearing in several arcing experiments involving C and water. Not much C present here, but Fe is also the least-energy nucleus. Liversage reports: "After processing the cell blank and thorium test samples, the cell contents were extracted with a 5% nitric acid/5% hydrochloric acid leaching solution". Does this imply that the cell and components -- including the SS rod -- were wash ed with this solution? My preceding analysis suggests that the SS rod is effectively protected during cell operation, but if it is washed in an acid solution afterwards, then there is a pathway for the constiuents of SS to show up in the ICP/MS analysis. Such would not invalida te the measurements pertaining to the thorium transmutation. Any help from the experts? Mike Carrell ----------------- This discussion is rapidly converging, but I have a quibble or two. Robin says: > I wasn't actually referring to external leakage, but rather internal, > between central rod and contents. and > I obviously guessed wrongly about the expansion coefficients. However > the actual figures do present another problem. The coefficient of PTFE > (Teflon) is about 7 times as large as that of the steel. This means > that in fact the Teflon isn't going to have anywhere to go as it tries > to expand (particularly as it is already quite a tight fit, as pointed > out previously by Mike). This may have led to cracks occurring in the > Teflon sleeve which would have allowed the acid solution to contact > the SS rod. As the cell cooled down again, and the Teflon shrank, such > cracks might well close up again, becoming almost invisible without > careful scrutiny. > I therefore respectfully suggest to the CG, that they examine the > Teflon sleeves carefully for signs of microscopic cracking, as well as > taking into account of course, the pathway proposed by Mike above. Teflon will flow under pressure, and is not likely to crack. What happens is a function of the initial dimensions chosen. I see no reason why they cannot be chosen so that the seals internal and external will remain intact throughout the thermal cycle. Liversage has posted a reply to Blue's comments which showed up this morning. I will craft a question to Liversage about this issue. I'm fundamentally satisfied that Liversage's work is adequate for the purpose intended, to focus attention on the CG proce ss as worthy of careful study and replication, and not arbitrary dismissal. Note that Miley's staff confirmed the essential finding, transmutation of Th, as reported on page 22 of IE 13/14. Mike Carrell --------------------- This brings the commentary down to the point where I asked you about how to post questions to Liversage. Gird yourself for battle. As CG's guardian of intellectual property you may now find yourself heading the defense team. Regards, Mike ============================= Dear Bob, Thank you for sending me this info. However, this is not actually a test: if the cell leaks in the upper side, water boils away (solutes remain in place), the volume decreases under the electrode disk and the PROCESS DOES NOT WORK. How could we explain that 80% of the water got lost? Or was missing? Do you have some voltage-current-temperature data for this experiment? I repeat: these data = not relevant, a minimum volume of liquid is mandatory. End of the analysis. 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 ============================= On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:41:09 -0700, Robert Bass wrote: [snip] > Then how do you account for the fact that when the cell was >opened, the volume of the electrolyte had decreased from 25 ml to >4.5 ml, an 80% (EIGHTY PERCENT) reduction? > Stan believes that there was no leak, because he says that >when there is a leak, there is invariably subsequent visible evidence >of it in terms of marking on the outside. However, be that as it may >(and Eric Wyse told me that you were sure that there had been a >leak), why would the water alone leak out and leave all of the >dissolved materials still in the cell? Would not some of the >Th_228 get carried along if _eighty percent_ of the electrolyte >got out? > But if there was no leak, then what happened? [snip] If 80% of the electrolyte escaped as water vapour, then no visible evidence would be seen, while most dissolved salts would be left behind. Furthermore, the presence of many of the elements from the SS in the electrolyte (even after the blank run), may po int to the fact that the seals aren't effective. 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! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ============================= 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 Thu Sep 25 18:05:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:03:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:03:22 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bill Beaty on Laura Lee Resent-Message-ID: <"eCovS2.0.Mu4.ddmAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11161 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Kurt Johmann wrote: > If I am not mistaken, this vortex-l list is hosted by "science hobbyist > Bill Beaty". Hi Kurt! Yep, I've been on the Laura Lee show three times. The earlier one was about the psychology of science & new ideas, and how to make hand-drawn holograms. The later one followed the Richard Milton interview (he had to leave early, so I was "filler".) I al ways get tongue-tied early in the shows (lots of "um"s), but then speed up as time goes along. I still want to go in and edit the second one, where I say "Richard Milton is one of my greatest heroes", but it comes out "...is one of my biggest fans"! Oop s. > So Bill, what is the actual web-address for the Taos-hum web page which > you apparently have? I'd like to see it. Link is near the top of "Weird Science" page. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/hum/hum.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 Thu Sep 25 19:05:38 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 19:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:07:24 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: New CERN preprint on transmutations in palladium] Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"Xu-KF1.0.9A4.-UnAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11166 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Path: nntp.earthlink.net!nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov!news.magicnet.net!news.thenet.net!news.kei.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.fsu.edu!ibms48.scri.fsu.edu!jac From: jac ibms48.scri.fsu.e du (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New CERN preprint on transmutations in palladium Date: 23 Sep 1997 02:34:48 GMT Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Message-ID: <6079s8$s90$1 news.fsu.edu> References: <01bcc189$9099a540$9ae11fce@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: ibms48.scri.fsu.edu "Lou Pagnucco" writes: > >Just a quick question from an interested layman - > >Has anyone read the recently posted CERN preprint on evidence of >transmutations in paladium at the URL given below? Not until you posted it. >http://preprints.cern.ch/cgi-bin/send_tiff_frame.sh.cgi?/archive/electronic/ >scan/9709/SCAN-9709020.tif > >If so, is the methodology sound? I was not impressed. Specifically, the use of a neutron survey meter for neutron counting and the statement that a difference of 1.80 +/- 1.52 neutrons per *hour* "was different" shows a serious underestimation of the uncertainties, particularly whe n the null case had a (marginally) more significant difference. The 0.5 neutrons/mm^2 per *month* was equally unimpressive. I cannot see either claim making it past a referee. I would make very strong remarks about the comments at the top of page 7 defending the idea that there "was a difference" despite no investigation of ambient sources and the large uncertainty. The claim of transumtation comes from finding Am and Sn on the quartz window from an SEM measurement that is described in its totality by about as many words as I just typed here. Completely inadequate. The bulk of the paper concerns mass spec spectra and differences between cases where the deuterated Pd essentially combusted at very high temperatures with other cases. The discussion of the mass spectra made no mention of peaks at 27 and 31 that wer e absent in that case, nor the 43 and 13 peaks that appear in one of the test cases. There is no discussion of molecular ions that would mess up the interpretation of the data, and at high temperature upon exposure to _air_ you could expect almost a nything in there. With so many figures on this part of the experiment, one expects a quantitative discussion. There was no discussion of the possible explanations for the "energy release". The connection of these results to theoretical ideas proposed in the intro was tenuous at best. -- James A. Carr | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 18:38:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:36:08 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Resent-Message-ID: <"g7Jng1.0.8F3.C6nAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >The link is http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm > >I carried the calculations to a excel worksheet. I could put it on my >web page tomorrow after completing it. > >Waiting comments, questions, analysis and critics. I invited Tom to the conference specifically because of his model. It has been a while since I have read it, but I have a copy of his book around somewhere, and his paper in the conference proceedings as I told you earlier. The thing I found interesting as I recall is that he used 18 shells for his summation. Remember that I use 9 muon resonances to form the three sets of three quarks in my model, but that I have about 38 percent of the aether confined in the innermost reg ion of the standing waves and the balance of 62 percent of the wave energy and aether confinement is out in the surrounding standing wave. 18 is just 2 times 9. So if I am somehow missing the structure geometry and have only identified half of the complexity of the wave form in my model, then it might be that Thomas' model and mine are similar. What is similar is that his model has shells inside of shells just as my model has a spherical standing wave resonance that is confined in and driven by, spacetime, which is more of a cubic sort of geometry. So the cubic geometry of spacetime becomes def ormed into the spherical geometry of the particle standing wave in a continuous Escher like morphing from one structure to the other. This is really neat to see, but very hard to describe in words. A crude 2D version of this would be an Escher like distortion of a black and white tiled floor where the tiles squish into diamonds as you approach a center convergent tile that is round. So as you approach from far away, the square tiles become diamond shaped, and then the smash so much that the tips of the diamonds are running into one another. And then further in toward the center you form a rippled set of concentric circular rings, and then as you near the center, you have a set of concentric circle s like on a bull's eye target. The alternating white and black correspond to the timing of the pressure energy in the fluid, and you need to take that above description into 3D + time to get spacetime distorting into a particle. What is interesting though, is that Tom's model uses nested cubes, and the spacetime distortion will be like a bunch of nested cubes as you transition from the cubic spacetime structure down into the spherical particle structure. A continuous changeover from one to the other, and the residual spherical wave energy far from the central convergence point ***IS*** the electric field around that particle. I think there is something important to his work. And I think that the work I have put together is somehow valid as well. Thus, I think that there is some manner of tying what he has done together with what I have done. As best I can figure, it must be that it takes 18 levels of aether density amplification in order to get to the pressure required for there to manifest a fundamental change in the state of the aether. ie, condensation to a more dense state. I cannot quite figure out exactly how he works with his models. They are a bit awkward because one can see them in different ways depending on how your mind imagines his cubes, ie cubes in 2D drawings can flip in and out for different people. I am one o f those, so I have never spent the time to go into the details of his model from that standpoint. I have not found a way to make my model match his as of this time. But I do acknowledge that my spacetime manifold structure has a double sort of geometry to it. So it may be that I am missing something in the innermost structure of nucleons, and that a t the interior I should be doubling the numbers of core particles. ie, while I think my muons have a single core that is of double diameter from the electron standing wave, it may be that the core is really double. Thus, if this is so, then I would have 18 discrete components in my nucleon standing waves. And in a very real sense, I do have this because the timing is such that for the muon, I have a double sized condensate core with a sphere and with a spherical shell of condensation around that. Well, enough, since virtually no one is likely to be following what I am saying without the geometry in front of you to understand the words. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 18:47:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:45:00 -0700 From: HLafonte@aol.com Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:43:20 -0400 (EDT) To: freenrg-l eskimo.com cc: vortex-l eskimo.com, newman-l@emachine.com Subject: Norman F. Ramsey Resent-Message-ID: <"dcQ5P.0.UX6.PEnAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11164 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Is anyone familiar with Norman F. Ramsey's work on nuclear spin systems in pure LiF crystals? (Around 1950, more radiant energy out than put in) Thanks, Butch LaFonte X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 20:56:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:59:47 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass proposal for CF test (1) Resent-Message-ID: <"5R24m.0.mf.O8pAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11167 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=3918515&server=db97p3&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="getdoc.xp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=3918515&server=db97p3&CONTEXT=87 5245822.1478952227&hitnum=1" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Find the perfect application for your business!

 Article 2 of 20 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article< /A>		 [Next Article]
Next
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Absurd 'Critiques' of 5 FROZEN NEEDLES Protocol From:         "Robert Bass" <rbrtbass pahrump.com> Date:         1997/07/06
Message-Id:   <01bc858a$a37583e0$6792e2cd rbrtbass.pahrump.com> Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
[More Headers] 
  Article Segment 1 of 2
  (Get All 2 Segments)

Absurd 'Critiques' of "5 FROZEN NEEDLES CF Protocol"
                                by
                      Robert W. Bass
              <rbrtbass@pahrump.com>

           With all due respect to the posters of comments on my "Definitive" F&P-type of Cold Fusion demo Protocol, it seems that most of them are so eager to get in their two cents' worth that they read hastily & superficially, without
 giving serious thought to the logic of what has been presented, or its theoretical derivation, and then "shoot from the hip" with the intention of "wounding first, ask questions later."
	A case in point is the _absurdly superficial_ point that "maybe there could be Helium_4 in the liquid nitrogen used to freeze the cathode."
	Careful readers of my Protocol know that this point had already been considered and was _perfectly_ taken care of!!!
	Remember, the 5 needles are strips from the _same_ flat, thin, rectangular cathode.  The needle to which ZERO current is applied (i.e. for t_k = k.tau microseconds, where tau = T and T is optimized by trial and error [1-parameter search], and k = 0, 1, 2
, 3, 4  --  in this case, k = 0, so t_0 = 0 microseconds) is the control blank.  The mean amount of contamination in each of the 5 needles is <A0> and this amount is subtracted [in a statistically _correct_ manner!!!] from the mean amounts <A1>
;, <A2>, <A3> & <A4> in the remaining 4 needles (k = 1, 2, 3, 4).  If the esttimated standard deviation is less than one-half of the estimated mean _increment_ <del_A> then with 95% Confidence the experiment _proves_ that

 	<A1> = <del_A>,      <A2> = 2.<del_A>,

 	<A3> = 3.<del_A.>,  <A4> = 4.<del_A>

which _PROVES_ that the amount of _freshly created_ Helium_4 (_regardless_ of contamination from ALL sources!) is _PROPORTIONAL_ to the number of bound deuterons in the palladium lattice which have been excited to (or raised to) the n = 100 energy level i
n my _published_ spectrum of the lowest 600 lines in the "Spectrum of Resonant Transparency of the Coulomb Barrier" [according to standard QM as applied rigorously rather than superficially as in the otherwise splendid Princeton U Press text on 
QM by Princeton astrophysicist P.J.E. Peebles who in 6 pages at the end of his first chapter purports to demonstrate that CF is physically impossible  ---  however, he made two giant mistakes: (1) he treated the problem inside of a lattice as if it concer
ned only two isolated particles in a vacuum, i.e. he treated the problem as if it were mathematically LOCAL instead of global (and thereby neglected to include in his potential all of the Madelung/Fermi-Thomas/ /Mott forces from EVERY charged particle in 
the lattice, which I have done correctly, as proved by the fact that my formula _predicts_ the Schwinger Ratio from first principles within one-third of one percent of physically measured reality), which forces _cannot_ be neglected because my potential w
ell is one third deeper and of much higher-slope at the edges than his point-particle Coulomb potential [and it is in precisely my newly discovered _extra_ depth that the LOW ENERGY levels n = 1 to n = 600  --  from 6 eV to 150 eV  reside, which proves th
at Peebles was _physically_ mistaken to have omitted the Madelung/Fermi-Thomas/Mott corrections to his potential; and (2) Peebles neglected the most crucially important aspect of the global potential V(r), namely its _PERIODICITY_ V(r) = V(<
B>r + 2L) where L is the lattice period-length, which means that in effect Peebles neglected what to a rigorous mathematician would be the most important relevant theorem, namely the Floquest theory, or, to restate this point in other language, Peeble
s neglected the most important theorem of Solid State Physics (namely, Bloch's Theorem, that inside of a periodic lattice, as pointed out in their papers by Scott Chubb & Talbott Chubb, solutions of Schroedinger's equation are irr
elevant unless they are spatially periodic of the _same_ period!)
	From the preceding you may think that I am criticizing Jim Peebles, whom I actually admire and regard as a model of scientific behavior and
(Get Next Article Segment)

Find the perfect application for your business!
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile & nbsp;|  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:02:12 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:02:24 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Deja News - Article Resent-Message-ID: <"g4NcB1.0.Xk.qApAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11168 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c01bc858a$a37583e0$6792e2cd rbrtbass.pahrump.com%3e%232/2&server=db97p3&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="2&server=db97p3&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=1 " Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2&server=db97p3&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=1" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c01bc858a$a37583e0$6792e2cd rb rtbass.pahrump.com%3e%232/2&server= db97p3&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227 &hitnum=1" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message


 Article 2 of 20 Text Only  ;  Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article		 [Next Article]
Next
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Absurd 'Critiques' of 5 FROZEN NEEDLES Protocol From:         "Robert Bass" <rbrtbass pahrump.com> Date:         1997/07/06
Message-Id:   <01bc858a$a37583e0$6792e2cd rbrtbass.pahrump.com> 
  Article Segment 2 of 2
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 2 Segments)

intellectual honesty.  He should have received a Nobel Prize for suggesting looking for the Cosmic Background Radiation before Penzias & Wilson at Bell Labs actually empirically discovered it!  Also, I regard his 6 pages, which I am purporting to impr
ove, as of great value, because he stated all of his assumptions with such clarity & specificity that it is easy for someone trained in ODEs like myself to perceive what he has omitted that must be included.  Also, his derivation is elegant and I lear
ned a lot from studying it (including the best way to render the problem dimensionless).
Finally, his presentation is intellectually honest because at the end, he muses aloud as to whether or not there may have been some aspect of the problem (as in the surprise about High-Temperature Superconductivity) that has been overlooked.  Therefore hi
s published 6-page comment on CF is a model of "genuinely scientific" behavior.
	Furthermore, I believe that Jim Peebles is a "good guy" because when I sent him an early and very crude version of the theory toward which I was groping by stages over an epoch of years, he was gracious enough to write back and to say that he t
hought that my closed-form summation of the Madelung forces was neat and should be published, although he still thought then that the Madelung forces were not relevant.
	My one-dimensional lattice was then not electrically neutral (although 1-D is good enough, for a similar 1-D model predicts the highly relevant Moessbaur Effects within a factor of unity of the correct 3-D model, and as Schwinger said, in this context qu
oting Einstein, sometimes it is a poor strategy to be too ambitious with a first model), becauseI have accounted for all electrons by placing them at _averaged_ positions, statically, between each pair of _bound_ deuterons at lattice points k.L and -k.L f
or k = 1, 2, 3, ... .  The deuteron near r = 0 is supposed to be excited, and therefore in the Coulomb/Madelung potential well on the
interval -L < r < L (which is why my potential has period 2L instead of L).  When I tried to predict the rms amplitude lambda of the ZPF fluctuations (which Schwinger has conjectured represents the net effect of "_ALL_ forces at work in 
the lattice, albeit crudely") I got the "Schwinger Ratio," namely the _empirically measured_ ratio lambda/L only within about 30 percent, which I regarded as not good enough!  But then I learned from the published papers of Nobel Laureate W
illis Lamb & his colleague R. Parmenter at U of AZ [which reference I had got indirectly from Peebles because he referred me to published papers whose authors kindly referred me to Bob Parmenter] how to include the _one_ missing electron on the
 interval -L < r < L in order to make the 1-D lattice completely electrically neutral and perfect my potential V(r) by including the electron as a probabilistically smeared out (uniformly distrib- uted) _charge-cloud_ over the interval
 (or lattice cell) of interest, in the manner of Fermi-Thomas as improved by Sir Neville Mott.
	When I then "perfected" my
Coulomb/Madelung/Fermi-Thomas/Mott 1-D
lattice-potential V(r) = V(r + 2.L) I was gratified to learn that it improved my _prediction_ of the "all important" empirically-measured Schwinger Ratio to within 0.3% of reality!  Who could ask for more?  Seriousl!!!  This is _pe
rfect_ (within obvious experimental error [width, x-ray blur])!!!
	My friend Yeong Kim of the Nuclear
Theory Group of the Physics Department at Purdue has pointed out that since I only used the WKB "asymptotic" solution of the Schroedinger Equation, my work cannot
claim better than qualitative correctness for low quantum numbers, such as n = 1, n = 2, n = 3.  But it is well-known that as n increases the numerical discrepancy between the WKB "solution" and the exact solution (used by Kim & Zubarev) dec
reases asymptotically to zero with increasing n, and I have never heard of a case where one could tell the difference at n = 5, much less n = 100 (as used in "Definitive" protocol).
	The last time I spoke to Jim Peebles
on the phone he justifiably refused to concede that my _then_ still crude 'theory' was convincing [with which negative judgment I myself agree!!!] but he also added, and I regard this as 'fair enough!,' "it is not up to _me_ to tutor you," and t
hen gave me the all-important ref.-'tip' which eventually led me to Parmenter, whose work did actually 'tutor' me sufficiently that I hope that when I now send Peebles my "perfected" theory he will _NOW_ become convinced that I have indeed found
 the omissions from his 6-page argument about CF that he mused aloud might have been omitted inadvertently, and that I have indeed demonstrated "rigorously" that classical QM _predicts_ CF!

Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:03:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:00:32 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:05:03 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Deja News - Article Resent-Message-ID: <"Q_4Md3.0.kG3.UDpAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11169 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=5308753&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="getdoc.xp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=5308753&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=87 5245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Find the perfect application for your business!

 Article 18 of 20 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article		 [Next Article]
N ext
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
  Article Segment 4 of 7
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 7 Segments)

        It is true that one can  interpret  QM  (as  did  Bohm  &  de Broglie) by saying that what is "real" is  little  billiard-ball-like particles, and that the wave  aspects  of  matter  are  somehow  more evanescent.
        However, at ICCF2, Scott's Uncle (and sometime  collaborator) Talbott Chubb gave a pitch for  the  Non-Corpuscular  interpretation, under which "the waves are reality" and the corpuscular  aspects  are just artifacts of our
 human interpretation. Notwithstanding the  fact that  Dick  Blue  likes  to  chastize  Scott  for  a   non-Copenhagen interpretation, he and Talbott are in excellent company, and can make a very  good  case  for  the  Eastern-religion-like  "
all  is  Waves" viewpoint; for example, Dirac seems to have held that viewpoint.
        At least, Canadian theoretical physicist Philip  R.  Wallace, in a series of papers in both semi-popular  and  technical  journals, has made an extremely strong  case  for  that  being  the  "ultimate" interpretation of QM.  I can
't find my folder of his  papers,  but  I remember that he quotes the experiment of Hanbury  Brown  as  proving that the coherence-length of a _single_ photon from a  star  about  a hundred light years away has grown to be about 20 meters  in  radius, as 
can be proved by experiments in which it interferes with itself in radio receivers mounted on tracks that can  be  separated  until  the effect is observed.  Also he has _very_ strong theoretical arguments, explaining many things better than I have ever s
een  them  explained, by quantitative calculations more than verbal arguments; and  he  has written a book on this interpretation and is seeking a publisher.
        Notwithstanding that the "all is waves" viewpoint has led  to many impressive successes in Solid State physics  (of  which  I  have been exposed to a peep, thanks to kind  personal  tutoring  by  Scott Chubb), there is stil
l another viewpoint, not mentioned yet, to which I seem to find myself driven by "irrefutable facts."
(Get Next Article Segment)

Find the perfect application for your business!
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:06:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:04:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:09:26 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass theory (6/7) Resent-Message-ID: <"DzAK53.0.ZW3.SHpAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11170 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com%3e%236/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Tra nsfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom. com%3e%236/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT= 875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Please visit our sponsor

 Article 18 of 20 Text Only    ;Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article 		[Next Article]
Next
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
  Article Segment 6 of 7
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 7 Segments)

product of a complex number 
with its conjugate).  This is all in the two Princeton U Press  books by Edward Nelson, who professes ignorance as to what  the  background field causing the jittering might be.  (If you ask why does  not  the jittering electron radiate its energy away, o
ne can  easily  compute, as has been done by Schwinger's student Boyer and  more  recently  by Hal Puthoff, that the Bohr orbit has the unique property that if  one augments the  picture  of  monopole  radiation  filling  the  visible universe which I jus
t presented, by the  analogous  picture  of  also _random_  dipole  electromagnetic  radiation  filling  the  universe, namely as in the subject of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), it  can be proved that when in the Bohr orbit the jittering  electron  _p
icks up_ exactly as much radiation from this background field as it  loses by bremmstrahlung!)
        In other words, once one _sees_ the  _inevitability_  of  not neglecting cosmological Coulomb & Maxwell radiation, then one  _must_ derive Stochastic Mechanics (SM) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) and orthodox QM & QED become superflu
ous,  redundant,  &  misleading!  
All the mystical pictures of "wavicles" and  particles  paradoxically going  through  two  slits  at  once   are   not   needed   in   this Newtonian-Maxwellian TOE (Theory of Everything).
        Fact Number Two: Puthoff and his collaborators have  gone  so far as to use SED to _explain_ both gravitational & inertial mass and to show their equivalence, and to derive Newton's  F  =  Ma,  and  to derive Mach's principle (without  which  
Einstein  admitted  that  no theory of gravity could claim to be complete), and to derive  Dirac's "cosmological numerical  coincidences"  as  inevitabilities,  and  to derive  Newtonian  gravity,  and  to  derive   the   Newton-Cavendish parame
ter G!!!
        Puthoff has to assume that Planck's constant  is  given,  and has so far neglected to read my paper showing that he need not assume Planck's constant
(Get Next Article Segment)

Please visit our sponsor
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:09:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:07:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:12:25 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass theory (7/7) Resent-Message-ID: <"PetmX.0.Gj3.FKpAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11171 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com%3e%237/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Tra nsfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom. com%3e%237/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT= 875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message


 Article 18 of 20 Text Only    Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article< /font>		 [Next Article]
Next
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
  Article Segment 7 of 7
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 7 Segments)

, but can _derive_ it from Hubble's  constant,  once he augments SED by SM.
        Nelson abandoned SM (which he admits in his  second  book  he had loved and cherished for 17 years) when he met CERN physicist J.S. 
Bell, who persuaded him to check whether or not  Bell's  Inequalities also hold in SM; and they do!  Then the results of  the  EPR  paradox ("the  non-locality  of  reality!";  see  e.g.  David   Peat's   book "Einstein's Moon", endors
ed by Bell, or Bell's  own  book)  staggered Nelson, because he thought that he was defending Einstein's vision of a physics with _NO_ non-locality.
        Actually, the _illusion_ of non-locality  is  something  with which we fool ourselves; Puthoff explained it to me one  day,  but  I lack the energy now to repeat his explanation.  Hint: the  apparently correlated particles which once interacted an
d are now far  apart  do not  "know"  superluminally  what  the  other's  state  is;  but  the background field does!
        I have actually studied  all  of  the  details  of  Puthoff's seminal SED papers, and regard him  as  the  greatest  thinker  since Einstein; though presently ridiculed by the Establishment, Puthoff is going  to  be  tomorrow's  hero  and  the  je
er-review,  sneer-review (allegedly  peer-review)  crowd   is   destined   to   be   forgotten superluminally.
        The only flaw in the Puthoff TOE is that to explain F  =  Ma, and inertia, and gravity, he has  to  view  a  macroscopic  piece  of matter as composed of a collection of charged  particles  (quarks  or partons)  which  are  behaving  like  _quanti
zed  oscillators_;  when accelerated, these oscillators generate a Lorentz force which opposes the direction of motion.  Then gravity (like the Casimir  effect)  is just a "shadow" effect from unequal exposure to the cosmological Zero Point  Ene
rgy  background  radiation   field.    (The   late   Soviet physicist-dissenter and  Nobel  Laureate  Sakharov  anticipated  this theory of gravity.)  The first flaw in Puthoff's theory  is  that  he has to assume some kind of inertia on the part of  char
ged  particles or else the classical harmonic oscillator model will not be available for his SED theory to quantize.  The second flaw in Puthoff's  theory is that he assumes Planck's  constant  to  be  a  given  constant  of nature.
        This is why he needs (but does not yet adopt) my SM theory in order to get his theory going, for my theory not  only  provides  the Planck's constant which he has to assume, but it also _explains_  why a harmonic oscillator _must_ be quantized in 
a way  that  Newton  and Coulomb could  have  predicted  if  they  had  understood  stochastic processes!
        I am intellectually "forced against my will"  to  accept  the preceding SM/SED theory, instead of QM/QED, because of Occam's Razor; but emotionally, I would  rather  believe  in  the  "all  is  waves", because I am certain that
 psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.) are real, and in a Bohm-like theory, where the psi wave of each particle fills the universe (and jumps superluminally to new values), it is easy to imagine that PK can be justified.
        I once sent ENECO's  director  of  research,  who  wanted  my interpretation of "coherence  length",  a  20-page  letter  outlining about 15 conflicting interpretations of QM.  A "trained  lawyer"  can argue any side of any for
ensic question, and a trained  mathematician like me can argue any side of any theoretical debate.

        Enough?
                  Bob Bass
-- 
Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent 29,130 [ex-prof Physics] Inventor: Topolotron, Plasmasphere, issued; QRT ColdFusion, pending P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337 Voice-Mail: (818) 377-4471         e-Mail: rbrtbass ix.netcom.com

Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:20:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:12:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:16:41 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass theory (1/7) Resent-Message-ID: <"z7q0K3.0.fz3.JOpAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11172 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com%3e%231/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Tra nsfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom. com%3e%231/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT= 875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Pl ease visit our sponsor

 Article 18 of 20 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article 		[Next Article]
Nex t
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
[More Headers] 
  Article Segment 1 of 7
  (Get All 7 Segments)


       MOESSBAUER, QM/QED VS SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc.

        Some of the recent CF discussion reminds me of topics that  I have already discussed in February prior  to  ICCF5;  for  those  who missed that I re-post a slightly _revised_ version:

-------------------------------------------- Contrib rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass) Date    Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:02:47 -0800 Message <199502270702.XAA28849 ix3.ix.netcom.com> Subject Re: ICCF5 Discussion Group (26 February 1995 Vol. 1 Issue 26)
                -----------------------------
                Additional Member Recommended

        I really goofed when I forgot to recommend  that  Dr.  Robert Parmenter of the Physics Department of the U of AZ should  have  been invited (along with the other 5 I suggested).
        Parmenter originally published 3  joint  pro-CF  papers  with Nobel  Laureate  Willis  Lamb;  I  have  found  some  of  their  work invaluable in fine tuning my forthcoming ICCF5 paper.
        Lamb is now having second thoughts about the reality  of  CF, primarily because of Steve Jones'  retractions  at  ICCF4;  also  his close friends believe that he does not want to become a  pariah  like Schwinger. When Parmenter showed his latest w
ork to  Lamb,  Dr.  Lamb told him that another member of the physics department  at  U  of  AZ "doubted" certain parts of Parmenter's work, and Lamb declined to  do more joint work.
        However, in my opinion Parmenter's recent solo work is a real breakthrough, because in it he uses orthodox Quantum Mechanics, Solid State Physics, and Nuclear Physics (the first of  which  he  teaches, and the second of which is his primary resear
ch field) to  apparently demolish the Second & Third "Miracles" which Huizenga explains in his book would have to occur in order for him to concede the  reality  of CF.I am not lauding Parmenter merely because at the end he credits me with c
ausing him to return to the subject  and  to  "reconsider"  the matter of Resonant Transmission (which he now  u
(Get Next Article Segment)

Pl ease visit our sponsor
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:22:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:18:48 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass theory (2/7) Resent-Message-ID: <"DM-cb2.0.E71.BQpAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11173 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com%3e%232/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Tra nsfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom. com%3e%232/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT= 875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Pl ease visit our sponsor

 Article 18 of 20 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article 		[Next Article]
Nex t
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
  Article Segment 2 of 7
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 7 Segments)

ses  to  perfect  the 
theory he started jointly with Lamb), but because I believe that many of the questions raised in  this  Discussion  Group's  Issue  26  are answered in highly explicit detail in Parmenter's unpublished  paper.  
He submitted it to the Physics Letters A edited by Vigier, but Vigier sent it to a Belgian editor who evidently gave it to a CERN-supporter because it was bounced by return mail with what I  personally  regard as completely inadequate reasons for rejectio
n.   Now  Parmenter  has given it to Hal Fox for the Second Edition of his "Cold Fusion Source Book," to appear in 1996.
        QM is not my forte; in QM I am a relative newbie  as  far  as 3-D multi-body calculations go.  (My previous efforts in QM are  1-D, though 1-D is good enough to predict the Moessbauer Effect with  only a slight discrepancy in a  leading  numerical
  coefficient  from  the correct 3-D answer.)
        However,  Parmenter  has  (masterfully,  it  seems   to   me) considered the 3-D aspects of the deuteron-deuteron  interaction,  in full quantum mechanical glory, with center of mass,  spin,  etc.  all explicitly there. (My head is spinning lookin
g at the formulae!)
        Parmenter shows that the  excess  23.8  MeV  of  the  excited Helium nucleus created by the juxtaposition of two deuterons (brought together by Transmission Resonance when one "bangs" against the other about 10^12 times per second for 3 
days, with each bang  raising  the absolute value of the wave function exactly as resonant pushes  on  a swing  raise  the  amplitude  of  a  harmonic  oscillator)   can   be transferred from the center of mass of the excited alpha particle  to the   latt
ice,   by   the   Spring   Constants   involved   in    the Fermi-Thomas-Mott potential.  He also gives  explicit  selection-rule reasons (reminiscent of Schwinger) for ruling out the possibility  of the usual reaction involving a gamma-ray photon; theref
ore the energy comes out as phonon excitations of the entire lattice.  He also gi
(Get Next Article Segment)

Pl ease visit our sponsor
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:25:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:17:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:21:41 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass theory (3/7) Resent-Message-ID: <"dJvda2.0.KG4.5TpAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11174 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com%3e%233/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Tra nsfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom. com%3e%233/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT= 875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Find the perfect application for your business!

 Article 18 of 20 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article		 [Next Article]
Next
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
  Article Segment 3 of 7
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 7 Segments)

ves 
quantitative calculations showing why the usual  reactions  (Helium-3 plus a neutron, or Tritium and a proton) _cannot_ occur.
        Don't ask me how an entire macroscopic lattice can be excited instantaneously & discontinuously; I am  just  a  mathematician,  and that is what the equations in books on Quantum Field  Theory  applied to Solid State Physics say!
        In studying the  Moessbauer  Effect,  I  realized  that  many leading theoretical physicists do not really "believe" the  equations they write down & publish in books & papers; what  they  believe  are little mental pictures they
 have in mind, and the equations are  just scaffolding to hold up a Potemkin village for their peers to admire.
        As a case in point, I  mentioned  the  Moessbauer  Effect  as highly relevant to CF (on which point Scott Chubb agrees) in a  phone conversation with David Park,  author  of  a  splendid  text  on  QM, another on Nuclear Forces, and 
 one  on  Classical  Mechanics  &  its Quantum Analogs. He sent me a handwritten letter saying  that  the  M Effect is irrelevant, because in a palladium lattice the ions are  so "cushioned" by bound electrons that they can feel nothing.  I 
replied on the phone by citing the exact pages  and  equations  in  his  book where he treats the M Effect, in  which  he  takes  the  atoms  in  a lattice to be point particles, says  that  each  phonon  affects  the _entire_ lattice and cannot be consid
ered as localized anywhere,  and then computes that when  a  gamma-ray  photon  emitted  by  a  single nucleus comes out, the  _entire_  lattice  jumps  _instantaneously  & discontinuously(!)_ in the opposite direction!  (Don't ask me how;  I did not 
create QFT.)  When I rebutted Park by quoting his  own  book, he had no answer; he just said, slowly, "I see what you mean!"
        Parmenter states explicitly that  Huizenga  is  simply  wrong when he says that the F&P results cannot be predicted by orthodox QM, QED, etc.
        I believe that we are wasting each other's time and  spinning our wheels to attempt to discuss  the  second  two  of  Huizenga's  3 Miracles without having read Parmenter's unjustly  suppressed  paper.  
(Excuse my immodesty for thinking that the theory presented by me  in Issue 18 totally settles the matter of  Huizenga's  Miracle  1  being required, [though I have no  doubt  that  the  Resonant  Transmission theory can be much further improved & per
fected,  as  I  expect  from some of the present participants].)

                ------------------------
                Xing Zhong Li's Abstract

        The paragraph of  Dr.  Li's  Abstract  quoted  by  Bill  Page relates to the issues which I have neglected  in  my  own  work  (the Second & Third alleged "Miracles" required by Huizenga).  However,  I would much like to see what Dr.
  Li  has  to  say  about  Parmenter's treatment of those subjects, and conversely.

                --------------------------------------
                Scott Chubb's "Non-Corpuscular" Matter
(Get Next Article Segment)

Find the perfect application for your business!
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:23:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:24:58 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass theory (entire) Resent-Message-ID: <"LqP3Q2.0.jH1.2WpAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11175 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com%3e&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="getdoc.xp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom. com%3e&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245 822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Please visit our sponsor

 Article 18 of 20 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article		 [Next Article]
Next< br>Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups:   sci.physics.fusion
[More Headers] 

       MOESSBAUER, QM/QED VS SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc.

        Some of the recent CF discussion reminds me of topics that  I have already discussed in February prior  to  ICCF5;  for  those  who missed that I re-post a slightly _revised_ version:

-------------------------------------------- Contrib rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bass) Date    Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:02:47 -0800 Message <199502270702.XAA28849 ix3.ix.netcom.com> Subject Re: ICCF5 Discussion Group (26 February 1995 Vol. 1 Issue 26)
                -----------------------------
                Additional Member Recommended

        I really goofed when I forgot to recommend  that  Dr.  Robert Parmenter of the Physics Department of the U of AZ should  have  been invited (along with the other 5 I suggested).
        Parmenter originally published 3  joint  pro-CF  papers  with Nobel  Laureate  Willis  Lamb;  I  have  found  some  of  their  work invaluable in fine tuning my forthcoming ICCF5 paper.
        Lamb is now having second thoughts about the reality  of  CF, primarily because of Steve Jones'  retractions  at  ICCF4;  also  his close friends believe that he does not want to become a  pariah  like Schwinger. When Parmenter showed his latest w
ork to  Lamb,  Dr.  Lamb told him that another member of the physics department  at  U  of  AZ "doubted" certain parts of Parmenter's work, and Lamb declined to  do more joint work.
        However, in my opinion Parmenter's recent solo work is a real breakthrough, because in it he uses orthodox Quantum Mechanics, Solid State Physics, and Nuclear Physics (the first of  which  he  teaches, and the second of which is his primary resear
ch field) to  apparently demolish the Second & Third "Miracles" which Huizenga explains in his book would have to occur in order for him to concede the  reality  of CF.I am not lauding Parmenter merely because at the end he credits me with c
ausing him to return to the subject  and  to  "reconsider"  the matter of Resonant Transmission (which he now  uses  to  perfect  the theory he started jointly with Lamb), but because I believe that many of the questions raised in  this  Discuss
ion  Group's  Issue  26  are answered in highly explicit detail in Parmenter's unpublished  paper.  
He submitted it to the Physics Letters A edited by Vigier, but Vigier sent it to a Belgian editor who evidently gave it to a CERN-supporter because it was bounced by return mail with what I  personally  regard as completely inadequate reasons for rejectio
n.   Now  Parmenter  has given it to Hal Fox for the Second Edition of his "Cold Fusion Source Book," to appear in 1996.
        QM is not my forte; in QM I am a relative newbie  as  far  as 3-D multi-body calculations go.  (My previous efforts in QM are  1-D, though 1-D is good enough to predict the Moessbauer Effect with  only a slight discrepancy in a  leading  numerical
  coefficient  from  the correct 3-D answer.)
        However,  Parmenter  has  (masterfully,  it  seems   to   me) considered the 3-D aspects of the deuteron-deuteron  interaction,  in full quantum mechanical glory, with center of mass,  spin,  etc.  all explicitly there. (My head is spinning lookin
g at the formulae!)
        Parmenter shows that the  excess  23.8  MeV  of  the  excited Helium nucleus created by the juxtaposition of two deuterons (brought together by Transmission Resonance when one "bangs" against the other about 10^12 times per second for 3 
days, with each bang  raising  the absolute value of the wave function exactly as resonant pushes  on  a swing  raise  the  amplitude  of  a  harmonic  oscillator)   can   be transferred from the center of mass of the excited alpha particle  to the   latt
ice,   by   the   Spring   Constants   involved   in    the Fermi-Thomas-Mott potential.  He also gives  explicit  selection-rule reasons (reminiscent of Schwinger) for ruling out the possibility  of the usual reaction involving a gamma-ray photon; theref
ore the energy comes out as phonon excitations of the entire lattice.  He also gives quantitative calculations showing why the usual  reactions  (Helium-3 plus a neutron, or Tritium and a proton) _cannot_ occur.
        Don't ask me how an entire macroscopic lattice can be excited instantaneously & discontinuously; I am  just  a  mathematician,  and that is what the equations in books on Quantum Field  Theory  applied to Solid State Physics say!
        In studying the  Moessbauer  Effect,  I  realized  that  many leading theoretical physicists do not really "believe" the  equations they write down & publish in books & papers; what  they  believe  are little mental pictures they
 have in mind, and the equations are  just scaffolding to hold up a Potemkin village for their peers to admire.
        As a case in point, I  mentioned  the  Moessbauer  Effect  as highly relevant to CF (on which point Scott Chubb agrees) in a  phone conversation with David Park,  author  of  a  splendid  text  on  QM, another on Nuclear Forces, and 
 one  on  Classical  Mechanics  &  its Quantum Analogs. He sent me a handwritten letter saying  that  the  M Effect is irrelevant, because in a palladium lattice the ions are  so "cushioned" by bound electrons that they can feel nothing.  I 
replied on the phone by citing the exact pages  and  equations  in  his  book where he treats the M Effect, in  which  he  takes  the  atoms  in  a lattice to be point particles, says  that  each  phonon  affects  the _entire_ lattice and cannot be consid
ered as localized anywhere,  and then computes that when  a  gamma-ray  photon  emitted  by  a  single nucleus comes out, the  _entire_  lattice  jumps  _instantaneously  & discontinuously(!)_ in the opposite direction!  (Don't ask me how;  I did not 
create QFT.)  When I rebutted Park by quoting his  own  book, he had no answer; he just said, slowly, "I see what you mean!"
        Parmenter states explicitly that  Huizenga  is  simply  wrong when he says that the F&P results cannot be predicted by orthodox QM, QED, etc.
        I believe that we are wasting each other's time and  spinning our wheels to attempt to discuss  the  second  two  of  Huizenga's  3 Miracles without having read Parmenter's unjustly  suppressed  paper.  
(Excuse my immodesty for thinking that the theory presented by me  in Issue 18 totally settles the matter of  Huizenga's  Miracle  1  being required, [though I have no  doubt  that  the  Resonant  Transmission theory can be much further improved & per
fected,  as  I  expect  from some of the present participants].)

                ------------------------
                Xing Zhong Li's Abstract

        The paragraph of  Dr.  Li's  Abstract  quoted  by  Bill  Page relates to the issues which I have neglected  in  my  own  work  (the Second & Third alleged "Miracles" required by Huizenga).  However,  I would much like to see what Dr.
  Li  has  to  say  about  Parmenter's treatment of those subjects, and conversely.

                --------------------------------------
                Scott Chubb's "Non-Corpuscular" Matter

        It is true that one can  interpret  QM  (as  did  Bohm  &  de Broglie) by saying that what is "real" is  little  billiard-ball-like particles, and that the wave  aspects  of  matter  are  somehow  more evanescent.
        However, at ICCF2, Scott's Uncle (and sometime  collaborator) Talbott Chubb gave a pitch for  the  Non-Corpuscular  interpretation, under which "the waves are reality" and the corpuscular  aspects  are just artifacts of our
 human interpretation. Notwithstanding the  fact that  Dick  Blue  likes  to  chastize  Scott  for  a   non-Copenhagen interpretation, he and Talbott are in excellent company, and can make a very  good  case  for  the  Eastern-religion-like  "
all  is  Waves" viewpoint; for example, Dirac seems to have held that viewpoint.
        At least, Canadian theoretical physicist Philip  R.  Wallace, in a series of papers in both semi-popular  and  technical  journals, has made an extremely strong  case  for  that  being  the  "ultimate" interpretation of QM.  I can
't find my folder of his  papers,  but  I remember that he quotes the experiment of Hanbury  Brown  as  proving that the coherence-length of a _single_ photon from a  star  about  a hundred light years away has grown to be about 20 meters  in  radius, as 
can be proved by experiments in which it interferes with itself in radio receivers mounted on tracks that can  be  separated  until  the effect is observed.  Also he has _very_ strong theoretical arguments, explaining many things better than I have ever s
een  them  explained, by quantitative calculations more than verbal arguments; and  he  has written a book on this interpretation and is seeking a publisher.
        Notwithstanding that the "all is waves" viewpoint has led  to many impressive successes in Solid State physics  (of  which  I  have been exposed to a peep, thanks to kind  personal  tutoring  by  Scott Chubb), there is stil
l another viewpoint, not mentioned yet, to which I seem to find myself driven by "irrefutable facts."
        Fact  number  one:   if  we  assume  that  the  universe   as understood by Newton & Coulomb  is  correct,  but  that  they  merely failed to understand such mathematical  developments  as  "stochastic differential equations" and &qu
ot;white noise  processes",  then  one  can readily _prove_ that Newton & Coulomb could easily  have  anticipated Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, et al if  Rutherford  had  told  them "the world is  made  of  protons  &  electrons."
   In  fact,  if  one considers _all_ the charged particles (if not those I mentioned, then quarks  or  partons)  in  the  visible  universe,  and  by   rigorous mathematics adds up (integrates) the effect on a proton  or  electron here on earth of these 
myriads of distant  Coulomb  forces  [monopole radiation, with retarded potential], then one finds that  the  _mean_ value of these forces is zero, but that the variance &  intensity  of the said fluctuating force is _not_ zero!
        In short, model a Bohr atom exactly  as  Newton  and  Coulomb would have done  it,  but  add  on  the  right-hand  side  a  "small" zero-mean, non-zero intensity "white  noise  process"  forcing  term, whose intensity can be _c
omputed_ from current astrophysical theories concerning the density of particles in the universe.
        When I computed it, in an unpublished paper of which  I  have given a copy to Barry  Merriman  &  others,  I  come  out  that  this intensity is just Planck's constant (with a range of error due to the range of error in Hubble's constant).  Fu
rthermore, when I prove that this background force, which it  is  _UNJUSTIFIED_  for  conventional theoretical physics to ignore, causes a zitterbewegung (jittering) of the  electron  orbiting  a  proton,  then  one  can  only  compute  a probability dist
ribution of the electron's position; and it has  been known since  1950  that  such  a  calculation  results  _exactly_  in Schroedinger's equation for the complex psi (if one poses the problem of how to factor the probability into the product of a comple
x number with its conjugate).  This is all in the two Princeton U Press  books by Edward Nelson, who professes ignorance as to what  the  background field causing the jittering might be.  (If you ask why does  not  the jittering electron radiate its energ
y away, one can  easily  compute, as has been done by Schwinger's student Boyer and  more  recently  by Hal Puthoff, that the Bohr orbit has the unique property that if  one augments the  picture  of  monopole  radiation  filling  the  visible universe wh
ich I just presented, by the  analogous  picture  of  also _random_  dipole  electromagnetic  radiation  filling  the  universe, namely as in the subject of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), it  can be proved that when in the Bohr orbit the jittering  ele
ctron  _picks up_ exactly as much radiation from this background field as it  loses by bremmstrahlung!)
        In other words, once one _sees_ the  _inevitability_  of  not neglecting cosmological Coulomb & Maxwell radiation, then one  _must_ derive Stochastic Mechanics (SM) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) and orthodox QM & QED become superflu
ous,  redundant,  &  misleading!  
All the mystical pictures of "wavicles" and  particles  paradoxically going  through  two  slits  at  once   are   not   needed   in   this Newtonian-Maxwellian TOE (Theory of Everything).
        Fact Number Two: Puthoff and his collaborators have  gone  so far as to use SED to _explain_ both gravitational & inertial mass and to show their equivalence, and to derive Newton's  F  =  Ma,  and  to derive Mach's principle (without  which  
Einstein  admitted  that  no theory of gravity could claim to be complete), and to derive  Dirac's "cosmological numerical  coincidences"  as  inevitabilities,  and  to derive  Newtonian  gravity,  and  to  derive   the   Newton-Cavendish parame
ter G!!!
        Puthoff has to assume that Planck's constant  is  given,  and has so far neglected to read my paper showing that he need not assume Planck's constant, but can _derive_ it from Hubble's  constant,  once he augments SED by SM.
        Nelson abandoned SM (which he admits in his  second  book  he had loved and cherished for 17 years) when he met CERN physicist J.S. 
Bell, who persuaded him to check whether or not  Bell's  Inequalities also hold in SM; and they do!  Then the results of  the  EPR  paradox ("the  non-locality  of  reality!";  see  e.g.  David   Peat's   book "Einstein's Moon", endors
ed by Bell, or Bell's  own  book)  staggered Nelson, because he thought that he was defending Einstein's vision of a physics with _NO_ non-locality.
        Actually, the _illusion_ of non-locality  is  something  with which we fool ourselves; Puthoff explained it to me one  day,  but  I lack the energy now to repeat his explanation.  Hint: the  apparently correlated particles which once interacted an
d are now far  apart  do not  "know"  superluminally  what  the  other's  state  is;  but  the background field does!
        I have actually studied  all  of  the  details  of  Puthoff's seminal SED papers, and regard him  as  the  greatest  thinker  since Einstein; though presently ridiculed by the Establishment, Puthoff is going  to  be  tomorrow's  hero  and  the  je
er-review,  sneer-review (allegedly  peer-review)  crowd   is   destined   to   be   forgotten superluminally.
        The only flaw in the Puthoff TOE is that to explain F  =  Ma, and inertia, and gravity, he has  to  view  a  macroscopic  piece  of matter as composed of a collection of charged  particles  (quarks  or partons)  which  are  behaving  like  _quanti
zed  oscillators_;  when accelerated, these oscillators generate a Lorentz force which opposes the direction of motion.  Then gravity (like the Casimir  effect)  is just a "shadow" effect from unequal exposure to the cosmological Zero Point  Ene
rgy  background  radiation   field.    (The   late   Soviet physicist-dissenter and  Nobel  Laureate  Sakharov  anticipated  this theory of gravity.)  The first flaw in Puthoff's theory  is  that  he has to assume some kind of inertia on the part of  char
ged  particles or else the classical harmonic oscillator model will not be available for his SED theory to quantize.  The second flaw in Puthoff's  theory is that he assumes Planck's  constant  to  be  a  given  constant  of nature.
        This is why he needs (but does not yet adopt) my SM theory in order to get his theory going, for my theory not  only  provides  the Planck's constant which he has to assume, but it also _explains_  why a harmonic oscillator _must_ be quantized in 
a way  that  Newton  and Coulomb could  have  predicted  if  they  had  understood  stochastic processes!
        I am intellectually "forced against my will"  to  accept  the preceding SM/SED theory, instead of QM/QED, because of Occam's Razor; but emotionally, I would  rather  believe  in  the  "all  is  waves", because I am certain that
 psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.) are real, and in a Bohm-like theory, where the psi wave of each particle fills the universe (and jumps superluminally to new values), it is easy to imagine that PK can be justified.
        I once sent ENECO's  director  of  research,  who  wanted  my interpretation of "coherence  length",  a  20-page  letter  outlining about 15 conflicting interpretations of QM.  A "trained  lawyer"  can argue any side of any for
ensic question, and a trained  mathematician like me can argue any side of any theoretical debate.

        Enough?
                  Bob Bass
-- 
Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent 29,130 [ex-prof Physics] Inventor: Topolotron, Plasmasphere, issued; QRT ColdFusion, pending P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337 Voice-Mail: (818) 377-4471         e-Mail: rbrtbass ix.netcom.com
Please visit our sponsor
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 21:37:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:39:16 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com Subject: Bass theory (5/7) Resent-Message-ID: <"fGa4I.0.am1.RjpAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11176 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com%3e%235/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Tra nsfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT=875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Content-Base: "http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recn um=%3c4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom. com%3e%235/7&server=db95q4&CONTEXT= 875245822.1478952227&hitnum=17" Deja News - Article
Deja NewsHome
Quick Search   Power Search   Search Filter   Interest Finder   Browse Groups   Post Message
Pl ease visit our sponsor

 Article 18 of 20 Text Only   Help?
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article 		[Next Article]
Nex t
Article		 [Current Results]
Current
Results		 [View Thread]
View
Thread		 [Post Message]
Post
Message		 

Subject:      Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From:         rbrtbass ix.netcom.com(Robert W. Bass ) Date:         1995/12/16
Message-Id:   <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
  Article Segment 5 of 7
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 7 Segments)

  Fact  number  one:   if  we  assume  that  the  universe   as understood by Newton & Coulomb  is  correct,  but  that  they  merely failed to understand such mathematical  developments  as  "stochastic differential equations" and "whi
te noise  processes",  then  one  can readily _prove_ that Newton & Coulomb could easily  have  anticipated Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, et al if  Rutherford  had  told  them "the world is  made  of  protons  &  electrons."   In 
 fact,  if  one considers _all_ the charged particles (if not those I mentioned, then quarks  or  partons)  in  the  visible  universe,  and  by   rigorous mathematics adds up (integrates) the effect on a proton  or  electron here on earth of these myriad
s of distant  Coulomb  forces  [monopole radiation, with retarded potential], then one finds that  the  _mean_ value of these forces is zero, but that the variance &  intensity  of the said fluctuating force is _not_ zero!
        In short, model a Bohr atom exactly  as  Newton  and  Coulomb would have done  it,  but  add  on  the  right-hand  side  a  "small" zero-mean, non-zero intensity "white  noise  process"  forcing  term, whose intensity can be _c
omputed_ from current astrophysical theories concerning the density of particles in the universe.
        When I computed it, in an unpublished paper of which  I  have given a copy to Barry  Merriman  &  others,  I  come  out  that  this intensity is just Planck's constant (with a range of error due to the range of error in Hubble's constant).  Fu
rthermore, when I prove that this background force, which it  is  _UNJUSTIFIED_  for  conventional theoretical physics to ignore, causes a zitterbewegung (jittering) of the  electron  orbiting  a  proton,  then  one  can  only  compute  a probability dist
ribution of the electron's position; and it has  been known since  1950  that  such  a  calculation  results  _exactly_  in Schroedinger's equation for the complex psi (if one poses the problem of how to factor the probability into the
(Get Next Article Segment)

Pl ease visit our sponsor
Previous  |  Next  |  Results  |  View Thread  |  Author Profile  |  Post Message  |  Post Reply  |  Send Email
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 22:04:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:00:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:00:19 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, yekim physics.purdue.edu, puthoff@aol.com, storms@ix.netcom.com Subject: Bass theory (entire, in readable format) Resent-Message-ID: <"YiuDf2.0.Eo5.z5qAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11177 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Moesssbauer, QM/QED v SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. From: rbrtbass pahrump.com (Robert W. Bass ) Date: 1995/12/16 Message-Id: <4atmlv$q1g ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion [More Headers] MOESSBAUER, QM/QED VS SM/SED, Parmenter v Huizenga, etc. Some of the recent CF discussion reminds me of topics that I have already discussed in February prior to ICCF5; for those who missed that I re-post a slightly _revised_ version: -------------------------------------------- Contrib rbrtbass pahrump.com (Robert Bass) Date Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:02:47 -0800 Message <199502270702.XAA28849@ix3.ix.netcom.com> Subject Re: ICCF5 Discussion Group (26 February 1995 Vol. 1 Issue 26) ----------------------------- Additional Member Recommended I really goofed when I forgot to recommend that Dr. Robert Parmenter of the Physics Department of the U of AZ should have been invited (along with the other 5 I suggested). Parmenter originally published 3 joint pro-CF papers with Nobel Laureate Willis Lamb; I have found some of their work invaluable in fine tuning my forthcoming ICCF5 paper. Lamb is now having second thoughts about the reality of CF, primarily because of Steve Jones' retractions at ICCF4; also his close friends believe that he does not want to become a pariah like Schwinger. When Parmenter showed his latest w ork to Lamb, Dr. Lamb told him that another member of the physics department at U of AZ "doubted" certain parts of Parmenter's work, and Lamb declined to do more joint work. However, in my opinion Parmenter's recent solo work is a real breakthrough, because in it he uses orthodox Quantum Mechanics, Solid State Physics, and Nuclear Physics (the first of which he teaches, and the second of which is his primary resear ch field) to apparently demolish the Second & Third "Miracles" which Huizenga explains in his book would have to occur in order for him to concede the reality of CF.I am not lauding Parmenter merely because at the end he credits me with causing him to return to the subject and to "reconsider" the matter of Resonant Transmission (which he now uses to perfect the theory he started jointly with Lamb), but because I believe that many of the questions raised in this Discussion Group's Issue 26 are answered in highly explicit detail in Parmenter's unpublished paper. He submitted it to the Physics Letters A edited by Vigier, but Vigier sent it to a Belgian editor who evidently gave it to a CERN-supporter because it was bounced by return mail with what I personally regard as completely inadequate reasons for rejectio n. Now Parmenter has given it to Hal Fox for the Second Edition of his "Cold Fusion Source Book," to appear in 1996. QM is not my forte; in QM I am a relative newbie as far as 3-D multi-body calculations go. (My previous efforts in QM are 1-D, though 1-D is good enough to predict the Moessbauer Effect with only a slight discrepancy in a leading numerical coefficient from the correct 3-D answer.) However, Parmenter has (masterfully, it seems to me) considered the 3-D aspects of the deuteron-deuteron interaction, in full quantum mechanical glory, with center of mass, spin, etc. all explicitly there. (My head is spinning lookin g at the formulae!) Parmenter shows that the excess 23.8 MeV of the excited Helium nucleus created by the juxtaposition of two deuterons (brought together by Transmission Resonance when one "bangs" against the other about 10^12 times per second for 3 days, with each bang raising the absolute value of the wave function exactly as resonant pushes on a swing raise the amplitude of a harmonic oscillator) can be transferred from the center of mass of the excited alpha particle to the lattice, by the Spring Constants involved in the Fermi-Thomas-Mott potential. He also gives explicit selection-rule reasons (reminiscent of Schwinger) for ruling out the possibility of the usual reaction involving a gamma-ray photon; therefore the en ergy comes out as phonon excitations of the entire lattice. He also gives quantitative calculations showing why the usual reactions (Helium-3 plus a neutron, or Tritium and a proton) _cannot_ occur. Don't ask me how an entire macroscopic lattice can be excited instantaneously & discontinuously; I am just a mathematician, and that is what the equations in books on Quantum Field Theory applied to Solid State Physics say! In studying the Moessbauer Effect, I realized that many leading theoretical physicists do not really "believe" the equations they write down & publish in books & papers; what they believe are little mental pictures they have in mind, and the equations are just scaffolding to hold up a Potemkin village for their peers to admire. As a case in point, I mentioned the Moessbauer Effect as highly relevant to CF (on which point Scott Chubb agrees) in a phone conversation with David Park, author of a splendid text on QM, another on Nuclear Forces, and one on Clas sical Mechanics & its Quantum Analogs. He sent me a handwritten letter saying that the M Effect is irrelevant, because in a palladium lattice the ions are so "cushioned" by bound electrons that they can feel nothing. I replied on the phone by citi ng the exact pages and equations in his book where he treats the M Effect, in which he takes the atoms in a lattice to be point particles, says that each phonon affects the _entire_ lattice and cannot be considered as localized anywhere, and then computes that when a gamma-ray photon emitted by a single nucleus comes out, the _entire_ lattice jumps _instantaneously & discontinuously(!)_ in the opposite direction! (Don't ask me how; I did not create QFT.) When I rebutted Pa rk by quoting his own book, he had no answer; he just said, slowly, "I see what you mean!" Parmenter states explicitly that Huizenga is simply wrong when he says that the F&P results cannot be predicted by orthodox QM, QED, etc. I believe that we are wasting each other's time and spinning our wheels to attempt to discuss the second two of Huizenga's 3 Miracles without having read Parmenter's unjustly suppressed paper. (Excuse my immodesty for thinking that the theory presented by me in Issue 18 totally settles the matter of Huizenga's Miracle 1 being required, [though I have no doubt that the Resonant Transmission theory can be much further improved & perfect ed, as I expect from some of the present participants].) ------------------------ Xing Zhong Li's Abstract The paragraph of Dr. Li's Abstract quoted by Bill Page relates to the issues which I have neglected in my own work (the Second & Third alleged "Miracles" required by Huizenga). However, I would much like to see what Dr. Li has to say about Parmenter's treatment of those subjects, and conversely. -------------------------------------- Scott Chubb's "Non-Corpuscular" Matter It is true that one can interpret QM (as did Bohm & de Broglie) by saying that what is "real" is little billiard-ball-like particles, and that the wave aspects of matter are somehow more evanescent. However, at ICCF2, Scott's Uncle (and sometime collaborator) Talbott Chubb gave a pitch for the Non-Corpuscular interpretation, under which "the waves are reality" and the corpuscular aspects are just artifacts of our human interpretation. N otwithstanding the fact that Dick Blue likes to chastize Scott for a non-Copenhagen interpretation, he and Talbott are in excellent company, and can make a very good case for the Eastern-religion-like "all is Waves" viewpoint; for examp le, Dirac seems to have held that viewpoint. At least, Canadian theoretical physicist Philip R. Wallace, in a series of papers in both semi-popular and technical journals, has made an extremely strong case for that being the "ultimate" interpretation of QM. I can't find my folder of his papers, but I remember that he quotes the experiment of Hanbury Brown as proving that the coherence-length of a _single_ photon from a star about a hundred light years away has grown to be about 20 meters in radius, as can be proved by experiments in which it interferes with itself in radio receivers mounted on tracks that can be separated until the effect is observed. Also he has _very_ strong theoretical arguments, explaining many things better than I have ever seen them explai ned, by quantitative calculations more than verbal arguments; and he has written a book on this interpretation and is seeking a publisher. Notwithstanding that the "all is waves" viewpoint has led to many impressive successes in Solid State physics (of which I have been exposed to a peep, thanks to kind personal tutoring by Scott Chubb), there is still another viewpoint, not mentioned yet, to which I seem to find myself driven by "irrefutable facts." Fact number one: if we assume that the universe as understood by Newton & Coulomb is correct, but that they merely failed to understand such mathematical developments as "stochastic differential equations" and "white noise pro cesses", then one can readily _prove_ that Newton & Coulomb could easily have anticipated Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, et al if Rutherford had told them "the world is made of protons & electrons." In fact, if one considers _all_ the charged particles (if not those I mentioned, then quarks or partons) in the visible universe, and by rigorous mathematics adds up (integrates) the effect on a proton or electron here on earth of these myriads of distant Coulomb forces [mono pole radiation, with retarded potential], then one finds that the _mean_ value of these forces is zero, but that the variance & intensity of the said fluctuating force is _not_ zero! In short, model a Bohr atom exactly as Newton and Coulomb would have done it, but add on the right-hand side a "small" zero-mean, non-zero intensity "white noise process" forcing term, whose intensity can be _computed_ from curren t astrophysical theories concerning the density of particles in the universe. When I computed it, in an unpublished paper of which I have given a copy to Barry Merriman & others, I come out that this intensity is just Planck's constant (with a range of error due to the range of error in Hubble's constant). Furthe rmore, when I prove that this background force, which it is _UNJUSTIFIED_ for conventional theoretical physics to ignore, causes a zitterbewegung (jittering) of the electron orbiting a proton, then one can only compute a probability distribu tion of the electron's position; and it has been known since 1950 that such a calculation results _exactly_ in Schroedinger's equation for the complex psi (if one poses the problem of how to factor the probability into the product of a complex nu mber with its conjugate). This is all in the two Princeton U Press books by Edward Nelson, who professes ignorance as to what the background field causing the jittering might be. (If you ask why does not the jittering electron radiate its energy aw ay, one can easily compute, as has been done by Schwinger's student Boyer and more recently by Hal Puthoff, that the Bohr orbit has the unique property that if one augments the picture of monopole radiation filling the visible universe which I just presented, by the analogous picture of also _random_ dipole electromagnetic radiation filling the universe, namely as in the subject of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), it can be proved that when in the Bohr orbit the jittering electro n _picks up_ exactly as much radiation from this background field as it loses by bremmstrahlung!) In other words, once one _sees_ the _inevitability_ of not neglecting cosmological Coulomb & Maxwell radiation, then one _must_ derive Stochastic Mechanics (SM) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) and orthodox QM & QED become superfluous, re dundant, & misleading! All the mystical pictures of "wavicles" and particles paradoxically going through two slits at once are not needed in this Newtonian-Maxwellian TOE (Theory of Everything). Fact Number Two: Puthoff and his collaborators have gone so far as to use SED to _explain_ both gravitational & inertial mass and to show their equivalence, and to derive Newton's F = Ma, and to derive Mach's principle (without which Eins tein admitted that no theory of gravity could claim to be complete), and to derive Dirac's "cosmological numerical coincidences" as inevitabilities, and to derive Newtonian gravity, and to derive the Newton-Cavendish parameter G!!! Puthoff has to assume that Planck's constant is given, and has so far neglected to read my paper showing that he need not assume Planck's constant, but can _derive_ it from Hubble's constant, once he augments SED by SM. Nelson abandoned SM (which he admits in his second book he had loved and cherished for 17 years) when he met CERN physicist J.S. Bell, who persuaded him to check whether or not Bell's Inequalities also hold in SM; and they do! Then the results of the EPR paradox ("the non-locality of reality!"; see e.g. David Peat's book "Einstein's Moon", endorsed by Bell, or Bell' s own book) staggered Nelson, because he thought that he was defending Einstein's vision of a physics with _NO_ non-locality. Actually, the _illusion_ of non-locality is something with which we fool ourselves; Puthoff explained it to me one day, but I lack the energy now to repeat his explanation. Hint: the apparently correlated particles which once interacted an d are now far apart do not "know" superluminally what the other's state is; but the background field does! I have actually studied all of the details of Puthoff's seminal SED papers, and regard him as the greatest thinker since Einstein; though presently ridiculed by the Establishment, Puthoff is going to be tomorrow's hero and the je er-review, sneer-review (allegedly peer-review) crowd is destined to be forgotten superluminally. The only flaw in the Puthoff TOE is that to explain F = Ma, and inertia, and gravity, he has to view a macroscopic piece of matter as composed of a collection of charged particles (quarks or partons) which are behaving like _quanti zed oscillators_; when accelerated, these oscillators generate a Lorentz force which opposes the direction of motion. Then gravity (like the Casimir effect) is just a "shadow" effect from unequal exposure to the cosmological Zero Point Energy backg round radiation field. (The late Soviet physicist-dissenter and Nobel Laureate Sakharov anticipated this theory of gravity.) The first flaw in Puthoff's theory is that he has to assume some kind of inertia on the part of charged parti cles or else the classical harmonic oscillator model will not be available for his SED theory to quantize. The second flaw in Puthoff's theory is that he assumes Planck's constant to be a given constant of nature. This is why he needs (but does not yet adopt) my SM theory in order to get his theory going, for my theory not only provides the Planck's constant which he has to assume, but it also _explains_ why a harmonic oscillator _must_ be quantized in a way that Newton and Coulomb could have predicted if they had understood stochastic processes! I am intellectually "forced against my will" to accept the preceding SM/SED theory, instead of QM/QED, because of Occam's Razor; but emotionally, I would rather believe in the "all is waves", because I am certain that psychic phenomena ( telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.) are real, and in a Bohm-like theory, where the psi wave of each particle fills the universe (and jumps superluminally to new values), it is easy to imagine that PK can be justified. I once sent ENECO's director of research, who wanted my interpretation of "coherence length", a 20-page letter outlining about 15 conflicting interpretations of QM. A "trained lawyer" can argue any side of any forensic question, and a trained mathematician like me can argue any side of any theoretical debate. Enough? Bob Bass -- Dr. Robert W. Bass, Registered Patent Agent 29,130 [ex-prof Physics] Inventor: Topolotron, Plasmasphere, issued; QRT ColdFusion, pending. e-Mail: rbrtbass pahrump.com X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 22:05:01 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:01:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:06:19 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, yekim physics.purdue.edu, storms@ix.netcom.com Subject: Bass proposal to test CF (entire, in readable format) Resent-Message-ID: <"bmlcz1.0.fr5.q6qAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11178 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Subject: Absurd 'Critiques' of 5 FROZEN NEEDLES Protocol From: "Robert Bass" Date: 1997/07/06 Message-Id: <01bc858a$a37583e0$6792e2cd rbrtbass.pahrump.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion [More Headers] Absurd 'Critiques' of "5 FROZEN NEEDLES CF Protocol" by Robert W. Bass With all due respect to the posters of comments on my "Definitive" F&P-type of Cold Fusion demo Protocol, it seems that most of them are so eager to get in their two cents' worth that they read hastily & superficially, without giving serious th ought to the logic of what has been presented, or its theoretical derivation, and then "shoot from the hip" with the intention of "wounding first, ask questions later." A case in point is the _absurdly superficial_ point that "maybe there could be Helium_4 in the liquid nitrogen used to freeze the cathode." Careful readers of my Protocol know that this point had already been considered and was _perfectly_ taken care of!!! Remember, the 5 needles are strips from the _same_ flat, thin, rectangular cathode. The needle to which ZERO current is applied (i.e. for t_k = k.tau microseconds, where tau = T and T is optimized by trial and error [1-parameter search], and k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 -- in this case, k = 0, so t_0 = 0 microseconds) is the control blank. The mean amount of contamination in each of the 5 needles is and this amount is subtracted [in a statistically _correct_ manner!!!] from the mean amounts , , & in the remaining 4 needles (k = 1, 2, 3, 4). If the esttimated standard deviation is less than one-half of the estimated mean _increment_ then with 95% Confidence the experiment _proves_ that = , = 2., = 3., = 4. which _PROVES_ that the amount of _freshly created_ Helium_4 (_regardless_ of contamination from ALL sources!) is _PROPORTIONAL_ to the number of bound deuterons in the palladium lattice which have been excited to (or raised to) the n = 100 energy level i n my _published_ spectrum of the lowest 600 lines in the "Spectrum of Resonant Transparency of the Coulomb Barrier" [according to standard QM as applied rigorously rather than superficially as in the otherwise splendid Princeton U Press text on QM by Prin ceton astrophysicist P.J.E. Peebles who in 6 pages at the end of his first chapter purports to demonstrate that CF is physically impossible --- however, he made two giant mistakes: (1) he treated the problem inside of a lattice as if it concerned only t wo isolated particles in a vacuum, i.e. he treated the problem as if it were mathematically LOCAL instead of global (and thereby neglected to include in his potential all of the Madelung/Fermi-Thomas/ /Mott forces from EVERY charged particle in the lattic e, which I have done correctly, as proved by the fact that my formula _predicts_ the Schwinger Ratio from first principles within one-third of one percent of physically measured reality), which forces _cannot_ be neglected because my potential well is one third deeper and of much higher-slope at the edges than his point-particle Coulomb potential [and it is in precisely my newly discovered _extra_ depth that the LOW ENERGY levels n = 1 to n = 600 -- from 6 eV to 150 eV reside, which proves that Peebles was _physically_ mistaken to have omitted the Madelung/Fermi-Thomas/Mott corrections to his potential; and (2) Peebles neglected the most crucially important aspect of the global potential V(r), namely its _PERIODICITY_ V(r) = V(r + 2L) where L is the la ttice period-length, which means that in effect Peebles neglected what to a rigorous mathematician would be the most important relevant theorem, namely the Floquest theory, or, to restate this point in other language, Peebles neglected the most important theorem of Solid State Physics (namely, Bloch's Theorem, that inside of a periodic lattice, as pointed out in their papers by Scott Chubb & Talbott Chubb, solutions of Schroedinger's equation are irrelevant unless they are spatially periodic of the _same_ period!) From the preceding you may think that I am criticizing Jim Peebles, whom I actually admire and regard as a model of scientific behavior and intellectual honesty. He should have received a Nobel Prize for suggesting looking for the Cosmic Backgrou nd Radiation before Penzias & Wilson at Bell Labs actually empirically discovered it! Also, I regard his 6 pages, which I am purporting to improve, as of great value, because he stated all of his assumptions with such clarity & specificity that it is eas y for someone trained in ODEs like myself to perceive what he has omitted that must be included. Also, his derivation is elegant and I learned a lot from studying it (including the best way to render the problem dimensionless). Finally, his presentation is intellectually honest because at the end, he muses aloud as to whether or not there may have been some aspect of the problem (as in the surprise about High-Temperature Superconductivity) that has been overlooked. Therefore hi s published 6-page comment on CF is a model of "genuinely scientific" behavior. Furthermore, I believe that Jim Peebles is a "good guy" because when I sent him an early and very crude version of the theory toward which I was groping by stages over an epoch of years, he was gracious enough to write back and to say that he thou ght that my closed-form summation of the Madelung forces was neat and should be published, although he still thought then that the Madelung forces were not relevant. My one-dimensional lattice was then not electrically neutral (although 1-D is good enough, for a similar 1-D model predicts the highly relevant Moessbaur Effects within a factor of unity of the correct 3-D model, and as Schwinger said, in this con text quoting Einstein, sometimes it is a poor strategy to be too ambitious with a first model), becauseI have accounted for all electrons by placing them at _averaged_ positions, statically, between each pair of _bound_ deuterons at lattice points k.L and -k.L for k = 1, 2, 3, ... . The deuteron near r = 0 is supposed to be excited, and therefore in the Coulomb/Madelung potential well on the interval -L < r < L (which is why my potential has period 2L instead of L). When I tried to predict the rms amplitude lambda of the ZPF fluctuations (which Schwinger has conjectured represents the net effect of "_ALL_ forces at work in the lattice, albei t crudely") I got the "Schwinger Ratio," namely the _empirically measured_ ratio lambda/L only within about 30 percent, which I regarded as not good enough! But then I learned from the published papers of Nobel Laureate Willis Lamb & his colleague R. Par menter at U of AZ [which reference I had got indirectly from Peebles because he referred me to published papers whose authors kindly referred me to Bob Parmenter] how to include the _one_ missing electron on the interval -L < r < L in order to make the 1- D lattice completely electrically neutral and perfect my potential V(r) by including the electron as a probabilistically smeared out (uniformly distrib- uted) _charge-cloud_ over the interval (or lattice cell) of interest, in the manner of Fermi-Thomas as improved by Sir Neville Mott. When I then "perfected" my Coulomb/Madelung/Fermi-Thomas/Mott 1-D lattice-potential V(r) = V(r + 2.L) I was gratified to learn that it improved my _prediction_ of the "all important" empirically-measured Schwinger Ratio to within 0.3% of reality! Who could ask for more? Seriousl!!! This is _perfect_ (within obvious e xperimental error [width, x-ray blur])!!! My friend Yeong Kim of the Nuclear Theory Group of the Physics Department at Purdue has pointed out that since I only used the WKB "asymptotic" solution of the Schroedinger Equation, my work cannot claim better than qualitative correctness for low quantum numbers, such as n = 1, n = 2, n = 3. But it is well-known that as n increases the numerical discrepancy between the WKB "solution" and the exact solution (used by Kim & Zubarev) decreases asympto tically to zero with increasing n, and I have never heard of a case where one could tell the difference at n = 5, much less n = 100 (as used in "Definitive" protocol). The last time I spoke to Jim Peebles on the phone he justifiably refused to concede that my _then_ still crude 'theory' was convincing [with which negative judgment I myself agree!!!] but he also added, and I regard this as 'fair enough!,' "it is not up to _me_ to tutor you," and then gave me the all-important ref.-'tip' which eventually led me to Parmenter, whose work did actually 'tutor' me sufficiently that I hope that when I now send Peebles my "perfected" theory he will _NOW_ become convinced that I have indeed found the omissions from his 6-page argument about CF that he mused aloud might have been omitted inadvertently, and that I have indeed demonstrated "rigorously" that classical QM _predicts_ CF! X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 23:17:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:15:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 02:14:55 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: Bill Beaty on Laura Lee Resent-Message-ID: <"Lewly1.0.Pw3.dBrAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11179 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com William Beaty writes: >I always get tongue-tied early in the shows (lots of "um"s), but then >speed up as time goes along. I noticed, but overall you did okay, IMO. >Link is near the top of "Weird Science" page. >http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/hum/hum.html Okay, thanks. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Thu Sep 25 23:30:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 01:28:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: g-miley@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu To: Vortex-L , Kurt Johmann , "Scudder, Henry J." From: "George H. Miley" Subject: Re: PhD Cc: "Robert Bass" Resent-Message-ID: <"pEoIW3.0.fP4.pOrAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11180 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Kurt - re the Vortex note below, I understand what you are saying. On the other hand we all can (and do) make mistakes. I have a PhD, and am a Fellow for research contributions in three leading professional societies - APS, IEEE, and ANS. However the day I start resting on my past laurels, is the very day I will make a mistake!! I believe we must judge the research itself, not the degree held by the person. That is the reason I have continued to seriously consider, and have tried hard to respond to, issue s raised about my own thin film transmutation studies. As some have stressed on Vortex-L, researchers must "try to prove ourselves wrong" if they expect to maintain scientific integrity. What seems to be forgotten is that, at the same time, the critics mu st keep an open mind and also try to prove themselves wrong . Let's wait and see how the TWO SIDES here, the Cincy Group and Dr. Brodzinski, behave relative to this criteria. Regards, George Miley PS -- Hank - you must (hopefully) be kidding! Good point-- George ------------------ >From: Kurt Johmann >To: vortex-l eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group >Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 9:53PM >Sounds like a damning inditement of the Cincinnati Group and their >alleged remediation device. So how did Liversage get it so wrong? Was it just a >case of singing the song that the paying customer wanted? Or is Brodzinski in >error? >My guess at the moment is that the CG result is wrong, since the people >involved are not PhDs, and amateur efforts in OU are as a rule either >mistaken or worse, IMO. >Kurt Johmann ----------------------------------------------- >Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:55:00 -0700 >From: "Scudder, Henry J." >To: Kurt Johmann >Subject: Re: Brodzinski report on Cincinnati Group >Kurt: Do you mean, if I don't have a PhD I can't talk with you or participate >in Vortex-L? >Hank ================================================================================ George H. Miley Fusion Studies Laboratory University of Illinois 100 NEL 103 S. Goodwin Ave. Urbana, Il 61801 USA =================== phone: 217-3333772 fax: 217-3332906 g-miley uiuc.edu =================== X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 00:19:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 01:24:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off-topic, SERIOUSLY off-topic Resent-Message-ID: <"9Rbzi1.0.QV5.x6sAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11181 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Chris Tinsley wrote: >>Steve, >> > abortion, gun control, creationism, the Death Penalty, mandatory >> > motorcycle helments, prayer in public schools, bilingual >> > education, Legalizing Drugs, Government larger vs smaller... >> >>But these are matters of purely parochial concern to US citizens on this >>list. >> >>Chris >> >> ahh yes, I guess i should have used list two:(including BUT NOT limited to:) genecide, starvation, loss of liberty-freedom, enslavement, war, taxation, and suppression of free speech.....etc.. didn't know the Pope/dia was into gun control, motorcycle helments or acedemic politics (my fault- sorry)... I thought ALL of the above were easy to understand. Have a nice day :) -=se=- ps. say, why did you 'edit-out' SEX??, a GOOD THING for US, NO?? boy, I hope this is (OFF TOPIC) as you started it. Once or twice my mother wanted to hug me in public.. (ugh!:) now she's gone..(sigh) ------- how to close down this thread?? i'm outa here bye* X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 06:52:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:35:44 -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, 26 Sep 1997 08:35:35 -0500 References: <199709260628.BAA14319 mx2.cso.uiuc.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: PhD Resent-Message-ID: <"_Mxwy2.0.eL4.jexAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11182 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 26, 1:29am, George H. Miley wrote: > However the day I start resting on my past laurels, is the > very day I will make a mistake!! I believe we must judge the research > itself, not the degree held by the person. Amen to that. Know many living brain donors with degrees. Know many geniuses that couldn't care less about missing letters behind their names. I'm going to tape that one up on my wall. Couldn't have said it better. 8^) -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 08:26:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 17:47:35 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio References: <199709260136.SAA17414 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"HtOwp.0.UD7.t5zAq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11184 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross Tessien wrote: > [snip] > > The thing I found interesting as I recall is that he used 18 shells > for his summation. [snip] Thank you for the cross analysis of the Lockyer and yours theories. For me the most important issue is the cube model itself to describe the basic particles. Is this topology obeying Maxwell equations? If they not obey exactly, how should be the compatible equations? Once the theory base to mathematical ground, every questions could be answered progressively. Cube model clearly show how the positron and electron differentiate and the negative and positive charges. Possibly the book gives how the electric charge is produced from the model, and how the particles mimics a electric monopole. It is possible to answ er to question magnetic charges could exist and how will be the topology. Proton and Neutron models are used as proof for his theory. (and they are fully satisfying proofs). The preliminary EM wave interpretation and basic cube model is far more powerful than the composite particle models. It offer complete understanding of the electricity, to explain superconductivity, and predict many new phenomena which we never dreamed. If the cube model is physically available, it will be wonderful to create a dynamic simulation of the particles, electron, proton,... and see how they interact. Find other stable configurations which will never encountered, and not be possibly created si mply by photon condensation and collisions of particles. This will be the physics of next centuries! Also, I found very parallelism between O.A.Barut and Lockyer's theories. Please revisit my earlier posting "Barut's paper", 5 Sep 1997 again the link is http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 07:29:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:16:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: josephnewman@mail.earthlink.net Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:20:55 -0600 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: josephnewman earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Frank Znidarsic's comments.... Resent-Message-ID: <"IV6jp3.0.JS5.zEyAq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11183 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > As an electrical engineer I often worked with Maxwell's > equations. The formulation of the electric-magnetic symmetry is > quite familiar to me. A changing magnetic field produces a > electric field and vice versa. At low temperatures in > electron condensations and superconductors the electric field > as well as the magnetic field both have dipole formulations. > > ........................................................... > > As a rather off the wall strange agent I applied what I know > about symmetry to the gravitational field. I found that a > gravitational symmetry exists. It has nothing to do with the > electromagnetic symmetry. The gravitational symmetry revolves > around force (dp/dt) and gravity. > > gravity = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) > > I've also found that the gravitational field tends to form > dipoles within electron condensations. The rotation of these > gravitational dipoles induces the gravitomagnetic field reported > at Tempere. I have already derived the formulations for the > electromagnetic and gravitational symmetries, using Maxwell's > equations, on my book on a disk, chapeter I. Download from my > home page. > > ................................................ > > Now like a brick on the head I've seen the nuclear symmetry. It > revolves around the strong nuclear force and the spin orbit > force. The constants that describe it are different, however, by it > has the same formulation as the electro-magnetic and > gravitational-force symmetries. I already know a lot about it > and can begin to design machines to harness it. > > I also intend to derive its formulation employing the same > techniques that I used for the electromagnetic and the > gravitational symmetries. After I'm done I'll compute > statistical cross sections. > ................................................ > > This is so simple why has no one else ever done it. > > >Frank Znidarsic > > Frank, You have hit upon some concepts that were there for the taking. The Emminent mathematician, Emmy Noether (founder of Noetherian ring theory), proved in 1931 that ALL physical laws must exhibit symmetry. You were quite inventive to elucidate some of these aspects above. For your first formulation, I believe that G is newton's constant for universal gravitation (right or not?), and c = speed of light, what is r, the radius (?) Your second proposal is more within the framework of quantum field theory where classical gravity acts upon the wave functions of particles. In your next paragraph, i would doubt that the spin orbit interaction of electron orbitals is related to the strong nuclear force. however, upon synchronous excitation, it may play a role in augumenting the macroscopic electric and magnetic fields. --Rich Vento X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 09:16:35 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:09:10 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:12:21 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: Antigravity observed with simple gyroscope? References: <970921040157_1831004536 emout15.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"5x7X31.0.O_1.buzAq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11186 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:27 PM 9/21/97 -0500, John Logajan wrote: >So strictly speaking, this is not likely a "weight reduction" but >(if true) a gravity reduction. Hmmmm... I would say that it is a relativistic effect which appears as a difference between inertial and gravitational mass. Figure it out. The energy in the rotation of the gyroscope must be accounted for--it makes it heavier--but how is it distrib uted within the gyro? If the energy of rotation is not subject to relativistic time dilation, but the rim of the gyro is, then the inertial and gravitational masses will diverge. But the dependence on direction of rotation argues for a much simpler explanation...the path taken by a rotating gyroscope w.r.t. the rotating earth will not be quite straight. (Neither will the path taken by any falling object, rotating or not that is the Coriolis force. Al that happens here is that you get three different slightly curved tracks.) Perform the same experiment at the North Pole with the same result, and I'll get very interested. 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 Sep 26 08:40:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:19:16 -0700 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:22:46 -0800 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Seeking clarification Resent-Message-ID: <"RekHu3.0.dZ7.o9zAq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11185 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] 2. Mr. Rothwell takes this statement above by Michael Schaffer, who apparently simply ignored other contributions to heat flow, heat storage, non-linearities, and the Bernard instability [snip] Alternatively, Jed, or Mike Schaeffer can actually prove they are experts by writing out the equation and defending that all the terms are present, that the equation holds for the experiment in question, and that not other additional terms might influence the interpretation of data to be "plugged" into the equation. [snip] Consider the following idealization of a flow calorimeter. Let there be a box that encloses an arbitrary set of apparatus that releases heat at an arbitrary rate, dH_source/dt, and distributes this heat by arbitrary processes within the box. Let the box be perfectly insulated thermally from the outside world except for an arbitrary cooling circuit that enters the box at one point and leaves through another. Let water or some other suitable coolant liquid be pumped through the cooling circuit. Then, the i nternally released heat leaves the box ONLY as increased enthalpy of the exit liquid over the entering liquid. Therefore, conservation of energy for this system is H_source = H_stored + S (T_out - T_in)*c_p*(dM/dt) dt (1) where H_source = enthalpy released by the arbitrary interior sources since start of experiment (a function of time) H_stored = enthalpy stored by arbitrary processes within the box (a function of time) S...dt = integration with respect to time c_p = mass heat capacity of coolant liquid at constant pressure T_out = temperature of coolant liquid at exit T_in = temperature of coolant liquid at entrance dM/dt = coolant mass flow per unit time. We do not know H_stored. However, if are told, or if we can reasonably hypothesize that H_stored eventually reaches and remains at a steady value, then its time derivative eventually becomes zero. Differentiation of Eq. (1) then gives d(H_source)/dt = (T_out - T_in) c_p (dM/dt) (2) in the steady state. If desired, one can replace c_p (dM/dt) by c_p rho (dV/dt), (3) where rho = liquid mass density dV/dt = coolant volume flow per unit time. This is the basis of mass flow calorimetry. It is independent of all processes occurring within the box, other than the enthalpy release to be measured. It is independent of how the heat release is distributed inside the box and how the heat is transporte d to the cooling liquid. It is independent of convection, including Benard instability. It does not matter whether the processes are linear or nonlinear (except that one must know c_p or c_p*rho as functions of temperature for precise work). Only two cond itions must be met: 1) there must be no significant heat leaks, and 2) the system must eventually reach a steady state in which dH_stored/dt is zero. The above is clearly an idealization of practical mass flow calorimetry. However, it can be closely approached in practice. The biggest problem, when applying it to cold fusion experiments which I know, is thermal insulation of the box to reduce heat that leaves the system by routes other than the coolant (or heat that enters the box, if the exterior world is hotter than the interior of the box). A dewar offers the best practical insulation. Styrofoam is the best cheap, easy-to-form material. After insulation, heat crossing the box walls can be reduced further by practical des ign means, such as: locate the heat producing components far from the wall, place the cooling circuit between the heat source(s) and the wall, and regulate the temperature of the exterior air to equal the temperature of the cooling water. With respect to the latter, it is most effective when the cooling circuit first passes near the wall, then continues to the heat-release volume, and the air temperature is regulated to T_in. Liquid volume or mass flow is fairly easy to measure accurately. If water is the cooling liquid, one can use standard tables of c_p and rho as functions of temperature. If the liquid properties are unknown, one must measure them. Alternatively, one can me asure the liquid heat capacity in the same calorimeter (rather than in an off-line calorimeter which is probably less accurate) by running at steady state at various temperatures with just an electrical heat source in the box. Viscous dissipation by the coolant flow adds the corresponding enthalpy to the liquid, appearing as increased T_out. The viscous power can be calculated (it is the product of dV/dt and the pressure drop between inlet and outlet) and subtracted from the ap parent dH_source/dt calculated from eqs. (1) or (2), to get the true dH_source/dt. Mitchell also wrote: [snip] 3. That corrections exist, or that more than one control might be needed, or that long term measurement to rule out energy storage, .... See my discussion above about corrections and precautions. 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 Sep 26 09:31:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:25:14 -0700 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: "R. Wormus" To: Hamdi Ucar CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:15:54 -0700 Organization: ProTech Subject: Re: Vector Particle Physics Resent-Message-ID: <"Qe0hN.0.mv2.e7-Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11187 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi, and vortex-l I have bought and read Thomas Lockyer's book "Vector Particle Physics". Available at: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm for $10 (he even sends a stamped ,addressed enevelope for payment) I find his book consise, well written and his theory is intriguing not only because of its predictive power (calculates mass and magnetic moments for both proton and neutron and as Hamdi pointed out, the proton/electron mass ratio as well as the fine str ucture constant) but because he has a very lucid explanation for Energy to mass conversion. The theory begins with an EM model of photon Energy and proceeds from there. All of Lockyer's elementary particles are a result of vector combinations of the E, B, and Poynting vectors of a photon. The cube geometry of his theory comes from the orthogonal nature of these vectors in a Cartesian coordinate system. I am sure the sa me mathematics could be expressed in a spherical coordinate system also. I personally have never been able to understand the appeal of QCD with its fractional charges, 36 some quarks, numerous empirical parameters, and little predictive power. I intuitively find this theory much more likeable. The vector particle theory is much more mathematically accessible than QM but seems to have excellent structural predictive powers. As Ross Tessien points out some of his and Lockyer's ideas may be similar. However, Lockyer has formulated his ideas quantitatively so that they can be tested by measurement while, as far as I can tell, Ross's fluid dynamical ideas are not yet expressed mathematically. Another case of wave particle duality __ Ross's waves and L ockyer's particles. In any case, I feel that this book and theory deserve serious consideration and wonder why, as Hamdi pointed out to me, that Lockyer is considered a"Crank" by mainstream physics? It seems to me he has done some very good testable work. I would appreciate discussion of this theory. ____Ron X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 11:04:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:59:57 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:59:48 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Resent-Message-ID: <"8DLuq3.0.g5.RW_Aq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11188 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com hamdi ucar wrote; >Ross Tessien wrote: >> >[snip] >> >> The thing I found interesting as I recall is that he used 18 shells >> for his summation. >[snip] > >Thank you for the cross analysis of the Lockyer and yours theories. > >For me the most important issue is the cube model itself to describe >the basic particles. Is this topology obeying Maxwell equations? If they >not obey exactly, how should be the compatible equations? > >Once the theory base to mathematical ground, every questions could be >answered progressively. Yes, you are correct. What we need to do, is to figure out what the geometry of the oscillations of the wave energy in the quantum vacuum is shaped like so that we can analyze the motions and the geometries of the structures. In QM today, it is believed that if you cannot observe it, then you should not build a theory around it. But this is absurd. A fundamental theory must be clever, and it must be built around the geometries and the motions and the structures at scales far below what we can directly observe. By attacking the problem this way, we try to understand something radically hard to grasp . But if we can discover a model that works, then we can use that model to derive equations for what we could observe, on a statistical basis. QM has come at this problem backwards, and with amazing success for as ridiculous as the assumptions of QM really are. It is amazing that they worked. But when you understand the fluid mechanical nature of the universe, it slowly becomes clear why they work. "Spacetime" is **not** a metric! Spacetime is a fluid mechanical structure of standing waves, and so it is turbulent rather than being simply a mathematical construct. That turbulence leads to Brownian like deviations to the paths of particles an d photons as they move through space, and thus it leads to interference patterns such as in the two slit experiment. > >Cube model clearly show how the positron and electron differentiate and >the negative and positive charges. Possibly the book gives how the >electric charge is produced from the model, and how the particles mimics >a electric monopole. It is possible to answer to question magnetic >charges could exist and how will be the topology. Hamdi, if you work with the cube model of Lockyer, you have a mathematical tool that may be correct (at least it gives the correct values to good precision. But you still do not have the real, physical, geometries of the particles resonances themselves. If you truly want to understand what particles are all about, you need to study three dimensional, dynamic, geometries, and not 2 dimensional mathematical geometries of squares. Dyanamic 3D standing wave interactions ARE 4D. And that is what we know we live in, not 12D etc. as in string theories which just throw everything into the witches cauldron. The first time you work with 3D resonances, you will be amazed at what you are working with. Consider the path to this understanding by contemplating the following; 1) The universe is an ocean of aether. 2) The sound speed of the aether is dependent on the density, locally. Greater density leads to slower sound speed. (Notice that this will give you gravitational lensing in the end, and it will allow spacetime to establish as a manifold, and it will allow localized resonances to be driven by spacetimes motions, all from one characteristic of the aether.) 3) Particles are some sort of spherical resonances in and of that aether, and are distributed all across the universe. (Notice that at first glance, you would think that wave energy from deep space would be chaotic and random. But 2 above allows stochastic processes to manifest as the slowing tends to cause waves to cohere, and thus spacetime to form. Also notic e that as the radius to some distant clump of matter increases, the intensity of the energy drops by 1/R^2. This leads most physicists to discount any coherent energy coming from deep space at the Planck scale of QVF. However, notice also that on cosmol ogical distances, as you head outward in radius, the AMOUNT OF MATTER is increasing by R^2. And (1/R^2) * (R^2) = 1.000 In other words, there is the same amount of wave energy arriving at Earth from ten million light years away, as there is from a billion light years away! When you understand 3 and 2 together, you stand a chance of understanding that spacetime is nothing but a buzzing manifold with a repeating x,y,z sort of cubism structure. It may be more complicated like Penrose tiles, but it must repeat in a cubic forma t. 4) Coupled oscillations phase and frequency lock their oscillations together. (A simple version of this is two guitar strings coupling, or two pendulums. But when you study this process in 3D + t, it really blows your mind. Try using a checkerboard like cubic manifold of oscillations, and coupling a spherical resonance to it. When you do, you will begin to see Lockyers geometries unfold in your mind) 5) When you use the notion of Conservation of Aether, you will then be armed to study black holes and new born stars, and coronal heating and coronal mass ejections. Try working with the geometries directly, and not simply with equations. The equations are just descriptions of the geometry, and ***NOT*** the other way around. In other words, nature is doing what it does, the way it does. And so there are specific geometric motions involved. Our task is to describe those motions, on average, with equations. If you work with the geometries, you will then have the proper model from which to derive your equations. If you begin with equatio ns, you will be hit or miss, throwing darts at the wall with a blindfold on trying to find some equations that accidentally match what is happening. True, sometimes that works, as in Lockyers case. But you wind up being restricted from other predictions you can make. For example, because he has no aether model for his structure, he cannot predict that aether must be conserved. He also does not learn that the amount of aether confined in a standing wave is what we know of as mass. Therefore, he cannot predict that aether is emitted from standing waves during exothermic reactions. And finally, he therefore cannot predict that aether is flowing out of and away from stars, or into black holes, or that aether has two states. Without those predictive abilities, you cannot work with flare stars and explain that aether is bursting out of the surface producing jets and flaring and CME's. And you cannot work at the sub atomic level to study how group motions of particles can alte r the spacetime locally and rip nuclei apart in unexpected ways such as in Pd electrodes in CF devices. Try this one thing and see if it makes sense. Imagine a wind tunnel lined with speakers all emitting a single frequency of energy. You now will form a nodal pattern of acoustic standing waves inside that wind tunnel. Now, imagine what will happen when you turn on the flow of air in the tunnel. You will not blow the grid out of the tunnel, you will only cause it to bend, or curve, downstream. So if you have a particle that is following the nodes because it is resonantly coupled to them, it will not matter how fast the air is blowing, it will continue to precess in as straight a line as possible through that CURVED NODAL STRUCTURE. Note that this is exactly what happens in GR. But I used a manifold of acoustic energy to induce the behavior. And that acoustic energy was identical to what I used for electric field energy and for nuclear field energy. All from one source of acoustic motion. (Be careful, though, I was describing flaring activity above, and not gravitation. This is also explained by my theory, and Lockyers doesn't even touch on GR effects. But GR is a different effect and it is not caused by any flow of aether, though they a re related in their results. Gravitation is due to the filtering of wave energy that is not frequency matched with local oscillations, while EM and strong and weak forces are due to phase angle interactions of the oscillations) If you want to find "NEW" applications for this theory, all you need to do is to study any form of stellar flaring, sun spots, etc. Those are things that are not currently anticipated by our theories because they have no aether flowing out of stars. The instant stars ignite, jets of COLD matter begin getting pushed out of their poles for some magical reason that cannot be explained. Following that, the stars begin flaring as the star COMES TO A BOIL WITH AETHER FLOWING OUT OF LOWER LATTITUDES. Then they enter the main sequence. If you think in terms of aether boiling and flow, it is so simple. You can even see this right in our own sun. Do a search for the Butterfly pattern of sun spots. Get a good image of a sun spot and just look at it! It is an aether tunnel with aether pouring out of the sun!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any way, the butterfly pattern occurs because the flow of aether increases in the core, and then the polar escape routes are the first to increase in flow, but when more volume must flow outward, tunnels punch out through lower and lower lattitudes as the star INCREASES ITS FLUIDIZATION. That is why they occur near the poles first. And the change in density is why the acoustic pitch changes on the 11 year cycle despite the fact that thermal energy takes hundreds of thousands of years to be communicated via Compton scattering. Stars are the key. They are telling us what is going on. But astrophysicists are trained by QM physicists, and so they all ignore the obvious. Something is flowing outward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That something is aether, to continue to maintain the average ambient pressure of the ocean we call a universe. All that is really happening, is that the aether droplets left over from the big bang are continuing to boil away as they have been for 12 Gyr s or so. That boiling, in the beginning, is what established spacetime. And matter particles, are nothing but the "atomized" droplets of aether condensate from that huge black hole core breach of inertial confinement, which got trapped in the acoustic n odes in that forming spacetime. Today, they are resonantly confined and remain in the condensate state with the droplet size at the Planck scale, E-35 meters. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 11:24:22 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: "tessien@oro.net" Cc : Vortex-L Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:14:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"ll69O2.0.Pc6.Cn_Aq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11189 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Russ Could you please put some mathematics to your theory. It would be easier to understand then words, and would be testable more easily too. Hank Scudder ---------- From: tessien oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Date: Friday, September 26, 1997 10:59AM hamdi ucar wrote; >Ross Tessien wrote: >> >[snip] >> >> The thing I found interesting as I recall is that he used 18 shells >> for his summation. >[snip] > >Thank you for the cross analysis of the Lockyer and yours theories. > >For me the most important issue is the cube model itself to describe >the basic particles. Is this topology obeying Maxwell equations? If they >not obey exactly, how should be the compatible equations? > >Once the theory base to mathematical ground, every questions could be >answered progressively. Yes, you are correct. What we need to do, is to figure out what the geometry of the oscillations of the wave energy in the quantum vacuum is shaped like so that we can analyze the motions and the geometries of the structures. In QM today, it is believed that if you cannot observe it, then you should not build a theory around it. But this is absurd. A fundamental theory must be clever, and it must be built around the geometries and the motions and the structures at scales far below what we can directly observe. By attacking the problem this way, we try to understand something radically hard to grasp. But if we can discover a model that works, then we can use that model to derive equations for what we could observe, on a statistical basis. QM has come at this problem backwards, and with amazing success for as ridiculous as the assumptions of QM really are. It is amazing that they worked. But when you understand the fluid mechanical nature of the universe, it slowly becomes clear why they work. "Spacetime" is **not** a metric! Spacetime is a fluid mechanical structure of standing waves, and so it is turbulent rather than being simply a mathematical construct. That turbulence leads to Brownian like deviations to the paths of particles and photons as they move through space, and thus it leads to interference patterns such as in the two slit experiment. > >Cube model clearly show how the positron and electron differentiate and >the negative and positive charges. Possibly the book gives how the >electric charge is produced from the model, and how the particles mimics >a electric monopole. It is possible to answer to question magnetic >charges could exist and how will be the topology. Hamdi, if you work with the cube model of Lockyer, you have a mathematical tool that may be correct (at least it gives the correct values to good precision. But you still do not have the real, physical, geometries of the particles resonances themselves. If you truly want to understand what particles are all about, you need to study three dimensional, dynamic, geometries, and not 2 dimensional mathematical geometries of squares. Dyanamic 3D standing wave interactions ARE 4D. And that is what we know we live in, not 12D etc. as in string theories which just throw everything into the witches cauldron. The first time you work with 3D resonances, you will be amazed at what you are working with. Consider the path to this understanding by contemplating the following; 1) The universe is an ocean of aether. 2) The sound speed of the aether is dependent on the density, locally. Greater density leads to slower sound speed. (Notice that this will give you gravitational lensing in the end, and it will allow spacetime to establish as a manifold, and it will allow localized resonances to be driven by spacetimes motions, all from one characteristic of the aether.) 3) Particles are some sort of spherical resonances in and of that aether, and are distributed all across the universe. (Notice that at first glance, you would think that wave energy from deep space would be chaotic and random. But 2 above allows stochastic processes to manifest as the slowing tends to cause waves to cohere, and thus spacetime to form. Also notice that as the radius to some distant clump of matter increases, the intensit y of the energy drops by 1/R^2. This leads most physicists to discount any coherent energy coming from deep space at the Planck scale of QVF. However, notice also that on cosmological distances, as you head outward in radius, the AMOUNT OF MATTER is increasing by R^2. And (1/R^2) * (R^2) = 1.000 In other words, there is the same amount of wave energy arriving at Earth from ten million light years away, as there is from a billion light years away! When you understand 3 and 2 together, you stand a chance of understanding that spacetime is nothing but a buzzing manifold with a repeating x,y,z sort of cubism structure. It may be more complicated like Penrose tiles, but it must repeat in a cubic format. 4) Coupled oscillations phase and frequency lock their oscillations together. (A simple version of this is two guitar strings coupling, or two pendulums. But when you study this process in 3D + t, it really blows your mind. Try using a checkerboard like cubic manifold of oscillations, and coupling a spherical resonance to it. When you do, you will begin to see Lockyers geometries unfold in your mind) 5) When you use the notion of Conservation of Aether, you will then be armed to study black holes and new born stars, and coronal heating and coronal mass ejections. Try working with the geometries directly, and not simply with equations. The equations are just descriptions of the geometry, and ***NOT*** the other way around. In other words, nature is doing what it does, the way it does. And so there are specific geometric motions involved. Our task is to describe those motions, on average, with equations. If you work with the geometries, you will then have the proper model from which to derive your equations. If you begin with equations, you will be hit or miss, throwing darts at the wall with a blindfold on trying to find some equations that accidentally match what is happening. True, sometimes that works, as in Lockyers case. But you wind up being restricted from other predictions you can make. For example, because he has no aether model for his structure, he cannot predict that aether must be conserved. He also does not learn that the amount of aether confined in a standing wave is what we know of as mass. Therefore, he cannot predict that aether is emitted from standing waves during exothermic reactions. And finally, he therefore cannot predict that aether is flowing out of and away from stars, or into black holes, or that aether has two states. Without those predictive abilities, you cannot work with flare stars and explain that aether is bursting out of the surface producing jets and flaring and CME's. And you cannot work at the sub atomic level to study how group motions of particles can alter the spacetime locally and rip nuclei apart in unexpected ways such as in Pd electrodes in CF devices. Try this one thing and see if it makes sense. Imagine a wind tunnel lined with speakers all emitting a single frequency of energy. You now will form a nodal pattern of acoustic standing waves inside that wind tunnel. Now, imagine what will happen when you turn on the flow of air in the tunnel. You will not blow the grid out of the tunnel, you will only cause it to bend, or curve, downstream. So if you have a particle that is following the nodes because it is resonantly coupled to them, it will not matter how fast the air is blowing, it will continue to precess in as straight a line as possible through that CURVED NODAL STRUCTURE. Note that this is exactly what happens in GR. But I used a manifold of acoustic energy to induce the behavior. And that acoustic energy was identical to what I used for electric field energy and for nuclear field energy. All from one source of acoustic motion. (Be careful, though, I was describing flaring activity above, and not gravitation. This is also explained by my theory, and Lockyers doesn't even touch on GR effects. But GR is a different effect and it is not caused by any flow of aether, though they are related in their results. Gravitation is due to the filtering of wave energy that is not frequency matched with local oscillations, while EM and strong and weak forces are due to phase angle interactions of the oscillations) If you want to find "NEW" applications for this theory, all you need to do is to study any form of stellar flaring, sun spots, etc. Those are things that are not currently anticipated by our theories because they have no aether flowing out of stars. The instant stars ignite, jets of COLD matter begin getting pushed out of their poles for some magical reason that cannot be explained. Following that, the stars begin flaring as the star COMES TO A BOIL WITH AETHER FLOWING OUT OF LOWER LATTITUDES. Then they enter the main sequence. If you think in terms of aether boiling and flow, it is so simple. You can even see this right in our own sun. Do a search for the Butterfly pattern of sun spots. Get a good image of a sun spot and just look at it! It is an aether tunnel with aether pouring out of the sun!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any way, the butterfly pattern occurs because the flow of aether increases in the core, and then the polar escape routes are the first to increase in flow, but when more volume must flow outward, tunnels punch out through lower and lower lattitudes as the star INCREASES ITS FLUIDIZATION. That is why they occur near the poles first. And the change in density is why the acoustic pitch changes on the 11 year cycle despite the fact that thermal energy takes hundreds of thousands of years to be communicated via Compton scattering. Stars are the key. They are telling us what is going on. But astrophysicists are trained by QM physicists, and so they all ignore the obvious. Something is flowing outward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That something is aether, to continue to maintain the average ambient pressure of the ocean we call a universe. All that is really happening, is that the aether droplets left over from the big bang are continuing to boil away as they have been for 12 Gyrs or so. That boiling, in the beginning, is what established spacetime. And matter particles, are nothing but the "atomized" droplets of aether condensate from that huge black hole core breach of inertial confinement, which got trapped in the acoustic nodes in that forming spacetime. Today, they are resonantly confined and remain in the condensate state with the droplet size at the Planck scale, E-35 meters. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 11:42:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:40:15 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:38:37 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: re rich's comments Resent-Message-ID: <"wFbr41.0.tF1.D60Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11190 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com In your next paragraph, i would doubt that the spin orbit interaction of electron orbitals is related to the strong nuclear force. however, upon synchronous excitation, it may play a role in augumenting the macroscopic electric and magnetic fields. --Rich Vento .............................................................................. ....................... I was not refering to the electronic spin orbit coupling. I was refering to the nuclear spin orbit coupling. Same logic larger constants and it's not coulombic in origin. I believe that the range of the nuclear spin orbit force extends beyond the nucleus in cold fusion systems. The fact that range is now longer than the coulombic accounts for the lack of signature. The spin orbit force tends to couple nucleons pairwise i nto stable configurations. That's why cold fusion reactions tend to produce stable daughter nucleons. Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 14:10:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:02:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:37:11 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Lockyer's formulas on Excel Resent-Message-ID: <"lNzf13.0.PP.fB2Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11193 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi, The Excel worksheet containing calculation of Mp/Me and Mn/Me ratios from Lockyer's formulas is available at http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/6660/lockyer1.xls Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 11:46:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:44:56 -0700 From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: "R. Wormus" To: Ross Tessien Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:37:39 -0700 Organization: ProTech Subject: Re: Fair question of Mp/Me ratio Resent-Message-ID: <"gNMKJ2.0.hb1.dA0Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11191 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 26-Sep-97, Ross Tessien wrote: A very good site with a lot of topology information..... which as near as I can understand (both topology and Ross's Theory) seems like it may relate to Ross's compressible fluid model of the universe. See: http://www.uh.edu/~rkiehn ____Ron X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 12:09:06 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:05:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "R. Wormus" Reply-To: "R. Wormus" To: Ross Tessien CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:57:59 -0700 Organization: ProTech Subject: Re: Vector Particle Physics Resent-Message-ID: <"rIQ582.0.YY1.vT0Bq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11192 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 26-Sep-97, Ross Tessien wrote: >>Hamdi, and vortex-l >>I have bought and read Thomas Lockyer's book "Vector Particle Physics". >I have it too, and agree that the book is well laid out. I just have >problems figuring out the cubes, as cubes in 2D ink can flip in and >out. Aside from that, I agree the mathematics is compelling. However, >I am bothered that the structures he uses are not 3+1D, while our >universe IS. I view Lockyer's model as a sort of "static snapshot" of particle structure that really doesn't say much about dynamic relationships. I am unclear as to what he means by "subspace dimensions'' in reference to his nested nutrinos but I like the mathmatical accessibility of his model. He also provides a nice model for the attractive and repulsive forces which I have not seen before. ___Ron X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 18:33:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:24:33 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:29:59 -0800 From: "M.Twain" To: fstenger interlaced.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] References: <342823F1.32C19599@verisoft.com.tr> <34283EC9.1BE6@interlaced.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"N-FHG1.0.oN4.F16Bq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11203 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Frank, Yes. "the DENSITY of electromagnetic energy" does modify the speed of light". "Light speed does vary with EM energy concentration"! I go into many of the specifics in my metric relativity papers. Let me know if you want any hardcopy. Two data points which can give you a grasp of the whole luminal-to-superluminal cosmos -- the electron with aenergy of .511 MeV spins at Vc. The proto n has 1/8th the radius, but some 1838 times the aenergy. [Both the electron and the proton, I have shown, are reconnected lightwaves.] Thomas G. Barnes derives a (spherical) proton superluminal spin of 860 Vc. I derive a toroidal geometry proton (like a slinky connected end-to-end) with two superluminal spins (I name a spin and twist). I predicted an outer spin of 2.53 Vc -- in agreeme nt with some of the superluminal tunneling experiments in Germany, France and the U.S. For the fine spin, twist, I predicted a velocity of 12.9 Vc. The plasma matterverse then is spanned by two universal 'highway' or 'communications' systems. One I name e-space (for electrons) conducts signals at about Vc. The other I thus dubbed p-space (protonic) which conducts signals at 2.5Vc to 12.9Vc, and per haps beyond. I have been searching for several years for other superluminal proton (self-connected EMG wave) modelers, but have found none in addition to myself and Thomas Barnes. [Vigier and many other theorists and experimenters have derived superluminal nucleon ch aracteristics, but not their structures.] If you or anyone out there learns of other such models I would like to read of and credit them too. Millennium X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 14:21:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:02:44 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Seeking clarification Resent-Message-ID: <"i1g6Q.0.KQ6.HC2Bq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11194 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:22 9/26/97 -0800, Schaffer gav.gat.com wrote: >This is the basis of mass flow calorimetry. It is independent of all >processes occurring within the box, other than the enthalpy release to be >measured. etc. Good points all, Mike. My favorite defense of our mass flow calorimetry is an empirical one. To date, in all of the systems we have constructed, we have succeeded in getting the measured heat output to match the measured electrical input WITHOUT FUDGING ANYTHING! We use decen t meters to measure the input voltage and current. We use accuracy-guaranteed thermistors to measure the mass flow's delta-T and we use various fundamental methods (e.g. a balance and a stopwatch) to measure the mass flow rate. When the system is operat ing correctly and we have reduced thermal losses to an acceptable level, those data can be taken at face value and the output power will match the input power within a few percent when a resistance heater is placed in the chamber. I like to call it Fundamental Parameters calorimetry. It does not require calibration...only verification. 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 Sep 26 18:40:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:25:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:24:20 -0800 From: "M.Twain" To: fstenger interlaced.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Luminal Electron and Superluminal Proton GIFs Content-Disposition: inline; filename="E&P.gif" Resent-Message-ID: <"71mib2.0.tP4.826Bq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11204 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Content-Type: image/gif; name="E&P.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="E&P.gif" GIF89a%Ë÷X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 15:41:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:37 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:28 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: quark/nucleon topology, my theory Resent-Message-ID: <"nbx603.0.k64.hb3Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11195 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On 26-Sep-97, Ross Tessien wrote: > > > >A very good site with a lot of topology information..... which as near >as I can understand (both topology and Ross's Theory) seems >like it may relate to Ross's compressible fluid model of the universe. > >See: http://www.uh.edu/~rkiehn I'll check it out. As for the topology of a quark which I work with, there is a photo of Feynman at a black board where he has drawn a complex donut shaped torus with multiple helicities. I think the photo is in Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, the new edition that recently came out with a lot of images and photos in it. If you have seen that photo, I think that the torus geometry is tracing out the precession of the wave pressure energy as it precesses around a quark, and around a nucleon. This is radically diffi cult to put into words, and I haven't a clue how you would try to describe a sort of 4D "Wankle motor" mathematically, but that image is really close to what I have been working on. I was surprised to see it, though I don't know what he was using that ge ometry to describe. The structure is that of 9 muon resonances positioned around that torus donut. See some of the recent work on Oscillons if you want to see how pulsating standing waves have a tendency to couple together and rotate when in a vibrating field of oscillations which is driving them all forward. BTW, the reason different phase angle oscillations can lock together in that sort of a geometry, is because by the time the wave energy leaves a resonance at 90 degrees phase angle and arrives at another resonance at say, 0 degrees phase angle (both relat ive to an absolute reference such as spacetime), the wave energy is phase shifted. So the second particle perceives the waves emitted from the 90 degree resonance to be at 0 degrees phase, and the wave forms mesh in 4D. To maintain the coherency, however, the two resonances must be moving at near the speed of the acoustic energy, precessing the location of their centers of convergence. That rapid motion leads to a Doppler phase shift of their communicated waves such tha t the leading waveform "hears" red shifted energy and the trailing wave form hears blue shifted wave energy. So, from that it is clear that the 0 degree wave form would be leading the 90 degree wave form, and given that orientation, they would consider t hemselves to be in phase match with one anothers communicated wave energy. So the multiple muon resonances in a proton, or in a quark, are all in communication with one another and you get all of the combinations that are studied in particle physics and in QCD. This is a bit like the MIT bag model of QCD. The quarks are "confi ned" inside the radius at which the muon standing waves exceed the intensity of the spacetime waves. ie, this is the scale at which the vibrations in the aether transition from the cubic structure of spacetime, to the spherical geometry of the muon reson ances interior to the nucleus. So, inside of about E-15 meters, the phase and frequency coherency of the wave forms is perfectly locked up. This leads to a much better effeciency of communicating the pusations of the muon resonances. We notice that improvement in effeciency, and we call it the nuclear strong force. If the spherical waves head out into the nodal structure of spacetime, then when they arrive at another resonance far away (ie, further than nuclear interactions, as you must remember that the origin of the waves focal point is way down at the Planck scal e at E-35 meters), those other resonances will be positioned by the spacetime wave energy, and not by the other muon resonances. So the coherency of the communicated wave energy is much less. We call interactions of that sort, "Electric", and consider particles to be charged if they interact this way. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 15:48:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:30 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Comparison to Lockyer, and Lord Kelvin's (Thomsons) work Resent-Message-ID: <"JSLEJ2.0.h03.gb3Bq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11196 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >>I am bothered that the structures he uses are not 3+1D, while our >>universe IS. > >I view Lockyer's model as a sort of "static snapshot" of particle >structure that really doesn't say much about dynamic relationships. >I am unclear as to what he means by "subspace dimensions'' in >reference to his nested nutrinos but I like the mathmatical >accessibility of his model. I agree that the math is nice and easy. However, I think that his model is worse than a static snapshot because it is a snapshot of a 2D structure. What I am trying to describe is how to imagine a snapshot of a 4D structure. In other words, in my models I have found I can use color to represe nt phase angle, and concentric circles to represent spatial pressure distributions. With this, I can cross section a dynamic 4D structure and see the geometry by slicing it in a variety of ways. I can even alter the phase relationships using these trans parencies that are nothing but a bunch of concentric circles with the spaces and line widths equal, printed on transparency film in 4 colors. By aligning the centers of the resonances, you can see how they will add together along a variety of cross sectional planes, and from that you can see with your eyes, what the structure is in 4D because you can see regions like a section out of an apple, where 0 degree phase angle energy is important, or where 180 degree phase angle energy is important. It turns out that the geometry gives you not only what the quark geometry is like, but each quark winds up with a single net resonance and so the nucleon winds up with the identical geometry at a larger scale. Each transparency is that of a muon resonanc e. So you see, I am learning a lot from the geometry directly, without the math which is for me, intractable. > >He also provides a nice model for the attractive and repulsive forces >which I have not seen before. Read up on what Thomson and Bjerknes did on attractive and repulsive forces in the 1870's. They showed that the pulsating spheres I work with lead to the ability to derive Maxwells equations. What they left out was that the spheres they worked with had to remain in phase and frequency lock to one another. Now coupled oscillators do this. But you need the wave energy to couple to. All I am adding is that spacetime IS that wave energy. Then I take it many steps further by showing how frequency interference of the wave forms leads to GRAVITATION. And conservation of phase angle momentum l eads to the weak force. And the drop in effeciency of communicating the wave energy leads to the separation between the strong and the electric forces. Magnetism is nothing but a precession of the locations of the pulsating spheres, or, the electric fie ld. ie no such thing as magnetic monopole, that is nonsense. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 15:44:15 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:31 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Web sites with oscillon images, movie, and technical discussions Resent-Message-ID: <"umujt1.0.374.lb3Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11197 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com >On 26-Sep-97, Ross Tessien wrote: > > > >A very good site with a lot of topology information..... which as near >as I can understand (both topology and Ross's Theory) seems >like it may relate to Ross's compressible fluid model of the universe. > >See: http://www.uh.edu/~rkiehn Yes, those are very simple phenomena using rotation. But you can do the same things with vibration. Oscillons are the least complex to study and understand. They are from vertical vibrations in just one dimension, whereas you should keep in mind that I am saying you can apply what you learn here to 4 dimensions, 3 space and 1 time. Spacetime thus being just one of these dynamic patterns like what you see form in these 1D plus t vibrating systems. For an intro to the theory, check out this site first; http://hq.aps.org/mar96/vpr/Q5.02.html Quoting from that site; "small metal beads 0.2 mm in diameter to a depth of 7-8 particles, as shown schematically in Fig. 1. A lid is then placed on the container and the air removed. The container is then vibrated up and down at rates of 10 to 100 times a second and with corresponding amplitudes of 7.5 to 0.07 mm. For a fixed vibration rate there is a critical amplitude above which the layer makes a spontaneous transition from a flat state to a patterned one." Notice here at the end where they discuss a critical amplitude above which the patterns manifest. What I am saying is that spacetime is one of these patterns, of vibrating aether. and that particles are vibrations being driven by those oscillations like the oscillons. To be precise, the table vibrations themselves are equivalent to one dimension of spacetime vibration of the aether, not the patterns in this case. The patterns I mention simply to show you that given sufficient vibrational energy, you can form new struc tures. However, it may well be that the "aether condensate" I discuss in the context of muons and other particle standing waves may well be due to the focusing of the energy density of the convergent wave forms, and the formation of a new sort of structu re that confines a greater amount of aether, and which is akin to these patterns which can house a greater amount of vibrational energy in this bead medium. This happens in water, gases, super fluids, etc. So what I am talking about is hard to describe in words, but perhaps a bunch of these images will aid in that endeavor. A variety of geometries of nodal configurations for vibrating beds of beads can be viewed at; http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/condensed/1996/oscillon/ This site also shows some of the concepts behind the oscillon phenomena. An oscillon viewed from the horizontal can be viewed at; http://chaos.ph.utexas.edu/~pbu/oscillon.html Here is another excellent web site for oscillons ****see this one and the movie at this site, alternately listed below. This is a one dimensional version of the motion I have been describing as being an electron. A Muon would be a more energetic versio n of this resonance, but the media used is not able to support this more intense wave form so oscillons don't form muon resonances. http://chaos.ph.utexas.edu/~pbu/home.html Here is a movie of an oscillon in motion you can play using your browser. Notice that there is a second oscillon a short distance from the one being imaged. Oscillons tend to **LOCK** into doublets and triplets. Sound familiar to the particle physics guys?????? The locking is phase and frequency coupled, as I have been telli ng you regarding quarks being composed of multiple muon resonances; http://chaos.ph.utexas.edu/~pbu/anim.html The thing is, you don't need math to study these things, even in 4D. You can use graphics and timings of the wave energy if you learn how. I don't mean to say that learning this is easy, just that I have developed some graphical tools to make it easier, and I can see beyond these in my pea brain. magnetic froths, ie similar spacetime manifold type structures formed using magnetic fields can be viewed at; http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/condensed/1997/froth/froth.htm X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 15:43:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:38:33 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: LANL paper showing that coupled soliton structures are stable Resent-Message-ID: <"Zn0_V.0.113.jb3Bq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11198 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I found this paper at; http://cnls.lanl.gov/Events/Seminars/msg00054.html Notice that they find that multi solitons are stable to small perturbations. ie, they will filter out the out of sync wave energy. That filtering leads to a thrust forcing the two particles toward one another, while their motions lead to thrusts away from one another. Thus, you now should understand why the gluon force is so wierd. ie, it does not get stronger as they quarks move f urther apart, counter to all sense and experience. Rather, the repulsion falls off, while the compression from wave energy from space remains constant. So as the two quarks move apart, the thrust inward exceeds the thrust outward and the **NET** thrust is inward. The same is true for nucleons, and so with that you have the dim light turned on to figure out why CF takes place. Namely, you are rattling the almond tree and the weakest bound nucleons are flying off due to the repulsion when you disrupt the compressio n arriving from space. That is why the particles formed are always stable ones. You are rattling the nuclei down to more stable states. In any case, notice carefully that multi oscillon structures are stable. And then just take their simple 2D work up into 3D and you will find the structures I am working on. Later, Ross Tessien The linear stability of the multiple solitary wave solution of the Benjamin-Ono (BO) equation is studied analytically. By establishing the completeness relation for the eigenfunctions of the BO equation linearized about multisoliton solutions, we solve the initial value problem for this system. We find that the wave under consideration is stable against infinitesimal perturbations. As an application of this result, we construct a direct multisoliton perturbation theory of the BO equation without recourse to the inverse scattering transform method. In particular, we are concerned with the first-order solution beyond the adiabatic approximation. We also demonstrate that the first-order solution satisfies an infinite set of conservation laws modified by the perturbation. ---------------------------- Center for Nonlinear Studies http://cnls.lanl.gov office cnls.lanl.gov X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 16:16:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:14:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:14:21 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Math solutions of Soliton (or photon or particle) collisions, Resent-Message-ID: <"ZI_IU.0.S36.I74Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11199 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com See this web site for some excellent descriptions of how two solitons interact in a non linear manner. This is the behavior behind stochasm in photons, which are like smoke ring vortices. The waves described in this paper (and shown with good graphics f rom Mathematica), are sort of like a slice out of a photon with the axis of the photon being the "water surface" in the images you will see. Just revolve that wave form and you will have a crude version of a photon vortex. http://www.CRM.UMontreal.CA/~kasman/SOLITONPICS/ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 18:41:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:38:38 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Mk4 Progress Report References: <342C5287.2325563A microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZFEZ_1.0.382.aE6Bq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11205 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > > I am working on producing a plastic injection mold. The idea is to > produce 2 sections (top & bottom), drop in the magnets and ball, then > glue the sections together. Made of clear "See NO Batteries" plastic > it should make a real interesting toy. Design size is 75 x 50 x 25mm. > Should be NO problem pumping out several thousand a week. > Not to be whiny, but how about pumping out just one, and sending it to me :-). Is the above degree of sophistication really needed to produce the few scientific demo units you promised to Tinsley, Little, and myself? Not to be whiny^2, but the oldest SMOT posting I happen to have is from Mar 21, 1997, which by my count places thre SMOT "discovery" at 7 months ago. Yet there has been no demo unit forthcoming from you. This is not to ignore the fact that you have been d oing a great amount of SMOT activity, but I respectfully request that you consider shipping those few proof-of-priniple units, at least, before building the SMOT empire. There may be a mundane explantion lurking there, which would come to light all the sooner if a few working versions were delivered to scientists for study. -- 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 Sep 26 19:07:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:06:00 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:05:50 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Evidence of aether gravity waves in ocean waves; Resent-Message-ID: <"iOaXY3.0.SJ6.6e6Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11206 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com As I have said in the past, aether is flowing out of the sun due to the reactions in the core and due to the first law of the aether ocean universe that Aether is Conserved in all interactions. Thus, fusion reactions must release aether. This means that aether must flow out of the sun in commensurate quantity as that released. We have observed that the sun manifests acoustic oscillations with 160 minutes being an important major harmonic, see the GONG experiment onboard SOHO for details. This makes 80 minutes and 40 minutes the half and quarter wave periods, while 160 minutes is the full cycle of the wave form. If aether is pulsing out of the sun at these periodicities, then the earth, being a huge ball of aether vortices (atoms), is sloshing back and forth in that "aether ocean tidal", motion in our solar system. So the fact that the earth is additionally rot ating, means that this action is being imparted to the earth along a radial line joining the sun earth system, and so there is a rotational precession of the position on the earth surface, of maximal connection to the earth sun radial motion in the aether ocean. Thus, if you have a channel of water, and you have a bulk tidal flow in and out of that channel due to the lunar tides. And then you superpose on top of that an earth sun radial tidal motion with an 80 minute period for the half wave motion, then you sho uld expect that you would find some long wavelength waves forming in the ocean as a result of the earth sloshing to and fro away from and toward the sun due to the aether oceans motions. This wave motion has indeed been observed. See the list of images here, and the three below in particular. They are at the bottom of the list located at the first web site. These images are from the space shuttle, taken from a vantage point from which these very subtle waves can be observed. http://eostest2.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/OCDST/shuttle_oceanography_web/o ss_70.html http://eostest2.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/OCDST/shuttle_oceanography_web/o ss_92.html http://eostest2.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/OCDST/shuttle_oceanography_web/o ss_88.html http://eostest2.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/OCDST/shuttle_oceanography_web/o ss_90.html What you are seeing are a series of waves on the ocean. The typical wave properties are a wavelength of 10 km with a speed of 8 km/hr. The wave height is only about 10 cm. In other words, a ship on the water would never know these waves were even there , but from space, you can see them clearly. ~10km / 8km/hr = 75 minutes ~= 80 minutes The period is within the known error bars, but I need to look into this phenomena better to state this with a greater confidence level. Note that the waves come in series of from 4 to 8 waves. And that 8 waves corresponds to 11 hours, or, the time requi red for the lunar tides to reverse, and therefore for the direction of emission of these waves to reverse. I can think of no phenomena that should give rise to these waves, based on a lunar interaction or any other gravitational phenomena. Those should all be smooth transitions with a 12 hour period. These have an ~80 minute period. Here is an analogy that may help this phenomena make sense. Suppose that you have a bunch of water in the sea behind a straight, ie Gibralter! Now, think of the sea as a sort of bucket of water, and the straight as being the lip of that bucket out of wh ich the water can pour. Now, imagine that you are holding that bucket in your hands and you have tipped the bucket so that the water is just at the edge of the lip of the bucket. Now, start translating the bucket back and forth horizontally, keeping the orientation of the bucket to horizontal fixed. What you will do is to set up a back and forth wave that will slosh water out of the bucket on each cycle as you accelerate the buc ket away from the side with the lip. The water, wanting to remain stationary, will slosh over the lip and out onto the ground. What you are seeing in these photographs are the waves created from sloshing the water out of the Mediteranian sea, due to the entire earth being sloshed back and forth by the suns aether emissions pulsations. This same motion, I believe, is the driving force for plate tectonics, ocean currents and a number of other phenomena. To grasp this consider the dynamics or look up some of my old posts regarding Plate Tectonics due to aether pulsations out of the sun. Mountain ranges, for example, form where the sloshing of the suns motions send continents colliding into one another. Note that the earths rotation and the suns oscillations are almost perfectly timed. ie, the 160 minute period of solar surface oscillation divides evenly into the earths rotational period, or, solar day. Later, Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 19:14:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:12:53 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:12:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Tony Rusi To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"EqsDl.0.Wf6.Zk6Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11207 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:13:00 -0700 From: Martha To: Tony Rusi Subject: Re: laser (fwd) At 01:07 PM 9/25/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:30:46 -0400 (EDT) >From: Andrew Cantino >To: freenrg-L eskimo.com >Subject: laser >Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT) >Resent-From: freenrg-l eskimo.com > >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning down >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not ionize >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good source >of energy. > >Please let me know what you think, and if you have hearn about this in the >past. > >Andrew > ANDREW, A LASER NORMALLY DOES NOT IONIZE AIR UNLESS IT IS ***EXTREMELY*** POWERFUL, AND EVEN THEN, IT CAN ONLY DO IT WHEN IT IS FOCUSED, AND YOU CAN'T FOCUS IT WELL ALL ALONG A LINE MANY MILES LONG UP TO THE CLOUDS. NICE IDEA, BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS IN, YOU WILL FIND IT IS TOO HARD TO DO TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. BOB X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 20:29:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:25:42 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:25:06 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Mk4 Progress Report Resent-Message-ID: <"yynWo.0.jh.ro7Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11208 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com But what about the kits we ordered? Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 20:55:04 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:49:48 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 13:11:43 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT Mk4 Progress Report References: <970926232415_711414870 emout09.mail.aol.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"wwByg1.0.Ia1.P98Bq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11209 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Puthoff aol.com wrote: > > But what about the kits we ordered? > > Hal Puthoff Hi Hal, The hand made SMOT Mk4 kits are still approx on schedule for mid Oct shipment. The plastic injection bulk manuf units will be SMOT Mk5 units. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 21:35:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:32:32 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 13:54:14 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l eskimo.com CC: List Server Freenrg Subject: Re: SMOT Mk4 Progress Report References: <342C5287.2325563A microtronics.com.au> <342C639E.796D@math.ucla.edu> <342C81A0.80ADB549@microtronics.com.au> <342C8ADB.68C@math.ucla.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"Ip_4j2.0.3o3.Un8Bq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11213 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Barry Merriman wrote: > > Greg Watson wrote: > > > > 7 months seems like a small time in going from an idea to mass > > reproducable product. > > > > How is the Hot Fusion Research going? Shipping soon? > > > > We've got a demo unit set aside for you, which has been looking > for a good home. Due to unavoidable overheads, you will have > to send us $10 Billion dollars prior to delivery, however. :-) > > -- > Barry Merriman At $10 Billion, I am sure every home on the block will want one. What a deal!!!!!!!!!!!! When can you ship? -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fri Sep 26 21:28:28 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:26:10 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:26:03 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SMOT Mk4 Progress Report References: <342C5287.2325563A microtronics.com.au> <342C639E.796D@math.ucla.edu> <342C81A0.80ADB549@microtronics.com.au> Resent-Message-ID: <"CD0Y1.0.xO3.Wh8Bq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11212 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Greg Watson wrote: > > 7 months seems like a small time in going from an idea to mass > reproducable product. > > How is the Hot Fusion Research going? Shipping soon? > We've got a demo unit set aside for you, which has been looking for a good home. Due to unavoidable overheads, you will have to send us $10 Billion dollars prior to delivery, however. :-) -- 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_: muse mediacity.com Fri Sep 26 21:59:12 1997 Return-Path: muse@mediacity.com X-Intended-For: Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:09:31 -0800 From: "M.Twain" To: kadyshev head.jinr.dubna.su, keithr@primenet.com, keller@servidor.unam.mx, kenseto erinet.com, kgryder@tcd.ie, khud@scnit.saratov.su, kim umdhep.umd.edu, kimball@martech.fsu.edu, kiwi@iis.ee.ethz.ch, kjohn intergate.bc.ca, klicco@es.co.nz, knuke@aa.net, kwandr cksr.ac.bialystok.pl, lajos_kelemen@intersoft.hu, lamj zetnet.co.uk, lance.fletcher@freelance.com, laputa worldnet.att.net, LDH11@HSLMC.CAM.AC.UK, ldmorgan@digital.net, learned hkie.org.hk, leepugh@horizon.hit.net, lewisk@sisna.com, lgcr ccr.jussieu.fr, lightnet@iaehv.nl Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing]] X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <342C1B47.2D6E mediacity.com> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:29:59 -0800 From: "M.Twain" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fstenger interlaced.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Something from nothing] References: <342823F1.32C19599@verisoft.com.tr> <34283EC9.1BE6@interlaced.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frank, Yes. "the DENSITY of electromagnetic energy" does modify the speed of light". "Light speed does vary with EM energy concentration"! I go into many of the specifics in my metric relativity papers. Let me know if you want any hardcopy. Two data points which can give you a grasp of the whole luminal-to-superluminal cosmos -- the electron with aenergy of .511 MeV spins at Vc. The proto n has 1/8th the radius, but some 1838 times the aenergy. [Both the electron and the proton, I have shown, are reconnected lightwaves.] Thomas G. Barnes derives a (spherical) proton superluminal spin of 860 Vc. I derive a toroidal geometry proton (like a slinky connected end-to-end) with two superluminal spins (I name a spin and twist). I predicted an outer spin of 2.53 Vc -- in agreeme nt with some of the superluminal tunneling experiments in Germany, France and the U.S. For the fine spin, twist, I predicted a velocity of 12.9 Vc. The plasma matterverse then is spanned by two universal 'highway' or 'communications' systems. One I name e-space (for electrons) conducts signals at about Vc. The other I thus dubbed p-space (protonic) which conducts signals at 2.5Vc to 12.9Vc, and per haps beyond. I have been searching for several years for other superluminal proton (self-connected EMG wave) modelers, but have found none in addition to myself and Thomas Barnes. [Vigier and many other theorists and experimenters have derived superluminal nucleon ch aracteristics, but not their structures.] If you or anyone out there learns of other such models I would like to read of and credit them too. Millennium Content-Type: image/gif; name="E&P.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="E&P.gif" GIF89a%Ë÷X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 27 06:25:43 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:20:06 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:31:05 -0800 From: "M.Twain" To: tessien oro.net CC: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Soliton structures are stable References: <199709262238.PAA03033 Au.oro.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"CaVBq3.0.334.5WGBq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11215 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Ross, Is the "Oscillon" your geometrical conception? Do you have GIF images, or illustrations in general, of your theorized structures of the electron and proton, hyrogen atom and neutron? Millennium Anyone know of any new hydrogen atom structures out there? In a three-year search I have only discovered models by Kanarev, Barnes, Tewari and perhaps Wakeman. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 27 09:13:51 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 09:08:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 11:06:22 -0500 From: "Patrick V. Reavis" Organization: NASA Volunteer To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: laser (fwd) References: Resent-Message-ID: <"skJ092.0.DP1.2-IBq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11217 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tony Rusi wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning > down > >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not > ionize > >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good > source > >of energy. > > > >Please let me know what you think, and if you have hearn about this > in the > >past. > > > >Andrew > > > > ANDREW, > > A LASER NORMALLY DOES NOT IONIZE AIR UNLESS IT IS ***EXTREMELY*** > POWERFUL, > AND EVEN THEN, IT CAN ONLY DO IT WHEN IT IS FOCUSED, AND YOU CAN'T > FOCUS IT > WELL ALL ALONG A LINE MANY MILES LONG UP TO THE CLOUDS. > > NICE IDEA, BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS IN, YOU WILL FIND IT IS TOO > HARD TO > DO TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. > > BOB Andrew,Why not fire a bullet, (maybe dusted with a conductive substance to leave a trail), into the cloud? Of course, you don't want to be holding the rifle when you do this, and you'll want an isolated area for the experiment. What goes up often comes d own. :) -- Patrick V. Reavis Student at Large /\ / \ / G \ ~~~~~~~~ DELTA-G X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 27 16:35:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 16:33:22 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:01:05 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Converging links and ideas Resent-Message-ID: <"3ReUM3.0.F22.0VPBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11220 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Evans, Bearden, R. M. Kiehn, R.Tessien,... Scan the recent letters from http://www.europa.com/~rsc/physics/B3/evans Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 27 20:25:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:23:44 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:16:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Zack Widup Subject: Re: laser (fwd) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"W37Vn1.0.2g1._sSBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11223 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Geoff Egel wrote: > If you want to bring Lightning down to earth you make > extend the opposite charge on the earth surface into the charged atomosphere. > > Try firing thin copper wire into the atomosphere during a thunderstorm as > researchers In The USA are doing. > but stand well back extremely dangerous and probably fool hardy > > > > When we were kids were tried flying a box gite with string and metal wire > for an aerial but also found it to be a good transfer of atomospheric energy. > > Geoff > > http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel > http://geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 > > >> > > >> >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning > >> down > >> >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not > >> ionize > >> >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good > >> source > >> >of energy. > >> > > >> >Please let me know what you think, and if you have hearn about this > >> in the > >> >past. > >> > > >> >Andrew > >> > > >> > >> ANDREW, > >> > >> A LASER NORMALLY DOES NOT IONIZE AIR UNLESS IT IS ***EXTREMELY*** > >> POWERFUL, > >> AND EVEN THEN, IT CAN ONLY DO IT WHEN IT IS FOCUSED, AND YOU CAN'T > >> FOCUS IT > >> WELL ALL ALONG A LINE MANY MILES LONG UP TO THE CLOUDS. > >> > >> NICE IDEA, BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS IN, YOU WILL FIND IT IS TOO > >> HARD TO > >> DO TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. > >> > >> BOB > > > >Andrew,Why not fire a bullet, (maybe dusted with a conductive substance > >to leave a trail), into the cloud? Of course, you don't want to be > >holding the rifle when you do this, and you'll want an isolated area for > >the experiment. What goes up often comes down. :) > > > > > >-- > >Patrick V. Reavis When I had a tornado spotting training session for local ESDA/amateur radio operations they showed us some videos of these lightning experiments with small rockets pulling a fine wire up to a couple thousand feet altitude (previews before the feature film ?!) I don't know how the wire was unreeled - probably something like a fishing reel. But the lightning bursts were spectacular. However, I don't think this is something to try unless you have studied the technique and are extremely cautious. You're dealing with probably several hundred thousand amperes. Zack X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 00:05:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 00:01:48 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , "Free Energy" Subject: Fw: A.K.T. Assis? Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:30:26 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"Vv9HU.0.N4.P3WBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11224 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > Does anyone have the email address of the physicist A.K.T. Assis in > > Brazil? I have some documentation I think he would be interested in... > > > > He says that the Weber electrodynamic law must be corrected for velocities > > close to C because in its original form it predicts that high electric > > fields will show "negative mass" effects, and these have not been > > reported....... but they have, many times! > > > > Thanks! > > > > Fred > > > > Ref: Changing The Inertial Mass Of A Charged Particle, by A.K.T. Assis > > Journal Of The Physical Society Of Japan > > V. 62, N. 5, May 1993, pp. 1418-1422 > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 00:04:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 00:01:54 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" Subject: Fw: Antigravity observed with simple gyroscope? Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:39:50 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"CACkt2.0.A5.W3WBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11226 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > Hi Robert and all! > > > > > But the dependence on direction of rotation argues for a much > simpler > > > explanation...the path taken by a rotating gyroscope w.r.t. the rotating > > > earth will not be quite straight. (Neither will the path taken by any > > > falling object, rotating or not that is the Coriolis force. Al that > > > happens here is that you get three different slightly curved tracks.) > > > Perform the same experiment at the North Pole with the same result, and > > > I'll get very interested. > > > > > > Robert I. Eachus > > > > > Yes, I have to agree with you, there are 2nd and higher order effects that > > occur with rotating objects on a rotating earth. I believe this will turn > > out to be one of this type. > > I DO have great hopes for anomalous behavior with a gyro though. Refer to > > my SPINDIZZY post where I show rather straightforwardly I think that there > > is a contradiction between the law of conservation of momentum, > > D'alembert's principle, and the law of conservation of energy in a gyro > > with two rotations at right angles. On of these principles is wrong! I > > opt for D'alemberts principle and state that the inertial forces are real > > forces and allow "anomalous energy" to be extracted from a gyroscope. I > > would be very interested to hear if you can find a flaw in my very simple, > > and easily testable, argument. > > > > I am surprised that I have heard few comments about this post. Maybe it > > requires more knowledge of gyromechanics than I thought... > > > > Fred > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 00:05:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 00:01:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" Subject: Fw: laser (fwd) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:44:44 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"cQI6l.0.vx6.R3WBq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11225 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > > Hi Folks! > > > > It IS possible to use a laser to bring down lghtning from a cloud. I > > proposed the idea on the freenrg-list several months ago. The trick of course is > > to use a beam of the proper wavelength to ionize one of the components of > > the air. > > Keep in mind also that the beam does not have to reach all the way to the > > cloud at high intensity. It only has to be much higher than all surrounding > > objects. > > Just recently, in the last few months there was a Scientific American > > article about using this very technique. I forgot the issue number. > > > >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning down > > > >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not > ionize > > > >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good > source > > > >of energy. > > > > > > > > > > A LASER NORMALLY DOES NOT IONIZE AIR UNLESS IT IS ***EXTREMELY*** > > POWERFUL, > > > AND EVEN THEN, IT CAN ONLY DO IT WHEN IT IS FOCUSED, AND YOU CAN'T FOCUS > > IT > > > WELL ALL ALONG A LINE MANY MILES LONG UP TO THE CLOUDS. That doesn't make sense from what little I know about lasers. > > > > > > NICE IDEA, BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS IN, YOU WILL FIND IT IS TOO HARD > > TO > > > DO TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. > > > As usual when you put the numbers in you prove whatever you believed in the first place... Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 06:42:07 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 06:33:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:34:29 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Seeking clarification Resent-Message-ID: <"mVRvY.0.6m4.QobBq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11228 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 08:22 AM 9/26/97 -0800, Michael Schaeffer wrote defending the zero dimensional model of heat transfer in a flow calorimeter. It is a useful model, and simplistic. >Mitchell Swartz wrote: >[snip] > 2. Mr. Rothwell takes this statement above by Michael Schaffer, who >apparently simply ignored other contributions to heat flow, heat storage, >non-linearities, and the Bernard instability This will be shown to be true by examining Michael's post. What is typically used is a Zero-dimensional Model of Flow Calorimetry ignoring other contributions to heat flow, heat storage, non-linearities, and the Bernard instability. =============================================================== >Consider the following idealization of a flow calorimeter. Let there be a >box that encloses an arbitrary set of apparatus that releases heat at an >arbitrary rate, dH_source/dt, and distributes this heat by arbitrary >processes within the box. Let the box be perfectly insulated thermally >from the outside world except for an arbitrary cooling circuit that enters >the box at one point and leaves through another. Zero dimensional Model ignores other contributions to heat flow and also assumes infinitely fast, and perfect mixing. Higher dimensional models consider the mixing, and finite volume of the mixing source, and finite distance betwen the inlet and the outlet. =============================================================== > Let water or some other >suitable coolant liquid be pumped through the cooling circuit. Then, the >internally released heat leaves the box ONLY as increased enthalpy of the >exit liquid over the entering liquid. Zero dimensional Model ignores thermal transfer into housing of unit. This is like modeling a horse as a "sphere". =============================================================== >Therefore, conservation of energy for >this system is > > H_source = H_stored + S (T_out - T_in)*c_p*(dM/dt) dt (1) >where > H_source = enthalpy released by the arbitrary interior > sources since start of experiment (a function > of time) > H_stored = enthalpy stored by arbitrary processes within > the box (a function of time) > S...dt = integration with respect to time > c_p = mass heat capacity of coolant liquid at constant > pressure > T_out = temperature of coolant liquid at exit > T_in = temperature of coolant liquid at entrance > dM/dt = coolant mass flow per unit time. > >We do not know H_stored. However, if are told, or if we can reasonably >hypothesize that H_stored eventually reaches and remains at a steady value, >then its time derivative eventually becomes zero. The Zero-D Model ignores heat storage, too as can be seen, and as can be seen to relied upon. =============================================================== > Differentiation of Eq. >(1) then gives > > d(H_source)/dt = (T_out - T_in) c_p (dM/dt) (2) > >in the steady state. If desired, one can replace c_p (dM/dt) by > > c_p rho (dV/dt), (3) > >where > rho = liquid mass density > dV/dt = coolant volume flow per unit time. > The Zero dimensional Model ignores non-linearities. It is a useful approximation, but not as accurate as higher order models. =============================================================== >This is the basis of mass flow calorimetry. No. This is the basis of the zero-dimensional uncalibrated flow "calorimetry". Now in the real world, there is not necessarily equilibrium. Also, there are losses because the system is not adiabatic. And in addition the volume over which any putative heat is added is a volume (a real volume, which has distribution, and may not be isotropic. In quasi-one-dimensional calorimetry these additional issues are considered. Also in conventional isoperibolic calorimetry some of these terms are considered. Also in most mass and heat flow problems these are considered. Therefore, in the quasi-one-dimensional calorimetry which may be a more realistic model, Bernard instability, heat redistribution, and other issues are considered. These features do occur, and the in fact can be watched by putting dye in the solution and watching the transport. In summary: Those who want to use the more simplistic model, and ignore calibration are welcome to do so. Those who use the more complicated model might see advantages to considering those other terms. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 06:42:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 06:34:18 -0700 X-Sender: mica@world.std.com Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:35:32 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Seeking clarification Resent-Message-ID: <"2kP9R2.0.nR7.PpbBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11229 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 04:02 PM 9/26/97 -0500, Scott Little wrote: >My favorite defense of our mass flow calorimetry is an empirical one. To >date, in all of the systems we have constructed, we have succeeded in >getting the measured heat output to match the measured electrical input >WITHOUT FUDGING ANYTHING! We use decent meters to measure the input voltage >and current. We use accuracy-guaranteed thermistors to measure the mass >flow's delta-T and we use various fundamental methods (e.g. a balance and a >stopwatch) to measure the mass flow rate. When the system is operating >correctly and we have reduced thermal losses to an acceptable level, those >data can be taken at face value and the output power will match the input >power within a few percent when a resistance heater is placed in the chamber. > >I like to call it Fundamental Parameters calorimetry. It does not require >calibration...only verification. > > >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) > > Scott describes, and relies up the zero-dimensional Model of Flow Calorimetry ignoring other contributions to heat flow, heat storage, non-linearities, and the Bernard instability. ADVANTAGES of the ZERO DIMENSIONAL MODEL Those who want to use the more simplistic model, and ignore calibration are welcome to do so. For those who dont want to see the cold fusion effects, the flow calorimetric systems will offer noise to mask the sma ll, difficult to achieve, effects, and the isothermal clamp will prevent the catastrophic etiology of the effect (confer the CAM theory, or the papers on positive feedback). For those who want to not calibrate their equipment, the vertical flow systems enable amplification of their measurements potentially making "kilowatts" out of less. ADVANTAGES of the QUASI-1-DIMENSIONAL MODEL Now in the real world, there is not necessarily equilibrium. There are losses because the system is not adiabatic. In addition the volume over which any putative heat is added is a volume (a real volume, which has distribution, and may not be isotropic. In quasi-one-dimensional calorimetry these additional issues are considered. Those who use the more complicated model might see advantages to considering those other terms. Alternatively they might explain why the results differ for vertical vs. horizontal flow calorimetry at low flow rates. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica world.std.com) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 04:08:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 04:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Mike Carrell" To: Subject: Re: laser and Ben Franklin Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 07:00:29 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"zZ2_13.0.tR2.idZBq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11227 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Geoff Egel wrote: > > > If you want to bring Lightning down to earth you make > > extend the opposite charge on the earth surface into the charged atomosphere. > > > > Try firing thin copper wire into the atomosphere during a thunderstorm as > > researchers In The USA are doing. > > but stand well back extremely dangerous and probably fool hardy > > When we were kids were tried flying a box gite with string and metal wire > > for an aerial but also found it to be a good transfer of atomospheric energy. > > > > Geoff > When I had a tornado spotting training session for local > ESDA/amateur radio operations they showed us some videos of these > lightning experiments with small rockets pulling a fine wire up to a > couple thousand feet altitude (previews before the feature film?!) > > I don't know how the wire was unreeled - probably something like a fishing > reel. But the lightning bursts were spectacular. However, I don't think > this is something to try unless you have studied the technique and are > extremely cautious. You're dealing with probably several hundred thousand > amperes. > > Zack ----------------- Nothing new, guys. You are repeating Ben Franklin's famous experiment where he used a kite to carry a string isolated by a silk ribbon into a charged cloud and drew a spark from a key. It is extremely dangerous without knowledgeable precautions and people have been electrocuted trying it. From his insight that lightning is electrical, Franklin went on to invent the lightning rod to protect homes. Some have theorized that the lightning rod may also tend to initiate a non-strike current flow that will tend to discharge clouds. One of my retirement diversions is performing a "Franklin's Experiments" demonstration of high voltage electricity at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. Mike Carrell X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 07:05:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 06:59:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 08:57:49 -0500 From: "R. R. Stiffler" Reply-To: stiffler@compassnet.com To: Vortex Mail List Subject: Addition Information. Resent-Message-ID: <"yphh6.0.28.7BcBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11230 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Some weeks back I read a post which contained a partial bit of information about the following subject. I never did see a posting giving additional details. I have included the information I received for thoses that may have been waiting additional info. Subject: free energy Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 23:06:46 -0400 From: 007 <007 tampabay.rr.com> To: isworld compassnet.com My name is Steve Sullivan and I have invented a new electrical generator which reduces the counter torque of today's generator designs by a factor of 100. This new generator design is analogous to the diode in that Magnetic flux has high permeability in one direction and low in the other. This configuration prevents the flux field of the stator from interacting with the prime rotating flux field of the rotor thus the absence of counter torque in the generator design , there is some minor flux leakage between 1% and .1%. The company name that I came up with was OMNIDYNE which is the conjunction of two words omnificient and dynamo, which describes the device an omnificient dynamo. A more presentable prototype and testing will be conducted under contract with the Dept of Energy Reasearch labs in Idaho Falls Idaho. The company Omnidyne is now offering licencing to prospective manufactures. IBM will be using the technology to power lap top computers. The web site for the company will be http://www.omnidyne.com and will be up in a week or two. There are plans to take the company public but that is not my area I am just the inventor. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 09:39:48 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:35:09 -0700 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 11:34:54 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskim o.com From: Scott Little Subject: Zero vs One Resent-Message-ID: <"WuB1a2.0.xU5.wSeBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11231 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mitchell, I don't understand the terms "zero-dimensional" and "one-dimensional" as they apply to mass flow calorimetry. Would you explain them or suggest a reference that does so? At 09:34 AM 9/28/97 +0000, you wrote: > Zero dimensional Model ignores thermal transfer into housing of unit. > The Zero-D Model ignores heat storage.... I think that either these statements are incorrect...or what we do must not be Zero-D calorimetry. In our calorimeters, we integrate the electrical input energy and the heat output energy over the entire run. To make these quantities match up correctly, we terminate the electrical input near the end of the run but leave the heat output integration run ning until the entire system cools back down to the baseline temperature. Thus we collect any heat that was stored in the apparatus/housing. Do this mean we qualify as 'one-dimensional'? If not, do we at least meet the requirements of 'quasi-one-dimensional'? If not, surely we are at least 'meta-zero-dimensional'.... 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 Sun Sep 28 13:17:52 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:10:31 -0700 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:09:48 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-L eskimo.com cc: 72240.1256 compuserve.com Subject: Flow Calorimetry Resent-Message-ID: <"6QDUs.0.0B7.rchBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11232 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Jed Rothwell said a while ago that flow calorimetry has been known to kill the CF reaction. Jed thought that significant, and I think Martin Sevior agreed. So do I. Jed mentioned some of the researchers who have observed that, but I forgot to save the post. Who were they, and what did they see? Was the electrolyte the fluid that was flowing? Tom Stolper X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sat Sep 27 17:58:11 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:17:55 +1000 X-Sender: egel main.murray.net.au To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Geoff Egel Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"fPLDI.0.Jw5.FhQBq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11221 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com If you want to bring Lightning down to earth you make extend the opposite charge on the earth surface into the charged atomosphere. Try firing thin copper wire into the atomosphere during a thunderstorm as researchers In The USA are doing. but stand well back extremely dangerous and probably fool hardy When we were kids were tried flying a box gite with string and metal wire for an aerial but also found it to be a good transfer of atomospheric energy. Geoff http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel http://geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135 At 11:06 AM 9/27/97 -0500, you wrote: >Tony Rusi wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > >> >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning >> down >> >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not >> ionize >> >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good >> source >> >of energy. >> > >> >Please let me know what you think, and if you have hearn about this >> in the >> >past. >> > >> >Andrew >> > >> >> ANDREW, >> >> A LASER NORMALLY DOES NOT IONIZE AIR UNLESS IT IS ***EXTREMELY*** >> POWERFUL, >> AND EVEN THEN, IT CAN ONLY DO IT WHEN IT IS FOCUSED, AND YOU CAN'T >> FOCUS IT >> WELL ALL ALONG A LINE MANY MILES LONG UP TO THE CLOUDS. >> >> NICE IDEA, BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS IN, YOU WILL FIND IT IS TOO >> HARD TO >> DO TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. >> >> BOB > >Andrew,Why not fire a bullet, (maybe dusted with a conductive substance >to leave a trail), into the cloud? Of course, you don't want to be >holding the rifle when you do this, and you'll want an isolated area for >the experiment. What goes up often comes down. :) > > >-- >Patrick V. Reavis >Student at Large > /\ > / \ > / G \ > ~~~~~~~~ > DELTA-G > > > > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 17:34:29 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 18:32:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"8kwcP2.0.Bb.3NlBq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11233 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Patrick V. Reavis wrote: ::AIR(blown) relay BELOW:: NOTE! >>Tony Rusi wrote: >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> > >>> >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning >>> down >>> >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not >>> ionize >>> >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good >>> source >>> >of energy. >>> > >>> >Please let me know what you think, and if you have hearn about this >>> in the >>> >past. >>> > >>> >Andrew >>> > >>> >>> ANDREW, >>> >>> A LASER NORMALLY DOES NOT IONIZE AIR UNLESS IT IS ***EXTREMELY*** >>> POWERFUL, >>> AND EVEN THEN, IT CAN ONLY DO IT WHEN IT IS FOCUSED, AND YOU CAN'T >>> FOCUS IT >>> WELL ALL ALONG A LINE MANY MILES LONG UP TO THE CLOUDS. >>> >>> NICE IDEA, BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS IN, YOU WILL FIND IT IS TOO >>> HARD TO >>> DO TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. >>> >>> BOB >> >>Andrew,Why not fire a bullet, (maybe dusted with a conductive substance >>to leave a trail), into the cloud? Of course, you don't want to be >>holding the rifle when you do this, and you'll want an isolated area for >>the experiment. What goes up often comes down. :) >>-- Great thread - (Ben Franklin kinda stuff) - gotta Love it :) -- We have S.W. of here, one of the Lightning Capitals of the World, Arizona or Nevada (i think) .. ANYWAY NOTE: they shoot up Rockets (small 1-2 footers ALL the TIME (estes type I think - only about 1-2000')) They trail out a small coil (like a sewing spool thread (extra tiny copper)) WORKS EVERYTIME! (during Storms!)... I saw a special on TV about the crew and was curious as to WHOM FOUND OUT about the best way to FIRE these rockets off..... APPEARS they have Graduated to being over 1-2000' AWAY FROM LAUN CH PAD AREA - ISOLATED BY 'Fish-Aquarium' 1/4" Tubing... They now put it to their MOUTHS & BLOW in it to increase pressure 2000' away to activate a TRIGGER (firing-closure)... Seems like a no duh, when thinking about it now, but I wonder who got to fire the first (este-style hard-copper) curcuit :))))) LOL for everyone but Ben & that Guy.. ----------------------- Check out HAARP to for pulling/pushing / messing up those areas between earth and your experiment with charged air. ----------------------- Good luck & be Careful (heck, would you fly a kite and KEY on a wet String nowdays?)) Go for it - Safely!! ------------------------ I've always thought you could 's l o w l y. . .' suck up the difference in potential using a deep-sunk well-type cathode and an isolated/insolated non-grounded FENCE (large-surface area) anode to do they same thing. Power differential should be extrodinary and maintain as long as the earth turns. (friction) --- down side if any = fewer (natural) forest fires (sigh) Oh well.. You laser would be cleaner and CRISPER!! good luck...../*!/\/\/\/\\. Best to you & yours -=se=- X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sun Sep 28 20:12:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:05:57 -0700 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:05:52 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: People here have java? Resent-Message-ID: <"x_T0z2.0.lO7.KinBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11235 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Do many vortex-l users have access to a browser with Java? I put one of those little java-chat links on the vortex-L page for any who want to use it. I realize that Java will exclude some users. Myself I only have Netscape at work (though sometimes tha t's where I am after midnight.) The cutting edge vortexians with current browsers can go to http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html and type at each other in realtime (after fighting over common meeting times, of course.) If anyone can come up with an international common meeting time for chat rooms, we can post that on the page. On a similar topic: the Society for Amateur Science (SAS) moved their email forum onto the WWW. This uses commercial software. Go to http://www.thesphere.com/SAS/WebX.cgi to check it out. .....................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 Sep 28 19:59:33 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:53:09 -0700 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:59:18 -0700 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr@bellsouth.net To: Vortex Subject: Gravity Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"9geH53.0.j_6.KWnBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11234 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts, Vorts! An interesting paper by Stephen Goodfellow is topical to this listserver, at: http://www.goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi/index.html#a Introduction: >>How does the Sun shine? The Victorians believed the Sun was a burning ball of coal. In the atomic era it is thought to be a nuclear furnace. Each age reflects its own successful power source and attributes it to the radiating phenomena in the heavens. This paper will demonstrate that it is possible to create the force of gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass. This phenomenon can be demonstrated in a way that is easy to observe and understand. The means of solar evolution and propagation outlined in this paper is but one example of this effect.<< Nice graphic at the end, too. Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 06:02:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:25:56 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: People here have java? References: Resent-Message-ID: <"tBuwm.0.UM5.7MwBq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11236 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Dear Bill, Chat room works great. Thank you much offering this option. > I realize that Java will exclude some users. More important, generally European vortexians have to pay to local calls, and internet services are expensive than at US. This will be significant factor when chatting. Anyway I expect more contributions to chat than mailing, and see new names while chatt ing. hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 06:03:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:57:26 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:10:18 +0400 From: Hamdi Ucar Organization: Orchestra To: vortex Subject: Re: Addition Information. References: <342E625D.C9C9471A compassnet.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"d5I6G1.0.s73.qMwBq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11237 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com R. R. Stiffler wrote: > > Some weeks back I read a post which contained a partial bit of > information about the following subject. I never did see a posting > giving additional details. I have included the information I received > for thoses that may have been waiting additional info. [snip the original letter] This is same issue I think that HLafonte posting "Fwd: Magnetic diode invented ?????", Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:10:36 -0700 But no further information coming. The given link " http://www.omnidyne.com" is there but not containing information yet. Maybe Greg have some information about such as unisotropic ferro-magnetic materials. Regards, hamdi ucar X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 06:45:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:42:35 -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, 29 Sep 1997 08:42:21 -0500 References: <199709262238.PAA03028 Au.oro.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Web sites with oscillon images, movie, and technical discussions Resent-Message-ID: <"jk0PR2.0.c55.91xBq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11238 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 26, 5:42pm, Ross Tessien wrote: > The patterns I mention simply to show you that given sufficient > vibrational energy, you can form new structures. However, it may well be > that the "aether condensate" I discuss in the context of muons and other > particle standing waves may well be due to the focusing of the energy > density of the convergent wave forms, and the formation of a new sort of > structure that confines a greater amount of aether, and which is akin to > these patterns which can house a greater amount of vibrational energy in > this bead medium. > > This happens in water, gases, super fluids, etc. So what I am talking about > is hard to describe in words, but perhaps a bunch of these images will aid > in that endeavor. At one time there was some discussion here of building an acoustic condensation chamber to test this theory with various vapors and gases. There had been some sourcing work done and some frequency generating equipment built/purchased, but I never heard a nything more about it. The last goal I heard was to have something for the aether conference a couple of months back. Is the experiment still pending, has it been shelved, did the design concept fail, or is it in process with nothing to report yet? -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 11:19:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:10:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:14:12 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"5QN2X2.0.g31.iy-Bq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11240 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Andrew Cantino wrote: >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning down >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not ionize >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good source >of energy. One of many ways of drawing lightning from the clouds, but if you go read the (ancient) paper by Benjamin Franklin that led to the famous kite experiment, you will see that as a DC power source, the best way to go is with a tower. Draw as much power as you want in a more or less steady state when there are charged clouds around, and not have to deal with large pulses. >Please let me know what you think, and if you have hearn about this in the >past. First, some people have done it in the past. Ben Franklin had a laboratory where when the clouds moved in, a bell would ring. He could then do his experiments with electricity for hours. I believe that his "tower" was less than 40 feet tall. I've done it myself--the CB antenna on top of my house was 110 feet above street level. My mother used to complain about how the grass wouldn't grow around the ground wire--when I installed a cut out switch I could charge a 50 kilojoule bank in a few seconds. (I used a normally open solenoid, with 200 Amp rated contacts, an air coil inductance and a one-inch air gap, etc. Then the basement, where the business end of all this went, had a Faraday cage. Can't be too careful when playing with lighting, even th ough my real interest was draining off space charge to get a high rep rate on the capacitor bank.) NASA has been doing it before launches with small rockets that leave an ionized smoke trail. Of course they are not really interested in collecting the energy, just making sure it doesn't hit the shuttle. Tony Rusi wrote: >A LASER NORMALLY DOES NOT IONIZE AIR UNLESS IT IS ***EXTREMELY*** POWERFUL, >AND EVEN THEN, IT CAN ONLY DO IT WHEN IT IS FOCUSED, AND YOU CAN'T FOCUS IT >WELL ALL ALONG A LINE MANY MILES LONG UP TO THE CLOUDS. > >NICE IDEA, BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS IN, YOU WILL FIND IT IS TOO HARD TO >DO TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. Second, remember the photoelectric effect. You don't need a high-powered laser, just one that is tuned to a specific ionization frequency of one of the gasses in the air. I'd go for Neon. Third, you don't need to focus your beam. One ion per cubi c foot should do it, and any decent laser will get several miles high before diffusing to even a 3 inch circle. Last but not least, if you are serious about this, you want that laser buried, a strong Faraday cage above it, and your collector above that. If you have a big enough capacitor bank, you can charge the capacitor, then use the energy to run an AC generator. Of course it would be fun to reverse the laser. Put it in orbit aimed down. Lighting striking exactly where and when you want it to. 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 Mon Sep 29 11:27:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:23:05 -0700 X-Sender: eachus@spectre.mitre.org Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:26:23 -0400 To: marklin flash.net From: "Robert I. Eachus" Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com References: <342D2EFE.2055520F@ro.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"qPMVf3.0.Jf1.78_Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11241 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 07:48 PM 9/27/97 -0500, George Marklin wrote: >How about flying a kite (or balloon) with a thin wire. Read (benjamin) Franklin a lot! before you try this. He knew what he was doing and old woodcuts of the experiment show it correctly. He stood in a shed, the first few feet of the kite string was actually dry silk, and the key was set up (above the si lk) so that if the charge go too high, it would arc to grounded iron. And last but not least, the kite was not in or near a cloud! He performed the experiment as the clouds were approaching. He knew what lightning was, but the experiment showed that thunderclouds did carry an electric charge. If the cloud is at, say 10 million volts at 40,000 feet, then you have 250 volts per foot of altitude. Fly a kite at 100 feet, and you can draw 25 Kv. (I have measured over 300 volts/ft, and there are many reports of over 1 Kv per meter. Franklin's lab meantioned above, started to come alive at about 40 volts/foot.) 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 Mon Sep 29 11:52:39 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:46:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: "Robert I. Eachus" Cc: Vortex-L Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:41:00 -0700 Resent-Message-ID: <"XJzZz.0.-O2.aT_Bq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11242 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Robert What would I need to set up a charger for my electric car? Hank ---------- From: Robert I. Eachus To: vortex-l eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:14AM Andrew Cantino wrote: >Can anyone tell me why I could not use a laser to bring lightning down >from a storm cloud? If i sent a beam up to a cloud, would it not ionize >the air and make a trail for lightning? This could be a very good source >of energy. One of many ways of drawing lightning from the clouds, but if you go read the (ancient) paper by Benjamin Franklin that led to the famous kite experiment, you will see that as a DC power source, the best way to go is with a tower. Draw as much power as you want in a more or less steady state when there are charged clouds around, and not have to deal with large pulses. >Please let me know what you think, and if you have hearn about this in the >past. First, some people have done it in the past. Ben Franklin had a laboratory where when the clouds moved in, a bell would ring. He could then do his experiments with electricity for hours. I believe that his "tower" was less than 40 feet tall. I've done it myself--the CB antenna on top of my house was 110 feet above street level. My mother used to complain about how the grass wouldn't grow around the ground wire--when I installed a cut out switch I could charge a 50 kilojoule bank in a few seconds. (I used a normally open solenoid, with 200 Amp rated contacts, an air coil inductance and a one-inch air gap, etc. Then the basement, where the business end of all this went, had a Faraday cage. Can't be too careful when playing with lighting, even though my real interest was draining off space charge to get a high rep rate on the capacitor bank.) NASA has been doing it before launches with small rockets that leave an ionized smoke trail. Of course they are not really interested in collecting the energy, just making sure it doesn't hit the shuttle. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 12:20:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:18:42 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "vortex" , "Free Energy" Subject: To Frank Roed and Frank Earl (Thornson drive) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:26:11 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"ofryA3.0._U4.Gy_Bq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11243 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Two Franks! I had forwarded your mail asking for the Thornson drive info up to my home computer but it lost your email addresses. Please send it to me whe n you get this so I can get the ball rolling on sending out the info. Thanks! By the way, have you noticed how many people on the lists have names that start with FR? Frank Roed Frank Earl Frank Stenger Frank Roarty Fred Sparber Must be because it is the FRee energy list :-) FRed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 13:44:42 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:40:58 -0700 X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:40:46 -0400 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Bacon's Alchemy Resent-Message-ID: <"DPb7j2.0.ak7.P91Cq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11245 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 02:46 PM 9/29/97 -0700, Terry wrote: >Does anyone know what 'Nitre' is? > >Terry > Nitre is either potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate depending on where you live (Europe or North America). Ed Strojny X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 14:04:19 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:54:19 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: ASTI WORKSHOP ON COLD FUSION Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"XVpqY3.0.bt6.vP1Cq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11246 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Date: 29-Sep-97 14:48 EDT From: "William J M F Collis" collis polar.netcity.it Joint III ASTI WORKSHOP ON COLD FUSION V Convegno sullo Stato della Fusione Fredda in Italia W J M F Collis Strada Sottopiazzo 18 14056 Boglietto di Costigliole (AT) ITALY Tel +39-141-968602 Email collis netcity.it Workshop web site: netcity.it\coldfusion 29 September 1997 Dear Colleague, Italy currently hosts some 8 to 10 Cold Fusion experiments and a year after the ICCF6 conference in Hokkaido it is desirable to discuss the current state of the art. As in previous years, we are organizing another international workshop near Asti this Autumn (provisionally Thursday 27 til Sunday 30 November 1997) at the Hotel Villa Riccardi, Via al Monte 7, Rocca d'Arazzo(AT). We will book the hotel on your behalf. Asti is the provincial capital in the Piemonte of north west Italy, famous for its wine and food. The climate is quite cold in winter with overnight frost likely. Hotel accomodation with full board will cost 95,000 lire per night (about $60). The workshop language will be English. If you would like to participate or have any comments, please send email to collis netcity.it or telephone ++39-141-968602. If you would like to make an oral (about 45 minutes) or poster contribution, please specif y the title at this time. Sponsorship of the workshop will be dependent on proposing high quality presentations so please reply as soon as possible. Workshop sponsors include INFN, University of Rome III, Eneco Ltd. Check out the workshop web site www.netcity.it/coldfusion for the latest workshop details. Yours sincerely Bill Collis (Local Organizer) X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 14:19:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:12:34 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bacon's Alchemy References: <343021CD.204A bellsouth.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"Ikz36.0.oG7.5d1Cq"@mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11247 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Terry Blanton wrote: > Did Francis Bacon know Joe Champion's secret... > exerpt from Bacon's Sylva Sylvaru: > ...by Vexing with Separations hath beene made Churlish... That sounds like an adequate discription of the effect Joe Champion's processes have had on 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 Mon Sep 29 14:57:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:52:43 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:14:18 +0930 From: Greg Watson Organization: Greg Watson Consulting To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Addition Information. References: <342E625D.C9C9471A compassnet.com> <342F9AAA.A5BE5200@verisoft.com.tr> Resent-Message-ID: <"PH6R-3.0.A81.fC2Cq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11249 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > R. R. Stiffler wrote: > > > > Some weeks back I read a post which contained a partial bit of > > information about the following subject. I never did see a posting > > giving additional details. I have included the information I received > > for thoses that may have been waiting additional info. > > [snip the original letter] > > This is same issue I think that HLafonte posting "Fwd: Magnetic diode > invented ?????", Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:10:36 -0700 > > But no further information coming. > > The given link " http://www.omnidyne.com" is there but not containing > information yet. > > Maybe Greg have some information about such as unisotropic > ferro-magnetic materials. > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar HI Hamdi, Butch sent me the original text of the post he received. The claimed effect seem to talk about reducing the torque drawn by a generator as the electrical load increases. Talked about a one way frow of flux in a magnetic circuit. That can be done now, but its not OU. Claimed that IBM would shortly produce a n otebook powered by this device. I didn't save the post. -- Best Regards, Greg Watson Http://www.microtronics.com.au/~gwatson X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 12:50:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:48:33 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:46:53 -0700 From: Terry Blanton Reply-To: commengr@bellsouth.net To: Vortex Subject: Bacon's Alchemy Resent-Message-ID: <"ejna53.0.uh5.FO0Cq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11244 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts, Vorts! Did Francis Bacon know Joe Champion's secret for making gold from "lesser" elements? Compare this exerpt from Century IV of Bacon's Sylva Sylvarum, or a Naturall Historie in ten Centuries... London,1627, which was part of Bacon's unfinished Instauratio M agna. (From the Leading Edge.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let there be a Small Furnace made, of a Temperate Heat; Let the Heat be such, as may keep the Metall perpetually Moulten, and no more; For that above all importeth to the Work. For the Materiall, take Silver, which is the Metall that in Nature Symbolizeth most with Gold; Put in also, with the Silver, a Tenth Part of Quick-silver, and Twelfth Part of Nitre, by weight; Both these to quicken and open the Body of the Metall: And so let the Worke be continued by the Space of Sixe Monthes, at the least. I wish also, that there be, at some times, and Injection of some Oyled Substance; such as they use in Recovering of Gold, which by Vexing with Separations hath beene made Churlish: And this is, to lay the Parts more Close and Smooth, which is the Maine Work. For Gold (as we see) is the Closest (and therefore the Heaviest) of Metalls: And is likewise the most Flexible and Tensible. Note, that to thinke to make Gold of Quick-silver, because it is the heaviest, is a Thing not to bee hoped; For Quick-silver will not endure the Mannage of the Fire. Next to Silver, I thinke Copper were fittest to bee the Materiall. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Does anyone know what 'Nitre' is? Terry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 15:48:41 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:44:55 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:44:44 -0700 X-Intended-For: X-Sender: knuke pop.aa.net (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: knuke aa.net (Michael T Huffman) Subject: Re: The Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?) Resent-Message-ID: <"FD2IW1.0.x-3.az2Cq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11250 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sept. 25, 1997, I wrote: > If you have anything relating to the Casimir Force, Bose-Einstien condensates, vortices, cavitation, sonoluminescence, etc., I would be most grateful if you did send it to me in the most economical way possible at: Huffman Technology Company 1825 Nagle Place #210 Seattle, WA 98122 (206)325-2461 knuke aa.net > Just realized I misspelled "Einstein". Really sorry about that, Albert. -Knuke X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mon Sep 29 16:37:02 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:30:01 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:36:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2 november To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: [off topic] NEAR Spacecraft Gets Unexpected View of Mysterious Gamma Ray Burst (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"k9jTU2.0.oS6.td3Cq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11251 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:31:24 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews hq.nasa.gov To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: NEAR Spacecraft Gets Unexpected View of Mysterious Gamma Ray Burst Don Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC September 29, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1547) Helen Worth The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD (Phone: 301/953-5113) RELEASE: 97-220 NEAR SPACECRAFT GETS UNEXPECTED VIEW OF MYSTERIOUS GAMMA-RAY BURST A significant step toward revealing the mysteries of gamma- ray bursts was taken this week by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), Laurel, MD, when NASA's Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft sent back unexpect ed data showing a major gamma-ray burst. APL manages the NEAR mission for NASA. The observation came after researchers reconfigured the gamma-ray spectrometer to make more frequent data returns as NEAR travels to a rendezvous with the asteroid Eros in February 1999. If as distant as new evidence suggests, gamma-ray bursts are the most violent explosions known, emitting in one second as much energy as the Sun will emit in its lifetime. The gamma-ray spectrometer was not originally planned to begin its work until the spacecraft reached Eros. But while en route a simple software change was added that gave a new astrophysics capability to this planetary spectrometer, which resulted in detection of a gamma-ray burst on Sept. 15, that lasted for about 10 seconds. Since then six more bursts have been detected. Several of the bursts have been confirmed by the European Space Agency/NASA Ulysses spacecraft, now in a polar orbit around the sun and by two detectors on NASA's Wind spacecraft near the Earth. These three spacecraft, along with other Earth-orbiting spacecraft, form a 3-dimensional interplanetary network for observing gamma-ray bursts that has not been possible since the los s of the Mars Observer in 1993. "Seeing this burst validates that the NEAR detector can be a true working partner in the interplanetary network for gamma-ray burst detection," says APL's lead gamma-ray instrument engineer John Goldsten, who was the first to see the gamma-ray bur st data. Jacob Trombka, NASA's Science Team Leader for the gamma- ray instrument, says, "NEAR's instrument is more sensitive than we believed it would be. It's seeing bursts that other spacecraft aren't seeing." The success of the instrument is the result of a good design, he says. "Originally we didn't have time to include a burst mode on the instrument, but the system was so well designed that we were able to upload such a system a few weeks ago." Gamma-ray bursts remain one of the great mysteries of astrophysics since their discovery more than 30 years ago. They tend to be randomly distributed over the sky and occur with a frequency of about one per day for the most sensitive detectors. If they are of cosmological origin, they represent the most powerful events that are known in the universe. The debate as to their local or cosmological origin will most likely be resolved by locating sources of gamma-ray bursts and then identifying them with optical and radio telescopes. NASA's Hubble Space Telescope made the first observation of a fuzzy object associated with a burst that was detected last Feb. 28 by the Italian BeppoSAX satellite. The sources of gamma-ray bursts can be located in the sky by timing the arrival of the gamma-rays at three well-separated spacecraft. Since 1993, the spacecraft instrumented to observe such bursts have been the Ulysses spacecraft plus several spac ecraft near the Earth: the BeppoSAX and Wind as well as NASA's Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO) and Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer. The near-Earth spacecraft are too close to each other to allow a unique determination of the location of the bursts. The addition of the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous spacecraft to the interplanetary network will provide 3- dimensional triangulation of source locations and should greatly increase the probability of associating a gamma-ray source with a particula r source from optical and radio telescopes. The new capability on NEAR will expand the network and enable it to obtain the locations of moderate and stronger bursts, which occur at least several times per month, to a position in the sky accurate to about a minute of arc (about a thirtieth of the size of the moon). NEAR, the first mission of NASA's Discovery Program for "faster, better, cheaper" planetary exploration, will be the first spacecraft to orbit an asteroid. On June 27 NEAR sent back spectacular images of 253 Mathilde as it flew past the asteroid. In February 1999, NEAR will reach Eros and begin the first long- term, close-up look at an asteroid's surface composition and physical properties. NEAR was designed and built by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, in Laurel, MD, which also manages the program for NASA. - end - EDITOR'S NOTE: Information and images on the NEAR mission can be obtained on APL's NEAR homepage at URL: http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/NEAR/ X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 17:25:32 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:21:47 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:18:36 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Resent-Message-ID: <"3V8sY.0.zS1.IUPCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11276 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Scott Little wrote: > If springs are stretched in the process then, > obviously, the total energy of the spinning > structure increases even further as the > masses move out...by precisely the amount of > PE stored in the springs. Right you are. But what hasn't been said here, and is therefore the cause of the confusion (I think), is where the energy comes from. To see it clearly, we have to falsify one of Fred's assumptions: that the speed of both wheels will be the same after the balls are released from the center. The one with springs will end up turning more slowly than the one without the springs. The hidden, and IMO incorrect assumption, is that both wheels would end up at the the same speed. The wheel that pushes the balls out against the springs does more work, and spends it's rotational KE doing it. I admit though that it's hard for me to visualize exactly why that must be so, since the force the wheel exerts appears purely tangental, and t he springs are purely radial. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 18:03:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:59:55 -0700 X-Sender: monteverde@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:54:52 -1000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Rick Monteverde Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Resent-Message-ID: <"qmpq63.0.Cf5.72QCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11281 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred - Ack! You're making me dizzy with your Spindizzy! > 3) By definition energy is required to move > matter. This means that energy is being > expended to move the mass from the center to > the outside. NO! Net energy, excluding friction and so forth is ZERO - as long as you collect from the deceleration what you spend up front in acceleration. It's like that darned SMOT. It will happily move a ball from one point to another and convince you that somethi ng must be going on, but it isn't. Magnetism is an energy "bank", from which you may draw a loan to get that up-front payment to make your journey. You just pay back the bank as you leave the fields. The interest payment is the friction. You can finagle a low-interest loan with some dilige nce, and it ends up looking pretty tantalizing. Actually, I'm pretty well convinced that Greg may indeed be tapping magneto-caloric or other energy, and we may actually all see successful rollaways eventually. But that's another story. You assume a case where you have two wheels, one *without* springs. Think about that for a second - how can that be in the real world? Show me one without springs. Scott Little nailed it perfectly - *both* your systems have springs! One set of springs is tricky in that they're hiding in the bumpers or the rim or whatever stops the ball, and turns its stored energy into heat quickly. The systems end up with the same energy *and* the same rotational speed because they are in fact two examples of the *same* system - both really do have springs. If you took a snapshot of your two systems with the balls at the same radial distance at a point just before the no-spring rig had the balls reaching the rim, I think you'd see that system spinning faster at that poin t. It would slow to the final speed of the springed rig as the balls hit the stops. Does this explain it adequately? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 05:26:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 05:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:15:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "vortex" , From: Scott Little Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Resent-Message-ID: <"XNrCz.0.tC1.nrECq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11253 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:06 PM 9/29/97 -0700, Fred Epps wrote: >Now, before anyone >protests, I understand that the angular momentum changes as the masses move >to the outside edge but this does not change the total energy of the disc... Yes it does. The KE of any element of a spinning wheel is given by: E = (0.5)(m)(r^2)(w^2) where m = mass, r = radius, w = angular velocity. To check this, replace r*w with v (tangential velocity) and you get: E = (0.5)(m)(v^2) the familiar linear version of the KE eqn. So, provided you have a drive motor to maintain w constant, as the masses move outward (i.e. as r increases) the KE of the spinning structure increases. Have you ever wondered why an ice skater can increase the rate of his spin by pulling in his arms tightly? If your statement above was correct, the skater's spin rate would NOT increase! If springs are stretched in the process then, obviously, the total energy of the spinning structure increases even further as the masses move out...by precisely the amount of PE stored in the springs. 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 Sep 30 05:24:30 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 05:22:22 -0700 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:21:47 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Wheel of Orrefyeus (sp?) Resent-Message-ID: <"h62CS3.0.oa3.zxECq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11254 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I think I did send you the material. If I didn't, remind me again. My schedule is overly hectic and sometimes I lose track! Hal Puthoff X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 06:52:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:45:11 -0700 To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Hendershot Generator Resent-Message-ID: <"YyNOB.0.ly3.HBGCq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11255 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Mark Hendershot has some papers that belonged to his dad and a generator that he was building at one time based on those designs. He would like to see them go to someone who would like to carry on the work. He doesn't think he has the time or technical knowledge or electronic equipment that would all be necessary to pursue it. Natually, he doesn't want to just give them away. If any of you are interested in acquiring that chunk of history, he is not online, but you can email me for more information. Gary Hawkins X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 08:52:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:43:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:49 -0500 From: Rich Murray Reply-To: rmforall@earthlink.net Organization: Room For All To: vortex-L eskimo.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, cincygrp ix.netcom.com, storms@ix.netcom.com, ceti@onramp.net, JosephHRowe compuserve.com, ggmurray@uriacc.uri.edu, jmyeo@juno.com, zumm flash.net, cmurray@uh.edu, rollo@artvark.com, design73@aol.com, blue pilot.msu.edu, drom@vxcern.cern.ch, jonesse@astro.byu.edu, halfox slkc.uswest.net, dennis@wazoo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, davidk suba.com, shellied@sage.dri.edu, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, yekim physics.purdue.edu, jaeger@eneco-usa.com, nagel dave.nrl.navy.mil, rdeagleton@csupomona.edu, biberian crmc2.univ-mrs.fr, reeber@arp-emh1.army.mil, rl_brodzinski ccmail.pnl.gov, jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu, sukhanov srdlan.npi.msu.su, droege@fnal.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, mike_mckubre qm.sri.com, chubb@ccsalpha2.nrl.navy.mil, tchubb@aol.com Subject: Skinner's superstitious pigeons & team folly Resent-Message-ID: <"Pr0Vy1.0.RU1.uuHCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11258 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Sept. 30, 1997 Hi all, One of the classics of experimental psychology was by the famed behaviorist at Harvard, B.F. Skinner, who used intermittent positive reinforcement to condition a variety of eccentric behaviors simultaneously in a group of pigeons within a day. He set up a device to randomly toss tasty grain into their pen. If a pigeon happened to be making a left turn when it suddenly found a bit of grain under its beak, its neural net would increase the probability of repeating that behavior, thus setting up a positive feedback cycle of continuing to encounter bits of grain and building up a strong conditioned behavior to continue turning to the left. Intermittent reinforcement is far more effective than continuous reinforcement, because the neural network is trained to accept a certain reinforcement failure rate, so the behavior is difficult to extinguish by reducing or withholding positive reinforcem ent. So, in Skinner's experiment, the group of pigeons would all end up dancing in bizarre, meaningless patterns-- superstitious behavior. Something like that can happen to a research team. The ingredients are: 1. paradigmitis: the attitude that pretty much anything may be possible, and there is no way to tell what is going on or is of import. 2. data stew: an experimental setup, some kind of finicky kludge with minimal instrumentation that produces fairly random results in a number of simultaneous, somewhat messily related dimensions, such as radiation measurements, complex and varied chemist ry, borderline heat excursions, etc., along with impressive high-tech measurement technology that can only safely be used by highly qualified and experienced operators. Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry is ideal, since it can in half an hour transform a few milligrams of crud into over 200 items of data, replete with all kinds of ambiguities and interferences, while being so expensive that crosschecks may not be budgeted. Subtle leaks are often the source of all kinds of dramatric effects: as I sit in front of my magic mirror writing this, even now the shades of the Challenger crew are starting to appear, whispering beseechingly, "Never, ever, trust an O-ring seal..." 3: A small team of really nice guys: who spend years together fooling around with their kludge, making a nice enough living, trying all kinds of things, and gradually finding procedures that often enough produce interesting and mystifying results, which m ay seem to start to confirm a shared mindset and tentative theory. They are for years always on the brink of a definitive experimental and theoretical breakthrough. Peering myoptically at realms of meaningless data and random outcomes, they become blind to the obvious and alert to the obscure. They start to select from this plethora of information the tidbits that seem to substantiate their story, and they invariabl y present these curiously isolated items to the wider community in a characteristicly modest, diffident, almost plaintive way, seeking support, politely uninterested in skeptical criticism, making motions of criticing and cross-checking their own story. If the prospects of fame and fortune become vivid, then the result of this truly powerful, highly intermittent positive reinforcement is a striking intensification of the scientific superstition process. Commercially justified secrecy becomes an inpenetr able barrier to scientific discourse with the wider community. Typically, the victims tend to abort this tragic cycle by seemingly overconfident release of confused data and even experimental kits, and by putting out reports that are full of multitudinous typos and loose ends. This process of team scientific superstition describes CETI, Blacklight Power, and the Cincinatti Group. Rich Murray X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 08:36:25 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:30:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:30:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Tony Rusi To: vortex-l eskimo.com cc: marklin flash.net Subject: Re: laser (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"4B9wa2.0.oL.OiHCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11256 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > At 07:48 PM 9/27/97 -0500, George Marklin wrote: > > >How about flying a kite (or balloon) with a thin wire. > > Read (benjamin) Franklin a lot! before you try this. He knew what he > was doing and old woodcuts of the experiment show it correctly. He stood > in a shed, the first few feet of the kite string was actually dry silk, and > the key was set up (above the silk) so that if the charge go too high, it > would arc to grounded iron. And last but not least, the kite was not in or > near a cloud! He performed the experiment as the clouds were approaching. > He knew what lightning was, but the experiment showed that thunderclouds > did carry an electric charge. If the cloud is at, say 10 million volts at > 40,000 feet, then you have 250 volts per foot of altitude. Fly a kite at > 100 feet, and you can draw 25 Kv. (I have measured over 300 volts/ft, and > there are many reports of over 1 Kv per meter. Franklin's lab meantioned > above, started to come alive at about 40 volts/foot.) > > Robert I. Eachus > > with Standard_Disclaimer; > use Standard_Disclaimer; > function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... > > > pbs had something about a group of scientists using model rockets with thin wires attached to induce strikes. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 08:44:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:41:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:31:49 -0400 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> Subject: Eric Krieg on cable TV Sender: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256 compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"JKhsj1.0._B1.QsHCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11257 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com To: Vortex Eric Krieg reports that he will be on television today, September 30, 1997: I will briefly appear on CNBC show "Deals and Steals" 7:30pm EST tonight for my work exposing nation wide con man, Dennis Lee. Krieg maintains a database of questionable anomalous energy claims at http://www.voicenet.com/~eric. I think this database has merit, although I do not agree with his evaluations in every case. I am not familiar with most of the machines in the database. - Jed X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 09:36:03 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:26:05 -0700 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:24:30 -0400 (EDT) To: Puthoff aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hal why not bose condensates? Resent-Message-ID: <"IoRaH1.0.rf5.NWICq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11259 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com I believe that Bose condensates are the key to ZPE extraction. How do you know that your plasmoids and Shoulder's plasmoids are not Bose condensates? Did you ever check them for a Meissner repulsion effect? Frank Znidarsic X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 12:39:50 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:31:38 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: "Free Energy" , Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:51:17 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"754Y73.0.6W7.MELCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11263 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Scott! Thanks for your response! > > >Now, before anyone > >protests, I understand that the angular momentum changes as the masses move > >to the outside edge but this does not change the total energy of the disc... > > Yes it does. The KE of any element of a spinning wheel is given by: > > E = (0.5)(m)(r^2)(w^2) > > where m = mass, r = radius, w = angular velocity. To check this, replace > r*w with v (tangential velocity) and you get: > > E = (0.5)(m)(v^2) > > the familiar linear version of the KE eqn. > > So, provided you have a drive motor to maintain w constant, as the masses > move outward (i.e. as r increases) the KE of the spinning structure increases. Sorry, I should have been more clear what I was describing. And I did make an incorrect statement. Suppose the disc with the masses near the center is given a certain angular velocity. Then the masses are released to go to the outside edge through centrifugal force (yes I know it isn't real, but SOMETHING will move the masses out to the outside edge). While this is occuring there is NO additional drive impulse given to the disc. That is the assumption that is different from the one given in your example. In this situation the rotational K.E is conserved as is the angular momentum (contrary to my statement above). The disc is moving more slowly, but it contains the same amount of K.E. and has the same A.M. This could only be false by violating C of E. (don't you just love acronyms :-) --- no energy has been added or subtracted from the disc along the direction of movement. To quote my physics textbook: "The energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum of an isolated system all remain constant" BUT, wait, I forgot about those springs... where did THAT energy come from? :-) Maybe the spinning disc is not an isolated system. Maybe as Mach and now Assis say, the inertial force is caused by the total mass of the universe. Or maybe as Hal says, the inertial force is due to the ZPE. Or maybe as Jennison says, it is due to electron standing waves. In any case THE DISC NOW HAS MORE ENERGY IN IT THAN JUST THE ROTATIONAL COMPONENT. > > Have you ever wondered why an ice skater can increase the rate of his spin > by pulling in his arms tightly? If your statement above was correct, the > skater's spin rate would NOT increase! > > If springs are stretched in the process then, obviously, the total energy of > the spinning structure increases even further as the masses move out...by > precisely the amount of PE stored in the springs. Consider a skater in the opposite situation with his hands close by his body, spinning at constant velocity. He has to use a small force to hold his hands near his body. when he releases his hands to do as they will, they lift up and and away from his b ody due to that SOMETHING I referred to earlier. I know, I just went out in the back yard to try it :-) Now according to the given equations, as his hands go out from his body, the rotational K.E and A.M are conserved-- He moves more slowly, but his momen t of inertia has increased. BUT HIS HANDS ARE LIFTED ABOVE THE GROUND! There is stored gravitational energy in his hands! Isn't this right? Where does this energy come from? Or is this energy not "real" energy? Or is there SOME WAY this gravitational energy is being subtracted from the total energy of rotation, contrary to all laws I know of? Scott, thanks again for your response, but I hope it is obvious why I don't find it satisfactory... Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 11:56:59 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:53:47 -0700 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:53:04 -0400 (EDT) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re : Hendershot Generator Resent-Message-ID: <"pgW7B1.0.Gn3.ugKCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11262 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On 30/09/1997 15:52:23 , you wrote : << Suj : Hendershot Generator Date : 30/09/1997 15:52:23 From: ghawk eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins) Reply-to: vortex-l eskimo.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com Mark Hendershot has some papers that belonged to his dad and a generator that he was building at one time based on those designs. He would like to see them go to someone who would like to carry on the work. He doesn't think he has the time or techn ical knowledge or electronic equipment that would all be necessary to pursue it. Natually, he doesn't want to just give them away. If any of you are interested in acquiring that chunk of history, he is not online, but you can email me for more infor mation. Gary Hawkins >> Hi Gary, I am interested to know more about the Hendershot generator. Thanks you very much for your proposal. Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 12:40:27 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:31:43 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: Hendershot Generator Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:00:15 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"GeSET1.0.KX7.SELCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11264 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Gary! > > Mark Hendershot has some papers that belonged to his dad and > a generator that he was building at one time based on those > designs. He would like to see them go to someone who would > like to carry on the work. He doesn't think he has the time > or technical knowledge or electronic equipment that would all > be necessary to pursue it. Natually, he doesn't want to just > give them away. If any of you are interested in acquiring > that chunk of history, he is not online, but you can email me > for more information. I would like to see those papers put onto a website. It seems to me that if anyone can carry on Lester Hendershot's work it will be be through public exposure of this material. If they are sent to me, I will scan them and make sure they are put somewhere where they be seen by all. I am qualified to do this from past experience, and I am very familiar with the Hendershot generator having written a theoretical paper on its operation. You could xerox them before you send them to me, or you can send me the originals and I will copy them and scan them. In any case the originals can go to whoever carries on the experimental work. Fred > X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 13:50:18 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: (MER) Werjefelt documents given ok for web! Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:43:51 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"y08QH3.0.6I3.g0MCq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11266 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Butch, send them to me and I will scan them and email them to whoever is going to give them a home. Fred > > I just spoke with Mr. Werjefelt on the phone, and he has given me the ok to > put his documents on the web. Does any one have any suggestions as how best > to convert 8 1/2 x 11 documents for email and web sites. > Thanks, > Butch X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 13:56:09 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:51:51 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:52:41 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: Skinner's superstitious pigeons & team folly References: <34311115.4830 earthlink.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"s7DxN.0.Ul7.ZPMCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11267 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rich Murray wrote: > (snip a heart-felt rant!) even now the shades of the > Challenger crew are starting to appear, whispering beseechingly, "Never, > ever, trust an O-ring seal..." > Rich, the mechanical engineer in me cries out to mount a defense of WELL-DESIGNED O-ring seals - like the ones in: 1. All the water faucets in my house 2. my Oxy-acetylene welding torch 3. my Toyota's transmission, fuel system, and brakes 4. SCUBA pressure regulators 5. Probably 90% of the Shuttle's electro-mechanical systems 6. STILL in the solid Shuttle boosters - now operated within their design limits! (I hope!) Can a poor design/execution give trouble - you bet! Frank (mechanical engineer) Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 14:20:21 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:16:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:17:20 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY References: <199709301931.MAA16300 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"J4n0K2.0.Cp2.omMCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11268 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > (snip) > In this situation the rotational K.E is conserved as is the angular > momentum (contrary to my statement above). The disc is moving more slowly, > but it contains the same amount of K.E. and has the same A.M. > This could only be false by violating C of E. (don't you just love acronyms Fred, you seem to be confusing the conservation of energy, CE, with conservation of kinetic energy, CKE. There is NO law of CKE - sometimes KE is conserved - and sometimes it isn't - this depends on the process involved. If you let balls fly out and wac k the edge of a disk, some KE might change into heat energy, some into deformation work on the disk edge, some into sound energy, etc. KE is conserved only in ideal, special processes - few and far between! When your arms rise a bit when released just means less energy available for punching an observer in the nose on the up-swing! Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 14:35:08 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:23:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:23:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l eskimo.com, "Free Energy" , From: Scott Little Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Resent-Message-ID: <"AzKpd2.0.Vl3.htMCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11269 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com At 11:51 9/30/97 -0700, Fred Epps wrote: >Scott, thanks again for your response, but I hope it is obvious why I don't >find it satisfactory... It is. Thank you for such a clear explanation. Also, you deserve at least honorable mention in the Cloak of Confusion awards for thinking up this spring-loaded spinning mass device. It's not immediately obvious how energy will be conserved in yr wheel but I think I can point us in the right direction at least. Consider two wheels with masses that can slide in radial tracks. One wheel has springs pulling the masses towards the center. The other does not have springs. Both wheels are spun up with the masses held in the center-most position to some intial identical KE. Then the masses are released. In the wheel with no springs, the masses will fly all the way out and smash into the ends of their tracks dissipating their considerable radial KE as heat upon impact. The rpm will decrease accordingly so that KE.final = KE.initial - heat energy....right ? In the wheel with springs, the masses will travel out more slowly. They will just touch the ends of their tracks since we have cleverly adjusted the spring force to balance the C-force at that point. The energy that was wasted in the first wheel as heat is now stored in the springs. Final rpm of both wheels is the same. The one without springs is warmer than the other. 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 Sep 30 14:56:34 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:53:07 -0700 Comments: ( Received on motgate.mot.com from client pobox.mot.com, sender johnste@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com ) From: "John E. Steck" Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:52:26 -0500 References: <199709301931.MAA16300 mail1.halcyon.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Resent-Message-ID: <"upOpe3.0.mh7.0JNCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11270 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com On Sep 30, 2:38pm, Fred Epps wrote: > Maybe the spinning disc is not an isolated system. Maybe as Mach and now > Assis say, the inertial force is caused by the total mass of the universe. > Or maybe as Hal says, the inertial force is due to the ZPE. Or maybe as > Jennison says, it is due to electron standing waves. In any case THE DISC > NOW HAS MORE ENERGY IN IT THAN JUST THE ROTATIONAL COMPONENT. -- I keep trying to keep up, but you keep losing me. HOW? WHERE? Inertia can be oversimplified as velocity + potential and/or kinetic energy. Your postulate calls for a system saturated with anti-entropy. O/U is not anti-entropy. It's not even really "o ver-unity". It is a process that taps an energy source not presently accounted for in our physical models and theories. Again I ask, where do you see this extra energy coming from? > Consider a skater in the opposite situation with his hands close by his > body, spinning at constant velocity. He has to use a small force to hold > his hands near his body. when he releases his hands to do as they will, > they lift up and and away from his body due to that SOMETHING I referred to > earlier. -- Nothing more than PE converted to KE and rotational velocity. The small force on the arms is entropy reminding you it is waiting for you to quit fooling around with all that PE. > Now according to the given equations, as his hands go out from his body, > the rotational K.E and A.M are conserved-- He moves more slowly, but his > moment of inertia has increased. -- No. They are all relative. Which equations are you using? In your example both KE and AV increase, PE decreases, inertia remains constant or decreases due to efficiency losses in the conversion. > BUT HIS HANDS ARE LIFTED ABOVE THE > GROUND! There is stored gravitational energy in his hands! Isn't this > right? -- Yes, but it is a conversion efficiency drag to the system not an enhancement. > Where does this energy come from? Or is this energy not "real" energy? Or > is there SOME WAY this gravitational energy is being subtracted from the > total energy of rotation, contrary to all laws I know of? -- Fred, you keep trying to make this more complicated than it is. This is simple mechanics. Any first year physics book will have the equations you are looking for. -- John E. Steck Prototype Tooling Motorola Inc. X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 15:22:37 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:13:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:13:12 -0700 X-Sender: tessien pop3.oro.net To: vortex-l eskimo.com From: tessien oro.net (Ross Tessien) Subject: Re: Web sites with oscillon images, movie, and technical discussions Resent-Message-ID: <"boMZ.0.Rm1.-bNCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11271 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com John Steck wrote; >At one time there was some discussion here of building an acoustic condensation >chamber to test this theory with various vapors and gases. There had been some >sourcing work done and some frequency generating equipment built/purchased, but >I never heard anything more about it. The last goal I heard was to have >something for the aether conference a couple of months back. Is the experiment >still pending, has it been shelved, did the design concept fail, or is it in >process with nothing to report yet? I conceived of the device and the patterns of waves to input to the chamber. I still hope to be able to construct the thing, but have never received funding to be able to do so. Ergo, the idea has just been on the shelf waiting for the right time. Recently, (ie three weeks ago), I bought $5k worth of electronics so I can now drive the waves. The equipment is for a different project to build the devices I think can induce fusion reactions and transmutations via a proprietary device design. I hope to be able to construct the device in the coming year or so. This is especially the case since I finally got the financial go ahead to fund the creation of the drawings and paintings to put into the book I am writing. I just got back from a meeting with a professor at Stanford and a financial investor. The invest or has agreed to fund the creation of the images to illustrate the book, after having seen me discuss my theories for three hours with two different physicists, and having seen that they could not poke holes in the concepts. I am a far sight short of any sort of conclusive proof that my ideas are correct, however I have assembled a vast volume of circumstantial evidence in favor of my notions. In any case, I have 10 months of funding coming for an artist to work on putting together the artwork for the various things like black holes, active galactic nuclei, electron standing waves, photons........ I will be including a huge volume of images from Hubble, VLBI, etc too. So there is a huge volume of work ahead of me. That said, I would love to be able to build that device and photograph it and include a study of those standing waves in the book. I may try to build a really small one to try it out. In fact, I may be able to use something I have already constructed with virtually no effort, so if that does work I will let you know. In a couple of months, I hope to be able to get a web site up and will post some of the chapters that will eventually go into the book, along with the scanned images we are creating to describe the theory and the structures of the aether vibrations I expe ct. Well, off for now, later. Ross Tessien X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 15:42:14 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:37:53 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:37:31 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY References: <199709301931.MAA16300 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"KQ1op2.0.wG4.zyNCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11272 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > > Maybe the spinning disc is not an isolated system. > Maybe as Mach and now Assis say, the inertial force is > caused by the total mass of the universe. > Or maybe as Hal says, the inertial force is due to the ZPE. > Or maybe as Jennison says, it is due to electron standing waves. Or maybe, as Merriman says, Fred Epps does not understand basic mechanics. :-) The system you describe, albeit clever, is a perfectly happy conservative system, that can be analyzed quite exactly with the laws of elementary mechanics. Such an exercise shows why the presence of the spring slows the rotation more than you expect, or r equires more drive power if the rotation is being driven at a fixed RPM. If I get some spare time, I'll try and give you a minimal understanding. -- 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 Tue Sep 30 16:32:10 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:26:45 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:49:25 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"r4tsN3.0.1Y1.dgOCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11274 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Frank! > > > In this situation the rotational K.E is conserved as is the angular > > momentum (contrary to my statement above). The disc is moving more slowly, > > but it contains the same amount of K.E. and has the same A.M. > > This could only be false by violating C of E. (don't you just love acronyms > > Fred, you seem to be confusing the conservation of energy, CE, with > conservation of kinetic energy, CKE. There is NO law of CKE - sometimes > KE is conserved - and sometimes it isn't - this depends on the process > involved. I understand this. Even if I was confused about the difference, which I am not, it makes no differnce to what I am saying. Let's take the opposite situation. Suppose our disc while stationary has two balls at the outer edge each connected to some sort of battery powered solenoid that can push them toward the middle. We spin up the disc to a certain velocity. Once it has achieved steady rotation, we activate the solenoids and move the balls slowly, no impact, to the center. I think we are agreed that the moment of inertia of the disc will decrease by the same proportion as the velocity increases-- leaving the kinetic energy the same. It is true that in SOME situations the kinetic energy can change but in THIS situation it d oes not. Now why would this situation be different from the opposite one, where the balls go to the outside? Please note that if I had originally said the balls were moved to the outside edge by solenoids, no-one would be making objections to the idea that the energy of the spinning disc is conserved in this situation. But I don't NEED to push the balls! If you let balls fly out and wack the edge of a disk, some > KE might change into heat energy, some into deformation work on the > disk edge, some into sound energy, etc. KE is conserved only in ideal, > special processes - few and far between! Agreed. In my instance I am converting the motion of the balls into the stored energy of springs. They are not whacking the sides, and even if they were, this would not affect the K.E of the disc in the slightest. Otherwise, I could beat on the walls of a carousel I was riding and slow it down! You see, there are these things called "vectors" :-) While the energy of the ball is being converted into potential form in the springs THE KINETIC ENERGY OF THE DISC IS CONSERVED-- as I said the inertial moment is going up while the velocity is going down. What could be more straightforward? How could it be more obvious that there is another source of energy in the disc, one that makes it unnecessary for me to move the balls to the outside edge with solenoids? Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 16:33:16 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:27:34 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:32:50 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"7q-iw1.0.Wc1.WhOCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11275 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Scott! > > It is. Thank you for such a clear explanation. Also, you deserve at least > honorable mention in the Cloak of Confusion awards for thinking up this > spring-loaded spinning mass device. It's not immediately obvious how energy > will be conserved in yr wheel but I think I can point us in the right > direction at least. > > Consider two wheels with masses that can slide in radial tracks. One wheel > has springs pulling the masses towards the center. The other does not have > springs. > > Both wheels are spun up with the masses held in the center-most position to > some intial identical KE. Then the masses are released. > > In the wheel with no springs, the masses will fly all the way out and smash > into the ends of their tracks dissipating their considerable radial KE as > heat upon impact. The rpm will decrease accordingly so that KE.final = > KE.initial - heat energy....right? Sorry, Scott, it won't wash...but I can give you my cloak of confusion award if you want :-) The K.E of ROTATION of a disc DOES NOT decrease, whether the ball crashes into the outside edge, or the energy is stored in springs. Your explanation assumes what i am trying to prove, which there is ANOTHER source of KE inthe disc besides that from the r otation. WHY do your masses fly out and smash into the ends of their tracks?? Rotational K.E. = 1/2 Iw^2 as the ball moves toward the edge, the moment of inertia (I) increases in proportion to the decrease in velocity (w). There is nothing in this formula about forces moving at right angles to the angular velocity. If I am on the outer edge of a flywheel with a certain energy stored in it and I run to the center (expending considerable energy against the mysterious centrifu gal force I might add) the rotational K.E of the flywheel does not change. There has been no conversion of this KE into heat or other energy. It is still there as it always was. The postion of masses witihn a rotating object has no effect on total KE. As far as the impact part is concerned, you can beat on the inside wall of a carousel you're riding on all day long without slowing it down. What happened to the idea of vectors here all of a sudden? Does this mean I can sway from side to side in my car and slow it down? :-) To summarize: 1) ANY change in the position of matter upon a spinning disc has no effect on the ROTATIONAL kinetic energy of the disc. 2) A mass in the center of a disc will move to the outside edge when released. No explanation is given for this action within classical physics. 3) By definition energy is required to move matter. This means that energy is being expended to move the mass from the center to the outside. 4) By (1), this energy is not being subtracted from the rotational energy of the disc. 5) Therefore, either C of E is violated, or the disc is not a closed system and there is an external source of energy. Believe it or not, I AM willing to let go of this idea when given convincing reasons, but so far they have not been forthcoming. Thanks for your suggestions anyway, and keep trying :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 15:52:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:44:10 -0700 From: "Stephan Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:43:38 -0800 Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Priority: urgent Resent-Message-ID: <"OYv16.0.yu4.u2OCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11273 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > In the wheel with springs, the masses will travel out more slowly. They > will just touch the ends of their tracks since we have cleverly adjusted the > spring force to balance the C-force at that point. The energy that was > wasted in the first wheel as heat is now stored in the springs. I love looking at these problems and finding out "where the energy goes." However, in this problem, I do not belive that the springs will store all the "missing energy." Some must still be disipated in one form or another. Energy in the spring will be (integral from 0 to X) Kx dx. (K = spring constant) this equation follows from E=F dx. This means that the force will be increasing as the weights move to the rim of the disk. Energy available from the weights, however, must also be E=F dx. So we have (integral from 0 to X) C dx. (C = cent. force) However, C is HIGHEST when close to the center of rotation and falls off until it is equal with Kx at the rim of the disk. S o E (available) DOES NOT equal E (stored in springs). In conclusion, you don't even break even when trying to store the change in energy in the springs. Not even close! And you certainly don't get any free energy out of it... JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 17:55:26 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:52:15 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:04:09 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"OzlHX.0.1u4.ywPCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11278 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi John, > > > Maybe the spinning disc is not an isolated system. Maybe as Mach and now > > Assis say, the inertial force is caused by the total mass of the universe. > > Or maybe as Hal says, the inertial force is due to the ZPE. Or maybe as > > Jennison says, it is due to electron standing waves. In any case THE DISC > > NOW HAS MORE ENERGY IN IT THAN JUST THE ROTATIONAL COMPONENT. > -- > I keep trying to keep up, but you keep losing me. HOW? WHERE? Inertia can be > oversimplified as velocity + potential and/or kinetic energy. Your postulate > calls for a system saturated with anti-entropy. O/U is not anti-entropy. It's > not even really "over-unity". It is a process that taps an energy source not > presently accounted for in our physical models and theories. Again I ask, > where do you see this extra energy coming from? Right now, I would rather just focus on the physical examples given and establish what the truth of the matter is one way or the other. It may well be that I don't understand simple mechanics, as Barry Merriman says, in which case it would be moot for me to go off on on any long winded explanations, which would probably not be correct anyway. I will say philosophically I don't have any problems with a system, or a universe, saturated with anti-entropy. I have no idea whether that is the case, but I lik e it :-) > > > Consider a skater in the opposite situation with his hands close by his > > body, spinning at constant velocity. He has to use a small force to hold > > his hands near his body. when he releases his hands to do as they will, > > they lift up and and away from his body due to that SOMETHING I referred to > > earlier. > -- > Nothing more than PE converted to KE and rotational velocity. The small force > on the arms is entropy reminding you it is waiting for you to quit fooling > around with all that PE. > > > Now according to the given equations, as his hands go out from his body, > > the rotational K.E and A.M are conserved-- He moves more slowly, but his > > moment of inertia has increased. > -- > No. They are all relative. Which equations are you using? >From "College Physics", Serway & Faughn, KE(r) = 1/2 Iw^2 Other correspondents have agreed with this part...what's the problem? Skip the part about the hands raising. If you have a spinning disc with balanced masses on opposite sides and you move the masses out from the center, is it not true that the ROTATIONA L kinetic energy remains the same, whatever else may happen, according to this formula? In your example > both KE and AV increase, PE decreases, inertia remains constant or decreases > due to efficiency losses in the conversion. If I understand this properly your KE is the total KE including the radial component, AV is AM or angular momentum, which does NOT increase in this situation, but is conserved, at least according to the books. > Fred, you keep trying to make this more complicated than it is. This is simple > mechanics. Any first year physics book will have the equations you are looking > for. I'm looking at the equations right now. Maybe I just don't understand them. Or maybe simple mechanics is not so simple :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 17:58:20 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:52:20 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:46:52 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"_QFD_3.0.Mu4.-wPCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11279 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Barry! > > Or maybe, as Merriman says, Fred Epps does not understand > basic mechanics. :-) This seems pretty likely, but I am working on it. > > The system you describe, albeit clever, is a perfectly happy > conservative system, that can be analyzed quite exactly > with the laws of elementary mechanics. Such an exercise > shows why the presence of the spring slows the rotation more than > you expect, or requires more drive power if the rotation is being > driven at a fixed RPM. > > If I get some spare time, I'll try and give you a minimal > understanding. > -- I wish you would, if you're not too busy. I understand how the motion of the masses to the outside edge slows the rotation, but it is also pretty clear in that situation that rotational kinetic energy is conserved, if the masses just roll to the outside edge without resistance. I can almost see how the resistance of the spring to compression would affect the angualr velocity, or the rate of change of the angular velocity (?), but I can't understand how the presence of the spring would reduce the rotation al kinetic energy of the disc as the masses moved out. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 18:04:55 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:01:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:02:20 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Organization: NASA (Retired) To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY References: <199709302325.QAA29169 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"zKoEj1.0.kr5.34QCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11282 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > I think we are agreed that the moment of inertia of the disc will decrease > by the same proportion as the velocity increases-- leaving the kinetic > energy the same. Fred, if no external torque acts on the disk, true, the velocity (omega) will increase (in proportion) as the moment of inertia (I) drops. This comes about from the conservation of angular momentum, and: ang.mom = I x omega But, angular KE = 1/2 x I x omega^2. So, the KE of the system will increase by just the amount of work your electric solenoids are expending in pushing the weights in. In other words, if you cut the "I" in half, the omega will double and the ang. KE will go up by a 4-factor. The energy to do this comes from whatever driver you use to move the balls in. Frank Stenger X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 18:22:40 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:16:13 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:16:03 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY References: <199709302325.QAA09827 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"F_YRO2.0.Af7.RHQCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11283 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > Rotational K.E. = 1/2 Iw^2 > as the ball moves toward the edge, the moment of inertia (I) > increases in proportion to the decrease in velocity (w). > > There is nothing in this formula about forces moving at right > angles to the angular velocity. If I am on the outer edge of > a flywheel with a certain energy stored in it and I run to the > center (expending considerable energy against the mysterious > centrifugal force I might add) the rotational K.E of the flywheel > does not change. I am sorry to destroy long cherished beliefs, but the above is false. You have remembered the "centrifical force" but forgotten the "corsiolis force", which is at *right angles* to your direction of motion as your run. If you do manage to run radially inw ard toward the center, you must overcome not only the "centrifical force" throwing you outward but also the "coriolis force" that is trying to throw you to the side. In resisting the coriolis force, you will slow down/speed up the disc when you run out/in radially. (I put these forces in "."'s becuase, technically, they are fictious forces that appear when you analyze the problem in a rotation fram of reference....but thats not so important for this discussion. What is true is that to run along a certain trajectory on a rotating disc, you do indeed have to supply real forces that are equal and opposite to the "fictitious" coriolis and centrifical forces.) > To summarize: > 1) ANY change in the position of matter upon a spinning disc has no effect > on the ROTATIONAL kinetic energy of the disc. Totally false. If the matter is coupled to the disc---e.g., by friction, as when you say "I run along the disc surface", or by mechanical coupling such as a radial track that the matter must slide along---it will change the rotational energy of the disc. The mechanism for doing this is the coriolois force, which is at *right angles* to the radial direction, and therefore capable of speeding/slowing the disc. Through the coriolis force, energy can be transferred between the disc and the radially moving mas ses coupled to its surface. > 2) A mass in the center of a disc will move to the outside edge when > released. No explanation is given for this action within > classical physics. This is Newtons first law, that a body in uniform motion will remain that way unless acted upon by a force. A mass co-rating with the disc, when freed, will simply move in a straisght line at constant speed starting from the point of release, and perpendicular to the radial direction at that point. > 3) By definition energy is required to move matter. This means that energy > is being expended to move the mass from the center to the outside. No, force is required to alter the motion of matter, and energy is required to change the speed of matter. Neither happens if a mass rotating on the disc is suddenly "cut loose" and allowed to move totally freelly (i.e. not along a specified track on the surface). > Believe it or not, I AM willing to let go of this idea when given > convincing reasons, but so far they have not been forthcoming. > Thanks for your suggestions anyway, and keep trying :-) > > Fred Either you have a serious misunderstanding of mechanics, or you are simply not expressing your true understanding. Either way, it seems the heart of your problem is that you have neglected the coriolis force, which is the *other* strange force you must co nsider when thinking about rotating systems. If you don;t believe in the coriolis force, go to the local play ground, spin up the merry goround, board it, and try to walk inward on a radial line...you will discover the coriolis force real quick. (Or, strictly speaking, the need to provide a force perpendicular to radius if you are to succesfully walk along a radial line, in addition to the radial force your must also supply to do so.) -- 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 Tue Sep 30 18:19:53 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:17:01 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY resolved, Fred's mind opens finally Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:23:48 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"2d3p52.0.Pj7.9IQCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11284 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Jay! > > > Believe it or not, I AM willing to let go of this idea when given > > convincing reasons, but so far they have not been forthcoming. > > Thanks for your suggestions anyway, and keep trying :-) > > > > Fred > > OK, here's my try... > > r (radius) = 1m > m (mass) = 2kg > I (moment of inertia) = 2kg m^2 > w (angular velocity) = 20pi rad/sec > > L(angular momentum) = Iw = 40pi (kg m^2) / sec > E = (1/2) (m) (v^2) = (1/2) (m) (wr)^2 = 3947.84 J > ______________________________________________ > > Now we are going to move the weights out to r'=2m. Note that L' = L > from conservation of angular momentum. > r' = 2m > m' = 2kg > I' = 8 kg m^2 > w' = 5pi rad/sec > > L' = I'w' = 40pi (kg m^2) / sec > E' = (1/2) (m) (v^2) = (1/2) (m) (w'r')^2 = 986.96 J (OH NO!!) > > E DOES NOT = E' OK, I can see my mistake. I was confusing angular velocity w with tangential velocity v ! I thought that the product KE(r) = 1/2Iw^2 was the same as 1/2Iv^2 YOU HAVE DONE IT! YOU HAVE OPENED FRED'S MIND FINALLY where all others before you have failed :-)) Now, back to that gyroscope idea... :-) Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 18:32:17 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:28:42 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:28:28 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY References: Resent-Message-ID: <"v2dAq2.0.Oo.6TQCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11285 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Rick Monteverde wrote: > > The wheel that pushes the balls out against the springs > does more work, and spends it's rotational KE doing it. > I admit though that it's hard for me to > visualize exactly why that must be so, since the force the > wheel exerts > appears purely tangental, and the springs are purely radial. > Again, this is a gross misperception. If the masses follow some radial track as they slide outward, there is a coriolis force that is purely tangential, exerted by the track on the masses, needed to keep them moving purely radially. Conversely, if you say there is no such track, the masses on springs, once released, will not move purely radially outward. Instead, they will move both radially and tangentially relative to the disc surface (and when viewed from a non-moving frame, the m ass-on-spring will simple execute an elliptical orbit in space). In this case, If the masses have zero coupling to the disc surface---i.e. no friction---they will not trade any energy at all with the disc, nor will they alter its rotational speed. They will act as a totally independent system, conserving their own energy (kinetic + spring), that just happened to be corotating with the disc at the point of release. This is clearly not the case envisioned, so we must assume that the masses are coupled to the disc by some sort of track along whick they must move. Again, for any such coupling, the coriolis force force of the track on the masses will provide the "missin g" tangential force that alters the "rotational" energy (i.e. total kinetic energy written as 1/2 I w^2) of the disc. -- 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 Tue Sep 30 18:37:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:33:44 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:41:27 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"r-gkm1.0.ha1.sXQCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11286 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Rick! > The wheel that pushes the balls out against the springs does more work, and > spends it's rotational KE doing it. I admit though that it's hard for me to > visualize exactly why that must be so, since the force the wheel exerts > appears purely tangental, and the springs are purely radial. > This is what hangs me up in terms of "seeing" the situation, although Jay Olson by laying out the equations has shown me my mistake (I was confusing tangential velocity with angular velocity). Sorry to drive you crazy, although I have to admit it was more fun than reading a boring old textbook :-) BTW, the original spindizzy idea was a gyro idea and only peripherally related to this one, so it still stands in my mind as an open question, although the fact that I made a simple mistake here certainly impels me to check my work more thoroughly... Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 17:49:44 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Intended-For: knuke@aa.net Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:44:23 -0700 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:44:29 -0800 Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Priority: normal Resent-Message-ID: <"CFHMk3.0.Pu3.bpPCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11277 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com > Believe it or not, I AM willing to let go of this idea when given > convincing reasons, but so far they have not been forthcoming. > Thanks for your suggestions anyway, and keep trying :-) > > Fred OK, here's my try... We have a setup where two 1kg weights are at a radius of 1m from the center of rotation. We will move the weights out two two meters and see what happens. :) r (radius) = 1m m (mass) = 2kg I (moment of inertia) = 2kg m^2 w (angular velocity) = 20pi rad/sec L(angular momentum) = Iw = 40pi (kg m^2) / sec E = (1/2) (m) (v^2) = (1/2) (m) (wr)^2 = 3947.84 J ______________________________________________ Now we are going to move the weights out to r'=2m. Note that L' = L from conservation of angular momentum. r' = 2m m' = 2kg I' = 8 kg m^2 w' = 5pi rad/sec L' = I'w' = 40pi (kg m^2) / sec E' = (1/2) (m) (v^2) = (1/2) (m) (w'r')^2 = 986.96 J (OH NO!!) E DOES NOT = E' JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 22:51:23 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:46:10 -0700 From: atech@ix.netcom.com X-Sender: atech popd.ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 01:48:51 +0000 To: vortex-l eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Resent-Message-ID: <"_yXlj.0.pF6.XEUCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11291 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Victor Schauberger's teachings would predict that if the mass on the spinning disk followed a logarithmic helical spiral (Kudu Antelope Horn) whose axis coincides with the a radial line on the disk, a coupling to higher dimensional energy sources would re sult. Could this principal be sort of compared to getting the force that causes the vortex in water as it drains out of a tub to work in reverse? At 06:16 PM 9/30/97 -0700, you wrote: >Fred Epps wrote: >> >> Rotational K.E. = 1/2 Iw^2 >> as the ball moves toward the edge, the moment of inertia (I) >> increases in proportion to the decrease in velocity (w). >> >> There is nothing in this formula about forces moving at right >> angles to the angular velocity. If I am on the outer edge of >> a flywheel with a certain energy stored in it and I run to the >> center (expending considerable energy against the mysterious >> centrifugal force I might add) the rotational K.E of the flywheel >> does not change. > >I am sorry to destroy long cherished beliefs, but the above >is false. You have remembered the "centrifical force" but >forgotten the "corsiolis force", which is at *right angles* >to your direction of motion as your run. If you do manage to >run radially inward toward the center, you must overcome >not only the "centrifical force" throwing you outward but >also the "coriolis force" that is trying to throw you to the side. >In resisting the coriolis force, you will slow down/speed up the >disc when you run out/in radially. > >(I put these forces in "."'s becuase, technically, they >are fictious forces that appear when you analyze the problem >in a rotation fram of reference....but thats not so important >for this discussion. What is true is that to run along a certain >trajectory on a rotating disc, you do indeed have to supply real >forces that are equal and opposite to the "fictitious" >coriolis and centrifical forces.) > >> To summarize: >> 1) ANY change in the position of matter upon a spinning disc has no effect >> on the ROTATIONAL kinetic energy of the disc. > >Totally false. If the matter is coupled to the disc---e.g., by >friction, as when you say "I run along the disc surface", or >by mechanical coupling such as a radial track that the >matter must slide along---it will change the rotational >energy of the disc. The mechanism for doing this is the coriolois force, >which is at *right angles* to the radial direction, and therefore >capable of speeding/slowing the disc. Through the coriolis >force, energy can be transferred between the disc and the >radially moving masses coupled to its surface. > > > > > >> 2) A mass in the center of a disc will move to the outside edge when >> released. No explanation is given for this action within >> classical physics. > >This is Newtons first law, that a body in uniform >motion will remain that way unless acted upon by a force. >A mass co-rating with the disc, when freed, will simply >move in a straisght line at constant speed starting from the point >of release, and perpendicular to the radial direction at that point. > >> 3) By definition energy is required to move matter. This means that energy >> is being expended to move the mass from the center to the outside. > >No, force is required to alter the motion of matter, and >energy is required to change the speed of matter. Neither happens >if a mass rotating on the disc is suddenly "cut loose" and >allowed to move totally freelly (i.e. not along a specified track >on the surface). > >> Believe it or not, I AM willing to let go of this idea when given >> convincing reasons, but so far they have not been forthcoming. >> Thanks for your suggestions anyway, and keep trying :-) >> >> Fred > >Either you have a serious misunderstanding of mechanics, or you are >simply not expressing your true understanding. Either way, it seems >the heart of your problem is that you have neglected the >coriolis force, which is the *other* strange force you must consider >when thinking about rotating systems. If you don;t believe in >the coriolis force, go to the local play ground, spin up >the merry goround, board it, and try to walk inward on a >radial line...you will discover the coriolis force real quick. >(Or, strictly speaking, the need to provide a force perpendicular >to radius if you are to succesfully walk along a radial line, >in addition to the radial force your must also supply to do so.) > >-- >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 Tue Sep 30 19:26:00 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:20:54 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:20:28 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY resolved, Fred's mind opens finally References: <199710010116.SAA03637 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"1z-ZT2.0.qk5.zDRCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11287 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > [Jay] YOU HAVE DONE IT! YOU HAVE OPENED FRED'S MIND FINALLY where all others > before you have failed :-)) > I'm glad his example opened you mind---but, actually, I don't see his example as explaining the mechanism of the "SPINDIZZY". All his example shows is that if you have a rotating mass, say, swinging round on a string, if your "reel in" the mass using only radial forces, you exert zero torque, so the angular momentum does not change, but you must do work on it (precisely from F_r adial . dr motion), as is easily shown by computign the before and after energy. Your comments before suggested you already knew this---which I suspect you did, since this is obvious force x distance (radially) work. I though the paradox of the SPINDIZZY was that there was no obvious (to you) mechanism for the stretching spring to exert a force that would slow down the wheel, since the only forces at work are the centrifical force and the spkring force, both radial in direction. Thus the centrifical force puts energy into the spring, while the spring has no means to reciprocate and take energy out of the wheel, and voila---its over unity. The solution to the above paradox is that transfer is via the coriolis force, which is a tangential force and has been erroneously neglected above. Whe one considers all three forces: coriolis, centrifical and spring, the work done by these forces will ba lance, and the coriolos is the one that takes rotational energy from the disc as the mass-spring stretches out in a purely radial direction (along some guiding channel cut into the disc, the channel walls being the physical source of this force). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 19:50:24 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:47:22 -0700 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:47:10 -0700 From: Barry Merriman Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: spindizzy winds down References: <199710010052.RAA26601 mail1.halcyon.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"EAJ2U3.0.iV.scRCq"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11288 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Fred Epps wrote: > > You know, I am a high school dropout That is fine---but you shouldn't have stopped studying physics :-) In fact, I'm a junior-high-school dropout, for the same reason that you dropped out. But I dropped out so that I could learn more science, not less. Anyway, keep studying---but stop expecting to find loopholes in classical mechanics in devices made of masses, pulleys, ratchets, springs, etc. That energy is conserved in such ideal mechanical systems is totally certain (and the same for ideal mechno-elc tro-magnetic systems). Any "OU" observed in the real world would have to come from fundamentally new physics (like ZPE, 5th force, etc), and so it is irrelevant to look for it based on classical force analyes. Such classical analyses, when done properly, must give perfect conservation, since this is rigorously provable in full generality given Newtons laws. If they don't you can be certain you have forgotten something. There's a book out there called "How to Build a Flying Saucer" that I bought when I was a kid. It was basically a compendium of schemes like the one you gave, with rotating objects ov varying radius, cleveryl designed so as to make rectilinear motion in a pparent violation of momentum conservation. Its amazing that the author could not see why these don;t work, since he was mechanically knowledgable and had even built some of them. (Warning: such devices when mounted on wheels can creep along in one direction via their frictional coupling with the ground---this is not amazing, since that is how you walk, as well. So if you build one and it seems to move in some direction, that proves nothing in itself. Put it on an ice rink and see how it does :-). Anyway, I used to spend my time analyzing these and showing why the "actions" are always balanced by reactions. These are great elementary physics problems in rotational mechanics, but that is all they can ever be---exercises in finding all the forces. That is my my physics prof at the time had little patience for such related questions----its like throwing a needle into a haystack and then searching for it, just to amuse yourself. -- Barry Merriman Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program email: barry math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Wed Oct 1 01:39:49 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:15:25 -0700 From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:03:20 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"5oZEb1.0.eY.xfUCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11292 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Barry, > I am sorry to destroy long cherished beliefs, but the above > is false. You have remembered the "centrifical force" but > forgotten the "corsiolis force", which is at *right angles* > to your direction of motion as your run. If you do manage to > run radially inward toward the center, you must overcome > not only the "centrifical force" throwing you outward but > also the "coriolis force" that is trying to throw you to the side. > In resisting the coriolis force, you will slow down/speed up the > disc when you run out/in radially. > > Totally false. If the matter is coupled to the disc---e.g., by > friction, as when you say "I run along the disc surface", or > by mechanical coupling such as a radial track that the > matter must slide along---it will change the rotational > energy of the disc. The mechanism for doing this is the coriolois force, > which is at *right angles* to the radial direction, and therefore > capable of speeding/slowing the disc. Through the coriolis > force, energy can be transferred between the disc and the > radially moving masses coupled to its surface. Makes sense, it's the first time I have gotten an intuitive feel for why my idea was wrong. > Either you have a serious misunderstanding of mechanics, or you are > simply not expressing your true understanding. I AM expressing my true understanding-- which is wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong :-) but isn't correcting me when I'm wrong how I learn anything? Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request ESKIMO.COM Tue Sep 30 23:08:56 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:09:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com To: vortex-l ESKIMO.COM From: Scott Little Subject: Re: spindizzy winds down Resent-Message-ID: <"E75Nm3.0.B07.-CTCq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Reply-To: vortex-l ESKIMO.COM X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11290 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request ESKIMO.COM At 07:47 PM 9/30/97 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: >Anyway, keep studying---but stop expecting to find loopholes >in classical mechanics.... Right, and I think we can stop looking in classical electromagnetics as well...and this especially includes electromagnetic motors. What is hard for some folks to appreciate is the enormous amount of engineering that has already been done based upon classical theories. These theories aren't just something you dig out of physics books when you want to pontificate...they have been test ed and tested and tested. The human race has built countless mechanical and electrical machines with degrees of sophistication ranging beyond any one person's full comprehension. When you drive away in a modern car, for example, you are riding on man-centuries of cumulative engin eering accomplishment. In many of these engineering efforts the actual working models are compared to the theoretical design models with a fine-toothed comb until any and all discrepancies are resolved. If there were any significant "irregularities" in classical theory which could be manifested as easily as moving weights attached to a wheel, or a special arrangement of magnets around a rotor, you can rest assured that such would have been detected, explored and exploited long ago. Barry says it well: > Any "OU" observed in the real world would have to come from >fundamentally new physics (like ZPE, 5th force, etc), and >so it is irrelevant to look for it based on classical force analyes. In fact, it is a waste of precious time to look for OU in classical physics. Scott X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 23:27:47 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:15:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: THE SPINDIZZY resolved, Fred's mind opens finally Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:17:31 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"DyT6P3.0.gu1.1gUCq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11293 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi again, Barry, > > > [Jay] YOU HAVE DONE IT! YOU HAVE OPENED FRED'S MIND FINALLY where all others > > before you have failed :-)) > > > > I'm glad his example opened you mind---but, actually, I don't > see his example as explaining the mechanism of the "SPINDIZZY". You're right, but the recognition of my mistaken equating of v with w was the camel straw. I was sure I'd made a mistake then, not seeing it clearly in my mind until your disquisition on the coriolis force. Your comments before > suggested you already knew this---which I suspect you did, > since this is obvious force x distance (radially) work. yup. > > I though the paradox of the SPINDIZZY was that there was no > obvious (to you) mechanism for the stretching spring to > exert a force that would slow down the wheel, since the > only forces at work are the centrifical force and the spkring > force, both radial in direction. Thus the > centrifical force puts energy into the spring, > while the spring has no means to reciprocate and take > energy out of the wheel, and voila---its over unity. you got it. > > The solution to the above paradox is that transfer is > via the coriolis force, which is a tangential force and has > been erroneously neglected above. Whe one considers all > three forces: coriolis, centrifical and spring, the work > done by these forces will balance, and the coriolos is the > one that takes rotational energy from the disc as the mass-spring > stretches out in a purely radial direction (along some guiding > channel cut into the disc, the channel walls being the physical source > of this force). Very clear! Thanks for taking the time to make this clear to me in an intuitively obvious way. Fred X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 20:26:46 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:23:43 -0700 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l eskimo.com Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:23:11 -0800 Subject: Lepton number not conserved??? Priority: urgent Resent-Message-ID: <"EYUxp.0.mq3.y8SCq" mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11289 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Gnorts vorts! Since a neutrino has some small mass, it cannot travel faster than light. However, the spin of a neutrino is opposite it's direction of travel, and an antineutrino's spin is in the direction of travel. But since I can get into a spaceship and outru n a neutrino, from my perspective his direction of motion has reversed, but his spin has not. Thus a neutrino can be turned into an antineutrino based on a simple Lorentz transformation. This would seem to violate conservation of lepton number, since a neutrino has a lepton number of 1 and an antineutrino has a lepton number of -1. Anybody have any way of looking at this so that lepton number is conserved or the paradox is resolved somehow? I know Barry won't appreciate this sort of question on vortex, but I'd just like to see what nonconventional ideas (or conventional ideas that work) people might have to explain this. JAY OLSON X-From_: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Tue Sep 30 23:18:58 1997 Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:15:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fred Epps" To: Subject: Re: spindizzy winds down Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:39:35 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"CzTKC1.0.7v1.8gUCq" mx2> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11294 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request eskimo.com Hi Barry, > > You know, I am a high school dropout > > That is fine---but you shouldn't have stopped studying physics :-) > > In fact, I'm a junior-high-school dropout, for the same reason > that you dropped out. But I dropped out so that I could learn more > science, not less. Unfortunately life got in the way in my case. Went on to become a used bookstore guy. > > Anyway, keep studying---but stop expecting to find loopholes > in classical mechanics in devices made of masses, pulleys, ratchets, > springs, etc. That energy is conserved in such ideal mechanical systems > is totally certain (and the same for ideal mechno-elctro-magnetic > systems). Any "OU" observed in the real world would have to come from > fundamentally new physics (like ZPE, 5th force, etc), and > so it is irrelevant to look for it based on classical force analyes. I was under the impression that gravity and inertia were not fully explained. Centrifugal force has been described as a real force rather than a ficticious one in recent literature on Black Holes. Isn't it _just possible_ that classical mechanics could hold some surprises? I'm looking at a picture of Eric Laithewaite holding up a horizontal rod 30 inches long with a 24 lb disc spinning at the other end at 2400 RPM. It is clearly precessing as a gyro, but the interesting thing is that he is holding it up with one little pinky. There may well be some classical explanation for this but I don't know what it is... > > There's a book out there called "How to Build a Flying Saucer" > that I bought when I was a kid. > So if you build one and it seems to move in some direction, that > proves nothing in itself. Put it on an ice rink and see how it does :-). would you like to see the Thornson drive material I am sending out? It describes a gizmo like this that shows a stable declination from the vertical when suspended. > Anyway, I used to spend my time analyzing these and showing why > the "actions" are always balanced by reactions. These are great > elementary physics problems in rotational mechanics, but that > is all they can ever be---exercises in finding all the forces. > That is my my physics prof at the time had little patience for > such related questions----its like throwing a needle into a > haystack and then searching for it, just to amuse yourself. > It's also a more interesting way to learn about these principles than trying to read a boring textbook. Have you ever tried to study something like vector mechanics without a teacher or class to motivate you and focus your attention? It ain't easy, esp ecially if you are not particularly mathematically inclined. Fred